[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 14, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70996-70999]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27018]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0623; FRL-8997-01-R9]

Air Plan Approval; Arizona, California, Nevada; Emissions
Statements Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions, under the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), to
portions of the Arizona, California, and Nevada State Implementation
Plans (SIPs) regarding emissions statements (ES) requirements for the
2015 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). We are also
proposing to approve ES certifications (``certifications'') adopted by
various California air districts that existing SIP-approved rules are
adequate to meet the ES requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. In
addition, we are proposing that the following Arizona, California, and
Nevada nonattainment areas (NAAs) meet the ES requirements for the 2015
ozone NAAQS: Phoenix-Mesa, Yuma, Amador County, Butte County, Imperial
County, Los Angeles-San Bernardino Counties (West Mojave Desert), Los
Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, Nevada County (Western part), Riverside
County (Coachella Valley), Sacramento Metro, San Diego County, San
Francisco Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley, San Luis Obispo (Eastern part),
Sutter Buttes, Tuolumne County, Ventura County, and Las Vegas. We are
also proposing to approve that two NAAs meet requirements for prior
ozone NAAQS. Finally, we are proposing that Maricopa County Air Quality
District (MCAQD) Rule 100, section 503, which we proposed for approval
into the SIP on February 23, 2021, meets the ES requirements for the
2015 ozone NAAQS. We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to
follow with a final action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 13, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2021-0623 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules or certifications did the states submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules or certifications?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules and certifications?
    B. Do the rules and certifications meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules or
Certifications
    D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules or certifications did the states submit?

    The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted
rules for the Arizona Administrative Code (AAC) and Pinal County Air
Quality Control District (AQCD) portions of the SIP. The California Air
Resources Board submitted rules or certifications for the the Amador
Air District (AAD), Butte County Air Quality Management District
(AQMD), El Dorado County AQMD, Feather River AQMD, Imperial County Air
Pollution Control District (APCD), Placer County APCD, San Luis Obispo
County APCD, and Tuolumne County APCD portions of the California SIP.
The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection submitted a rule for
the Clark County Department of Air Quality (CCDAQ) portion of the
Nevada SIP.
    Table 1 lists the rules submitted for approval into the SIP with
the dates that the rules were adopted or revised by the local or state
air agencies and submitted by the states to fulfill CAA section
182(a)(3)(B) Emissions Statements (``section 182(a)(3)(B)'')
requirements. Table 2 lists ES certifications with the dates the
certifications were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by
the State of California to meet section 182(a)(3)(B) requirements.\1\
Tables 1 and 2 also list the dates that the EPA determined that the
submittals met the completeness criteria in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 51 Appendix V or were deemed by operation of law
to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V
(``complete by operation of law'' or COL), which must be met before
formal EPA review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Neither Arizona nor Nevada submitted emissions
certifications for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Adopted/
            Agency                 Rule No.        Rule title        revised        Submitted    Deemed complete
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADEQ.........................  AAC R18-2-327..  Annual                12/4/2020      12/22/2020  COL, 6/22/2020.
                                                 Emissions
                                                 Inventory
                                                 Questionnaire
                                                 and Emissions
                                                 Statement.
Pinal County AQCD............  Rule 3-1-103...  Annual                 7/1/2020       7/21/2020  COL, 1/21/2021.
                                                 emissions
                                                 inventory
                                                 questionnaire
                                                 and emissions
                                                 statement.
Amador Air District..........  Rule 428.......  Emissions             3/16/2021       6/10/2021  Letter, 9/25/
                                                 Statements.                                      2021.
Butte County AQMD............  Rule 434.......  Emissions             6/25/2020       7/27/2020  COL, 1/27/2021.
                                                 Statements.
El Dorado County AQMD........  Rule 1000......  Emission              8/25/2020       9/22/2020  COL, 3/22/2021.
                                                 Statement.
El Dorado County AQMD........  Rule 1001.1....  Emission              8/25/2020       9/22/2020  COL, 3/22/2021.
                                                 Statement
                                                 Waiver.
Feather River AQMD...........  Rule 4.8.......  Further                8/3/2020      12/15/2020  COL, 6/15/2021.
                                                 Information.
Imperial County APCD.........  Rule 116.......  Emissions             11/3/2020       2/19/2021  COL, 8/19/2021.
                                                 Statement and
                                                 Certification.
Placer County APCD...........  Rule 503.......  Emission              10/8/2020      12/15/2020  COL, 6/15/2021.
                                                 Statement.
San Luis Obispo County AQMD..  Rule 222.......  Federal               6/24/2020       7/27/2020  COL, 1/27/2021.
                                                 Emission
                                                 Statement.
Tuolumne County APCD.........  Rule 428.......  Emissions             7/21/2020        8/3/2020  COL, 2/3/2021.
                                                 Statements.
CCDAQ........................  Section 12.9.1.  Annual                8/18/2020      10/15/2020  COL, 4/15/2021.
                                                 Emissions
                                                 Statement \a\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ NDEP submitted Section 12.9 ``Annual Emissions Statement and Inventory Requirements,'' which includes 12.9.1
  ``Annual Emissions Statement'' and 12.9.2 ``Annual Emissions Inventory.'' However, we are only acting on
  subsection 12.9.1 in this notice.

                             Table 2--Submitted Emissions Statements Certifications
                                             [2015 ozone NAAQS] \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Existing SIP
         Local agency           approved rule      Rule title        Adopted        Submitted         Deemed
                                     No.                                                             complete
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antelope Valley AQMD.........  Rule 107         Certification         7/21/2020        8/3/2020  COL, 2/3/2021.
                                (2012); 78 FR    of Submissions
                                21545 (April     and Emission
                                11, 2013).       Statements.
Mojave Desert AQMD...........  Rule 107         Certification        10/28/2019      12/20/2019  COL, 6/20/2020.
                                (1992); 69 FR    and Emission
                                29880 (May 26,   Statements.
                                2004).
Northern Sierra AQMD.........  Rule 513         Emissions             1/25/2021       3/23/2021  COL, 9/23/2021.
                                (2016); 82 FR    Statements and
                                28240 (June      Recordkeeping.
                                21, 2017).
Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD.  Rule 105 (1996)  Emission              7/23/2020        8/3/2020  COL, 2/3/2021.
                                73 FR 32240      Statement.
                                (June 6, 2008).
San Diego County APCD........  Rule 19.3        Emission             10/14/2020       1/12/2021  COL, 7/12/2021.
                                (1996); 65 FR    Information.
                                12472 (March
                                9, 2000).
San Francisco Bay Area AQMD..  Reg 2-Permits 2- Federal               7/15/2020        8/3/2020  COL, 2/3/2021.
                                1-429 (2004);    Emissions
                                83 FR 23372      Statement.
                                (May 21, 2018).
San Joaquin Valley APCD......  Rule 1160        Emission              6/18/2020        8/3/2020  COL, 2/3/2021.
                                (1992); 84 FR    Statements
                                3302 (February   (1992).
                                12, 2019).
South Coast AQMD \a\.........  Rule 301         Permitting and         6/5/2020        8/3/2020  COL, 2/3/2021.
                                (2019); 84 FR    Associated
                                52005 (October   Fees
                                1, 2019).        (paragraphs
                                                 (e)(1), except
                                                 (e)(1)(C),
                                                 (e)(2), (5),
                                                 and (8) only).
Ventura County APCD..........  Rule 24 (1992);  Source                7/14/2020       7/29/2020  COL, 1/29/2021.
                                65 FR 76567      Recordkeeping,
                                (December 7,     Reporting and
                                2000).           Emission
                                                 Statements.
Yolo-Solano AQMD.............  Rule 3.18        Emission               9/9/2020       11/2/2020  COL, 5/2/2021.
                                (1992); 69 FR    Statements.
                                29880 (May 26,
                                2004).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ All certifications in this table were submitted by the State of California. The ``Adopted'' and
  ``Submitted'' and ``Deemed Complete'' dates listed in Table 2 refer to those of the certifications.
\a\ South Coast AQMD has jurisdiction over Riverside (Coachella), and Rule 301 applies to both the South Coast
  Air Basin and the Riverside (Coachella) nonattainment areas.

    In addition to the certifications for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the San
Francsico Bay Area is certifying that Reg 2-Permits 2-1-429 meets
section 182(a)(3)(B) requirements for the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS,
and the San Diego County APCD is certifying that Rule 19.3 meets
section 182(a)(3)(B) requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    There are no previous versions of El Dorado County AQMD Rule
1000.1, Amador Air District Rule 428, Tuolumne County APCD Rule 428, or
CCDAQ Regulations section 12.9 in the SIP. Table 3 lists versions of
rules that we previously approved into the SIP. If we take final action
to approve the submitted versions of these rules, they will replace the
existing SIP-approved versions.
    We approved an earlier version of MCAQD Rule 100, section 503 into
the SIP on April 5, 2019 (84 FR 13543). On February 23, 2021 (86 FR
10903), the EPA proposed approval on revised Rule 100, section 503,
which, if finalized, will replace the previously approved version of
this rule in the SIP. In this action, we are proposing that MCAQD Rule
100, section 503, if finalized as proposed for approval into the SIP,
will fulfill the 2015 ozone NAAQS requirement for emissions statements.

                  Table 3--Existing Sip-Approved Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     State          Local agency           Rule          Final approval
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AZ.............  ADEQ.............  R18-2-327 Annual   77 FR 66405
                                     Emissions          (November 5,
                                     Inventory          2012).
                                     Questionnaire
                                     and Emissions
                                     Statement (1995).
AZ.............  Pinal County Air   Rule 3-1-103       61 FR 15717
                  Quality Control    Annual emissions   (April 9, 1996).
                  District           inventory
                  (PCAQCD).          questionnaire
                                     (1995).
CA.............  Butte County AQMD  Rule 434           80 FR 33195 (June
                                     Emissions          11, 2015).
                                     Statements
                                     (2013).
CA.............  El Dorado County   Rule 1000          69 FR 29880 (May
                  AQMD.              Emission           26, 2004).
                                     Statement.
CA.............  Feather River      Rule 4.8 Further   69 FR 29880 (May
                  AQMD.              Information        26, 2004).
                                     (1992).
CA.............  Imperial County    Rule 116           77 FR 72968
                  APCD.              Emissions          (December 7,
                                     Statement and      2012).
                                     Certification
                                     (2010).
CA.............  Placer County      Rule 503 Emission  77 FR 72968
                  APCD.              Statement (2010).  (December 7,
                                                        2012).
CA.............  San Luis Obispo    Rule 222 Federal   80 FR 33195 (June
                  County AQMD.       Emission           11, 2015).
                                     Statement (2014).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules or certifications?

    Under the CAA, a SIP must require stationary sources in ozone NAAs
classified as ``Marginal'' or above to report annual emissions of
NOX and VOC. See CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). Whenever the EPA
promulgates a new ozone NAAQS, the state must submit a new or amended
rule to ensure that the section 182(a)(3)(B) requirements are met.
    Section 182(a)(3)(B)(i) requires states to submit a SIP revision
that requires that owners or operators of stationary sources provide
the state with a statement of actual emissions of VOC and
NOX at least annually, containing a certification that the
information is accurate.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii) ``The State may waive the
application of clause (i) to any class or category of stationary
sources which emit less than 25 tons per year of volatile organic
compounds or oxides of nitrogen if the State, in its submissions
under subparagraphs (1) or (3)(A), provides an inventory of
emissions from such class or category of sources, based on the use
of the emission factors established by the Administrator or other
methods acceptable to the Administrator.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In lieu of submitting a new or amended rule, the state may submit
for SIP approval a certification that the existing SIP-approved rule
satisfies the emissions statement requirements of CAA section
182(a)(3)(B) for the relevant ozone NAAQS. Specifically, the preamble
of the EPA's ``Implementation of the 2015 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone: Nonattainment Area State Implementation Plan
Requirements'' states that ``[W]here an air agency determines that an
existing regulation is adequate to meet applicable nonattainment area
planning requirements of CAA section 182 . . . for a revised ozone
NAAQS, that air agency's SIP revision may provide a written statement
certifying that determination in lieu of submitting new revised
regulations.'' \4\ The EPA's technical support document (TSD), which is
in the docket for this rulemaking, has more information about these
rules and certifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Implementation of the 2015 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone: Nonattainment Area State Implementation Plan
Requirements,'' 83 FR 62998 (December 6, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules and certifications?

    Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)),
must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA
section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements
in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193). Areas classified as Marginal
nonattainment or higher are subject to the requirements of CAA section
182(a)(3)(B). Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation, and CAA requirements for the
applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

    1. ``Implementation of the 2015 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone: Nonattainment Area State Implementation Plan
Requirements,'' 83 FR 62998 (December 6, 2018).
    2. ``(Draft) Guidance on the Implementation of an Emission
Statement Program,'' EPA, July 1992.
    3. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    4. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies,
and Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January
11, 1990).
    5. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

B. Do the rules and certifications meet the evaluation criteria?

    These rules and certifications meet CAA requirements and are
consistent with relevant guidance regarding enforceability, SIP
revisions, and emissions statement requirements. The TSD has more
information on our evaluation.

C. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules or
Certifications

    The TSD includes recommendations for the next time local agencies
modify the rules or submit certifications.

D. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
fully approve the submitted rules and certifications because they
fulfill all relevant requirements. We are also proposing that the
following 2015 ozone nonattainment areas have met CAA section
182(a)(3)(B) requirements: Phoenix-Mesa, AZ; Yuma, AZ; Amador County,
CA; Butte County, CA; Imperial County, CA; Los Angeles-San Bernardino
Counties, CA (West Mojave Desert); Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin,
CA; Nevada County (Western part), CA; Riverside County (Coachella
Valley) CA; Sacramento Metro, CA; San Diego County, CA; San Francisco
Bay Area, CA; San Joaquin Valley, CA; San Luis Obispo (Eastern part),
CA; Sutter Buttes, CA; Tuolumne, County, CA; Ventura County, CA; and
Las Vegas, NV. We are also proposing to approve that the San Francisco
Bay Area NAA meets the emissions statements requirements for the 1997
and 2008 ozone NAAQS, and the San Diego County NAA meets these
requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Finally, we are proposing that
MCAQD Rule 100, section 503, proposed for approval in a separate action
on February 23, 2021, meets the

emissions statements requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. We will
accept comments from the public on this proposal until January 13,
2022. If we take final action to approve the submitted rules, our final
action will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the rules described in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these materials available through
https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     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);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: December 7, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2021-27018 Filed 12-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 13)]
[Notices]
[Page 3515-3516]
[DOCID:fr21ja10-100]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61346; File No. SR-OC-2009-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; One Chicago, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, Changing Its Listing Standards in Conformance With the
November 19, 2009 Joint Order Modifying the Listing Standards
Requirements Under Section 6(h) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and the Criteria Under Section 2(a)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act

January 13, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-7 under the Act,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 23, 2009, OneChicago, LLC (``OneChicago'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by OneChicago. OneChicago filed Amendment No.
1 to the proposal on January 11, 2010.\3\ The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as
amended, from interested persons. OneChicago also filed the proposed
rule change with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'')
under Section 5c(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act \4\ on December 23,
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-7.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 corrects typographical errors and provides
the correct filing and effective date for the proposal.
Specifically, Amendment No. 1 states that the proposal was filed,
and became effective, on December 23, 2009, rather than December 2,
2009.
    \4\ 7 U.S.C. 7a-2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Description of the Proposed Rule
Change

    OneChicago is proposing to amend Rule 906(b)(1) to conform its
maintenance standards to those approved by both the SEC and the CFTC
(together the ``Commissions'') in their Joint Order dated November 19,
2009 (``JO-2009'').\5\ OneChicago amended Rule 906(a)1 and 4 effective
December 3, 2009.\6\ The text of the proposed rule change is available
on OneChicago's Web site at http://www.onechicago.com, on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, at the principal office of
OneChicago, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities and Exchange Commission Release No. 34-61027
(November 19, 2009). Joint Order Modifying the Listing Standards
Requirements under Section 6(h) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the Criteria under Section 2(a)(1) of the Commodity
Exchange Act.
    \6\ See OCX Rule filing 2009-03, December 2, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    OneChicago has prepared statements concerning the purpose of, and
basis for, the proposed rule change, burdens on competition, and
comments received from members, participants, and others. The text of
these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV
below. These statements are set forth in Sections A, B, and C below.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to permit security
futures to maintain comparability with the options markets and to
provide competitive financial tools that offer a variety of investing
and hedging products for the public as set forth in the Commissions JO-
2009. This proposed change is simply to conform to JO-2009.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act \7\ in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to protect investors and the public interest, and to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national
market system. In particular, the proposed rule change will maintain
comparability with the listed options markets. Additionally, the
changes are consistent with those set forth in JO-2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

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

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

    OneChicago does not believe that the proposed rule change will have
an impact on competition.

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

    Comments on the OneChicago proposed rule change have not been
solicited and none have been received.

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

    The proposed rule change will become effective on December 23,
2009. Within 60 days of the date of effectiveness of the proposed rule
change, the Commission, after consultation with the CFTC, may summarily
abrogate the proposed rule change and require that the proposed rule
change be refiled in accordance with the provisions of Section 19(b)(1)
of the Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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-OC-2009-04 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-OC-2009-04. 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 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-OC-2009-04 and should be
submitted on or before February 11, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-1016 Filed 1-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 16182]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06014]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 15262-000]

CW Bill Young Hydropower Group, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary
Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions
To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On February 9, 2022, CW Bill Young Hydropower Group, Inc., filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of
hydropower at the existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' C.W. Bill
Young Lock and Dam located on the Allegheny River in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is
to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application
during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the
permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise
enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    The proposed CW Bill Young Lock and Dam Hydropower Project would
consist of the following: (1) A new 90-foot-wide, 150-foot-long
reinforced concrete powerhouse to be located downstream along the
northern bank; (2) a new 90-foot-wide, 100- to 200-foot-long forebay
intake area enclosed by reinforced concrete walls; (3) two 5-megawatt
(MW) turbine-generator units with a total generating capacity of 10 MW;
(4) a new 90-foot-wide by 150-foot-long tailrace; (5) a new 60-foot-
long by 50-foot-wide substation with a three-phase step-up transformer;
(6) a new 6,200-foot-long, 69-kilovolt transmission line; and (7)
appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an estimated
annual generation of 52,000 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Alan W. Skelly, CW Bill Young Hydropower Group,
Inc., 127 Longwood Blvd., Mount Orab, Ohio 45154; phone: (937) 802-
8866.
    FERC Contact: Monir Chowdhury; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's website at https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search.
Enter the docket number (P-15262) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: March 16, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-06014 Filed 3-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 132)]
[Notices]
[Page 37750-37751]
[DOCID:fr11jy07-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-503-000]

Hardy Storage Company, LLC; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC
Gas Tariff

July 3, 2007.
    Take notice that on June 29, 2007, Hardy Storage Company, LLC
(Hardy) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an effective
date of August 1, 2007:

First Revised Sheet No. 232
First Revised Sheet No. 233
First Revised Sheet No. 234
First Revised Sheet No. 235

    Hardy states that it is proposing to revise the pro forma Form of
Assignment Agreement to be used by replacement shippers when entering
into contracts with Hardy with respect to capacity awarded.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to

receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-13451 Filed 7-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 186)]
[Notices]
[Page 55200]
[DOCID:fr24se08-162]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Environmental Impact Statement: Angoon Airport, Angoon, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA announces that they will prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) to consider alternatives to and disclose the
potential impacts of constructing a new land-based commercial airport
near the City of Angoon. The FAA will hold public and agency scoping
meetings to help identify substantive project concerns to be addressed
in the EIS process. Cooperating agencies in this process include the
United States Forest Service (USFS), and the United States Army Corps
of Engineers (ACOE).

DATES: 1. October 27, 2008 in Anchorage, Alaska for agency scoping
meeting.
    2. October 27, 2008 in Anchorage, Alaska for public scoping
meeting.
    3. October 29, 2008 in Juneau, Alaska for agency scoping meeting.
    4. October 29, 2008 in Juneau, Alaska for public scoping meeting.
    5. October 31, 2008 in Angoon, Alaska for public scoping meeting.
    6. November 10, 2008 close of scoping comment period.
    Responsible Official: Leslie A. Grey, Environmental Protection
Specialist AAL-614, Federal Aviation Administration, Alaskan Region,
Airports Division, 222 W. 7th Avenue, 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-
7587 Anchorage, AK 99513-7587, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie A. Grey, Environmental
Protection Specialist AAL-614, Federal Aviation Administration, Alaskan
Region, Airports Division, 222 W. 7th Avenue, 14, Anchorage,
AK 99513-7587, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Additional details regarding the project can be found on the
project Web site at http://www.angoonairporteis.com.
    Submit Written Comments, Send to: Leslie A. Grey, Environmental
Protection Specialist AAL-614, Federal Aviation Administration, Alaskan
Region, Airports Division, 222 W. 7th Avenue, 14, Anchorage,
AK 99513-7587, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA will prepare an EIS to assess the
proposed construction of a land-based airport in or near the community
of Angoon. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities' (DOT&PF) Airport Master Plan site submitted to the FAA for
consideration would encompass approximately 270 acres and would include
a single 3,300 foot runway (with the ability to be expanded to 4,000
feet in the future) and a 3.5 acre apron that would include areas for
airport support facilities as needed. This airport would be similar in
size and facilities to existing airports at Hoonah, AK and Kake, AK.
    Because DOT&PF's proposed site is partially within Admiralty Island
National Monument, the USFS has to make a decision on whether to grant
and administer a Special Use Permit for airport operation on the
Monument, or pursue some type of conveyance of the property to state
ownership. To facilitate this process, the FAA has asked the USFS to be
a cooperator in the EIS process to ensure that the EIS analysis and
range of alternatives will meet the need of the USFS to make an
informed decision.
    Because jurisdictional waters of the United States occur within the
proposed project area, it is possible that a 404(b)(1) permit
application will also be required for the project. The FAA has also
asked the ACOE to be a cooperator in this process because of the ACOE's
jurisdictional authority over this resource.
    To ensure that the full range of issues related to the proposed
action are addressed and that all significant issues are identified,
the FAA will coordinate and consult with the public; tribal
governments; Federal, State, local agencies, and tribal corporations
that have jurisdiction by law or have special expertise with respect to
any environmental impacts associated with the proposed projects.
    The agency scoping meetings will be held in Anchorage, Alaska on
October 27, 2008 and in Juneau, Alaska on October 29, 2008. Public
scoping meetings will be held in Anchorage, Alaska on October 27, 2008,
in Juneau, Alaska on October 29, 2008 and in Angoon, Alaska on October
31, 2008. Notification of the public scoping meetings will be published
on the project Web site (http://www.angoonairporteis.com), in the
Juneau Empire, and in the Anchorage Daily News, and will be posted at
the Community Center in Angoon.
    In addition to providing input at the scoping meetings, the
agencies and the public may submit written comments via the e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the address shown above under,
``to Submit Written Comments, Send to.'' Comments must be submitted by
November 10, 2008.

    Issued in Anchorage, Alaska, on September 17, 2008.
James W. Lomen,
Deputy Division Manager, FAA, Airports Division, AAL-601.
[FR Doc. E8-22475 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 112)]
[Notices]
[Page 33298]
[DOCID:fr11jn10-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

June 4, 2010.
    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using
the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three
digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC, Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Docket No.                      File date                   Presenter or requester
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:                                 ................  ..................................................
    1. ER08-386-000 ER08-386-001..........           5-24-10  James Roberts. \1\
    2. ER09-1063-000......................           5-25-10  Matthew White. \2\
Exempt:                                     ................  ..................................................
    1. P-2232-516.........................           5-18-10  Hon. Patrick T. McHenry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ (1) of 504 form comments on index cards, addressed to the Chairman, concerning the PATH project.
\2\ Record of telephone call received by Matthew White from Dr. Joe Bowring and Dr. Howard Hass, the IMM for
  PJM.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-14029 Filed 6-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 248 (Thursday, December 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78472-78474]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30896]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA-2013-0513]

Registration and Financial Security Requirements for Brokers of
Property and Freight Forwarders; Association of Independent Property
Brokers and Agents' Exemption Application

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for public
comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that it has received an application from the
Association of Independent Property Brokers and Agents (AIPBA) for an
exemption for all property brokers and freight forwarders from the
$75,000 bond provision included in section 32918 of the Moving Ahead
for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), now codified in 49
U.S.C. 13906. AIPBA filed its request pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 13541. On
September 5, 2013, FMCSA published guidance in the Federal Register
concerning section 32918 and on October 1, 2013, the Agency published a
final rule amending 49 CFR part 387 to set a minimum $75,000 surety
bond/trust fund requirement for brokers of property and freight
forwarders. FMCSA requests comments from all interested parties on
AIPBA's exemption request.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 27, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number FMCSA-
2013-0513, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief of Driver and
Carrier Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC
20590.

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate in this proceeding by
submitting comments, data, and related materials. All comments received
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will
include any personal and/or copyrighted information you provide.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
proceeding (FMCSA-2013-0513), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing
address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding
your submission. However, see the Privacy Act section below regarding
availability of this information to the public.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
click on the ``Submit a Comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu, select
``Rules,'' insert ``FMCSA-2013-0513'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Submit a Comment''
in the ``Actions'' column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11
inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    AIPBA's exemption application and all public comments are available
in the public docket. To view comments filed in this docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov and click on the ``Read Comments'' box in
the upper right hand side of the screen. Then, in the ``Keyword'' box,
insert ``FMCSA-2013-0513'' and click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open
Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. Finally, in the ``Title''
column, click on the document you would like to review. If you do not

have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting
the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of
the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic docket for all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT
Privacy Act system of records notice for the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) that DOT published in the Federal Register on January 17,
2008 (73 FR 3316).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Legal Basis

    Section 13541 of title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.
13541) requires the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to exempt a
person, class of persons, or a transaction or service from the
application, in whole or in part, of a provision of 49 U.S.C. Part B
(Chapters 131-149), or to use the exemption authority to modify the
application of a provision of 49 U.S.C. Part B (Chapters 131-149) as it
applies to such person, class, transaction, or service when the
Secretary finds that the application of the provision:
     Is not necessary to carry out the transportation policy of
49 U.S.C. 13101
     Is not needed to protect shippers from the abuse of market
power or that the transaction or service is of limited scope; and
     Is in the public interest.
    Further, the exemption authority provided by section 13541 ``may
not be used to relieve a person from the application of, and compliance
with, any law, rule, regulation, standard, or order pertaining to cargo
loss and damage [or] insurance . . .'' 49 U.S.C. 13541(e)(1).
    AIPBA seeks an exemption from the $75,000 financial security
requirements for brokers and freight forwarders at 49 U.S.C. 13906 (b)
& (c). Section 13906 is located in 49 U.S.C. Part B (chapter 139) and
therefore may be considered within the general scope of the exemption
authority provided by section 13541. The Secretary may begin a section
13541 exemption proceeding on the application of an interested party.
49 U.S.C. 13541(b). See, e.g., Motor Carrier Financial Information
Reporting Requirements-Request for Public Comments, 68 FR 48987 (Aug.
15, 2003). The Secretary may ``specify the period of time during which
an exemption'' is effective and may revoke the exemption ``to the
extent specified, on finding that application of a provision of [49
U.S.C. Chapters 131-149] to the person, class, or transportation is
necessary to carry out the transportation policy of [49 U.S.C.] section
13101.'' 49 U.S.C. 13541(c), (d).
    The Administrator of FMCSA has been delegated authority under 49
CFR 1.87 to carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49
U.S.C. 13541.

Background

    On July 6, 2012, the President signed MAP-21 into law, which
included a number of mandatory, non-discretionary changes to FMCSA
programs. Some of these changes amended the financial security
requirements applicable to property brokers and freight forwarders
operating under FMCSA's jurisdiction. P.L. 112-141, Sec.  32918, 126
Stat. 405 (codified at 49 U.S.C. Sec.  13906(b) & (c)). More
specifically, 49 U.S.C. Sec.  13906(b) and (c) requires brokers and
freight forwarders to provide evidence of minimum financial security in
the amount of $75,000.
    On September 5, 2013, FMCSA published guidance (78 FR 54720)
``concerning the implementation of certain provisions of . . . (MAP-21)
concerning persons acting as a broker or a freight forwarder.'' On
October 1, 2013, FMCSA issued regulations requiring brokers and freight
forwarders to have a $75,000 surety bond or trust fund in effect. 49
CFR Sec. Sec.  387.307(a), 387.403(c). 78 FR 60226, 60233.
    On November 14, 2013, after initially filing and dismissing in
district court, AIPBA filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Association of Independent Property
Brokers and Agents, Inc. v. Foxx, No. 13-15238-D (11th Cir.). The
petition alleges the Agency's October 1 final rule was improperly
issued without notice and comment.

AIPBA Exemption Application

    In an August 14, 2013 letter to the Secretary, AIPBA, through its
counsel, requests that the Department ``permanently exempt all property
brokers and freight forwarders from the $75,000 broker bond provision
of MAP-21. . . .'' AIPBA argues that the ``$75,000 broker surety bond
amount is not necessary to carry out the transportation policy of
section 13101, [or] . . . to protect shippers from the abuse of market
power . . . and . . . is not in the public interest.'' AIPBA seeks a
categorical exemption ``so that property brokers and forwarders can
continue to do business under the existing bond regulations.'' A copy
of the exemption application is included in the docket referenced at
the beginning of this notice.
    First, AIPBA believes that the $75,000 bond requirement is contrary
to the transportation policy of 49 U.S.C. 13101 because it violates the
federal government's policy of ``encourage[ing] fair competition, and
reasonable rates for transportation by motor carriers of property'' and
``allow[ing] a variety of quality and price options to meet changing
market demands and the diverse requirements of the shipping and
traveling public. . . .'' 49 U.S.C. 13101(a)(2)(A),(D).
    AIPBA also argues that the $75,000 broker bond requirement ``is not
necessary to protect shippers from the abuse of market power.''
According to AIPBA, ``[t]he unnecessarily high $75,000 broker bond
requirement will cause the majority of property brokers to leave the
marketplace, which will expose shippers to abuses of market power by
the few large property brokers able to stay in business.''
    With regard to the public interest, AIPBA believes the new bond
requirement will ``cause a significant increase in consumer prices once
the supply of property brokers is drastically reduced.'' AIPBA
indicated that a lack of competition will require shippers to pay more
for transportation services. In addition to predicting that small and
mid-sized brokers will be forced out of the market place due to the new
higher bond requirement, AIPBA believes the new requirement will serve
as a barrier to entry into the market place for other property brokers.
    Finally, while AIPBA acknowledges that ``there are certain
regulations from which [the Secretary] cannot issue exemptions,'' it
believes that ``the broker bond does not fall into one of the listed
categories. Specifically, AIPBA argues that the bond is a financial
security rather than a type of required insurance, a distinction
emphasized in 49 U.S.C. 13906 by the choice of a bond or insurance as
well as MAP-21's amendment to 49 U.S.C. 13906, which still requires the
broker bond but deletes all reference to insurance.''

Request for Comments

    FMCSA requests public comment on the AIPBA exemption application.
Specifically, FMCSA requests comments on whether the Agency should
grant or deny the application, in whole or in part. The Agency also
requests comments on how it should apply 49 U.S.C. 13541(a)(1-3) to
AIPBA's request.

Additionally, FMCSA seeks comment on whether the reference to ``cargo
loss and damage'' and/or ``insurance'' in section 13541(e)(1) bars
FMCSA from granting the requested exemption as a matter of law and
without application of the three-part statutory test under section
13541(a). Commenters are encouraged to provide data or information
concerning the impact of the new bond requirements and/or the impact of
granting this exemption request on carriers, brokers, freight
forwarders and shippers.

    Issued on: December 18, 2013.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-30896 Filed 12-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 145 (Monday, July 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45580-45584]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18076]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70028; File No. SR-ISE-2013-46]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change to Amend Certain Market Maker Fees

July 23, 2013.
    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 July 11, 2013, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
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\ 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 amend Market Maker fees for Regular Orders in
Non-Select Symbols and Foreign Currency Options (``FX Options''). The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site (http://www.ise.com), at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend certain Market
Maker \3\ fees for Regular Orders \4\ in Non-Select Symbols \5\ and FX
Options. The fee changes discussed below apply to both standard options
and Mini Options traded on ISE. The Exchange's Schedule of Fees has
separate tables for fees applicable to standard options and Mini
Options. The Exchange notes that while the discussion below relates to
fees for standard options, the fees for Mini Options, which are not
discussed below, are and shall continue to be 1/10th of the fees for
standard options, with the one following exception: when the Exchange
commenced trading on Mini Options, it did not apply the Market Maker
Discount Tiers in Section VI, C. to Market Maker orders in Mini
Options. The Exchange now proposes to extend the Market Maker Discount
Tiers to Mini Options and in doing so, proposes to adopt footnote 10 in
Section III, Regular Order Fees and Rebates for Mini Options and
proposes to adopt a discount fee table applicable to Mini Options in
Section VI, Market Maker Discount Tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See ISE Rule
100(a)(25).
    \4\ A Regular Order is an order that consists of only a single
option series and is not submitted with a stock leg. See Schedule of
Fees, Preface.
    \5\ Non-Select Symbols are options overlying all symbols that
are not in the Penny Pilot Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Regular Orders in Non-Select Symbols and in FX Options, the
Exchange currently charges Market Makers a base execution fee of $0.18
per contract and a lower fee based on a Member's trading activity
during a calendar month. Specifically, the Exchange currently charges
the following fee:
     First 1,000,000 contracts in a month--$0.18 per contract
     1,000,001 to 3,000,000 contracts in a month--$0.16 per
contract
     3,000,001 to 5,000,000 contracts in a month--$0.13 per
contract
     5,000,001 to 10,000,000 contracts in a month--$0.03 per
contract
     Above 10,000,000 contracts in a month--$0.01 per contract
\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Schedule of Fees, Section VI, C. ISE Market Maker
Discount Tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current sliding scale applies to all Market Makers \7\ for
Regular Orders in Non-Select Symbols and in FX Options and is assessed
to each Member based on total market maker volume executed by a Member
during a calendar month. By way of example, if the Member executes
7,000,000 contracts in the month, the first 1,000,000 contracts will be
charged $0.18 per contract, the next 2,000,000 contracts (contracts
1,000,001 to 3,000,000) will be charged $0.16 per contract, the next
2,000,000 contracts (contracts 3,000,001 to 5,000,000) will be charged
$0.13 per contract, and the last 2,000,000 contracts (contracts
5,000,001 to 7,000,000) will be charged $0.03 per contract.
Importantly, there is no retroactive application of the lowest per
contract fee (in this example, $0.03 per contract) to all contracts
executed during the month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ If a Member firm operates more than one Market Maker
membership, all of the Member firm's market maker volume is
aggregated for purposes of calculating the transaction fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to collapse the current sliding scale of
five tiers into only two tiers (thus eliminating entirely three tiers).
Under this new proposed two tier arrangement, in the first tier the
base execution fee of $0.22 per contract will apply to Members who
trade 250,000 contracts or less in a calendar month in Non-Select
Symbols and FX Options, and in the second tier a fee of $0.15 per
contract will apply if a Member trades more than 250,000 contracts in
Non-Select Symbols and FX Options in a calendar month. In addition (and
in converse to the current sliding scale), once a Member reaches the
highest tier, the fee applicable to that tier will apply retroactively
to all Market Maker contracts for Regular Orders in Non-Select Symbols
and FX Options. For example, a Member who executes 200,000 contracts in
Non-Select Symbols and FX Options during a calendar month will be
charged $0.22 per contract for all 200,000 contracts. A Member who,
however, executes 300,000 contracts in Non-Select Symbols and FX
Options during a calendar month will be charged $0.15 per contract for
all 300,000 contracts. The Exchange is not proposing any change to the
Fee for Regular Orders in Non-Select Symbols and in FX Options for
other market participants.
    For Crossing Orders in Non-Select Symbols and FX Options, the
Exchange currently charges a fee of $0.18 per contract for Market Maker
orders. The Exchange now proposes to increase the base execution fee to
$0.22 per contract and amend the current discount tiers such that the
base execution fee of $0.22 per contract will apply if a Member trades
250,000 contracts or less in Non-Select Symbols and FX Options in a
calendar month, and a fee of $0.15 per contract will apply if a Member
trades more than 250,000 contracts in Non-Select Symbols and FX Options
in a calendar month. The Exchange is not proposing any change to the
Fee for Crossing Orders for other market participants.
    For Responses to Crossing Orders in Non-Select Symbols and FX
Options, the Exchange currently charges a fee of $0.18 per contract for
Market Maker orders. The Exchange now proposes to increase the base
execution fee to $0.22 per contract and amend the current discount
tiers such that the base execution fee of $0.22 per contract will apply
if a Member trades 250,000 contracts or less in Non-Select Symbols and
FX Options in a calendar month, and a fee of $0.15 per contract will
apply if a Member trades more than 250,000 contracts in Non-Select
Symbols and FX Options. The Exchange is not proposing any change to the
Fee

for Responses to Crossing Orders for other market participants.
    As noted above, the highest tier achieved by a Member (in terms of
volume and fee) for the current calendar month will apply retroactively
to all Market Maker orders executed by the Member during such calendar
month. For purposes of the Market Maker Discount Tiers, volume in
standard options and Mini Options will be combined to calculate the
tier a Member has reached. Based on the tier achieved, the Member will
be charged for that tier for all the standard options traded at the
standard option fee amount and for all the Mini Options traded at the
Mini Option fee amount.
    With this proposed rule change, the Market Maker fee that is the
subject of this proposed rule change will no longer be based on total
market maker volume executed by a Member across all symbols traded on
the Exchange. The Exchange, therefore, proposes to delete the following
text from Section VI, C. of the Schedule of Fees: ``Fee assessed on
each member based on total market maker volume executed by each such
member during a calendar month.'' The Exchange also proposes to remove
text from this section of the Schedule of Fees which states that ``For
Complex Orders, only the volume for the leg of a trade consisting of
the most contracts is considered for purpose of calculating the volume
tiers and the corresponding fee charged'' because the fee discount in
this section does not apply to complex orders. Fees for all complex
orders for all market participants are found in Section II for standard
options and in Section IV for Mini Options.
    This proposed rule change will result in an increase in the amount
of Market Maker fees paid by a Member for Regular Orders in Non-Select
Symbols and FX Options. The Exchange, however, expects this increase to
be nominal because the proposed fee will be applied to a group of
symbols that are not very actively traded and account for less than
twenty percent (20%) of industry volume.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Schedule of
Fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \9\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among Exchange Members and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable
and equitably allocated because the resulting fee is within the range
of fees assessed by other exchanges. For example, the Chicago Board
Options Exchange (``CBOE'') currently charges Market Makers a fee of
$0.25 per contract for the first 100,000 contracts and $0.17 per
contract for 100,001 to 2,000,000 contracts.\10\ The Exchange notes,
however, that CBOE excludes certain products from its Market Maker
tiers, such as mini-options, VIX options, etc., so the pricing range
comparison between ISE and CBOE is not without a few limited
exceptions, however the Exchange believes that by not excluding certain
products from its Market Maker tiers makes its pricing more competitive
as Market Makers have a greater opportunity to achieve the lower tier
rate, as certain products are not excluded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See CBOE Fees Schedule at http://www.cboe.com/publish/feeschedule/CBOEFeeSchedule.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to increase the Market Maker fees for
Regular Orders in Non-Select Symbols and FX Options is also reasonable
because it should incentivize Members to increase the amount of Regular
Orders in Non-Select Symbols and FX Options traded on the Exchange to
obtain a lower execution fee. The Exchange's proposed fee change is
also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because while Members
will have to transact a greater number of contracts to achieve the tier
2 fee of $0.15 per contract, that fee will apply retroactively to all
Regular Orders in Non-Select Symbols and FX Options for that month once
a Member reaches the threshold of 250,000 contracts. Further, the
Exchange has already established tiers to discount Market Maker fees
for Regular Orders in Non-Select Symbols and FX Options, and is now
proposing to simplify the tiers and how the fee is applied. The
Exchange believes its proposal to amend the Market Maker Discount Tiers
is not unfairly discriminatory because the resulting Market Maker fee
would apply uniformly to all Regular Orders in Non-Select Symbols and
FX Options in the same manner. The Exchange expects this increase to be
nominal because the proposed fee will be applied to a group of symbols
that are not very actively traded and account for less than twenty
percent (20%) of industry volume. Finally, by applying the lower fee
retroactively to all Regular Orders in Non-Select Symbols and FX
Options for that month once a Member reaches the threshold of 250,000
contracts (as opposed to the current sliding scale which does not
retroactively apply the lower fee to all contracts), the Exchange
expects that this, too, will cause the increase to be nominal.
    The Exchange has determined to charge fees for Regular Orders in
Mini Options at a rate that is 1/10th the rate of fees the Exchange
currently provides for trading in standard options. The Exchange
believes it is reasonable and equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
to assess lower fees to provide market participants an incentive to
trade Mini Options on the Exchange. The Exchange believes the proposed
fees are reasonable and equitable in light of the fact that Mini
Options have a smaller exercise and assignment value, specifically 1/
10th that of a standard option contract, and, as such, levying fees
that are 1/10th of what market participants pay to trade standard
options.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable to charge a
Market Maker fee of $0.22 per contract for Regular Orders in Non-Select
Symbols and FX Options and also when such members are responding to
crossing orders because the fee is also within the range of fees
assessed by other exchanges employing similar pricing schemes. By
comparison, the proposed fees are lower than the rates assessed by CBOE
for similar orders.\11\ The Exchange notes that an execution resulting
from a response to a crossing order is akin to an execution and
therefore its proposal to establish execution fees and fees for
responses to crossing orders that are identical is reasonable and
equitable. The Exchange believes its proposal to increase the execution
fee and fee for responses to crossing orders for Market Makers for
Regular Orders in Non-Select Symbols and FX Options is not unfairly
discriminatory because the proposed fees would apply uniformly to all
Market Maker orders in the same manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the price differentiation between the
various market participants is justified. With respect to Market Maker
fees for Regular Orders, the Exchange believes that the price
differentiation between the various market participants is appropriate
and not unfairly discriminatory because Market Makers have different
requirements and obligations to the Exchange that the other market
participants do not (such as quoting requirements and paying
membership-related non-transaction fees). The Exchange believes that it
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess a higher fee to

market participants that do not have such requirements and obligations
that Exchange Market Makers do, with the exception of orders for
Priority Customers for which there are no transaction fees. As
discussed further in section 4. below regarding intra-market
competition, in this instance, there is no reason to adjust the fee for
Market Maker orders entered by Electronic Access Members, as such
orders have a distinct business purpose and are also affected by
various other fees and rebates on the Exchange, and thus it is
reasonable to make no adjustment at this time.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are fair,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they are consistent
with price differentiation that exists today at other options
exchanges. Additionally, the Exchange believes it remains an attractive
venue for market participants to direct their order flow in the symbols
that are subject to this proposed rule change as its fees are
competitive with those charged by other exchanges for similar trading
activities. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in
which market participants can readily direct order flow to another
exchange if they deem fee levels at a particular exchange to be
excessive. For the reasons noted above, the Exchange believes that the
proposed fees are fair, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.

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

    ISE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the
proposed fee change does not impose a burden on competition because it
is consistent with fees charged by other exchanges. The proposed fees,
which the Exchange believes are comparable to fees charged by its
competitors for similar orders, will encourage competition and continue
to attract additional order flow in these symbols to ISE.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily direct their order flow to
competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting, its fees and rebates to remain
competitive with other exchanges. Since competitors of the Exchange are
free to modify their own fees in response, and because market
participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, ISE
believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose
a burden on competition is limited. In this instance, ISE is
instituting a nominal increase. If the fee change is unattractive to
market participants, it is likely that ISE will not attract additional
order flow in the symbols that that are subject to the proposed fee
change. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the
proposed fee change reflects this competitive environment.
    The Exchange believes the proposed Market Maker fee change will not
impose any unnecessary burden on intramarket competition because, while
it only applies to Market Maker orders, Market Makers take on a number
of obligations and responsibilities, significant regulatory burdens,
and financial obligations that other market participants are not
required to undertake. The proposed Market Maker fee change may attract
increased order flow in Non-Select Symbols and FX Options to the
Exchange, which will provide increased volume and greater trading
opportunities for all market participants. With respect to the price
differentiation between Market Makers entering Regular Orders directly
versus entering Regular Orders through an Electronic Access Member
(``EAM''), the Exchange notes that such fees have historically been at
different levels and have been adjusted from time to time. EAMs
representing Market Makers is a distinct business activity, different
from when Market Makers are directly trading on the Exchange by
submitting quotations in the course of regular market making. Using an
EAM as the executing broker to submit an order, the Market Maker may be
participating in a crossing transaction or `working' an order, which
may involve different non-Exchange costs or discounts. Because of this
different dynamic, while the fee for a Market Maker entering a Regular
Order through an EAM is different from the fee for a Market Maker
entering a Regular Order directly, the fees are in the same range, but
the former is recognized as a distinct business and thus is a distinct
item on the Exchange's Schedule of Fees. Therefore, the Exchange
believes that any potential effects on intramarket competition that the
proposed fee change may cause are justified.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \12\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\13\ because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by ISE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \13\ 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 to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2013-46 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2013-46. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written

communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-ISE-2013-46 and should be submitted on or before August
19, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-18076 Filed 7-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 153)]
[Notices]
[Page 46020-46021]
[DOCID:fr07au08-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0413]

Draft Guidance for Industry on Residual Solvents in Drug Products
Marketed in the United States; Availability

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Control of
Residual Solvents in Drug Products Marketed in the United States.'' On
July 1, 2008, the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) published a new test
requirement for the control of residual solvents, General Chapter <467>
``Residual Solvents,'' which replaced USP General Chapter <467>
``Organic Volatile Impurities.'' The change affects all compendial drug
products marketed in the United States. This draft guidance reflects
FDA's recommendations on how to comply with those USP changes.

DATES:  Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21
CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the agency considers your comment on
this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit

written or electronic comments on the draft guidance by October 6,
2008.

ADDRESSES:  Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your requests. Submit written comments on the draft guidance to the
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic
comments to http://www.regulations.gov. See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Ouderkirk, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 4125, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-
1585.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Residual Solvents in Drug Products Marketed in the United
States.'' Beginning July 1, 2008, FDA will require that drug products
marketed in the United States with an official USP monograph meet the
residual solvents requirements in the revised General Chapter <467>
``Residual Solvents.''
    For compendial drug products approved under a new drug application
(NDA) or abbreviated new drug application (ANDA), changes made to the
specifications in the approved application regarding the revised
General Chapter <467> should be in accordance with applicable
regulations described in 21 CFR 314.70 and the recommendations in the
guidance for industry on ``Changes to an Approved NDA or ANDA, April
2004.'' FDA expects that in most cases, an annual report can be used to
report changes.
    FDA recommends that applicants who have submitted NDAs or ANDAs to
the agency for drug products that are not the subject of an official
USP monograph control and limit the presence of residual solvents in
the subject drug product as described in the guidance on ``Q3C
Impurities: Residual Solvents.''
    Marketed compendial drug products that are not approved under an
NDA or ANDA (for example, over-the-counter (OTC) drug products that are
marketed under an FDA OTC monograph) are also subject to the provisions
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the revised General
Chapter <467>, and current good manufacturing practice requirements in
21 CFR 211.165(e) and 211.194(a)(2).
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking on control of
residual solvents in drug products marketed in the United States. It
does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not
operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used
if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes
and regulations.

II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the
Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
    Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets
Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management
System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management
system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA only
through FDMS at http://www.regulations.gov.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
either http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm or http://
www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: July 29, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E8-18127 Filed 8-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: February 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 38)]
[Notices]
[Page 10313-10314]
[DOCID:fr26fe08-99]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of: TelcoBlue, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

February 22, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
TelcoBlue, Inc. (``TelcoBlue'') because TelcoBlue has failed to file
its last six required periodic reports.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of

investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the
above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed
company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on February 22,
2008 through 11:59 p.m. EST on March 6, 2008.

    By the Commission.
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 08-861 Filed 2-22-08; 10:44 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P