[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14450-14451]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05327]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-N-1127]

Listing of Patent Information in the Orange Book; Establishment
of a Public Docket; Request for Comments; Reopening of Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is
reopening the comment period for the notice entitled ``Listing of
Patent Information in the Orange Book; Establishment of a Public
Docket; Request for Comments'' that appeared in the Federal Register of
June 1, 2020. The notice announced the establishment of a docket to
solicit comments on the listing of patent information in the FDA
publication ``Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence
Evaluations'' (commonly known as the ``Orange Book''). The Agency is
taking this action in response to the recently enacted Orange Book
Transparency Act of 2020, which was signed into law on January 5, 2021.

DATES: FDA is reopening the comment period for the notice published on
June 1, 2020 (85 FR 33169). Submit either electronic or written
comments by April 15, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before April 15, 2021. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of April 15, 2021. Comments received
by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be
considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service
acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2020-N-1127 for ``Listing of Patent Information in the Orange Book;
Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments; Reopening of
Comment Period.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket and,
except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly
viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management
Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed

except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure
law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public
dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information
at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Park, Office of Generic Drugs,
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Rm. 1670, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-7764.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of June 1, 2020 (85
FR 33169), FDA published a notice with a 90-day comment period to
solicit comments on the listing of patent information in the FDA
publication ``Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence
Evaluations'' (commonly known as the ``Orange Book''), including
comments on the types of patent information that should be included in
the Orange Book. In the Federal Register of October 16, 2020 (85 FR
65819), FDA reopened the comment period for the public docket for an
additional 30 days in response to a request for an extension to allow
interested persons additional time to submit comments.
    On January 5, 2021, the President signed into law the Orange Book
Transparency Act of 2020 (Pub. L. 116-290). Section 2(e) of the Orange
Book Transparency Act of 2020 requires the Agency to solicit public
comment regarding the types of patent information that should be
included on, or removed from, the Orange Book and to transmit to
Congress a summary of such comments and actions the Agency is
considering taking, if any, in response to such public comment by
January 5, 2022.
    In accordance with section 2(e) of the Orange Book Transparency Act
of 2020, FDA is reopening the comment period for the public docket for
30 days, until April 15, 2021, to allow interested persons time to
submit any additional comments regarding the types of patent
information that should be included on, or removed from, the Orange
Book. The Agency believes that an additional 30 days will allow
adequate time for interested persons to submit comments.

    Dated: March 9, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-05327 Filed 3-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 179 (Monday, September 18, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43506-43510]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19716]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0435; FRL-9967-51-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arkansas;
Revisions to Minor New Source Review Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions
to the Arkansas State Implementation Plan (SIP) minor New Source Review
(NSR) program submitted on July 26, 2010, and March 24, 2017, including
supplemental information provided on November 30, 2015, May 26, 2016,
and July 27, 2017. Specifically, we are proposing to approve revisions
that revise the minor NSR permitting thresholds and de minimis levels,
as well as, additional non-substantive revisions. This proposed action
is consistent with the requirements of section 110 of the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 18, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2017-0435, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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 Ashley Mohr, 214-665-
7289<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available at either location
(e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ashley Mohr,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment with Ms. Ashley Mohr or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-
665-7253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Background

    The EPA is proposing approval of SIP revisions submitted by
Arkansas on July 26, 2010, and March 24, 2017. The proposed revisions
addressed in this action modify the Chapter 4 minor New Source Review
rules enacted at Regulation Number 19 (Reg. 19), specifically the
following provisions are addressed in this action: Reg. 19.401,
19.407(C)(2)(a) and (b), and 19.417. The revisions include revisions to
the minor NSR permitting thresholds and de minimis levels.
    Our proposed approval of the revisions to the minor NSR permitting
thresholds and de minimis levels does not remove, nor reduce, the
federal and SIP approved requirements that each NSR permitting action
authorizing emissions greater than the permitting thresholds provide an
opportunity for the public to review and comment on the information
submitted by the permit applicant. Nor does our action remove or reduce
the federal and SIP approved requirements that as part of these
permitting actions the public also have an opportunity to review and
comment on the required Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality's
(ADEQ) analysis and determination that the construction or modification
of the facility will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of a
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). Our action also does not
remove the requirement that ADEQ's approval of all minor NSR permit
actions include a technical analysis and determination that the change
will not interfere with NAAQS attainment or maintenance.

A. July 26, 2010 Submittal

    On July 26, 2010, Arkansas submitted revisions to the SIP that
included changes to the Regulations of the Arkansas Plan of
Implementation for Air Pollution Control enacted at Reg. 19, Chapters
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, and Appendix A. These
revisions were adopted by the Arkansas Pollution Control & Ecology
Commission on December 5, 2008, and became effective on January 25,
2009.
    The EPA is proposing to take action only on the revisions to
Chapter 4, Reg. 19.401, 19.407(C)(2)(a) and (b), and 19.417 contained
in the July 26, 2010 submittal. The EPA has already taken action on
other elements of this submittal as follows: (1) Regulation 19, Chapter
1, approved by EPA on 4/3/2015 (See 80 FR 11573); (2) Regulation 19,
Chapter 2, approved by EPA on 4/3/2015 (See 80 FR 11573); (3)
Regulation 19, Chapter 5, approved by EPA on 4/3/2015 (See 80 FR 11573;
(4) Regulation 19, Chapter 6, approved by EPA on 4/3/2015 (See 80 FR
11573); (5) Regulation 19, Chapter 7, approved by EPA on 4/3/2015 (See
80 FR 11573); (6) Regulation 19, Chapter 9, approved by EPA on 4/2/2013
(see 78 FR 19596); (7) Regulation 19, Chapter 10, approved by EPA on 4/
3/2015 (See 80 FR 11573); (8) Regulation 19, Chapter 11, approved by
EPA on 4/3/2015 (See 80 FR 11573); (9) Regulation 19, Chapter 13,
approved by EPA on 4/3/2015 (See 80 FR 11573); (10) Regulation 19,
Chapter 14, approved by EPA on 4/17/2014 (see 79 FR 21631); and (11)
Regulation 19, Chapter 15, approved by EPA on 3/12/2012 (see 77 FR
14604). The EPA will address in a future action the remaining portions
of the July 26, 2010 submittal, which are not directly related to the
minor NSR permitting thresholds and de minimis levels.

B. March 24, 2017 Submittal

    On March 24, 2017, Arkansas submitted revisions to the SIP that
included changes to the Regulations of the Arkansas Plan of
Implementation for Air Pollution Control enacted at Reg. 19, Chapters
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, Appendix A and Appendix B. These
revisions were adopted by the Arkansas Pollution Control & Ecology
Commission on February 26, 2016, and became effective on March 14,
2016.
    The EPA is proposing to take action only on Chapter 4, Reg. 19.401
and 19.407(C)(2)(a) and (b). As necessary, the EPA will address the
remaining portions of the March 24, 2017 submittal, which are not
directly related to the minor NSR permitting thresholds and de minimis
levels, as part of separate actions.
    A summary of the EPA's evaluation of the submitted revisions and
the basis for our proposed approval is included in this rulemaking. The
accompanying Technical Support Document (TSD) includes a detailed
evaluation of the submittals and our approval rationale. The TSD may be
accessed online at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-
0435. As previously discussed, the portions of July 26, 2010 and March
24, 2017 SIP submittals evaluated in this action are those related to
the revised minor NSR permitting thresholds and de minimis levels.
While the TSD does include a line-by-line evaluation of each revised
section addressed in our proposed approval, the following section
focuses on the revised permitting thresholds and de minimis levels and
the EPA's evaluation associated with those revisions.

II. The EPA's Evaluation

A. Revisions to Minor NSR Permitting Thresholds and De Minimis Levels

    The Arkansas SIP approved minor NSR program contains permitting
thresholds and de minimis levels that are applicable to the state's
minor NSR permitting program. Both the permitting thresholds and de
minimis levels serve to exempt certain stationary sources or proposed
changes at stationary sources from minor NSR permitting

requirements. The permitting thresholds found in Reg. 19.401 serve to
determine which stationary sources are required to obtain a minor NSR
permit. Any sources with emissions equal to or greater than the
specified permitting thresholds are required to obtain a permit. A de
minimis change, as stated in Reg. 19.407(C), is a change at an existing
source that will result in trivial environmental impacts and requires
minimal judgement to establish permit requirements for the change. A de
minimis change is not a title I modification, as stated in the Reg. 19,
Chapter 2 definition for ``title I modification.'' The de minimis
levels found in Reg. 19.407(C)(2) are used to determine if a proposed
change at an existing permitted source may qualify as a de minimis
change under Reg. 19. Under the SIP approved Arkansas minor NSR
program, a de minimis change is exempt from minor NSR permitting
requirements, including public notice requirements, but remains subject
to the remaining applicable minor NSR requirements contained in the NSR
regulation. For example, in accordance with Reg. 19.407(C)(6)
requirements a de minimis change must be reviewed and approved by ADEQ
prior to implementation by a stationary source. To seek a de minimis
change approval, the permitted source must submit an application to
ADEQ to demonstrate that the proposed change qualifies as de minimis
and, therefore, qualifies for exemption from minor NSR permitting
requirements. ADEQ reviews the application to ensure that the proposed
change is de minimis and does not include any of the following changes
found in Reg. 19.407(C)(4) that do not meet the definition of de
minimis: (1) Any increase in the permitted emission rate without a
corresponding physical change or change in the method of operation at
the source; (2) any change which would result in a violation of the
CAA; (3) any change seeking to change a case-by-case determination of
an emission limitation established pursuant to Best Available Control
Technology, Sec.  112(g), Sec.  112(i)(5), Sec.  112(j), or Sec.
111(d) of the CAA; (4) a change that would result in a violation of any
provision of Reg. 19; (5) any change in a permit term, condition, or
limit that a source has assumed to avoid an applicable requirement to
which the source would otherwise be subject; (6) any significant change
or relaxation to existing testing, monitoring, reporting, or
recordkeeping requirements; or (7) any proposed change which requires
more than minimal judgment to determine eligibility. In addition,
multiple applications for de minimis changes that are concealing a
larger modification would not be considered a de minimis change. As
required by Reg. 19.405(A)(1), ADEQ also reviews the de minimis change
applications submitted under Reg. 19, Chapter 4 to ensure that the
proposed change at the stationary source will not result in the
interference with attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS. If ADEQ
determines that the proposed change does not qualify as de minimis, the
de minimis change application is denied and the source must seek
authorization via the appropriate NSR permit modification with public
notice and reconstruction requirements. Otherwise if the de minimis
action is approved by ADEQ, the source can make the proposed change
immediately following receipt of the de minimis change approval. Any
revisions to the existing minor NSR permit that may be necessary as a
result of a de minimis change will be incorporated by ADEQ as
expeditiously as possible as a de minimis modification.
    As previously stated, both the minor NSR permitting thresholds and
de minimis levels approaches are approved into the current Arkansas
SIP. As part of the submitted SIP revisions, Arkansas is proposing to
revise the values for minor NSR permitting thresholds and de minimis
levels for CO, NOX, SO2, VOC, and
PM10. In addition, Arkansas is proposing to add minor NSR
permitting thresholds for PM2.5 and de minimis levels for PM
and PM2.5, which do not exist in the current SIP approved
minor NSR permitting program. The following table summarizes the
current and revised minor NSR permitting thresholds and de minimis
levels.

         Table 1--Current SIP Approved and Revised Minor NSR Permitting Thresholds and De Minimis Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Minor NSR permitting         Minor NSR de minimis levels
                                                         thresholds (tpy)                      (tpy)
                    Pollutant                    ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Current SIP                     Current SIP
                                                  approved value   Revised value  approved value   Revised value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO..............................................              40              75               5              75
NOX.............................................              25              40               5              40
SO2.............................................              25              40               5              40
VOC.............................................              25              40              20              40
PM..............................................            None            None            None              25
PM10............................................              10              15               5              15
PM2.5...........................................            None              10            None              10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in the previous table, the revised permitting thresholds
and de minimis levels are less stringent than the values contained in
the current Arkansas SIP. Therefore, as part of our evaluation, we
reviewed the proposed revisions, along with supporting information
provided by Arkansas, to determine if the proposed revisions to the
minor NSR permitting thresholds and de minimis levels will interfere
with attainment, reasonable further progress or any other applicable
requirements of the Act. That evaluation, in accordance with section
110(l) of the Clean Air Act, is discussed in the following section.
    ADEQ does require, in accordance with Reg. 18.315, that facilities
that are exempt from minor NSR permitting based on the revised
permitting thresholds but have emissions greater than the previous SIP
approved permitting thresholds register with the Department prior to
operation, construction, or modification. In addition, the de minimis
changes, which are exempt from minor NSR permitting requirements, are
required to meet all remaining, applicable minor NSR provisions
contained in Reg. 19, Chapter 4, including the requirements for ADEQ's
technical review and determination that the proposed change will not
interfere with the attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS.

B. Analysis Under Section 110(l) of the CAA

    As part of our evaluation of the July 26, 2010 and March 24, 2017
submittals under section 110(l), we have examined: (1) The scope of
impacts resulting from the proposed revisions, (2) the current status
of ambient air quality in Arkansas, and (3) the impacts of the revised
thresholds on ambient air quality via air monitoring and air modeling
data.
    As part of the July 26, 2010 SIP revision submittal, ADEQ
determined that the number of currently permitted minor NSR facilities
statewide that would not be required to be permitted under the revised
minor NSR permitting thresholds was twenty (20). ADEQ also determined
the total permitted emissions of CO, NOX, SO2,
VOC, and PM10 from these 20 facilities and compared those
permitted emissions with the statewide emission inventory on a
pollutant-by-pollutant basis. On a percentage basis, the emissions that
would be exempt from permitting at these 20 facilities based on the
revised minor NSR permitting thresholds were 0.006% to 0.125% of the
statewide emission totals. On July 27, 2017, ADEQ provided a supplement
to the July 2010 and March 2017 SIP revision submittals, which included
similar CO, NOX, SO2, VOC, and PM10
emissions information for the de minimis changes approved for
facilities in calendar year (CY) 2016. EPA reviewed the emissions
information and determined that the emissions increases associated with
the approved de minimis changes exempt from minor NSR permitting based
on the revised de minimis levels were 0.0005% to 0.019% of the
statewide emissions inventory. While this analysis was limited to the
most recent calendar year, conservative scaling of the CY2016 emissions
to account for the approximate 8\1/2\ years that the revised de minimis
levels have been effective in the state regulations results in total
emissions that are still much less than 1% of the total statewide
emissions inventory. In addition, the analysis of the de minimis
actions did not account for any emissions decreases that occurred as
part of the approved de minimis changes. As shown in these analyses,
the emissions exempted from minor NSR permitting requirements in
Arkansas as a result of the revised minor NSR permitting thresholds and
de minimis levels is limited in scope and makes up a small portion of
the statewide emissions inventory.
    On November 30, 2015, ADEQ provided supplemental information for
the July 26, 2010 SIP revision submittal. The November 30, 2015
supplement included a monitoring trends analysis that examined
statewide ambient air quality data since the adoption of the revised
minor NSR permitting thresholds and de minimis levels in 2008 for CO,
NOX, SO2, VOC, and PM10. This
supplemental air monitoring trends report is available in the docket
and may be accessed online at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R06-
OAR-2017-0435. With the exception of the ozone DVs at the Springdale,
Arkansas monitor located in Washington County, the DVs remain unchanged
or show downward trends since the 2008 adoption of the increased minor
NSR permitting thresholds and de minimis levels. In the November 30,
2015 supplement, ADEQ did further evaluation of the Springdale monitor
and determined that the increases in the monitored ozone DVs at this
monitor are likely due to the increases in mobile emissions in the
Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers MSA as a result of rapid population
growth in that area.\1\ Based on the ambient monitoring trend analysis,
it does not appear that the increased minor NSR permitting thresholds
and de minimis levels have negatively impacted ambient air quality or
interfered with the attainment of the NAAQS. In fact, for several
pollutants the ambient air quality has shown continued improvements as
manifested in the decreases in monitored DVs during this period, and
currently Arkansas does not have any areas classified as nonattainment
for any NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ADEQ's November 30, 2015 supplement stated that the
population of the Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers MSA has grown by
over 65,000 people in the 2007-2014 timeframe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to evaluating the scope of sources/emissions exempted
from minor NSR permitting requirements and the ambient air monitoring
trends following the adoption of the increased permitting thresholds
and de minimis levels, as described in the March 24, 2017 SIP submittal
ADEQ also conducted air quality modeling to examine the impacts of
emissions increases at the level of the revised minor NSR permitting
thresholds and de minimis levels. The modeling analysis was a combined
photochemical/dispersion modeling analysis using the Community
Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model and the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model
Improvement Committee (AERMIC) model (AERMOD). ADEQ employed this
combined modeling approach in an effort to look at both regional and
local scale impacts from emissions equal to the revised permitting
thresholds and de minimis levels for VOC, NOX,
SO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. An air
quality modeling report detailing the modeling approaches and
associated model results was submitted as part of the March 24, 2017
SIP revision submittal. This report is available in the docket and may
be accessed online at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-
0435. The CMAQ regional modeling was based on a previous statewide
modeling effort conducted for the 2008 base year and the 2008/2015
future year scenarios. For the minor NSR thresholds analysis, the
future year (2015) emissions inventory was modified to include eight
hypothetical point sources that were distributed throughout the state's
Air Quality Control Regions. In order to reflect a generic,
representative source, the stack parameters for the hypothetical
sources were set equal to median values based on the 2011 National
Emissions Inventory for Arkansas sources. The emission rates for each
of the hypothetical sources were set equal to the minor NSR permitting
thresholds/de minimis levels. While the regional CMAQ modeling analysis
did show increases in modeled concentrations resulting from the
addition of the hypothetical sources, the modeled impacts do not show
impacts that affect the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. To
examine local or near-field impacts, additional modeling of the eight
hypothetical sources was conducted using AERMOD. Similar to the
regional modeling, these sources were modeled with emission rates equal
to the minor NSR permitting thresholds/de minimis levels and stack
parameters were set equal to median stack parameter based on the 2011
NEI data. The daily AERMOD-derived concentrations were added to the
CMAQ-derived concentrations for the same location, using the CMAQ
values as ``background.'' The values determined for the statewide daily
maximum impacts are expected to represent the near-field concentrations
assuming worst-case impacts from threshold emission increases at a
range of locations throughout Arkansas. The modeled impacts from the
near-field modeling analysis are much less than the NAAQS for all
pollutants and averaging periods indicating that near-field impacts
associated with emissions equal to the proposed minor NSR thresholds
are not expected to result in NAAQS exceedances. As with the CMAQ-only
regional modeling, the combined AERMOD/CMAQ modeling analysis does show
increases in

modeled concentrations throughout the state, and the associated future
year DVs are also increased. However, the calculated future year DVs
were all less than the associated NAAQS. In addition, most pollutants
show decreased DVs in the future year case as compared with the current
year DVs.
    Based on our evaluation of the analyses conducted by ADEQ to
support the proposed minor NSR permitting thresholds and de minimis
levels, we find that the increases in these values are not expected to
interfere with attainment or reasonable further progress or any other
applicable requirement of the Act. The scope of affected sources,
permit actions, and the associated emissions that would be exempt from
minor NSR permitting requirements based on the revised permitting
thresholds and de minimis levels is a very small fraction of the
statewide emissions inventory. In addition, since implementing the
increased permitted thresholds/de minimis levels in 2008 for CO, VOC,
NOX, SO2, and PM10, air quality in
Arkansas has not been negatively impacted, and in many cases ambient
concentrations have shown overall decreasing trends. We also find that
the modeling analysis provided by ADEQ further supports the state's
finding that sources with emissions less than the revised minor NSR
permitting thresholds and de minimis levels are not anticipated to have
impacts that would cause or contribute to an exceedance of the NAAQS.
In addition, de minimis changes are still required to meet minor Source
Review requirements contained in Reg. 19, Chapter 4 including a
demonstration that the proposed modification will not interfere with
the attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS on a case-by-case basis.
Therefore, the EPA's evaluation finds that the proposed revisions to
the Arkansas SIP related to the revised minor NSR permitting thresholds
and de minimis levels are consistent with the requirements found in
Section 110(l) further supporting our proposed approval of the
revisions included in the July 26, 2010 and March 24, 2017 submittals
that are evaluated in this action.

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA proposes approval of the identified sections of the
revisions to the minor NSR permitting program as submitted as revisions
to the Arkansas SIP on July 26, 2010, and March 24, 2017, including
supplement information submitted on November 30, 2015, May 26, 2016,
and July 27, 2017. The EPA has made a determination in accordance with
the CAA and the EPA regulations at 40 CFR 51.160-51.165. Therefore,
under section 110 and part C of the Act, and for the reasons presented
above and in our accompanying TSD, the EPA proposes to approve the
following revisions to the Arkansas SIP that submitted on July 26,
2010, and March 24, 2017:
     Revisions to Reg. 19.407 (submitted 07/26/2010 and 03/24/
2017);
     Revisions to Reg. 19.407(C)(2)(a) and (b) (submitted 07/
26/2010 and 03/24/2017); and
     Revisions to Reg. 19.417 (submitted 07/26/2010).
    As previously stated, this proposed action does not remove or
modify the existing federal and state requirements that each NSR permit
action issued by ADEQ include an analysis completed by the Department
and their determination that the proposed construction or modification
authorized by the permit action will not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of a national ambient air quality standard.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by
reference revisions to the Arkansas regulations as described in the
Proposed Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make,
these documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this
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 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), 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011) and 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017);
     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 CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable 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 EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
proposed 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: September 12, 2017.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2017-19716 Filed 9-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 46)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 11079-11080]
[DOCID:fr10mr10-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 131

[EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596; FRL-9125-7]
RIN 2040-AF11

Extension of Public Comment Period for Water Quality Standards
for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of the public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On January 14, 2010, EPA signed a proposed rule entitled
``Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing
Waters.'' On January 26, 2010 (75 FR 4174), EPA published this proposed
rule. Written comments on the proposed rulemaking were to be submitted
to EPA on or before March 29, 2010 (a 60-day public comment period).
Since publication, the Agency has received several requests for
additional time to submit comments. Therefore, EPA is extending the
public comment period for 30 days.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 28, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2009-0596, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail to: Water Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Mail code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596.
    4. Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, EPA West Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-
0596. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or

in hard copy at a docket facility. The Office of Water (OW) Docket
Center is open from 8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The OW Docket Center telephone number is
(202) 566-2426, and the Docket address is OW Docket, EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Hearings: Additional public hearings will be held in Florida
in mid-April, 2010. The dates and locations of these hearings have yet
to be confirmed. Relevant information pertaining to these hearings will
be provided at the following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/
standards/rules/florida/Information on the public hearings will be
available shortly after publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. For further information, please contact Sharon Frey at 202-
566-1480 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Danielle Salvaterra, U.S. EPA
Headquarters, Office of Water, Mailcode: 4305T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 4, 2010.
Peter S. Silva,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. 2010-5103 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47485-47489]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16552]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95386; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2022-43]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 6.4-O

July 28, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on July 21, 2022, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.4-O (Series of Options Open
for Trading), Commentary .07 regarding the Short Term Option Series
Program. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.4-O (Series of Options Open
for Trading). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Commentary
.07 to Rule 6.4-O to account for conflicts between different provisions
within the Short Term Option Series (``STOS'') rule. The Exchange notes
that this proposal is substantively identical to the strike interval
proposal recently submitted by Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``Nasdaq ISE'') and
approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95085 (June 10,
2022), 87 FR 36353 (June 16, 2022) (SR-ISE-2022-10) (approval order)
(``ISE Strike Interval Clarification''). The Exchange notes that the
rule change set forth in the ISE Strike Interval Clarification will
be implemented on August 1, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2021, the Exchange amended Rule 6.4-O, Commentary .07
(``Commentary .07'') to limit the intervals between strikes in equity
options listed as part of

the Short Term Option Series Program (the ``STOS Program''), excluding
Exchange-Traded Fund Shares \5\ and Index-Linked Securities,\6\ that
have an expiration date more than twenty-one days from the listing date
(``Strike Interval Proposal'').\7\ The Strike Interval Proposal adopted
a new paragraph (f) to Commentary .07 that included a table intended to
specify the applicable strike intervals for STOS in equity options,
excluding Exchange-Traded Fund Shares and Index-Linked Securities,
which have an expiration date more than twenty-one days from the
listing date. The newly adopted Commentary .07(f) was intended to
establish strike intervals that would supersede those set forth in
Commentary .07(e).\8\ The Strike Interval Proposal was designed to
reduce the density of strike intervals that would be listed in later
weeks, within the STOS Program, by utilizing limitations for intervals
between strikes which have an expiration date more than twenty-one days
from the listing date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term Exchange-Traded Fund Shares includes Exchange-
listed securities representing interests in open-end unit investment
trusts or open-end management investment companies that hold
securities (including fixed income securities) based on an index or
a portfolio of securities. See Rule 1.1.
    \6\ The term Index-Linked Securities is the collective
definition for the following securities: ``Equity Index-Linked
Securities'', ``Commodity-Linked Securities'', ``Currency-Linked
Securities'', ``Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities'', ``Futures-
Linked Securities'', and ``Multifactor Index-Linked Securities.''
See Rule 5.2-E(j)(6).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92335 (July 7,
2021), 86 FR 36844 (July 13, 2021) (SR-NYSEArca-2021-55)
(immediately effective Strike Interval Proposal to limit STOS
Intervals between strikes).
    \8\ See Rule 6.4-O, Commentary .07(e) (providing in relevant
part that ``[t]he strike price interval for Short Term Option Series
may be $0.50 or greater for option classes that trade in $1 strike
price intervals and are in the Short Term Option Series Program. If
the class does not trade in $1 strike price intervals, the strike
price interval for Short Term Option Series may be (i) $0.50 or
greater where the strike price is less than $100; (ii) $1.00 or
greater where the strike price is between $100 and $150; or (iii)
$2.50 or greater for strike prices greater than $150.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, the Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .07(f), and
delete note 4 thereto, to alleviate any ambiguity regarding the
appropriate strike interval per Commentary .07 (i.e., whether to apply
paragraph (e) or (f) of Commentary .07).
    Currently, the table within Commentary .07(f) is as follows: \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Rule 6.4-O, Commentary .07(f), note 1 (describing the
Share Price); note 2 (describing the Average Daily Volume or
``ADV''); and note 3 (providing that newly-listed options will not
be subject to subparagraph (f) until after the end of the first full
calendar quarter following the date the option class was first
listed for trading on any options market).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Share price
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Tier                         Average daily volume                          $25 to less     $75 to less    $150 to less       $500 or
                                                                           Less than $25     than $75        than $150       than $500        greater
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................  Greater than 5,000...............           $0.50           $1.00           $1.00           $5.00           $5.00
2....................................  Greater than 1,000 to 5,000......            1.00            1.00            1.00            5.00           10.00
3....................................  0 to 1,000.......................            2.50            5.00            5.00            5.00           10.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first sentence of Commentary .07(f) provides that
``[n]otwithstanding subparagraph (e) above, when Short Term Option
Series in equity options (excluding options on Exchange-Traded Fund
Shares and Index-Linked Securities) have an expiration more than 21
days from the listing date, the strike interval for each option class
will be based on the table below.''
    To alleviate ambiguity, the Exchange proposes to delete the first
clause of Commentary .07(f) (i.e., to delete ``Notwithstanding
subparagraph (e)''), and to add language specifying that the strike
intervals in Commentary .07(f) would apply. Specifically, proposed
Commentary .07(f) would provide that ``[w]hen Short Term Option Series
in equity options (excluding options on Exchange-Traded Fund Shares and
Index-Linked Securities) have an expiration more than 21 days from the
listing date, the table below, which specifies the applicable interval
for listing, will apply'' (emphasis supplied). The Exchange proposes to
add the phrase ``which specifies the applicable interval for listing''
to make clear that the table within Commentary .07(f), which provides
for the listing of intervals based on certain parameters (i.e., average
daily volume and share price) dictates the permitted intervals, unless
Commentary .07(e) specifically provides for a greater interval (as
described below).
    To add further clarity, the Exchange proposes to add a new sentence
within Commentary .07(f), which would state that ``[t]o the extent
there is a conflict between applying Commentary .07(e) and the below
table, the greater interval would apply.'' Today, there are instances
where a conflict is presented as between the application of the table
within Commentary .07(f) and the rule text within Commentary .07(e)
with respect to the correct interval. Adding the proposed sentence
would make clear to OTP Holders and OTP Firms the applicable intervals
where there is a conflict between the rule text within subparagraph (f)
and the rule text within subparagraph (e), thereby providing certainty
as to the outcome. Specifically, subparagraph (e) would govern only in
the event that the strike interval would be greater. Should
subparagraph (e) provide for a lesser strike interval, it would not
apply (and subparagraph (f) would apply). The following examples are
designed to illustrate this point.
    Example 1: Assume a Tier 1 stock that closed on the last day of Q1
with a quarterly share price higher than $75 but less than $150.
Therefore, utilizing the table within Commentary .07(f), the interval
would be $1.00 for strikes added during Q2 even for strikes above $150.
Next, assume during Q2 the share price rises above $150. Utilizing only
the table within Commentary .07(f), the interval would be $1.00 even
though the stock is now trading above $150 because the Share Price for
purposes of Commentary .07(f) was calculated utilizing data from the
prior calendar quarter. However, a separate rule, Commentary .07(e),
provides that the Exchange may list a STOS at $2.50 intervals where the
strike price is above $150. In other words, there is a potential
conflict between the permitted strike intervals above $150. In this
example, Commentary .07(f) would specify a $1.00 interval whereas
Commentary .07(e) would specify a $2.50 interval. As proposed, the
Exchange proposes to apply the greater interval. The greater interval
would then be $2.50 as per Commentary .07(e) in this scenario.
Therefore, the following strikes would be eligible to list: $152.5 and
$157.5. For strikes less than $150, the following

strikes would be eligible to list: $149 and $148 because STOS with
expiration dates more than 21 days from the listing date as well as
STOS with expiration dates less than 21 days from the listing date
would both be eligible to list $1 intervals pursuant to paragraphs (e)
and (f) to Commentary .07.
    Example 2: Assume a Tier 2 stock that closed on the last day of Q1
with a quarterly share price less than $25. Therefore, utilizing the
table within Commentary .07(f), the interval would be $1.00 for strikes
added during Q2 even for strikes above $25. Next, assume during Q2 the
share price rises above $100. Utilizing only the table within
Commentary .07(f), the interval would be $1.00 even though the stock is
now trading above $100 because the Share Price for purposes of
Commentary .07(f), was calculated utilizing data from the prior
calendar quarter. However, Commentary .07(e), provides that the
Exchange may list a STOS at $1.00 intervals where the strike price is
above $100. As proposed, the Exchange would apply the greater interval,
however, the $1.00 interval is the same in both cases in this scenario
and therefore there is no conflict. Now assume during the quarter the
price rose above $150. Utilizing only the table within Commentary
.07(f), the interval would continue to be $1.00 because the Share Price
relied on data from the prior calendar quarter, however, pursuant to
Commentary .07(e), the interval would be $2.50 for strike prices above
$150. The greater interval would then be $2.50 as per Commentary .07(e)
in this scenario.
    Example 3: Assume a Tier 3 stock that closed on the last day of Q1
with a quarterly share price less than $25. Therefore, utilizing the
table within Commentary .07(f), the interval would be $2.50 for strikes
added during Q2 even for strikes above $25. Next, assume during Q2 the
share price rises above $100. Utilizing only the table within
Commentary .07(f), the interval would be $2.50 even though the stock
was trading above $100 because the Share Price for purposes of
Commentary .07(f), was calculated utilizing data from the prior
calendar quarter. However, Commentary .07(e) provides that the Exchange
may list a STOS at $1.00 intervals where the strike price is above
$100. The greater interval would then be $2.50 as per the table in
Commentary .07(f) in this scenario.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to delete the last sentence of
the first paragraph of Commentary .07(f), which states that ``[t]he
below table indicates the applicable strike intervals and supersedes
subparagraph (d) above, which permits additional series to be opened
for trading on the Exchange when the Exchange deems it necessary to
maintain an orderly market, to meet customer demand or when the market
price of the underlying security moves substantially from the exercise
price or prices of the series already opened.'' Commentary .07(d)
describes adding series of options in the STOS Program.\10\ The table
within Commentary .07(f) impacts permissible strike intervals. Because
there should be no conflict between strike intervals set forth in
Commentary .07(f) and details about adding option series set forth in
Commentary .07(d), the Exchange believes that deleting this reference
will avoid potential confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Commentary .07(d), regarding ``Additional Series,''
provides that ``[i]f the Exchange opens less than thirty (30) Short
Term Option Series for a Short Term Option Expiration Date,
additional series may be opened for trading on the Exchange when the
Exchange deems it necessary to maintain an orderly market, to meet
customer demand or when the market price of the underlying security
moves substantially from the exercise price or prices of the series
already opened.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, consistent with the foregoing, the Exchange proposes to
delete note 4 to the table in Commentary .07(f), which provides that
``[n]otwithstanding the limitations imposed by this subparagraph (f),
this subparagraph (f) does not amend the range of strikes for Short
Term Option Series that may be listed pursuant to subparagraph (e)
above,'' which deletion would add clarity and consistency to Commentary
.07 and limit the potential for confusion or ambiguity. In addition,
the Exchange believes this sentence is unnecessary given the foregoing
changes that propose to clarify the circumstances when either
subparagraph (f) or subparagraph (e) applies to strike intervals.
Implementation
    The Exchange proposes to implement this rule change on August 1,
2022, consistent with the date of ISE's rule change per the ISE Strike
Interval Clarification.\11\ The Exchange will issue a Trader Update to
notify OTP Holders and OTP Firms of the implementation date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See ISE Strike Interval Clarification, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\12\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \13\ requirements that the rules
of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The proposed rule maintains the goal of the Strike Interval Proposal
and continues to limit the intervals between strikes listed in the STOS
Program that have an expiration date more than twenty-one days.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to add clarifying language to the first
sentence of Commentary .07(f), is consistent with the Act because it
will make clear that the only permitted intervals are as specified in
the table within Commentary .07(f), except in the case where Commentary
.07(e) provides for a greater interval. This amendment will bring
greater transparency to the rule.
    Adopting a new sentence within Commentary .07(f) to address a
potential conflict between provisions in the STOS rule, specifically as
between the application of the table within Commentary .07(f) and the
rule text within Commentary .07(e), with respect to the correct
interval is consistent with the Act. Proposed Commentary .07(f) will
make clear to OTP Holders and OTP Firms the applicable intervals when
there is a conflict between the rule text within Commentary .07(f) and
the rule text within Commentary .07(e), thereby providing certainty as
to the outcome. Further, the proposed new rule text promotes just and
equitable principles of trade by adding transparency to the manner in
which the Exchange implements its listing rules, and protects investors
and the general public by removing uncertainty.
    The Exchange believes that deleting the last sentence of the first
paragraph of Commentary .07(f) is consistent with the Act. The table
within Commentary .07(f) supersedes other rules pertaining to strike
intervals, but the table does [sic] is not intended to supersede (or
conflict with) rules governing the addition of options series, per
Commentary .07(d). Therefore, deleting the reference to Commentary
.07(d) in proposed Commentary .07(f) will avoid confusion regarding the
application of

each paragraph, which clarity would protect investors and the general
public.
    Removing note 4 to the table in Commentary .07(f) is consistent
with the Act because while the range limitations continue to be
applicable, the strike ranges do not conflict with strike intervals,
rendering the sentence unnecessary and potentially confusing. Also, the
proposed rule text within Commentary .07(f) otherwise indicates when
Commentary .07(e) would apply.
    As noted here, the Strike Interval Proposal was designed to reduce
the density of strike intervals that would be listed in later weeks,
within the STOS Program, by utilizing limitations for intervals between
strikes which have an expiration date more than twenty-one days from
the listing date. The Exchange's proposal furthers this goal as it
intends to continue to remove certain strike intervals where there
exist clusters of strikes whose characteristics closely resemble one
another and, therefore, do not serve different trading needs, rendering
these strikes less useful.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For example, two strikes that are densely clustered may
have the same risk properties and may also be the same percentage
out-of-the money.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, the Strike Interval Proposal will continue to reduce the
number of strikes listed on the Exchange, allowing Lead Market Makers
and Market Makers to expend their capital in the options market in a
more efficient manner, thereby improving overall market quality on the
Exchange.
    Additionally, by making clear that the greater interval would
control as between the Commentary .07(f) and Commentary .07(e), the
Exchange is reducing the number of strikes listed in a manner
consistent with the intent of the Strike Interval Proposal (i.e., to
reduce strikes which were farther out in time). The result of this
clarification is to select wider strike intervals for STOS in equity
options that have an expiration date more than twenty-one days from the
listing date. This proposed rule change would harmonize strike
intervals as between inner weeklies (those having less than 21 days
from the listing date) and outer weeklies (those having more than 21
days from the listing date) so that strike intervals are not widening
as the listing date approaches.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not designed to impact competition but rather is designed to clarify a
potential ambiguity regarding strike intervals that exists in the
current STOS rule.
    The Exchange anticipates that this proposal, which is consistent
with a Commission-approved rule of another options exchange, will be
adopted by other option exchanges and therefore would have no impact on
to competition.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See ISE Strike Interval Clarification, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to alleviating potential ambiguity, the proposed rule
will further the goal of limiting the number of STOS Program strike
intervals available for quoting and trading on the Exchange for all OTP
Holders and OTP Firms. The Exchange continues to balance the needs of
market participants by continuing to offer a number of strikes to meet
a market participant's investment objective. The Exchange's Strike
Interval Proposal does not impose an undue burden on inter-market
competition as this Strike Interval Proposal does not impact the
listings available at another self-regulatory organization.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \17\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \18\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \19\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\20\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has
requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the Exchange may implement the proposed rule change on August 1, 2022--
the same time other exchanges are implementing an identical change.\21\
The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because the proposed rule change does not raise any new or novel
issues. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative
delay.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95085 (June 10,
2022), 87 FR 36353 (June 16, 2022) (SR-ISE-2022-10) (Order Approving
a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, to Amend ISE
Options 4, Section 5, Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading).
    \22\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of 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 change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2022-43 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2022-43. This
file number should be included on the

subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and
review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The
Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website
(http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all
subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the
proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all
written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do
not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEArca-2022-43 and should be submitted on or before August 24, 2022.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-16552 Filed 8-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 121)]
[Notices]
[Page 34678]
[DOCID:fr25jn07-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD07-12-000]

Reliability Standard Compliance and Enforcement in Regions With
Independent System Operators and Regional Transmission Organizations;
Notice of Technical Conference

June 15, 2007.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will hold a
technical conference in the above-referenced proceeding on September
18, 2007, at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington DC. It will be held in the Commission Meeting
Room (Room 2C) starting at 9:30 a.m. ET. The conference will explore
issues associated with cost recovery of penalties for Reliability
Standard violations assessed against Independent System Operators and
Regional Transmission Organizations, as set forth in Midwest
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., 119 FERC ] 61,222 (May
31, 2007) in Docket Nos. ER07-701-000 and AD07-12-000.
    This notice is to alert you to the date of the conference. Further
notices will define the issues to be explored in greater detail. The
conference will be transcribed and Web cast. All interested parties are
invited, and there is no registration fee to attend.
    Questions about the conference should be directed to Don Lekang by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-12183 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P