[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 236 (Thursday, December 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76759-76762]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30883]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63418; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2010-108]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Eliminate Market
and Stop Orders in Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on the Exchange

December 2, 2010.
    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 November 22, 2010, NYSE Amex LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE Amex'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 501--NYSE Amex Equities to
eliminate Market and Stop Orders in Nasdaq-listed securities traded on
the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the
Exchange's principal office, the Commission's Public Reference Room,
and http://www.nyse.com.

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 proposed rule change is to amend Rule 501--NYSE
Amex Equities to eliminate Market and Stop Orders in Nasdaq-listed
securities traded on the Exchange.

Background

    Rules 500-525--NYSE Amex Equities, as a pilot program, govern the
trading of any Nasdaq-listed security on the Exchange pursuant to
unlisted trading privileges (``UTP Pilot Program'').\3\ The UTP Pilot
Program includes any security listed on Nasdaq that (i) is designated
as an ``eligible security'' under the Joint Self-Regulatory
Organization Plan Governing the Collection, Consolidation and
Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction Information for Nasdaq-
Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privilege
Basis, as amended (``UTP Plan''),\4\ and (ii) has been admitted to
dealings on the Exchange pursuant to a grant of unlisted trading
privileges in accordance with Section 12(f) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') \5\ (collectively, ``Nasdaq
Securities'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The UTP Pilot Program is currently scheduled to expire on
the earlier of Commission approval to make such pilot permanent or
January 31, 2011. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62857
(September 7, 2010), 75 FR 55837 (September 14, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-
2010-89) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change to Extend the Pilot Program that Allows Nasdaq Stock
Market Securities to be Traded on the Exchange Pursuant to UTP). See
also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62479 (July 9, 2010), 75 FR
41264 (July 15, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-31) (Notice of Filing of
Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to a
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3
Thereto, To Adopt as a Pilot Program a New Rule Series for the
Trading of Securities Listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market Pursuant to
Unlisted Trading Privileges) (``UTP Pilot Program Approval Order'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58863 (October 27,
2008), 73 FR 65417 (November 3, 2008) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Amendment No. 20 to the UTP Plan). The
Exchange's predecessor, the American Stock Exchange LLC, joined the
UTP Plan in 2001. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55647
(April 19, 2007), 72 FR 20891 (April 26, 2007) (S7-24-89). In March
2009, the Exchange changed its name to NYSE Amex LLC. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 59575 (March 13, 2009), 74 FR 11803 (March
19, 2009) (SR-NYSEALTR-2009-24).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78l.
    \6\ ``Nasdaq Securities'' is included within the definition of
``security'' as that term is used in the NYSE Amex Equities Rules.
See NYSE Amex Equities Rule 3. In accordance with this definition,
Nasdaq Securities are admitted to dealings on the Exchange on an
``issued,'' ``when issued,'' or ``when distributed'' basis. See NYSE
Amex Equities Rule 501.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 501--NYSE Amex Equities (Definitions)

    Rule 501--NYSE Amex Equities provides certain defined terms, the
meanings of which are applicable for trading in Nasdaq Securities. All
other defined terms used in Rules 500-525--NYSE Amex Equities have the
meanings assigned to them in the NYSE Amex Equities Rules. Rule
501(e)(2)--NYSE Amex Equities lists specific order types that are not
accepted for trading in Nasdaq Securities and are therefore not
considered ``Orders'' under the UTP Pilot Program. The Exchange
proposes to include ``Market Orders'' and ``Stop Orders'' within Rule
501(e)(2)--NYSE Amex Equities, therefore eliminating submission of such
order types in Nasdaq Securities and likewise excluding them from the
definition of Order under the UTP Pilot Program.

Market and Stop Orders in Nasdaq Securities

    Currently, if the Exchange is at the National Best Bid or Offer
(``NBBO''), a Market Order submitted in a Nasdaq Security will execute
against available contra-side liquidity at that best price. If size
remains unfilled, and another market is similarly at the NBBO, the
Market Order will route for execution against the away market's
protected bid or offer, in accordance with Rule 611 of Regulation
NMS.\7\ If size still remains unfilled after routing, the Market Order
will return to the Exchange and execute against the depth of the
Exchange's book, until it is either fully executed or available
liquidity on the Exchange is depleted. The Exchange notes that, as
provided under Rule 501(e)(1)(B)--NYSE Amex Equities, a Stop Order to
buy (sell) becomes a Market Order, and is treated as such for purposes
of execution and routing, when a transaction in the Nasdaq Security
occurs on the Exchange at or above (below) the stop price after the
order is received in to the Exchange's automated order routing system
or is manually represented by a Floor broker in the Crowd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 242.611. A protected bid or protected offer means a
quotation in an NMS stock that: (i) Is displayed by an automated
trading center; (ii) is disseminated pursuant to an effective
national market system plan; and (iii) is an automated quotation
that is the best bid or best offer of a national securities
exchange, the best bid or best offer of The Nasdaq Stock Market,
Inc., or the best bid or best offer of a national securities
association other than the best bid or best offer of The Nasdaq
Stock Market, Inc. 17 CFR 242.600(b)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq Securities are thinly traded on the Exchange, which is not
the primary listing market, and account for less than 1% of total
volume in such securities across all markets. This lack of depth in
liquidity combined with the manner in which Market Orders (and Stop
Orders that become Market Orders) in Nasdaq Securities execute, route
and re-execute at the Exchange, creates the potential for multiple
rapid executions on the Exchange at increasingly inferior prices, until
the Market Order (or Stop Order that becomes a Market Order) is fully
executed. Submission of a large Market Order in a Nasdaq Security that
results in several executions on the Exchange at increasingly inferior
prices could potentially trigger individual stock volatility trading
pauses,\8\ raise questions of whether the execution should be busted
under the Exchange's clearly erroneous rule \9\ or create other

potentially harmful market-wide implications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Rule 80C--NYSE Amex Equities (Trading Pauses in
Individual Securities Due to Extraordinary Market Volatility).
    \9\ See Rule 128--NYSE Amex Equities (Clearly Erroneous
Executions For NYSE Amex Equities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is not a concern with respect to trading Exchange-Listed
Securities because of the operation of Liquidity Replenishment Points
(``LRPs'').\10\ LRPs are pre-determined price points that temporarily
convert the automatic Exchange market to an auction market when it is
experiencing a large price movement based on a security's typical
trading characteristics or market conditions over short periods of time
during the trading day. LRPs work to dampen volatility and allow the
Designated Market Maker (``DMM'') assigned to such security to solicit
additional liquidity. However, LRPs are not applicable to trading in
Nasdaq Securities, and are therefore unavailable as a means to impede
or prevent these multiple rapid executions at increasingly inferior
prices. The Exchange believes that the elimination proposed herein is
an appropriate measure to reduce the potential for erroneous executions
and individual stock volatility trading pauses in Nasdaq Securities
until such time as other volatility curbs are in place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rule 1000(a)(iv)--NYSE Amex Equities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the elimination of Market and Stop
Orders in Nasdaq Securities would not hinder the ability of members and
member organizations to seek execution of their orders. On average,
only 113 Market Orders and 27 Stop Orders in Nasdaq Securities are
submitted to the Exchange each trading day, accounting for less than
0.0060% and 0.0014%, respectively, of the Exchange's 1,971,439 average
daily orders in Nasdaq Securities. Upon implementation of the proposed
rule change, members and member organizations could continue to utilize
several other existing order types, under Rule 13--NYSE Amex Equities,
for execution of their orders. The Exchange believes that, despite the
relative infrequency in which they are submitted, the potentially
harmful regulatory effects created by Market Orders (and Stop Orders
that become Market Orders) in Nasdaq Securities requires that they be
eliminated on the Exchange.
    Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the ability to
enter Market and Stop Orders. As proposed, an order in a Nasdaq
Security would be systematically rejected if submitted as a Market or
Stop Order. A member or member organization whose Market or Stop Order
is rejected would be required to re-submit the order to the Exchange,
if it all, as one of several permissible order types provided under
Rule 13--NYSE Amex Equities.

Rule 501(e)(1)(B)--Stop Order

    The proposed inclusion of Stop Orders within Rule 501(e)(2)--NYSE
Amex Equities would require that Rule 501(e)(1)(B)--NYSE Amex Equities
be deleted. Rule 501(e)--NYSE Amex Equities modifies the meaning of
certain order types, including Stop Orders, as these terms are defined
under Rule 13--NYSE Amex Equities. Because the Exchange proposes to no
longer accept Stop Orders for trading in Nasdaq Securities, a modified
definition thereof is no longer necessary or appropriate. The Exchange
therefore proposes to delete Rule 501(e)(1)(B)--NYSE Amex Equities in
its entirety.
    The Exchange will implement the system changes to no longer accept
Stop and Market Orders on or about December 6, 2010, but in no event,
any later than December 13, 2010, and will notify market participants
in advance when the change will be implemented.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Specifically, the changes proposed herein would contribute to improving
the quality of executions in Nasdaq Securities on the Exchange and
avoiding executions of Nasdaq Securities at inferior prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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

    Because the foregoing rule 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 \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to the
Commission written notice of its 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 filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay so that the Exchange can eliminate market and stop
orders in Nasdaq-listed securities traded on the Exchange immediately.
The Exchange has represented that the elimination of market and stop
orders in Nasdaq-listed securities should lessen the potential for
multiple rapid executions on the Exchange at inferior prices as a
result of the lack of depth in liquidity for Nasdaq-listed securities
on the Exchange, and should therefore reduce the potential for
erroneous executions and individual stock volatility trading pauses in
Nasdaq-listed securities. In light of the benefits afforded by this
reduced potential, the Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also 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 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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act.

Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2010-108 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2010-108. 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 Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEAmex-2010-108 and should be submitted on or before December 30,
2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-30883 Filed 12-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 55)]
[Notices]
[Page 12414-12416]
[DOCID:fr24mr09-135]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59587; File Nos. SR-ISE-2009-04, SR-CBOE-2009-001, SR-
NYSEArca-2009-10, and SR-NYSEALTR-2009-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; NYSE Arca, Inc.; and
NYSE Alternext US LLC; Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed
Rule Changes, as Amended, To Expand the $1 Strike Program

March 17, 2009.

I. Introduction

    Four options exchanges filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') proposed rule changes pursuant to Section
19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder \2\ to expand the $1 Strike Program. Specifically, the
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'') submitted its proposal
on January 21, 2009; \3\ the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'') submitted its proposal on January 23, 2009; \4\
NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') submitted its proposal on February 10,
2009; and NYSE Alternext US LLC (``NYSE Alternext'') submitted its
proposal on February 10, 2009. The proposals submitted by ISE, CBOE,
NYSE Arca, and NYSE Alternext (each an ``Exchange'' and collectively,
the ``Exchanges'') are substantively identical. The proposals were
published for comment in the Federal Register on February 19, 2009.\5\
The Commission received one comment in response to CBOE's proposal.\6\
This order approves the proposed rule changes, as amended in the cases
of ISE and CBOE, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ ISE filed Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 to its proposal on February
9, 2009 and February 10, 2009, respectively.
    \4\ CBOE filed Amendment No. 1 to its proposal on February 4,
2009.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 59377 (February 10,
2009), 74 FR 7719 (SR-ISE-2009-04); 59378 (February 10, 2009), 74 FR
7711 (SR-CBOE-2009-001); 59395 (February 11, 2009), 74 FR 7710 (SR-
NYSEArca-2009-10); and 59394 (February 11, 2009), 74 FR 7722 (SR-
NYSEALTR-2009-11).
    \6\ See Letter to Secretary, Commission, from Thomas R. Keyes
III, CPA, J.D., dated February 21, 2009, regarding SR-CBOE-2009-001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposals

    The $1 Strike Program currently allows each Exchange to select a
total of 10 individual stocks on which option series may be listed at
$1 strike price intervals. To be eligible for inclusion in the Program,
an underlying stock must close below $50 in its primary market on the
previous trading day. For each stock selected for the Program, each
Exchange may list strike prices at $1 intervals from $3 to $50, but no
$1 strike price may be listed that is greater than $5 from the
underlying stock's closing price in its primary market on the previous
day. Each Exchange also may list $1 strikes on any other option class
designated by another securities exchange that employs a similar
program under their respective rules. The Exchanges may not list long-
term option series at $1 strike price intervals for any class selected
for the program. Each Exchange is restricted from listing any series
that would result in strike prices being $0.50 apart.
    Each Exchange has proposed to amend its rules to expand the $1
Strike

Program to allow each Exchange to select a total of 55 individual
stocks on which option series may be listed at $1 strike price
intervals, and to expand slightly the price range on which the Exchange
may list $1 strikes, i.e., from $1 to $50. The existing restrictions on
listing $1 strikes, as outlined above, will continue. The provision
that each Exchange may also list $1 strikes on any other option class
designated by another securities exchange that employs a similar
program under their respective rules will remain unchanged.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ CBOE also proposed to amend its $1 Strike Program by
eliminating from Rule 24.9.11 the provision stating that if CBOE
lists strike prices in $1 intervals in the Mini-SPX options class,
the number of classes CBOE can select to participate in the $1
Strike Program is reduced by one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each Exchange also has proposed to add a delisting policy.
Specifically, each Exchange will, on a monthly basis, review series
listed under the $1 Strike Program with a strike price more than $5
from the current value of the underlying security. Each Exchange will
delist series with no open interest in both the put and the call series
having a: (i) Strike higher than the highest strike price with open
interest in the put and/or call series for a given expiration month;
and (ii) strike lower than the lowest strike price with open interest
in the put and/or call series for a given expiration month.
    Notwithstanding each proposed delisting policy, each Exchange will
be permitted to grant member requests to add strikes and/or maintain
strikes in series eligible for delisting. In addition, each proposed
delisting policy provides that if the Exchange identifies series for
delisting, it shall notify other options exchanges with similar
delisting policies regarding eligible series for listing, and shall
work with such other exchanges to develop a uniform list of series to
be delisted, so as to ensure uniform series delisting of multiply
listed options classes.
    Each Exchange represented in its filing that it and the Options
Price Reporting Authority have the necessary systems capacity to handle
the additional traffic associated with the listing and trading of an
expanded number of options series as proposed by this filing. Each
Exchange also represented that it believes its $1 Strike Program has
provided investors with greater trading opportunities and flexibility
and the ability to more closely tailor their investment strategies and
decisions to the movement of the underlying security, and, further,
that it has not detected any material proliferation of illiquid options
series resulting from the narrower strike price intervals. Each
Exchange also stated in its filing that current market conditions, in
which the number of securities trading below $50 has increased
dramatically, further warrant the expansion of the Program.
    The Commission received one comment letter in support of the
proposed rule change.\8\ The commenter described himself as an
individual retail non-professional investor and stated that ``$1 strike
price intervals provide investors with greater flexibility in the
trading of equity options that overlie lower price stocks, by allowing
investors to establish equity options positions that are better
tailored to meet their investment objectives.'' \9\ The commenter added
that the recent general decline in stock prices has resulted in several
stocks being below $3, the lowest option strike price currently
available in the $1 Strike Program, and stated that trading options at
the $2 or $1 strike price levels would enable him to minimize losses
and ``position [his] portfolio for enhanced future gains.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See supra note 4.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Changes

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the respective
proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\11\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
respective proposed rule changes are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act \12\ in that they are designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In approving these proposed rule changes, the Commission
notes that it has considered the proposed rules' impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the Exchanges have represented that
current market conditions have resulted in a dramatic increase in the
number of securities trading below $50. The Commission believes that
the proposed expansions to the $1 Strike Program should provide
investors with added flexibility in the trading of equity options and
further the public interest by allowing investors to establish equity
options positions that are better tailored to meet their investment
objectives, particularly given current market conditions. The
Commission also believes that, with the addition of the delisting
policy, the proposals strike a reasonable balance between the
Exchanges' desire to accommodate market participants by offering a
wider array of investment opportunities and the need to avoid
unnecessary proliferation of options series and the corresponding
increase in quotes.
    In approving the respective proposed rule changes, the Commission
has relied on each Exchange's representation that it has the necessary
systems capacity to support the new options series that will be listed
under this proposal. Further, the Commission expects that each Exchange
will continue to monitor the trading volume associated with the
additional options series listed as a result of this proposal and the
effect of these additional series on market fragmentation and on the
capacity of such Exchange's, OPRA's, and vendors' automated systems.
    In addition, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act \13\ for approving the proposals prior to the
thirtieth day after the date of publication in the Federal Register.
The Exchanges have represented that they continue to receive customer
requests to expand the $1 Strike Program as soon as possible, and have
requested accelerated approval so that each Exchange may respond to
increased customer demand for $1 strikes without delay.\14\ In their
requests for acceleration, ISE and CBOE also represent that the $1
Strike Program has provided investors with greater trading
opportunities and flexibility and the ability to more closely tailor
their investment strategies and decisions to the movement of the
underlying security. CBOE further states that such advantages will be
particularly beneficial under current market conditions. In addition,
the only comment letter received on the filings was supportive of the
expansion.\15\ Accordingly, the Commission finds there is good cause,
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \16\ to approve the
Exchanges' proposals on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \14\ See e-mails from Samir Patel, Assistant General Counsel,
ISE; Patrick Sexton, Associate General Counsel, CBOE; and Andrew
Stevens, Chief Counsel, U.S. Equities & Derivatives, NYSE Euronext,
Inc. on behalf of NYSE Arca and NYSE Alternext; to Nathan Saunders,
Special Counsel, and Heidi Pilpel, Special Counsel, Division of
Trading and Markets, Commission, on March 16, 2009.
    \15\ See supra note 6.
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(5).

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

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\17\ that the proposed rule changes, as amended (SR-ISE-2009-04;
SR-CBOE-2009-001; SR-NYSEArca-2009-10; and SR-NYSEALTR-2009-11) be, and
they hereby are, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-6327 Filed 3-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: July 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 132)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 38997-39001]
[DOCID:fr11jy06-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70

[EPA-R07-OAR-2005-MO-0005; FRL-8192-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Operating
Permits Program; State of Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action on Missouri's request to
incorporate two new rules and three revised rules into the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) and Part 70 Operating Permit program. All of
the rules pertain to Missouri's air permits program. Because of the
state's request for approval of portions of the rules, EPA is not
taking final action on all of the state-adopted rules. We are approving
revisions to the Construction Permits Required rule and conditionally
approving portions of the Construction Permits Required rule, which
reference the Construction Permits by Rule. We are approving the
Construction Permit Exemptions rule, except for the livestock markets
and livestock operations exemption. We are conditionally approving the
Construction Permits By Rule except for the livestock markets and
livestock operations exemption.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on August 10, 2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R07-OAR-2005-MO-0005. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,

some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as

copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection

Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street,
Kansas City, KS. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30 excluding Federal holidays. The
interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an
appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Algoe-Eakin at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we'',
``us'', or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This section provides
additional information by addressing the following questions:

What Is a SIP?
What Is the Federal Approval Process for a SIP?
What Does Federal Approval of a State Regulation Mean to Me?
What Is the Part 70 Operating Permits Program?
What Is the Federal Approval Process for an Operating Permits
Program?
What Is Being Addressed in This Document?
Have the Requirements for Approval of a SIP Revision and a Part 70
Revision Been Met?
What action is EPA taking?

What Is a SIP?

    Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires states to
develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that
state air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) established by EPA. These ambient standards are established
under section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria
pollutants. These pollutants are: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide,
ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
    Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to
us for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP.
    Each Federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by
addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be
extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable documents
and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring
networks, and modeling demonstrations.

What Is the Federal Approval Process for a SIP?

    In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the
Federally-enforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations
and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements.
This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public
comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking
body.
    Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the
state submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide
public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the final
Federal action on the state submission. If adverse comments are
received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by
us.
    All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA
under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-
approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) at title 40, part 52, entitled ``Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans.'' The actual state regulations
which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR
outright but are ``incorporated by reference,'' which means that we
have approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date.

What Does Federal Approval of a State Regulation Mean to Me?

    Enforcement of the state regulation before and after it is
incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP is primarily a state
responsibility. However, after the regulation is Federally approved, we
are authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens
are also offered legal recourse to address violations as described in
section 304 of the CAA. If a state regulation is disapproved, it is not
incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP and is not enforceable by
EPA or by citizens under section 304. In the case of a revision to a
Federally-approved state regulation, disapproval of the revision means
that the underlying state regulation prior to the state's revision
remains as the Federally enforceable requirement.

What Is the Part 70 Operating Permits Program?

    The CAA amendments of 1990 require all states to develop operating
permits programs that meet certain Federal criteria. In implementing
this program, the states are to require certain sources of air
pollution to obtain permits that contain all applicable requirements
under the CAA. One purpose of the part 70 operating permits program is
to improve enforcement by issuing each source a single permit that
consolidates all of the applicable CAA requirements into a Federally-
enforceable document. By consolidating all of the applicable
requirements for a facility into one document, the source, the public,
and the permitting authorities can more easily determine what CAA
requirements apply and how compliance with those requirements is
determined.
    Sources required to obtain an operating permit under this program
include ``major'' source of air pollution and certain other sources
specified in the CAA or in our implementing regulations. For example,
all source regulated under the acid rain program, regardless of size,
must obtain permits. Examples of major sources include those that emit
100 tons per year or more of volatile organic compounds, carbon
monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide or PM10;
those that emit 10 per year of any single hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
(specifically listed under the CAA); or those that emit 25 tons per
year or more of a combination of HAPs.
    Revisions to the state and local agencies operating permits program
are also subject to public notice, comment and our approval.

What Is the Federal Approval Process for an Operating Permits Program?

    In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the
Federally enforceable part 70 operating permits program, states must
formally adopt regulations consistent with state and Federal
requirements. This process generally includes a public notice, public
hearing, pubic comment period, and formal adoption by a state-
authorized rulemaking body.
    Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the
state submits it to us for inclusion into the approved operating
permits program. We must provide public notice and seek additional
public comment regarding the final Federal action on the state
submission. If adverse comments are received, they must be addressed
prior to any final Federal action by us.
    All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA
under section 502 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-
approved operating permits program. Records of such actions are
maintained in the CFR at Title 40, part 70, appendix A, entitled,
``Approval Status of State and Local Operating Permits Programs.''

What Is Being Addressed in This Document?

    On July 14, 2004, Missouri requested that EPA revise the SIP to
include two new rules and three revised rules and revise the Part 70
program to include revisions to two rules. All of these rules pertain
to Missouri's air permit program and will assist in effective
management of Missouri's air permitting program and provide clarity to
the program. These rules were adopted by the Missouri Air Conservation
Commission on June 26, 2003, and became effective under state law on
October 30, 2003. When Missouri submitted these rules to EPA, Missouri
included the comments made on the rules during the state's adoption
process, the state's response to comments, and other information
necessary to meet EPA's completeness criteria. For additional
information on the completeness criteria, the reader should refer to 40
CFR part 51, appendix V.
    On March 22, 2006 (71 FR 14439), EPA published a proposed rule on
MDNR's request to revise the SIP. No comments were received, and EPA is
proceeding by taking final action in response to this request.
    We are approving MDNR's request to include, as a revision to
Missouri's SIP and Part 70 Operating Permit program, amendments to rule
10 CSR 10-6.020, Definitions and Common Reference Tables. We are
approving and conditionally approving revisions to the Construction
Permits Required rule, 10 CSR 10-6.060. The parts of rule 10 CSR 10-
6.060 that are being conditionally approved are the references to 10
CSR 10-6.062, Construction Permits By Rule, which is being
conditionally approved in its entirety, as discussed later in this
document.
    We are also approving the Construction Permit Exemptions rule, 10
CSR 10-6.061, except for subparagraph (3)(A)2.D, of 10 CSR 10-6.061
which is an exemption for livestock markets and livestock operations
constructed on or before November 30, 2003. We are not acting on this
section because Missouri withdrew this section from its request in an
October 25, 2005, letter from the Director of Missouri's Air Pollution
Control Program to the EPA Region 7 Regional Administrator.
    We are also conditionally approving the Construction Permits By
Rule, 10 CSR 10-6.062. This final conditional approval does not include
paragraph (3)(B)4., which is a permit by rule for livestock operations.
In an October 25, 2005, request from the Director of MDNR's Air
Pollution Control Program to EPA Region 7 Regional Administrator,
Missouri withdrew this section from its request for EPA approval. EPA
is conditionally approving this rule because it does not expressly
include a mechanism for pre-construction review of applications
received from the facilities that want to operate under this rule.
Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA requires that each SIP include a
program to regulate construction and modification of sources to ensure
that the NAAQS are achieved. EPA's implementing regulation provides
that the plan must include procedures, ``by which the state * * * will
prevent such construction or modification'' where the source or
modification would violate a control strategy or interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS (see 40 CFR 51.160(b)). Because
Missouri's Construction Permits By Rule, as adopted on June 26, 2003,
appears to authorize construction to begin before any air quality
review occurs, and the rule only provides for revocation of a permit
after the source begins construction or operation, EPA believes that
Missouri's preconstruction permit program is deficient with respect to
sources which may qualify for the Permit By Rule. With respect to these
sources, the rule does not clearly authorize Missouri to prevent
construction or modification before construction or modification
begins.
    In order to rectify these deficiencies, the Missouri Air
Conservation Commission (MACC) adopted a resolution on December 8,
2005, which is intended to clarify that Missouri, in administering this
rule, will require a preconstruction review period before sources may
begin construction and will amend the Construction Permits by Rule to
expressly include a preconstruction review period. The MACC also
directed the Missouri Department of Natural Resources' Air Pollution
Control Program to complete revisions to this rule within twelve months
of the December 2005 resolution. During the interim period required to
promulgate an effective rule, the program is directed to conduct a
maximum seven day review period procedure for permit by rule
notifications submitted in accordance with Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-
6.062, Construction Permits by Rule.
    Because the MACC resolution serves to clarify preconstruction
review, which is an issue of significant concern to EPA, we are
conditionally approving into the SIP Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.062,
Construction Permits by Rule. Section 110(k)(4) of the CAA states that
EPA may conditionally approve a plan based on a commitment from the
state to adopt specific enforceable measures within one year from the
date of approval. If the state fails to meet its commitment within the
one-year period, the approval is treated as a disapproval. As such,
this rule is being approved with the condition that Missouri must
revise the Construction Permits By Rule to incorporate a
preconstruction review period and submit this revised rule for
inclusion into the SIP to EPA within one year of the date of this
approval.
    Finally, Missouri's submittal includes revisions to Missouri's
Operating Permits Rule in 10 CSR 10-6.065. The rule revisions for rule
10 CSR 10-6.065 relate solely to the state's basic operating permit
program that are not included in Missouri's approved Part 70 Operating
Permits program or SIP. Therefore, we are not acting on these
revisions.

Have the Requirements for Approval of a SIP Revision and a Part 70
Revision Been Met?

    The state submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In
addition, as explained above and in more detail in the Technical
Support Document (TSD) that is part of this rule, except as noted with
respect to the permits by rule provision discussed above, the revisions
meet the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110
and implementing regulations. Finally, the submittal met the
substantive requirements of Title V of the 1990 CAA Amendments and 40
CFR part 70.

What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is taking four actions:
    (1) EPA is approving revisions to the Definitions and Common
Reference Tables rule in the SIP and Part 70 Operating Permit Program.
    (2) EPA is approving, as an amendment to the SIP, revisions to the
Construction Permits Required rule and conditionally approving portions
of the Construction Permits Required rule, which reference the
Construction Permits by Rule.
    (3) EPA is approving into the SIP a new rule, Construction Permit
Exemptions, except for the livestock markets and livestock operations
exemption which was withdrawn in an October 25, 2005, request from the
state of Missouri.
    (4) EPA is conditionally approving, as an amendment to the Missouri
SIP, the Construction Permits By Rule except for the livestock markets
and livestock operations exemption, which was

withdrawn in an October 25, 2005, request from the state of Missouri.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing state submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a State submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a State
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 11, 2006. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 70

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 27, 2006.
James B. Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

0
Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320(c) the table is amended under Chapter 6 by:
0
a. Revising the entries for 10-6.020 and 10-6.060.
0
b. Adding entries for 10-6.061 and 10-6.062.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
        Missouri citation                 Title         effective date   EPA approval  date      Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources

                                                 * * * * * * *
    Chapter 6--Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control
                                     Regulations for the State of Missouri

                                                  * * * * * * *
10-6.020.........................  Definitions and          10/30/2003  07/11/06 [insert FR  ...................
                                    Common Reference                     page number where
                                    Tables.                              the document
                                                                         begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
10-6.060.........................  Construction             10/30/2003  07/11/06 [insert FR  We are
                                    Permits Required.                    page number where    conditionally
                                                                         the document         approving
                                                                         begins].             references to 10
                                                                                CSR 10-6.062
                                                                                contained in the
                                                                                last sentence of
                                                                                Section (1)(B) and
                                                                                all of section
                                                                                (1)(D).
10-6.061.........................  Construction Permit      10/30/2003  07/11/06 [insert FR  Section (3)(A)2.D.
                                    Exemptions.                          page number where    is not included in
                                                                         the document         the SIP.
                                                                         begins].
10-6.062.........................  Construction             10/30/2003  07/11/06 [insert FR  We are
                                    Permits By Rule..                    page number where    conditionally
                                                                         the document         approving this
                                                                         begins].             rule except for
                                                                                Section (3)(B)4.,
                                                                                which is not
                                                                                included in the
                                                                                SIP.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 70--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

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

Appendix A--[Amended]

0
2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by adding paragraph (r) under
Missouri to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating
Permits Programs

* * * * *

Missouri

* * * * *
    (r) The Missouri Department of Natural Resources submitted
revisions to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.020, ``Definitions and Common
Reference Tables,'' on June 30, 2004, approval effective August 10,
2006.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-6092 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


The high end estimated total capital costs of today's final rule are $ 471 million. Depending on the number of facilities eventually demonstrating eligibility for the low risk subcategory, the capital costs could fall to $ 240 million. These capital costs apply to existing sources and include the costs to purchase and install both the RTO equipment ( and in some cases, a WESP upstream of the RTO) and the monitoring A 5 equipment, and the costs of performance tests. Wood products enclosure costs are also included for reconstituted wood products presses.

The high end estimated annualized costs of the final standards are $ 140 million. Depending on the number of facilities eventually demonstrating eligibility for the low risk subcategory, the annualized costs could fall to $ 74 million. The annualized costs account for the annualized capital costs of the control and monitoring equipment, operation and maintenance expenses, and recordkeeping and reporting costs. Potential control device cost savings and increased recordkeeping and reporting costs associated with the emissions averaging provisions in today's final rule are not accounted for in either the capital or annualized cost estimates.

Economic Impacts The economic impact analysis shows that the expected price increases for affected output would range from only 0.4 to 1.3 percent as a result of the NESHAP for PCWP manufacturers. The expected change in production of affected output is a reduction of 0.06 to 0.4 percent for PCWP manufacturers as a result of today's final rule. No plant closures are expected out of the 223 facilities affected by the final rule. Therefore, it is likely that there is no adverse impact expected to occur for those industries that produce output affected by the final rule, such as hardboard, softwood plywood and veneer, engineered wood products, and other composite wood products.

The economic impact analysis for the final rule estimates effects upon employment and foreign trade for the industries affected by the rule. The total reduction in employment for the affected industries is 0.3 percent of the current employment level ( or 225 employees). This estimate includes the increase in employment among firms in these industries that do not incur any cost associated with the final rule. There is also minimal change in the foreign trade behavior for the firms in these industries since the level of imports of affected composite wood products only increases by less than 0.1 percent. There will be reductions in effects on the national economy associated with eligibility of sources for the delisted low risk subcategory. The employment level will now be reduced by 126 employees, which is 99 fewer than the reduction estimated for the final rule. The increase in the level of imports is half as large as that for the final rule.

Social Costs and Benefits Our assessment of costs and benefits of today's final rule is detailed in the " Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products MACT." The Regulatory Impact Analysis ( RIA) is located in Docket number A 98 44 and Docket number OAR 2003 0048.

It is estimated that 3 years after implementation of the final rule requirements, reductions of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, methanol, phenol and several other HAP from existing PCWP emission sources would be 5,900 Mg/ yr ( 6,600 tons/ yr) to 9,900 Mg/ yr ( 11,000 tons/ yr), depending on how many affected sources are in the low risk subcategory. The health effects associated with these HAP are discussed earlier in this preamble. A 6 As for social costs, the high end estimated annualized social costs of the final standards are $ 135.1 million. Depending on the number of facilities eventually demonstrating eligibility for the low risk subcategory, the annualized social costs could fall to $ 75 million.

At this time, we are unable to provide a comprehensive quantification and monetization of the HAP related benefits of the final rule. Nevertheless, it is possible to derive rough estimates for one of the more important benefit categories, i. e., the potential number of cancer cases avoided and cancer risk reduced as a result of the imposition of the MACT level of control on this source category. Our analysis suggests that imposition of the MACT level of control would reduce cancer cases by less than one case per year, on average, starting some years after implementation of the standards. We present these results in the RIA. This risk reduction estimate is uncertain and should be regarded as an extremely rough estimate and should be viewed in the context of the full spectrum of unquantified noncancer effects associated with the HAP reductions. The risk reduction estimate will be somewhat less depending on the number of facilities eventually demonstrating eligibility for the low risk subcategory.

The control technologies used to reduce the level of HAP emitted from PCWP sources are also expected to reduce emissions of CO, PM10, and VOC. Human health effects associated with exposure to CO include cardiovascular system and CNS effects, which are directly related to reduced oxygen content of blood and which can result in modification of visual perception, hearing, motor and sensorimotor performance, vigilance, and cognitive ability. The VOC emissions reductions may lead to some reduction in ozone concentrations in areas in which the affected sources are located. There are both human health and welfare effects that result from exposure to ozone, and these effects are listed earlier in the RIA and in the preamble..

At the present time, we cannot provide a monetary estimate for the benefits associated with the reductions in CO. We also did not provide a monetary estimate for the benefits associated with the changes in ozone concentrations that result from the VOC emissions reductions since we are unable to do the necessary air quality modeling to estimate the ozone concentration changes. For PM10, we did not provide a monetary estimate for the benefits associated with the reduction of the emissions, although these reductions are likely to have significant health benefits to populations living in the vicinity of affected sources.

There may be increases in NOX emissions associated with today's final rule as a result of increased use of incineration based controls. These NOX emission increases by themselves could cause some increase in ozone and particulate matter ( PM) concentrations, which could lead to impacts on human health and welfare as listed in Table 3 of this preamble. The potential impacts associated with increases in ambient PM and ozone due to these emission increases are discussed in the RIA. In addition to potential NOX increases at affected sources, today's final rule may also result in additional electricity use at affected sources due to application of controls. These potential increases in electricity use may increase emissions of SO2 and NOX from electricity generating utilities. As such, the final rule may result in additional health impacts from increased ambient PM and ozone from these increased utility emissions. However, it is possible that the Acid Rain trading program will serve to keep SO 2 emissions from increasing, and the NOx SIP call may serve to mitigate increases of NOX. We did not quantify or monetize these health impacts. All of these impacts will be reduced In determining the overall economic consequences of the final rule, it is essential to consider not only the costs and benefits expressed in dollar terms but also those benefits and costs that we could not 5 Ibid.

A 7 quantify. A full listing of the benefit categories that could not be quantified or monetized in our analysis is provided in Chapter 6 of the RIA. All of these benefits and effects will be mitigated depending on the number of facilities eventually demonstrating eligibility for the low risk subcategory.

Small Business Analysis As discussed in earlier sections of this preamble, we present the impacts of the rule associated with allowing PCWP facilities to demonstrate eligibility for the delisted low risk subcategory and thereby avoid MACT altogether. The number of small businesses impacted is reduced to seven from the original 17, and the total number of businesses impacted is reduced to 42, down from the original 52. Small businesses represent 17 percent of the companies within the source category, which is down from the 32 percent estimate for the final rule. These small businesses are expected to incur 4 percent of the total industry compliance costs of $ 75 million ( the costs considering inclusion of the delisted low risk subcategory). There are no small firms with compliance costs equal to or greater than 3 percent of their sales as compared to three for the final rule. In addition, there are four small firms with cost to sales ratios between 1 and 3 percent, which is down from seven for the final rule.

Energy Impact Analysis The impacts from consideration of a low risk subcategory are a reduction in all of the energy impacts listed above. For fuel production, the result of this indirect effect from reduced product output is a reduction of only about 0.6 barrel per day nationwide, or a 0.000007 percent reduction nationwide based on 1998 U. S. fuel production data. 5 This is a 0.4 barrel smaller reduction than that estimated for the final rule. For coal production, the resulting indirect effect from reduced product output is a reduction of only 950 tons per year nationwide, or only a 0.0000044 percent reduction nationwide based on 1998 U. S. coal production data. This is a smaller reduction than that estimated for the final rule by 1,050 tons per year. For electricity production, the resulting indirect effect from reduced product output is a reduction of 20.7 million kWh/ yr, or only a 0.00006 percent reduction nationwide based on 1998 U. S. electricity production data. This is a smaller output reduction than that estimated for the final rule by 22.1 million kWh/ yr. Given that the estimated price increase for product output from any of the affected industries is no more than 2.5 percent, there should be no price increase for any energy type by more than this amount. The cost of energy distribution should not be affected by the final rule at all since the rule does not affect energy distribution facilities. Finally, with changes in net exports being a minimal percentage of domestic output ( 0.006 percent, or practically the same as that for the final rule) from the affected industries, there will be only a negligible change in international trade, and hence in dependence on foreign energy supplies. No other adverse outcomes are expected to occur with regards to energy supplies. Thus, the net effect on energy production if facilities are eligible for the low risk source category is an increase in electricity output of 0.008 percent compared to 1998 output data, and a negligible change in output of other energy types. This is a 0.004 percent smaller increase in electricity output compared to the impact of the final rule. All of the results presented above account for the passthrough of costs to consumers, as well as the cost impact to producers. These results also account for how energy use is related to product output for 6U. S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 1998 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey. Located on the Internet at http:// www. eia. doe. gov/ emeu/ mecs/ mecs98/ datatables/ contents. html.

A 8 the affected industries. 6 TECHNICAL REPORT DATA ( Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)

1. REPORT NO.

EPA 452/ R 04 005 2. 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products NESHAP 5. REPORT DATE February 2004 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE 7. AUTHOR( S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division Innovative Strategies and Economics Group 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.

11. CONTRACT/ GRANT NO.

12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE EPA/ 200/ 04 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 16. ABSTRACT This report contains costs, economic impacts, and benefits information for the final Plywood and Composite Wood Products NESHAP. This MACT standard has annualized social costs of $ 135 million. No significant small business impacts are expected.

17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS a. DESCRIPTORS b. IDENTIFIERS/ OPEN ENDED TERMS c. COSATI Field/ Group Air Pollution control, Economic Impacts, Small Business Impacts, Benefits 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT Release Unlimited 19. SECURITY CLASS ( Report)

Unclassified 21. NO. OF PAGES 180 20. SECURITY CLASS ( Page)

Unclassified 22. PRICE EPA Form 2220 1 ( Rev. 4 77) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 83 (Tuesday, May 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20472-20473]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08798]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP17-665-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: DTI--April 20, 2017 Gas
Quality Revisions to be effective 6/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 4/20/17.
    Accession Number: 20170420-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-666-000.
    Applicants: Stingray Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing Stingray Pre-Filing Settlement.
    Filed Date: 4/21/17.
    Accession Number: 20170421-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/3/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-667-000.
    Applicants: UGI Storage Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Operational Sales Filing to be
effective 5/22/2017.
    Filed Date: 4/21/17.
    Accession Number: 20170421-5240.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/3/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.  385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a
party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 25, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-08798 Filed 5-1-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 31 (Thursday, February 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10104-10106]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03243]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0275]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Certification To
Accompany Drug, Biological Product, and Device Applications or
Submissions

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the
collection of information by March 22, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for Public
Comments'' or by using the search function. The OMB control number for
this information collection is 0910-0616. Also include the FDA docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JonnaLynn Capezzuto, Office of
Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-
12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Certification To Accompany Drug, Biological Product, and Device
Applications or Submissions (Form FDA 3674)

OMB Control Number 0910-0616--Extension

    The information required under section 402(j)(5)(B) of the Public
Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 282(j)(5)(B)) is submitted in
the form of a certification, Form FDA 3674, which accompanies
applications and submissions currently submitted to FDA and already
approved by OMB. The OMB control numbers and expiration dates for those
applications and submissions are: 21 CFR parts 312 and 314 (human
drugs), OMB control number 0910-0014, expiring March 31, 2022, and OMB
control number 0910-0001, expiring March 31, 2021; 21 CFR parts 312 and
601 (biological products), OMB control number 0910-0014, expiring March
31, 2022, and OMB control number 0910-0338, expiring February 28, 2023;
21 CFR parts 807 and 814 (devices), OMB control number 0910-0120,
expiring June 30, 2020, and OMB control number 0910-0231, expiring
March 31, 2023.
    Title VIII of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of
2007 (FDAAA) (Pub. L. 110-85) amended the PHS Act by adding section
402(j). The provisions broadened the scope of clinical trials subject
to submitting information and required additional information to be
submitted to the clinical trials databank (https://clinicaltrials.gov/)
(FDA has verified the website address, but FDA is not responsible for
any subsequent changes to the website after this document publishes in
the Federal Register) previously established by the National Institutes
of Health (NIH)/National Library of Medicine. This includes expanded
information on applicable clinical trials and summary information on
the results of certain clinical trials. The provisions include
responsibilities for FDA as well as several amendments to the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
    One provision, section 402(j)(5)(B) of the PHS Act, requires that a
certification accompany human drug, biological, and device product
submissions made to FDA. Specifically, at the time of submission of an
application under sections 505, 515, or 520(m) of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 355, 360e, or 360j(m)), or under section 351 of the PHS Act (42
U.S.C. 262), or submission of a report under section 510(k) of the FD&C
Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)), such application or submission must be
accompanied by a certification, Form FDA 3674, that all applicable
requirements of section 402(j) of the PHS Act have been met. Where
available, such certification must include the appropriate National
Clinical Trial (NCT) numbers that are assigned upon submission of
required information to the NIH databank at https://clinicaltrials.gov/
.
    The proposed extension of the collection of information is
necessary to satisfy the previously mentioned statutory requirement.
The importance of obtaining these data relates to adherence to the
legal requirements for submissions to the clinical trials registry and
results data bank and ensuring that individuals and organizations
submitting applications or reports to FDA under the listed provisions
of the FD&C Act or the PHS Act adhere to the appropriate legal and
regulatory requirements for certifying to having complied with those
requirements. The failure to submit the certification required by
section 402(j)(5)(B) of the PHS Act, and the knowing submission of a
false certification, are both prohibited acts under section 301 of the
FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331). Violations are subject to civil money
penalties. Form FDA 3674 provides a convenient mechanism for sponsors/
applicants/submitters to satisfy the certification requirements of the
statutory provision.
    To assist sponsors/applicants/submitters in understanding the
statutory requirements associated with Form FDA 3674, we have provided
a guidance available at: https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm125335.htm. This guidance recommends the applications and
submissions FDA considers should be accompanied by the certification
form, Form FDA 3674. The applications and submissions identified in the
guidance are reflected in the burden analysis. FDA last updated this
guidance in 2017.
    Investigational New Drug Applications. FDA's Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research (CDER) received 1,661 investigational new drug
applications (INDs) and 11,328 clinical protocol IND amendments in
calendar year (CY) 2019. CDER anticipates that IND and clinical
protocol amendment submission rates will remain at or near this level
in the near future.
    FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) received
639 new INDs and 581 clinical protocol IND amendments in CY 2019. CBER
anticipates that IND and clinical protocol amendment submission rates
will remain at or near this level in the near future. The estimated
total number of submissions (new INDs and new

protocol submissions) subject to mandatory certification requirements
under section 402(j)(5)(B) of the PHS Act, is 12,989 for CDER plus
1,220 for CBER, or 14,209 submissions per year. The minutes per
response is the estimated number of minutes that a respondent would
spend preparing the information to be submitted to FDA under section
402(j)(5)(B) of the PHS Act, including the time it takes to enter the
necessary information on the form.
    Based on its experience with current submissions, FDA estimates
that approximately 15 minutes on average would be needed per response
for certifications that accompany IND applications and clinical
protocol amendment submissions. It is assumed that most submissions to
investigational applications will reference only a few protocols for
which the sponsor/applicant/submitter has obtained a NCT number from
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ prior to making the submission to FDA. It
is also assumed that the sponsor/applicant/submitter has electronic
capabilities allowing them to retrieve the information necessary to
complete the form in an efficient manner.
    Marketing Applications/Submissions. In CY 2019, CDER and CBER
received 252 new drug applications (NDA)/biologics license applications
(BLA)/premarket approvals (PMA)/resubmissions and 701 NDA/BLA
amendments for which certifications are needed. CDER and CBER received
295 efficacy supplements/resubmissions to previously approved NDAs/BLAs
in CY 2019. CDER and CBER received 893 abbreviated new drug
applications (ANDAs) in CY 2019. CDER received 765 bioequivalence
amendments/supplements in CY 2019. CDER and CBER anticipate that new
drug/biologic applications/resubmissions and efficacy supplement
submission rates will remain at or near this level in the near future.
    FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) received a
total of 324 new applications for PMA, 510(k) submissions containing
clinical information, PMA supplements, applications for humanitarian
device exemptions (HDE) and amendments in CY 2019. CDRH anticipates
that application, amendment, supplement, and annual report submission
rates will remain at or near this level in the near future.
    Based on its experience reviewing NDAs, BLAs, PMAs, HDEs, 510(k)s,
and ANDAs and experience with current submissions of Form FDA 3674, FDA
estimates that approximately 45 minutes on average would be needed per
response for certifications which accompany NDA, BLA, PMA, HDE, 510(k),
and ANDA marketing applications and submissions. It is assumed that the
sponsor/applicant/submitter has electronic capabilities allowing them
to retrieve the information necessary to complete the form in an
efficient manner.
    In the Federal Register of May 14, 2020 (85 FR 28955), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                      Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Number of        Number of
                                              respondents      respondents      Number of       Total                                            Total
           FDA; center activity            (investigational    (marketing     responses per    annual        Average  burden per  response       hours
                                             applications)    applications)    respondent     responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          CDER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Applications (IND)...................            1,661   ..............               1       1,661  0.25 (15 minutes)...................        415
Clinical Protocol Amendments (IND).......           11,328   ..............               1      11,328  0.25 (15 minutes)...................      2,832
New Marketing Applications/Resubmissions   ................             220               1         220  0.75 (45 minutes)...................        165
 (NDA/BLA).
Clinical Amendments to Marketing           ................             701               1         701  0.75 (45 minutes)...................        526
 Applications.
Efficacy Supplements/Resubmissions.......  ................             257               1         257  0.75 (45 minutes)...................        193
Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA)-- ................             892               1         892  0.75 (45 minutes)...................        669
 Original Applications.
ANDA Bioequivalence Supplements/           ................             765               1         765  0.75 (45 minutes)...................        573
 Amendments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          CBER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Applications (IND)...................              639   ..............               1         639  0.25 (15 minutes)...................        160
Clinical Protocol Amendments (IND).......              581   ..............               1         581  0.25 (15 minutes)...................        145
New Marketing Applications/Resubmissions   ................              32               1          32  0.75 (45 minutes)...................         24
 (NDA/BLA/PMA).
Clinical Amendments to Marketing           ................               0               1           0  0.75 (45 minutes)...................          0
 Applications.
Efficacy Supplements/Resubmissions (BLA    ................              38               1          38  0.75 (45 minutes)...................         28
 only).
Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA)-- ................               1               1           1  0.75 (45 minutes)...................          1
 Original Applications.
ANDA Bioequivalence Supplements/           ................               0               1           0  0.75 (45 minutes)...................          0
 Amendments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          CDRH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Marketing Applications (includes       ................             324               1         324  0.75 (45 minutes)...................        243
 PMAs, HDEs, Supplements and 510(k)s
 expected to contain clinical data).
Total....................................  ................  ..............  ..............  ..........  ....................................      5,974
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Dated: February 11, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-03243 Filed 2-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P