[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 1, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54233-54235]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19082]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0187; Airspace Docket No. 19-ASO-27]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment and Removal of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes;
Eastern United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends 6 jet routes, removes 4 jet routes, and
removes 1 high altitude area navigation (RNAV) route in the eastern
United States. This action is in support of the Northeast Corridor
Atlantic Coast Route Project to improve the efficiency of the National
Airspace System (NAS) and reduce dependency on ground-based
navigational systems.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, November 5, 2020. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Order is also available for inspection
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Hook, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would modify the route structure as necessary to
preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No.
FAA-2020-0187 in the Federal Register (85 FR 16289; March 23, 2020),
amending 9 jet routes, removing 22 jet routes and removing 1 high
altitude RNAV route in the eastern United States in support of the
Northeast Corridor Atlantic Coast Route Project. The NPRM proposed to
amend the following existing routes: J-2, J-14, J-24, J-37, J-39, J-42,
J-52, J-61, and J-68. In addition, the NPRM proposed to remove the
following existing routes: J-55, J-62, J-79, J-109, J-121, J-150, J-
165, J-174, J-191, J-193, J-207, J-209, J-222, J-225, J-230, J-506, J-
561, J-563, J-570, J-573, J-582, J-585 and Q-108. Interested parties
were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting
written comments on the proposal. One comment was received expressing
overall agreement with the proposal.
    Jet routes are published in paragraph 2004; and United States Area
Navigation Routes are published in paragraph 2006; of FAA Order
7400.11D dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The jet routes and RNAV
route listed in this document would be subsequently amended in, or
removed, respectively, from the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and

Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15,
2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

Differences From the Proposal

    As the NPRM was published, the United States was undergoing the
effects of the world-wide COVID-19 pandemic. The restrictions imposed
to confront the pandemic impacted the ability of air traffic control
facilities to conduct the required air traffic controller training to
amend or remove these routes and the necessary administrative actions
to decommission the NAVAIDs.
    As a result, the FAA is limiting the scope of this rule to amending
the following 6 jet routes: J-2, J-37, J-39, J-55, J-61, and J-121; and
removing the 4 existing jet routes and 1 high altitude area navigation
(RNAV) route: J-62, J-109, J-230, J-570, and Q-108. The descriptions of
these routes are the same as proposed in the NPRM; however, in the
original proposal the FAA was to remove J-55 and J-121; due to the
impacts of COVID-19 the FAA will amend them as noted in this rule, thus
retaining the air navigation services they provide. The remaining
routes contained in the NPRM are removed from this rule and will be
addressed by separate rulemaking action at a later date.
    The J-37 route description information contained in ``The
Proposal'' section and in the regulatory text of the NPRM contained an
editorial error. Prior to publication of the NPRM, the FAA published a
rule for Docket No. FAA-2018-0817 in the Federal Register (85 FR 3814,
January 23, 2020) amending J-37 by removing the route segment between
the Hobby, TX, VOR/DME and the Harvey, LA, VORTAC. The J-37 amendment,
effective March 26, 2020, is included in this rule.
    Additionally, in the NPRM for this rule, the eastern end point for
the J-2 route was defined by the intersection of the Crestview, FL,
091[deg] and the Seminole, FL, 290[deg] radials. Subsequent to the
NPRM, the Seminole, FL radial was replaced by the Montgomery, AL,
173[deg] radial to define the intersection. This rule amends that point
to read ``the intersection of Crestview, FL, 091[deg] and Montgomery,
AL, 173[deg] radials'' (depicted on aeronautical charts as the DEFUN,
FL, INT). Also, in the preamble of the NPRM, in describing J-61, the
EDDYS, NC fix was incorrectly identified as the WETRO, NC waypoint. The
correct reference is included in this rule.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by amending 6 jet routes, removing 4 jet routes, and removing 1
high altitude area navigation (RNAV) route in the eastern United
States. This action will support the Northeast Corridor Atlantic Coast
Route Project by amending and removing certain jet route segments that
are being replaced by RNAV routing. Additionally, the proposed jet
route changes will reduce aeronautical chart clutter by removing
unneeded route segments.
    The jet route changes are as follows:
    J-2: J-2 currently extends between the Mission Bay, CA, VORTAC, and
the Taylor, FL, VORTAC. This action removes the segment of the route
between the Seminole, FL, VORTAC and the Taylor, FL, VORTAC. As
amended, J-2 extends between the Mission Bay VORTAC and intersection of
the Crestview, FL, 091[deg] and Montgomery, AL, 173[deg] radials
(depicted on aeronautical charts as the DEFUN, FL, INT).
    J-37: J-37 currently consist of two separate segments: between the
Harvey, LA, VORTAC and the Coyle, NJ, VORTAC; followed by a gap; and
then between the Kennedy, NY, VOR/DME, and the Massena, NY, VORTAC. As
amended, J-37 will extend in three separate segments: The Harvey, LA,
VORTAC and the Montgomery, AL, VORTAC; the Lynchburg, VA, VOR/DME and
the Coyle, NJ, VORTAC; and the Kennedy, NY, VOR/DME and the Albany, NY,
VORTAC.
    J-39: J-39 currently extends between the Crestview, FL, VORTAC, and
the Rosewood, OH, VORTAC. This action will remove the portion of the
route between the Crestview, FL and the Montgomery, AL, VORTAC. The
amended route will extend between Montgomery, AL and Rosewood, OH.
    J-55: J-55 currently extends in two parts: Between the Charleston,
SC, VORTAC, and INT Hopewell, VA, 030[deg] and Nottingham, MD, 174[deg]
radials; followed by a gap in the route, and resuming between the Sea
Isle, NJ, VORTAC, and the Presque Isle, ME, VOR/DME. The amended route
will extend in two parts: From INT Flat Rock, VA, 212[deg] and Raleigh
Durham, NC, 224[deg] radials and INT Hopewell, VA, 030[deg] and
Nottingham, MD, 174[deg] radials, and resuming from the Sea Isle, NJ,
VORTAC, and the Presque Isle, ME, VOR/DME.
    J-61: J-61 currently extends between the intersection of the Dixon,
NC, NDB 023[deg] and Nottingham, MD, VORTAC 174[deg] radials (the
EDDYS, NC fix), and the Philipsburg, PA, VORTAC. This action will
remove the segment between the EDDYS fix, and the Nottingham VORTAC.
The amended route will extend between the Westminster, MD, VORTAC, and
the Philipsburg VORTAC.
    J-62: J-62 currently extends between the Robbinsville, NJ, VORTAC,
and INT Hopewell, VA, 030[deg] and Nottingham, MD, 174[deg] radials;
followed by a gap in the route, and resuming between the Sea Isle, NJ,
VORTAC, and the Presque Isle, ME, VOR/DME. The FAA will remove the
entire route. Alternative routing is available via J-222 to J-79.
    J-109: J-109 currently extends between the Wilmington, NC, VORTAC,
and the Linden, VA, VORTAC. The FAA will delete the entire route.
    J-121: J-121 currently extends between the Charleston, SC, VORTAC,
and the Kennebunk, ME, VOR/DME. The amended route will extend between
the Charleston, SC, VORTAC and INT Sea Isle, NJ, 050[deg] and Cedar
Lake, NJ, 091[deg] radials.
    J-230: J-230 currently extends between the Robbinsville, NJ,
VORTAC, and the Bellaire, OH, VOR/DME. The FAA will delete the entire
route.
    J-570: J-570 currently extends between the Albany, NY, VORTAC, and
the Mirabel, PQ, Canada, VOR/DME, excluding the portion outside of the
United States. The FAA will delete the entire route.
    In addition to the above jet route changes, the FAA proposes to
remove one high altitude RNAV route as follows:
    Q-108: Q-108 currently extends between the GADAY, FL, WP and the
HKUNA, FL, fix. The FAA will delete the entire route.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic

procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule,
when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action of amending 6 jet routes,
removing 4 jet routes, and removing 1 high altitude area navigation
(RNAV) route in the eastern United States qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with
FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,
paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further
environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify
classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see
14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas;
Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action
is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental
impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding
Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for
factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded
action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further
analysis. The FAA has determined no extraordinary circumstances exist
that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 2004 Jet Routes

* * * * *

J-2 [Amended]

    From Mission Bay, CA; Imperial, CA; Bard, AZ; INT Bard 089[deg]
and Gila Bend, AZ, 261[deg]radials; Gila Bend; Tucson, AZ; El Paso,
TX; Fort Stockton, TX; Junction, TX; San Antonio, TX; Humble, TX;
Lake Charles, LA; Fighting Tiger, LA; Semmes, AL; Crestview, FL; to
INT Crestview, FL, 091[deg] and Montgomery, AL, 173[deg] radials.
* * * * *

J-37 [Amended]

    From Harvey, LA; Semmes, AL; to Montgomery, AL. From Lynchburg,
VA; Gordonsville, VA; Brooke, VA; INT Brooke 067[deg] and Coyle, NJ,
226[deg] radials; to Coyle. From Kennedy, NY; Kingston, NY; to
Albany, NY.
* * * * *

J-39 [Amended]

    From Montgomery, AL; Vulcan, AL, Nashville, TN; Louisville, KY,
to Rosewood, OH.
* * * * *

J-55 [Amended]

    From INT Flat Rock, VA, 212[deg] and Raleigh-Durham, NC,
224[deg] radials; Raleigh-Durham; INT Raleigh-Durham 035[deg] and
Hopewell, VA, 234[deg] radials; Hopewell; INT Hopewell 030[deg] and
Nottingham, MD, 174[deg] radials. From Sea Isle, NJ; INT Sea Isle
050[deg]and Hampton, NY, 223[deg] radials; Hampton; Providence, RI;
Boston, MA; Kennebunk, ME; to Presque Isle, ME.
* * * * *

J-61 [Amended]

    From Westminster, MD; to Philipsburg, PA.
* * * * *

J-62 [Remove]

* * * * *

J-109 [Remove]

* * * * *

J-121 [Amended]

    From Charleston, SC; Kinston, NC; Norfolk, VA; INT Norfolk
023[deg] and Snow Hill, MD, 211[deg] radials; Snow Hill; Sea Isle,
NJ; INT Sea Isle, NJ 050[deg] and Cedar Lake, NJ 091[deg] radials.
* * * * *

J-230 [Remove]

* * * * *

J-570 [Remove]

* * * * *

Paragraph 2006 United States Area Navigation Routes

* * * * *

Q-108 [Remove]

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 26, 2020.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2020-19082 Filed 8-31-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 20 (Thursday, January 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5448-5450]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01700]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-1999-D-0081]

Testing of Retroviral Vector-Based Human Gene Therapy Products
for Replication Competent Retrovirus During Product Manufacture and
Patient Follow-up; Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a final guidance entitled ``Testing of Retroviral
Vector-Based Human Gene Therapy Products for Replication Competent
Retrovirus During Product Manufacture and Patient Follow-up; Guidance
for Industry.'' The guidance provides

sponsors of retroviral vector-based human gene therapy products
recommendations regarding the testing for replication competent
retrovirus (RCR) during the manufacture of retroviral vector-based gene
therapy products, and during follow-up monitoring of patients who have
received retroviral vector-based gene therapy products. Recommendations
include the identification and amount of material to be tested, and
general testing methods. In addition, recommendations are provided on
monitoring patients for evidence of retroviral infection after
administration of retroviral vector-based gene therapy products. The
guidance supersedes the document entitled ``Guidance for Industry:
Supplemental Guidance on Testing for Replication Competent Retrovirus
in Retroviral Vector Based Gene Therapy Products and During Follow-up
of Patients in Clinical Trials Using Retroviral Vectors,'' dated
November 2006. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the
draft guidance of the same title dated July 2018.

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on January 30, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as
follows:

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-1999-D-0081 for ``Testing of Retroviral Vector-Based Human Gene
Therapy Products for Replication Competent Retrovirus During Product
Manufacture and Patient Follow-up; Guidance for Industry.'' 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.
     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.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the
Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing
your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling
CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Segal, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-7911.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a document entitled ``Testing
of Retroviral Vector-Based Human Gene Therapy Products for Replication
Competent Retrovirus During Product Manufacture and Patient Follow-up;
Guidance for Industry.'' The guidance provides sponsors of retroviral
vector-based human gene therapy products recommendations regarding the
testing for RCR during the manufacture of retroviral vector-based gene
therapy products, and during follow-up monitoring of patients who have
received retroviral vector-based gene therapy products. Recommendations
are also provided for RCR testing during manufacture, including
identification and amount of material to be tested, and general testing
methods. In addition, recommendations are provided on monitoring
patients for evidence of retroviral infection after administration of
retroviral vector-based gene therapy products. The guidance supersedes
the document entitled ``Guidance for Industry: Supplemental Guidance on
Testing for Replication Competent Retrovirus in Retroviral Vector Based
Gene Therapy Products and During Follow-up of Patients in Clinical
Trials Using Retroviral Vectors'' dated November 2006. The guidance
also supplements two other final guidance

documents, entitled ``Long Term Follow-Up After Administration of Human
Gene Therapy Products; Guidance for Industry'' and ``Chemistry,
Manufacturing, and Control Information for Human Gene Therapy
Investigational New Drug Applications; Guidance for Industry,''
announced elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
    In the Federal Register of July 12, 2018 (83 FR 32309), FDA
announced the availability of the draft guidance of the same title
dated July 2018. FDA received several comments on the draft guidance
and those comments were considered as the guidance was finalized. In
addition, editorial changes were made to improve clarity. The guidance
announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance dated July 2018.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents FDA's
current thinking on testing of retroviral vector-based human gene
therapy products for replication competent retrovirus during product
manufacture and patient follow-up. It does not establish any rights for
any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an
alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable
statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0014; and the collections of information in 21
CFR part 601 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
either https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information-biologics/biologics-guidances or
https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: January 27, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-01700 Filed 1-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 199 (Friday, October 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 63920]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26598]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13861-000]

Eldorado Pumped Storage, LLC.; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On October 14, 2010, Eldorado Pumped Storage, LLC., filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the
Eldorado Pumped Storage Project (Eldorado Project or project) to be
located in hills west of the Eldorado Valley in Clark County, Nevada,
south of Las Vegas, Nevada. 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 project would consist of the following: (1) An upper dam with a
height of 180 feet, a crest length of 1,970 feet, forming a reservoir
having a total storage capacity of 10,680 acre-feet at a normal maximum
operating elevation of 3,570 feet above mean sea level (msl); (2) a
secondary upper dam with a height of 110 feet, a crest length of 1,512
feet; (3) a lower dam with a height of 10 to 110 feet, a crest length
of 10,040 feet, forming a reservoir having a total storage capacity of
9,500 acre-feet at a normal maximum operating elevation of 2,420 feet
msl; (4) 7,060 feet of conduit; (5) a powerhouse containing one 250-
megawatt (MW), one 100-MW, and one 50-MW reversible pump turbine,
tentatively located just west of the lower reservoir, at approximately
a depth of 250 feet below ground level; and (6) a new 5.3-mile-long,
230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line to either the existing Marketplace,
McCullough, or Eldorado substations. The tentative source for initial
fill of water and evaporation compensation would be the Southern Nevada
Water Authority. The specific routing for that water delivery would be
identified during the study period. The estimated annual generation of
the project would be 1,226 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Eldorado Pumped Storage, LLC. 1210 W. Franklin
St., Ste. 2, Boise, ID 83702; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Matt Buhyoff; 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. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13861-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: October 7, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-26598 Filed 10-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 8008]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02958]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-539-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Compliance filing: TETLP Ministerial Compliance Filing
RP21-1001-000 to be effective 9/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/4/22.
    Accession Number: 20220204-5199.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/16/22.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 7, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-02958 Filed 2-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 208 (Monday, October 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50196-50198]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23484]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81935; File No. SR-GEMX-2017-49]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 723
To Remove Obsolete Rule Text

October 24, 2017.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 17, 2017, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (``GEMX'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 723 (Price Improvement
Mechanism for Crossing Transactions) to remove obsolete rule text.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at 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 Exchange included statements

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 723 (Price Improvement
Mechanism for Crossing Transactions) to remove obsolete rule text.
    Rule 723 sets forth the requirements for the PIM, which was adopted
as part of its application to be registered as a national securities
exchange under its previous name of Topaz Exchange, LLC (``Topaz'').\3\
Certain aspects of PIM were adopted on a pilot basis (``Pilot'');
specifically, the termination of the exposure period by unrelated
orders, and no minimum size requirement of orders eligible for PIM. The
Pilot expired on January 18, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70050 (July 26,
2013), 78 FR 46622 (August 1, 2013) (File No. 10-209) (``Exchange
Approval Order''). The Exchange subsequently changed its name to ISE
Gemini. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71586 (February 20,
2014), 79 FR 10861 (February 26, 2014) (SR-Topaz-2014-06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 12, 2016, the Exchange filed with the Commission a
proposed rule change to make the Pilot permanent, and also to change
the requirements for providing price improvement for Agency Orders of
less than 50 option contracts (other than auctions involving Complex
Orders) where the National Best Bid and Offer (``NBBO'') is only $0.01
wide.\4\ The Commission approved this proposal on January 18, 2017.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79541 (December 13,
2016), 81 FR 91974 (December 19, 2017) (SR-ISEGemini-2016-23). The
Exchange notes that, on April 3, 2017, ISE Gemini, LLC was renamed
Nasdaq GEMX, LLC to reflect its new placement within the Nasdaq,
Inc. corporate structure in connection with the March 9, 2016
acquisition by Nasdaq of the capital stock of U.S. Exchange
Holdings, and the indirect acquisition all of the interests of the
International Securities Exchange, LLC, ISE Gemini, LLC and ISE
Mercury, LLC. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80248 (March
15, 2017), 82 FR 14547 (March 21, 2017) (SR-ISEGemini-2017-13).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79840 (January 18,
2017), 82 FR 8474 (January 25, 2017) (SR-ISEGemini-2016-23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In modifying the requirements for price improvement for Agency
Orders of less than 50 contracts, the Exchange proposed to amend Rule
723(b) to require Electronic Access Members to provide at least $0.01
price improvement for an Agency Order if that order is for less than 50
contracts and if the difference between the NBBO is $0.01.
    The Exchange adopted a member conduct standard to implement this
requirement during the time pursuant to which ISE Gemini symbols were
migrating from the ISE Gemini platform to the Nasdaq INET platform. At
the time it proposed the member conduct standard, the Exchange
anticipated that the migration to the Nasdaq platform would be complete
on or before April 15, 2017. Accordingly, Rule 723(b) stated that, for
the period beginning January 19, 2017 until a date specified by the
Exchange in a Regulatory Information Circular, which date shall be no
later than April 15, 2017, if the Agency Order is for less than 50
option contracts, and if the difference between the NBBO is $0.01, an
Electronic Access Member shall not enter a Crossing Transaction unless
such Crossing Transaction is entered at one minimum price improvement
increment better than the NBBO on the opposite side of the market from
the Agency Order, and better than the limit order or quote on the
Nasdaq GEMX order book on the same side of the Agency Order. This
requirement applied regardless of whether the Agency Order is for the
account of a public customer, or where the Agency Order is for the
account of a broker dealer or any other person or entity that is not a
Public Customer.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'') filed a proposed rule change at
the same time as the Exchange to adopt the same price improvement
requirement. To enforce this requirement, ISE also amended its Rule
1614 (Imposition of Fines for Minor Rule Violations). Specifically,
ISE added Rule 1614(d)(4), which provides that any Member who enters
an order into PIM for less than 50 contracts, while the National
Best Bid or Offer spread is $0.01, must provide price improvement of
at least one minimum price improvement increment better than the
NBBO on the opposite side of the market from the Agency Order, which
increment may not be smaller than $0.01. Failure to provide such
price improvement will result in members being subject to the
following fines: $500 for the second offense, $1,000 for the third
offense, and $2,500 for the fourth offense. Subsequent offenses will
subject the member to formal disciplinary action. The Exchange will
review violations on a monthly cycle to assess these violations.
This provision was to be in effect for the period beginning January
19, 2017 until a date specified by the Exchange in a Regulatory
Information Circular, which date shall be no later than until
September 15, 2017. The Exchange incorporated this provision by
reference. See GEMX Chapter 16 (Discipline). Contemporaneous with
this proposal, ISE is now submitting a filing to remove the member
conduct standard for its price improvement rule and the
corresponding provision in Rule 1614 for violations of that
standard. As such, GEMX will no longer incorporate this provision of
Rule 1614 by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting the price improvement requirement for Agency Orders of
less than 50 contracts, the Exchange also proposed to amend Rule 723(b)
to adopt a systems-based mechanism to implement this requirement, which
shall be effective following the migration of a symbol to the Nasdaq
INET platform. Under this provision, if the Agency Order is for less
than 50 option contracts, and if the difference between the NBBO is
$0.01, the Crossing Transaction must be entered at one minimum price
improvement increment better than the NBBO on the opposite side of the
market from the Agency Order and better than the limit order or quote
on the Nasdaq GEMX order book on the same side of the Agency Order.
    By April 15, 2017, the Exchange had completed the migration of
symbols to the Nasdaq INET platform, and adopted the corresponding
systems-based mechanism for enforcing the price improvement requirement
where the Agency Order is for less than 50 option contracts, and if the
difference between the NBBO is $0.01. Accordingly, the Exchange is now
proposing to delete the rule text in Rule 723 that implements the
member conduct standard.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section
6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes this proposal is consistent with the Act because
it removes language that implements the member conduct standard where
the Agency Order is for less than 50 option contracts, and if the
difference between the NBBO is $0.01. As noted above, this standard has
become obsolete with the migration of all symbols to the Nasdaq INET
system and the corresponding adoption of the systems-based mechanism
for enforcing that requirement, which was previously approved by the
Commission.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not

necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as
the rule text to be removed has become obsolete with the migration of
all symbols to the Nasdaq INET system and the corresponding adoption of
the systems-based mechanism for enforcing the price improvement
requirement where the Agency Order is for less than 50 option
contracts, and if the differences between the NBBO is $0.01.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \12\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \13\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposed rule change may become operative upon filing. The Exchange
states that waiver of the operative delay will allow the Exchange to
remove the obsolete rule text immediately, minimizing potential
investor confusion. The Commission believes the waiver of the operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay
and designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule 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-GEMX-2017-49 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-GEMX-2017-49. 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. 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-GEMX-2017-49, and should be
submitted on or before November 20, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-23484 Filed 10-27-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 247 (Thursday, December 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80403-80408]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32383]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76687; File No. SR-Phlx-2015-85]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Delete
Sections (e) Through (h) of Exchange Rule 1020, Registration and
Functions of Options Specialists

December 18, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 16, 2015, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
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 the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon
filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to delete sections (e) through (h) of
Exchange Rule 1020, Registration and Functions of Options Specialists,
as well as the associated ``Guidelines for Exemptive Relief Under Rule
1020 for Approved Persons or Member Organizations Associated with a
Specialist Member Organization'' and Rule 1023, Specialist's
Transactions with Listed Company.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to adopt a principles-based approach to
prohibit the misuse of material non-public information by specialists
by deleting Sections (e) through (h) of Exchange Rule 1020,
Registration and Functions of Options Specialists, as well as the
associated ``Guidelines for Exemptive Relief Under Rule 1020 for
Approved Persons or Member Organizations Associated with a Specialist
Member Organization,'' and Rule 1023, Specialist's Transactions with
Listed Company (collectively, the ``Specialist Restrictions''). In
doing so, the Exchange would harmonize its rules governing Phlx members
\5\ and member organizations \6\ generally, and Phlx specialists in
particular, relating to protecting against the misuse of material, non-
public information. The Exchange believes that the Specialist
Restrictions are no longer necessary because all specialists are
subject to the Exchange's general principles-based requirements
governing the protection against the misuse of material, non-public
information, pursuant to Phlx Rule 761, Supervisory Procedures Relating
to ITSFEA and to Prevention of Misuse of Material Nonpublic
Information, which obviates the need for separately-prescribed
requirements for a subset of market participants on the Exchange.
Additionally, there is no separate regulatory purpose served by having
separate rules for specialists. The Exchange notes that this proposed
rule change will not decrease the protections against the misuse of
material, non-public information; instead, it is designed to provide
more flexibility to market participants. This is a competitive filing
that is based on a proposal recently submitted by NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE
MKT'') and approved by the Commission.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Phlx Rule 1(n) defines ``Member'' as a permit holder which
has not been terminated in accordance with the By-Laws and Rules of
the Exchange.
    \6\ Phlx Rule 1(o) defines ``Member Organization'' as a
corporation, partnership (general or limited), limited liability
partnership, limited liability company, business trust or similar
organization, transacting business as a broker or a dealer in
securities and which has the status of a member organization by
virtue of (i) admission to membership given to it by the Membership
Department pursuant to the provisions of Rules 900.1 or 900.2 or the
By-Laws or (ii) the transitional rules adopted by the Exchange
pursuant to Section 6-4 of the By-Laws.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75432 (July 13,
2015), 80 FR 42597 (July 17, 2015) (Order Approving SR-NYSEMKT-2015-
23). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75792 (August 31,
2015), 80 FR 53606 (September 4, 2015) (SR-ISE-2015-26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A ``specialist'' is an Exchange member who is registered as an
options specialist pursuant to Exchange Rule 1020(a). Specialists are
subject to quoting and registration obligations set forth in Rules
1014(b), 1020 and 1080.02. Quoting obligations of other market makers
known as Registered Options Traders (``ROTs'') are also set forth in
Rule 1014.\8\ That rule sets forth the main difference between
specialists and ROTs, namely that specialists have a heightened quoting
obligation as compared to ROTs. In addition to a heightened quoting
obligation pursuant to Rule 1014, specialists are eligible to receive a
greater allocation of participation rights under certain circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A Registered Option Trader (``ROT'') is defined in Exchange
Rule 1014(b) as a regular member of the Exchange located on the
trading floor who has received permission from the Exchange to trade
in options for his own account. ROTs include Streaming Quote Traders
(``SQTs'') and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (``RSQTs''), as well
as on and off-floor ROTS. An SQT is defined in Exchange Rule
1014(b)(ii)(A) as an ROT who has received permission from the
Exchange to generate and submit option quotations electronically in
options to which such SQT is assigned. An RSQT is defined in
Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B) as an ROT that is a member affiliated
with an Remote Streaming Quote Trader Organization (``RSQTO'') with
no physical trading floor presence who has received permission from
the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations electronically
in options to which such RSQT has been assigned. An RSQTO, which may
also be referred to as a Remote Market Making Organization
(``RMO''), is a member organization in good standing that satisfies
the RSQTO readiness requirements in Rule 507(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Importantly, all ROTs and specialists have access to the same
information in the Exchange's order book. Moreover, neither ROTs nor
specialists have agency obligations on the Exchange's order book. As
such, the distinctions between specialists and ROTs are their quoting
requirements set forth in Rule 1014.
    Notwithstanding that specialists have access to the same Exchange
trading information as all other market participants on the Exchange,
the Exchange has specific rules governing how specialists may operate.
Currently, Phlx Rule 1023 restricts specialists and various affiliates
from effecting certain transactions with a company in options of which
the specialist is registered.\9\ Rule 1020(e) limits the ability of
specialists' affiliates to purchase or sell options in which the
specialist is registered for any account in which the affiliate is
interested.\10\ Rule 1020(f)

provides an exemption from the restrictions imposed by Rules 1023 and
1020(e), but only if the Exchange has approved procedures restricting
the flow of material non-public corporate or market information between
the specialist's affiliate and the specialist member organization and
any member, officer or employee associated therewith. The procedures
are required to comply with the ``Guidelines for Exemptive Relief under
Rule 1020 for Approved Persons or Member Organizations Affiliated with
a Specialist Member Organization'' (the ``Guidelines''), which are
referred to in, and set forth following, Rule 1020(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Specifically, Rule 1023 provides that no specialist or his
member organization, or any member, limited partner, officer,
employee, approved person or party approved shall directly or
indirectly, effect any business transaction with a company or any
officer, director or 10% stockholder of a company in which options
of such company the specialist is registered, except for business
transactions in goods and services on terms generally available to
the public. It further provides that no specialist, his member
organization or corporate subsidiary of such organization shall
accept an order for the purchase or sale of any option in which he
is registered as a specialist directly (i) from the company issuing
such stock or (ii) from any officer, director or 10% stockholder of
that company.
    \10\ Specifically, Rule 1020(e) provides that no member (other
than a specialist acting pursuant to paragraphs 1020(c) or (d)),
limited partner, officer, employee, approved person or party
approved, who is affiliated with a specialist or specialist member
organization, shall, during the period of such affiliation, purchase
or sell any option in which such specialist is registered for any
account in which such person or party has a direct or indirect
interest. Any such person or party may, however, reduce or liquidate
an existing position in an option in which such specialist is
registered provided that such orders are (i) identified as being for
an account in which such person or party has a direct or indirect
interest; (ii) approved for execution for an Options Exchange
Official; and (iii) executed by the specialist in a manner
reasonably calculated to contribute to the maintenance of price
continuity with reasonable depth. No order entered pursuant to Rule
1020(e) shall be given priority over, or parity with, any order
represented in the market at the same price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange believes that the Specialist Restrictions, including
the Guidelines and the Exchange approval requirement, are no longer
necessary and proposes to delete them. The Exchange believes that Rule
761, Supervisory Procedures Relating to ITSFEA and to Prevention of the
Misuse of Material Nonpublic Information, Commentary .02 governing the
misuse of material, non-public information, provides for an
appropriate, principles-based approach to prevent the market abuses the
Specialist Restrictions are designed to address. Specifically, Rule
761, Commentary .02 requires every member or member organization to
establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed, taking into consideration the nature of the
member's business, to prevent the misuse of material non-public
information by such member or persons associated with such member in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules
thereunder and the Exchange's own rules. For purposes of Rule 761,
Commentary .02, misuse of material non-public information means:

    (a) Trading in any securities issued by a corporation,
partnership, Portfolio Depository Receipts, Index Fund Shares, trust
issued receipts, currency trust shares or a trust or similar
entities, or in any related securities or related options or other
derivative securities, or in any related commodity, related
commodity futures or options on commodity futures or any other
related commodity derivatives, while in possession of material
nonpublic information concerning that corporation, Portfolio
Depository Receipt, Index Fund Share, trust issued receipts,
currency trust shares, trust or similar entity;
    (b) trading in an underlying security or related options or
other derivative securities, or in any related commodity, related
commodity futures or options on commodity futures or any other
related commodity derivatives, while in possession of material
nonpublic information concerning imminent transactions in the above;
and
    (c) disclosing to another person any material nonpublic
information involving a corporation, partnership, Portfolio
Depository Receipts, Index Fund Shares, trust issued receipts,
currency trust shares or a trust or similar entities whose shares
are publicly traded or an imminent transaction in an underlying
security or in any related commodity, related commodity futures or
options on commodity futures or any other related commodity
derivatives, for the purpose of facilitating the possible misuse of
such material nonpublic information.

    Because members and member organizations are already subject to the
requirements of Rule 761, Commentary .02, the Exchange does not believe
it necessary to separately require specific limitations on specialists.
Deleting the Specialist Restrictions including the Guidelines and its
requirements for specific procedures would provide specialists
flexibility to adapt their policies and procedures as appropriate to
reflect changes to their business model, business activities, or the
securities market in a manner similar to how members and member
organizations on the Exchange currently operate and consistent with
Exchange Rule 761, Commentary .02.
    As noted above, specialists are distinguished under Exchange rules
from ROTs in that specialists have heightened quoting obligations and
differing participation entitlements. However, none of these heightened
obligations or different entitlements provides different or greater
access to non-public information than any other member or member
organization on the Exchange. Accordingly, because specialists do not
have any trading advantages at the Exchange due to their market role,
the Exchange believes they should be subject to the same rules as other
members and member organizations regarding the protection against the
misuse of material non-public information, which in this case is
existing Exchange Rule 761, Commentary .02.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange notes that by deleting the Specialist
Restrictions, the Exchange would no longer require specific
information barriers for specialists or require pre-approval of any
information barriers that a specialist would erect for purposes of
protecting against the misuse of material non-public information.
However, the policies and procedures of specialists, including those
relating to information barriers, would be subject to review by
FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, pursuant to a Regulatory Services
Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is not proposing to change what is considered to be
material, non-public information that an affiliated brokerage business
of a specialist could share with such specialist. In that regard, the
proposed rule change will not permit affiliates of a specialist to have
access to any non-public order or quote information of the specialist,
including hidden or undisplayed size or price information of such
orders or quotes. Affiliates of specialists would only have access to
orders and quotes that are publicly available to all market
participants. Members do not expect to receive any additional order or
quote information as a result of this proposed rule change. The
Exchange does not believe that there will be any material change to
member information barriers as a result of the removal of the Exchange
pre-approval requirement. The Exchange has rules prohibiting members
from disadvantaging their customers or other market participants by
improperly capitalizing on the member's access to or receipt of
material, non-public information.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For example, Rule 748 requires each member or member
organization to establish, maintain, and enforce written supervisory
procedures, and a system for applying such procedures, to supervise
the types of business(es) in which the member or member organization
engages in and to supervise the activities of all registered
representatives, employees, and associated persons. The written
supervisory procedures and the system for applying such procedures
must reasonably be expected to prevent and detect, insofar as
practicable, violations of the applicable securities laws and
regulations, including the By-Laws and Rules of the Exchange., [sic]
Additionally, Rule 1064 provides that no member organization or
person associated with a member or member organization who has
knowledge of the material terms and conditions of a solicited order,
an order being facilitated, or orders being crossed, the execution
of which are imminent, shall enter, based on such knowledge, an
order to buy or sell an option for the same underlying security; an
order to buy or sell the security underlying such class; or an order
to buy or sell any related instrument until (i) the terms and
conditions of the order and any changes in the terms of the order of
which the member, member organization or person associated with a
member or member organization has knowledge are disclosed to the
trading crowd, or (ii) the trade can no longer reasonably be
considered imminent in view of the passage of time since the order
was received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange does not believe there will be any material
change to specialist information barriers as a result of removal of the
Exchange's pre-approval requirements. In fact, the Exchange anticipates
that eliminating the pre-approval requirement should facilitate
implementation of changes to specialist information barriers as
necessary to protect against the misuse of material, non-public
information. The Exchange also suggests that the pre-approval
requirement is unnecessary because specialists do not have agency
responsibilities to orders in the book, or time and place information
advantages because of their market role.

    The Exchange notes that its proposed principles-based approach to
protecting against the misuse of material non-public information for
all its members and member organizations is consistent with recently
filed and approved rule changes for NYSE MKT, NYSE Arca Equities, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca''), BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS''), and New York Stock
Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') governing cash equity market makers on those
respective exchanges.\13\ Except for prescribed rules relating to
floor-based designated market makers on the NYSE, who have access to
specified non-public trading information, each of these exchanges have
moved to a principles-based approach to protecting against the misuse
of material non-public information. In connection with approving those
rule changes, the Commission found that, with adequate oversight by the
exchanges of their members, eliminating prescriptive information
barrier requirements should not reduce the effectiveness of exchange
rules requiring members to establish and maintain systems to supervise
the activities of members, including written procedures reasonably
designed to ensure compliance with applicable federal securities law
and regulations, and with the rules of the applicable exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75432 (July 13,
2015), 80 FR 42597 (July 17, 2015) (Order Approving Adopting a
Principles-Based Approach to Prohibit the Misuse of Material
Nonpublic Information by Specialists and e-Specialists by Deleting
Rule 927.3NY and Section (f) of Rule 927.5NY). See also Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 60604 (Sept. 2, 2009), 76 FR 46272 (Sept.
8, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-78) (Order approving elimination of NYSE
Arca rule that required market makers to establish and maintain
specifically prescribed information barriers, including discussion
of NYSE Arca and Nasdaq rules) (``Arca Approval Order''); 61574
(Feb. 23, 2010), 75 FR 9455 (Mar. 2, 2010) (SR-BATS-2010-003) (Order
approving amendments to BATS Rule 5.5 to move to a principles-based
approach to protecting against the misuse of material, nonpublic
information, and noting that the proposed change is consistent with
the approaches of NYSE Arca and Nasdaq) (``BATS Approval Order'');
and 72534 (July 3, 2014), 79 FR 39440 (July 10, 2014), [sic] SR-
NYSE-2014-12) (Order approving amendments to NYSE Rule 98 governing
designated market makers to move to a principles-based approach to
prohibit the misuse of material non-public information) (``NYSE
Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that a principles-based rule applicable to
members of options markets would be equally effective in protecting
against the misuse of material non-public information.\14\ Indeed,
Exchange Rule 761, Commentary .02 is currently applicable to
specialists and already requires policies and procedures reasonably
designed to protect against the misuse of material non-public
information, which is similar to the respective NYSE MKT, NYSE Arca
Equities, BATS and NYSE rules governing cash equity market makers. The
Exchange believes Exchange Rule 761, Commentary .02 provides
appropriate protection against the misuse of material non-public
information by specialists such that there is no further need for
prescriptive information barrier requirements as set forth in the
Specialist Restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ International Securities Exchange, Inc. (``ISE'') and BOX
Options Exchange LLC (``BOX'') have recently taken a similar
approach. See Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change Adopting a Principles-Based Approach to
Prohibit the Misuse of Material, Non-public Information by Market
Makers by Deleting Rule 810, Securities Exchange Act Release No.
75792 (August 31, 2015), 80 FR 53606 (September 4, 2015) (SR-ISE-
2015-26). See also Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change to Adopt a Principles-based Approach to
Prohibit the Misuse of Material Nonpublic Information by Market
Makers, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75916 (September 14,
2015), 80 FR 56503 (September 18, 2015) (SR-BOX-2015-31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that even with this proposed rule change,
pursuant to Exchange Rule 761, Commentary .02 a specialist would still
be obligated to ensure that its policies and procedures reflect the
current state of its business and continue to be reasonably designed to
achieve compliance with applicable federal securities law and
regulations, including Section 15(g) of the Act,\15\ and with
applicable Exchange rules, including being reasonably designed to
protect against the misuse of material, non-public information. While
information barriers would not specifically be required under the
proposal, Rule 761, Commentary .02 already requires that a member or
member organization consider its business model or business activities
in structuring its policies and procedures, which may dictate that an
information barrier or a functional separation be part of the
appropriate set of policies and procedures that would be reasonably
designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities law and
regulations, and with applicable Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78o(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed reliance on principles-
based Rule 761, Commentary .02 would ensure that a specialist would be
required to protect against the misuse of any material non-public
information. As noted above, Rule 761, Commentary .02 already requires
that firms refrain from trading while in possession of material non-
public information concerning imminent transactions in the security or
related product. The Exchange believes that moving to a principles-
based approach rather than prescribing how and when to wall off a
specialist from the rest of the firm would provide specialists with
flexibility when managing risk across a firm, including integrating
options positions with other positions of the firm or, as applicable,
by the respective independent trading unit.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \16\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \17\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market by adopting a principles based approach to permit a member or
member organization to maintain and enforce policies and procedures to,
among other things, prohibit the misuse of material non-public
information and provide flexibility on how a specialist structures its
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is based on an
approved rule of the Exchange to which members and member organizations
are subject--Rule 761, Commentary .02--and harmonizes the rules
governing members and member organizations. Moreover, specialists would
continue to be subject to federal and Exchange requirements for
protecting material non-public order information.\18\ The Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because it would
harmonize the Exchange's approach to protecting against the misuse of
material non-public information and no longer subject specialists to
prescriptive requirements. The Exchange does not believe that the
existing prescriptive requirements applicable to specialists are
narrowly tailored to their roles because specialists do not have access
to Exchange trading information in a manner different from any other
market participant on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o(g) and Exchange Rule 761, Commentary .02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes the proposal is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and

practices and to promote just and equitable principles of trade because
existing rules make clear to members and member organizations the type
of conduct that is prohibited by the Exchange. While the proposal
eliminates prescriptive requirements relating to the misuse of material
non-public information, specialists would remain subject to existing
Exchange rules requiring them to establish and maintain systems to
supervise their activities, and to create, implement, and maintain
written procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with
applicable securities laws and Exchange rules, including the
prohibition on the misuse of material, non-public information.
Additionally, the policies and procedures of specialists, including
those relating to information barriers, would be subject to review by
FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange.
    The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change would still
require that specialists maintain and enforce policies and procedures
reasonably designed to ensure compliance with applicable federal
securities laws and regulations and with Exchange rules. Even though
there would no longer be pre-approval of specialist information
barriers, any specialist written policies and procedures would continue
to be subject to oversight by the Exchange and therefore the
elimination of prescribed restrictions should not reduce the
effectiveness of the Exchange rules to protect against the misuse of
material non-public information. Rather, members and member
organizations will be able to utilize a flexible, principles-based
approach to modify their policies and procedures as appropriate to
reflect changes to their business model, business activities, or to the
securities market itself. Moreover, while specified information
barriers may no longer be required, a member or member organization's
business model or business activities may dictate that an information
barrier or functional separation be part of the appropriate set of
policies and procedures that would be reasonably designed to achieve
compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations, and with
applicable Exchange rules. The Exchange therefore believes that the
proposed rule change will maintain the existing protection of investors
and the public interest that is currently applicable to specialists,
while at the same time removing impediments to and perfecting a free
and open market by moving to a principles-based approach to protect
against the misuse of material non-public information.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As indicated above, the rule
change is being proposed as a competitive response to a filing
submitted by NYSE MKT that was recently approved by the Commission. The
Exchange believes that the proposal will enhance competition by
allowing specialists to comply with applicable Exchange rules in a
manner best suited to their business models, business activities, and
the securities markets, thus reducing regulatory burdens while still
ensuring compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations and
Exchange rules. The Exchange believes that the proposal will foster a
fair and orderly marketplace without being overly burdensome upon
specialists.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would
eliminate a burden on competition for members and member organizations
which currently exists as a result of disparate rule treatment between
options and equities markets regarding how to protect against the
misuse of material non-public information. For those members and member
organizations that are also members of equity exchanges, their
respective equity market maker operations are now subject to a
principles-based approach to protecting against the misuse of material
non-public information. The Exchange believes it would remove a burden
on competition to enable members and member organizations to similarly
apply a principles-based approach to protecting against the misuse of
material non-public information in the options space as ISE has
recently done. To this end, the Exchange notes that Exchange Rule 761,
Commentary .02 still requires a specialist to evaluate its business to
assure that its policies and procedures are reasonably designed to
protect against the misuse of material non-public information. However,
with this proposed rule change, a member or member organization that
trades equities and options could look at its firm more holistically to
structure its operations in a manner that provides it with better tools
to manage its risks across multiple security classes, while at the same
time protecting against the misuse of material non-public information.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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 from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \19\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(iii).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) 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-PHLX-2015-85 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PHLX-2015-85. 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 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-PHLX-2015-85 and
should be submitted on or before January 14, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-32383 Filed 12-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 67 (Friday, April 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18526-18527]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07330]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[CERCLA-04-2020-2504; FRL 10020-84-Region 4]

JCC Environmental Superfund Site Picayune, Mississippi; Notice of
Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

ACTION: Notice of settlement.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection
Agency has entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and
Order on Consent with multiple parties concerning the JCC Environmental
Superfund Site located in Picayune, Mississippi. The settlement
addresses recovery of CERCLA costs for a cleanup action performed by
the EPA at the Site.

DATES: The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until
May 10, 2021. The Agency will consider all comments received and may
modify or withdraw its consent to the proposed settlement if comments
received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the
proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the settlement are available from the Agency by
contacting Ms. Paula V. Painter, Program Analyst, using the contact
information provided in this notice. Comments may also be submitted by
referencing the Site's name through one of the following methods:
    Internet: https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-epa-region-4-southeast#r4-public-notices.
    Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula V. Painter at 404/562-8887.

Maurice Horsey,
Chief, Enforcement Branch, Superfund & Emergency Management Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-07330 Filed 4-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P