[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 236 (Monday, December 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63492-63493]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26643]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER19-426-000]

Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing
Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; LUZ Solar
Partners VIII, Ltd.

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
LUZ Solar Partners VIII, Ltd.'s application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is December 24, 2018.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be

listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an
eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling
link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 3, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-26643 Filed 12-7-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 26, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18241]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06652]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0328; FRL-9792-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Minnesota; Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of an adverse comment, EPA is withdrawing
the January 31, 2013, direct final rule approving a revision to the
Minnesota State Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA will address the comment
in a subsequent final action based upon the proposed rulemaking action,
also published on January 31, 2013. EPA will not institute a second
comment period on this action.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 78 FR 6733 on January 31,
2013, is withdrawn as of March 26, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Portanova, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is withdrawing the January 31, 2013 (78
FR 6733), direct final rule approving a revision to the the Minnesota
sulfur dioxide SIP for Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend, LLC, in Dakota
County. In the direct final rule, EPA stated that if adverse comments
were received by March 4, 2013, the rule would be withdrawn and not
take effect. On February 5, 2013, EPA received a comment, which it
interprets as adverse and, therefore, EPA is withdrawing the direct
final rule. EPA will address the comment in a subsequent final action
based upon the proposed rulemaking action, also published on January
31, 2013 (78 FR 6783). EPA will not institute a second comment period
on this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur oxides.

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

    Dated: March 13, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    Accordingly, the amendment to 40 CFR 52.1220 published in the
Federal Register on January 31, 2013 (78 FR 6733) on pages 6735-6736 is
withdrawn as of March 26, 2013.

[FR Doc. 2013-06652 Filed 3-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 4 (Thursday, January 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 841-844]
[FR Doc No: 2015-33309]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76810; File No. SR-Phlx-2015-113]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2 Thereto,
To Amend the By-Laws of Nasdaq, Inc.

December 31, 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 21, 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 and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. On December 29,
2015, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal.\3\ On
December 30, 2015, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the
proposal.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2,
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ On December 30, 2015, the Exchange withdrew Amendment No. 1.
    \4\ Amendment No. 2 amends and replaces the original filing in
its entirety. In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange, among other things,
clarified the operation of the current and proposed provisions of
the By-Laws of Nasdaq, Inc. and how the proposed rule change would
operate in conjunction with the Listing Rules of The NASDAQ Stock
Market. See infra, note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing this proposed rule change with respect to
amendments of the By-Laws (the ``By-Laws'') of its parent corporation,
Nasdaq, Inc. (``Nasdaq'' or the ``Company''), to revise the
requirements regarding Director classifications. This Amendment No. 2
to SR-Phlx-2015-113 amends and replaces the original filing in its
entirety.\5\ The proposed amendments will be implemented on a date
designated by the Company following approval by the Commission. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Amendment No. 1 to SR-Phlx-2015-113 was filed on December
29, 2015 and subsequently withdrawn on December 30, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Company is proposing amendments to certain provisions of its
By-Laws that relate to Director \6\ classifications.\7\ Specifically,
the Company proposes to revise Section 4.3 of the By-Laws to state that
it may, rather than shall, include at least one, but no more than two,
Issuer Directors on its Board. In addition, the Company proposes to
revise Section 4.7 of the By-Laws to clarify the procedures when a
Director's classification changes between annual meetings of
stockholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Director'' means a member of the Company's Board of
Directors. See Article I(j) of the By-Laws.
    \7\ The provisions of the Company's By-Laws that relate to
Director classifications are completely distinct from the Listing
Rules of The NASDAQ Stock Market. Therefore, the proposed amendments
do not affect in any way the Company's obligation, as an issuer
listed on The NASDAQ Stock Market, to comply with the Listing Rules,
and the Company will continue to comply with the Listing Rules,
including provisions relating to corporate governance, following the
effectiveness of the proposed By-Law amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Section 4.3
    Currently, the Company's By-Laws require that all of the Company's
Directors be classified as: (i) Industry

Directors; \8\ (ii) Non-Industry Directors,\9\ which are further
classified as either Issuer Directors \10\ or Public Directors; \11\ or
(iii) Staff Directors.\12\ Section 4.3 of the By-Laws includes
composition requirements for the Board based on these classifications.
Specifically, the number of Non-Industry Directors on the Board must
equal or exceed the number of Industry Directors. In addition, the
Board must include at least two Public Directors and at least one, but
no more than two, Issuer Directors. Finally, the Board shall include no
more than one Staff Director, unless the Board consists of ten or more
Directors, in which case, the Board shall include no more than two
Staff Directors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``Industry Director'' or ``Industry committee member'' means
a Director (excluding any Staff Directors) or committee member who
(1) is, or within the last year was, or has an immediate family
member who is, or within the last year was, a member of a Self-
Regulatory Subsidiary; (2) is, or within the last year was, employed
by a member or a member organization of a Self-Regulatory
Subsidiary; (3) has an immediate family member who is, or within the
last year was, an executive officer of a member or a member
organization of a Self-Regulatory Subsidiary; (4) has within the
last year received from any member or member organization of a Self-
Regulatory Subsidiary more than $100,000 per year in direct
compensation, or received from such members or member organizations
in the aggregate an amount of direct compensation that in any one
year is more than 10 percent of the Director's annual gross
compensation for such year, excluding in each case director and
committee fees and pension or other forms of deferred compensation
for prior service (provided such compensation is not contingent in
any way on continued service); or (5) is affiliated, directly or
indirectly, with a member or member organization of a Self-
Regulatory Subsidiary. See Article I(m) of the By-Laws. A ``Self-
Regulatory Subsidiary'' is any subsidiary of the Company that is a
self-regulatory organization as defined under Section 3(a)(26) of
the Act. See Article I(s) of the By-Laws. Currently, the term
``Self-Regulatory Subsidiary'' encompasses NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.
(``BX''), The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ''), the Exchange,
Boston Stock Exchange Clearing Corporation (``BSECC'') and the Stock
Clearing Corporation of Philadelphia (``SCCP'').
    \9\ ``Non-Industry Director'' or ``Non-Industry committee
member'' means a Director (excluding any Staff Director) or
committee member who is (1) a Public Director or Public committee
member; (2) an Issuer Director or Issuer committee member; or (3)
any other individual who would not be an Industry Director or
Industry committee member. See Article I(q) of the By-Laws.
    \10\ ``Issuer Director'' or ``Issuer committee member'' means a
Director (excluding any Staff Director) or committee member who is
an officer or employee of an issuer of securities listed on a
national securities exchange operated by any Self-Regulatory
Subsidiary, excluding any Director or committee member who is a
director of such an issuer but is not also an officer or employee of
such an issuer. See Article I(o) of the By-Laws.
    \11\ ``Public Director'' or ``Public committee member'' means a
Director or committee member who (1) is not an Industry Director or
Industry committee member, (2) is not an Issuer Director or Issuer
committee member, and (3) has no material business relationship with
a member or member organization of a Self-Regulatory Subsidiary, the
Company or its affiliates, or the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. and its affiliates. See Article I(r) of the By-Laws.
    \12\ ``Staff Director'' means an officer of the Company that is
serving as a Director. See Article I(t) of the By-Laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Company proposes to amend Section 4.3 of the By-Laws to state
that the Board may, rather than shall, include one, but no more than
two, Issuer Directors. With this change, the Company intends to give
itself the option, but not the requirement, to include one or two
Issuer Directors on its Board. Issuer Directors bring to the Board the
perspective of an officer or employee of companies listed on The NASDAQ
Stock Market. While the Company highly values the views of its listed
companies, it does not believe that it is strictly necessary to have an
Issuer Director on its own Board to represent those views. Within the
overall governance structure of the Company and its subsidiaries,
issues relating to listed companies are generally the province of
NASDAQ and its Board of Directors, rather than the Company and its
Board of Directors. The Company is a holding company for over 100
subsidiaries that provide both regulated and unregulated products and
services across the globe, while NASDAQ is the Company subsidiary that,
among other things, provides listing services on The NASDAQ Stock
Market. The Company's Board generally focuses on the overall strategic
direction of the Company, while NASDAQ's Board generally focuses on
issues relevant specifically to The NASDAQ Stock Market, including
issues affecting listed companies. Furthermore, NASDAQ's Board includes
issuer representation, as required by its By-Laws.\13\ Finally, if the
Company's Board ever does address issues relating to listed companies,
its Directors are experienced and capable enough to handle those issues
without specifically having an Issuer Director on the Board.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Article III, Section 2 of NASDAQ's By-Laws.
    \14\ Currently, three of the Company's eleven Directors are also
directors of companies listed on The NASDAQ Stock Market or another
national securities exchange. These Directors do not qualify as
Issuer Directors because they are not specifically officers or
employees of listed companies; however, as directors of such
companies, they are familiar with corporate governance topics and
other issues confronted by listed companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, it is not strictly necessary to have an officer or
employee of a listed company on the Company's Board of Directors, and
accordingly, the Company proposes to amend its By-Laws to give itself
the option, but not the requirement, to include an Issuer Director on
its Board.
ii. Section 4.7
    As required by Section 4.13(h)(iii) of the By-Laws, the Company's
Corporate Secretary certifies to the Nominating & Governance Committee
of the Company's Board on an annual basis the classification of each
Director following a review of information relating to the
classifications collected from the Directors. This certification
usually occurs in connection with the Company's annual meeting of
stockholders, and at the same time, Directors are elected to serve on
various Board committees, all of which have compositional requirements
relating to the classifications.\15\ However, Directors'
classifications may change from time to time following the annual
meeting due to various changes in personal circumstances (e.g., a
retirement or job change). Directors are required to report to the
Corporate Secretary any change in the information used as the basis of
their classification.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Section 4.13 of the By-Laws.
    \16\ See Section 4.13(h)(iii) of the By-Laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 4.7 of the By-Laws addresses potential disqualifications of
Directors due to a classification change. Under this section, the term
of office of a Director shall terminate immediately upon a
determination by the Board, by a majority vote of the remaining
Directors, that: (a) The Director no longer satisfies the
classification for which the Director was elected; and (b) the
Director's continued service would violate the Board compositional
requirements. Section 4.7 also states that if a Director position
becomes vacant because of such disqualification, and the remaining term
of office is not more than six months, the By-Laws do not require an
immediate replacement.
    The Company has observed two potential weaknesses relating to the
disqualification procedures as currently drafted. First, Section 4.7 of
the By-Laws does not address a situation where a Director's
classification has changed, but the Board believes that it is in the
best interests of the Company and its stockholders for such Director to
remain on the Board. Second, the By-Laws could be read to contemplate
that the Company must immediately cure any deficiencies in Board or
committee composition that may occur because of a change in a Director
or committee member's classification because otherwise the Board would
not meet all of the compositional requirements set forth in Section 4.3
of the By-Laws.\17\ It

would be extremely disruptive to the Board, its committees and the
Company to add, remove, disqualify or replace a Director between annual
meetings of stockholders simply because the Director no longer has the
same classification he or she had at the time of the annual meeting. In
addition, the selection of nominees to the Company's Board is an
extremely complex process, managed by the Board's Nominating &
Governance Committee, that takes almost the full year between annual
meetings of stockholders. The Nominating & Governance Committee
considers possible candidates suggested by Board members, industry
groups, stockholders, senior management and/or a third-party search
firm engaged from time-to-time to assist in identifying and evaluating
qualified candidates. In evaluating candidates for nomination to the
Board, the Nominating & Governance Committee reviews the skills,
qualifications, characteristics and experience desired for the Board as
a whole and for its individual members, with the objective of having a
Board that reflects diverse backgrounds and senior level experience in
the areas of global business, finance, legal and regulatory, technology
and marketing. The Nominating & Governance Committee evaluates each
individual candidate in the context of the Board as a whole, with the
objective of maintaining a group of Directors that can further the
success of Nasdaq's business, while representing the interests of
stockholders, employees and the communities in which the company
operates. Because the nominee selection process is so long and complex,
the Board cannot act quickly to replace a Director whose classification
has changed, and it is not in the best interests of the Company's
stockholders for the Board to be forced to take such an action when the
Director otherwise provides valuable service to the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ But see Kurz v. Holbrook, 989 A.2d 140, 156-57 (Del.Ch.
2010) (holding that a by-law cannot disqualify a director who was
duly qualified at the time of election during the middle of his or
her term), rev'd on other grounds sub nom Crown EMAK P'ners, LLC v.
Kurz, 992 A.2d 377 (Del. 2010); see also Klaassen v.  Allegro
Development Corp., 2013 WL 5739680, at *23 (Del. Ch. Oct. 11, 2013)
(noting that director qualifications are applied at the front-end of
the director's term when such director is elected and qualified),
aff'd 106 A.3d 1035 (Del. 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Company therefore proposes to amend Section 4.7 of the By-Laws
to provide that the Board may elect to defer until the next annual
meeting of stockholders a determination regarding a change in a
Director's classification and such Director's continued service on the
Board.\18\ Further, if the Board makes such an election, neither the
Board nor any committee shall be deemed to be in violation of Section
4.3 of the By-Laws, which relates to Board composition, or Section 4.13
of the By-Laws, which relates to committee composition. This will give
the Board the option to retain Directors whose classification has
changed, but whose continued service is otherwise beneficial to the
Board, the Company and its stockholders. This also will prevent the
significant disruption that would occur if the Board had to replace a
Director between annual meetings of stockholders and allow the Board to
continue to make informed, deliberate decisions regarding Director
nominees, rather than force it to act quickly in a way that is not in
the best interest of the Company's stockholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The intent of the amendment is to allow the Board a
deferral until the next annual meeting when it can nominate a slate
of directors with classifications sufficient to satisfy the
requirements of Section 4.3 of the By-Laws for election by the
Company's stockholders. Assuming due election of the Board's
nominees, the Board therefore will comply with Section 4.3 of the
By-Laws immediately after the next annual meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\19\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\20\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Company is proposing an amendment to Section 4.3 of the
By-Laws to state that it may, rather than shall, include at least one,
but no more than two, Issuer Directors on its Board. The Exchange
believes that this change will protect investors and the public
interest by allowing the Company's Nominating & Governance Committee to
select nominees for the Company's Board based on the overall strategic
needs of the Board, the Company and its stockholders without forcing
the Board to fill one slot with an officer or director of a listed
company (i.e., an Issuer Director). The Exchange notes that the Company
would still have the option to include Issuer Directors on the Board,
and the Exchange believes the views of listed companies are well-
represented on the Board without the explicit participation of an
Issuer Director.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See note 14, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Company is proposing an amendment to Section 4.7 of the
By-Laws to provide that the Board may elect to defer until the next
annual meeting of stockholders a determination regarding a change in a
Director's classification and such Director's continued service on the
Board. Further, if the Board makes such an election, neither the Board
nor any committee shall be deemed to be in violation of Section 4.3 of
the By-Laws, which relates to Board composition, or Section 4.13 of the
By-Laws, which relates to committee composition. The Exchange believes
that this change will protect investors and the public interest by
clarifying the disqualification provisions in the Company's By-Laws,
which are currently ambiguous. In addition, the change will prevent the
significant disruption that would occur if the Board were forced to
replace an otherwise valuable director between annual meetings.

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

    Because the proposed rule change relates to the governance of the
Company and not to the operations of the Exchange, 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.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days of such
date (i) as the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period
to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as
to which the Exchange consents, the Commission shall: (a) By order
approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or (b) institute
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be
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-2015-113 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-Phlx-2015-113. 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 offices 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-2015-113,
and should be submitted on or before January 28, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-33309 Filed 1-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14732-14733]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06189]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0093]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sacramento River, Sacramento, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Tower Drawbridge across the
Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento, CA. The deviation is
necessary to allow the community to participate in the Peace Love run.
This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation
position during the deviation period.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on
March 26, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0093] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge
Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: California Department of Transportation has
requested a temporary change to the operation of the Tower Drawbridge,
mile 59.0, over Sacramento River, at Sacramento, CA. The vertical lift
bridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet above
Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw operates
as required by 33 CFR 117.189(a). Navigation on the waterway is
commercial and recreational.
    The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position
from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on March 26, 2016, to allow the community
to participate in the Peace Love run. This temporary deviation has been
coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed
temporary deviation were raised.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may
do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and
there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast
Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our

Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to
minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: February 25, 2016.
D.H. Sulouff,
District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-06189 Filed 3-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: April 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 62)]
[Notices]
[Page 16452]
[DOCID:fr01ap10-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-899-000]

Consulting Gasca & Associates, LLC; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

March 25, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Consulting Gasca & Associates, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 14, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-7298 Filed 3-31-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 89 (Monday, May 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27644-27646]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09885]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0190]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Warning Plans for Smokeless Tobacco Products

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and
to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments on the information collection provisions
associated with warning plans for smokeless tobacco products.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by July 8, 2022.

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 July 8, 2022. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of July 8, 2022. 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-2013-N-0190 for ``Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Warning Plans for Smokeless
Tobacco Products.'' Received comments, those filed in a timely manner
(see ADDRESSES), 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: Rachel Showalter, Office of
Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-
12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Warning Plans for Smokeless Tobacco Products

OMB Control Number 0910-0671--Extension

    Tobacco products are governed by chapter IX of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (sections 900 through 920) (21 U.S.C. 387
through 21 U.S.C. 387t). Section 3 of the Comprehensive Smokeless
Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986 (the Smokeless Tobacco Act) (15
U.S.C. 4402) requires, among other things, that all smokeless tobacco
product packages and advertisements bear one of four required warning
statements. Section (b)(3)(A) of 15 U.S.C. 4402 requires that the
warnings be displayed on packaging and advertising for each brand of
smokeless tobacco ``in accordance with a plan submitted by the tobacco
product manufacturer, importer, distributor, or retailer'' to, and
approved by, FDA.
    To implement these statutory requirements, warning plans are
reviewed by FDA, upon submission by respondents. FDA published a draft
guidance entitled ``Submission of

Warning Plans for Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco Products'' on
September 9, 2011, which describes the information and format to be
submitted for smokeless plans (https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/submission-warning-plans-cigarettes-and-smokeless-tobacco-products). Submitters may also visit a
web page that describes the smokeless tobacco labeling and warning
statement requirements (https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/labeling-and-warning-statements-tobacco-products/smokeless-tobacco-labeling-and-warning-statement-requirements). Additionally, FDA considers a
submission to be a supplement if the submitter is seeking approval of a
change to an FDA-approved warning plan. Warning plans can be submitted
either electronically or in paper format. The Center for Tobacco
Products (CTP) Portal, available at https://ctpportal.fda.gov/ctpportal/login.jsp, provides a secure online system for electronically
submitting documents and receiving messages from CTP.
    Based on our experience with the information collection over the
past 3 years, we retain our estimate of 60 hours to complete an initial
rotational plan. We estimate half this time for preparing and
submitting a supplement to an approved plan (30 hours).
    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                        Average
            Activity                 Number of     responses per   Total annual     burden per      Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission of initial rotational               1               1               1              60              60
 plans for health warning
 statements.....................
Supplement to approved plan.....               4               1               4              30             120
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............             180
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    FDA estimates a total of 1 respondent will submit a new original
warning plan yearly and take 60 hours to complete a rotational warning
plan for a total of 60 burden hours. In addition, FDA estimates a total
of 4 respondents will submit a supplement to an approved warning plan
at 30 hours per response for a total of 120 hours. After receiving the
initial influx of original warnings plans, FDA does not expect to
receive as many original warning plans annually. We expect that a few
supplements will continue to be received as new products are marketed
or as warning plans are revised. Therefore, we have decreased our
estimate burden by 360 hours.

    Dated: April 29, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-09885 Filed 5-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


EPA Questions Asked in Consultation for the 6(a)(2) ICR:

Name:  Nina E. Heard,			 Company: _Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC

Date:  March 12, 2014			e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(1)	Publicly Available Data

Is the data that the Agency seeks available from any public source, or
already collected by another office at EPA or by another agency?

Syngenta uses established internal processes to collect potentially
adverse effects information concerning its products. We also employ
contract firms to collect adverse effects information resulting from
incidents involving Syngenta products. 	None of this information is
publicly available.

If yes, where can you find the data?  (Does your answer indicate a true
duplication, or does the input indicate that certain data elements are
available, but that they don’t meet our data needs very well?)

(Not applicable)

(2)	 Frequency of Collection

Can the Agency collect the information less frequently and still produce
the same outcome?

In Syngenta's opinion, the EPA could collect adverse effects information
less frequently and still have an effective process. This would be
especially true in cases involving less critical information that would
not be of immediate concern for health or welfare.

(3)	Clarity of Instructions

a)	The ICR is intended to require that respondents provide certain data
so that the Agency can utilize them.

Based on the instructions (regulations, PR Notices, etc.), is it clear
what you are required to do and how to submit such data?  If not, what
suggestions do you have to clarify the instructions?

Syngenta has a clear view of process and requirements for submission of
new adverse effects information. On occasion, guidance is needed to
clarify reporting requirements for unique circumstances. Access to an
EPA expert or web site with detailed background is often helpful.
Syngenta also utilizes internal or external legal counsel to ensure
compliance with FIFRA 6a2 legal requirements.

Improved content on the EPA FIFRA 6(a)(2) web page would be very
helpful, including recent FIFRA 6(a)(2) submissions and a Frequently
Asked Questions section. The TSCA Be website is a good example.

Do you understand that you are required to maintain records?

Yes

Considering that there is no required submission format, is it difficult
to submit information in ways that are clear, logical and easy to
complete?

Syngenta has adopted a style of submitting adverse effects information
utilizing standard letter correspondence and on occasion using a formal
regulatory submission for study reports. We have sought guidance from
the FIFRA 6a2 Office when we have had questions. To our knowledge these
practices have met with EPA's approval.

Regarding the Voluntary Incident Reporting Forms, do you use them?  Are
they clear, logical, and easy to complete?

Syngenta and its agents use the Voluntary Incident Reporting Forms

without any significant problem.

(4)	Electronic Reporting and Record keeping

The Government Paperwork Elimination Act requires agencies make
available to the public electronic reporting alternatives to paper-based
submissions by 2003, unless there is a strong reason for not doing so.
The U.S. E.P.A. Office of Pesticide Programs has a program for
electronic study submissions, and is currently developing plans for
systems to support electronic incident reporting.  The Agency is also
concerned to protect FIFRA CBI as well as personal information.

What do you think about electronic alternatives to paper-based records
and data submissions?  Current electronic reporting alternatives include
the use of web forms/XML based submissions via the Agency’s Internet
site and magnetic media-based submissions, e.g., diskette, CD-ROM, etc.
Would you be interested in pursuing electronic reporting?  Are you
keeping your records electronically?  If yes, in what format?

Syngenta is interested in using an electronic submission process for
adverse effects reports. We are currently using an electronic submission
process for major active ingredient registration submissions. 	We have
the capability to use many industry-standard technologies and we would
be willing to work with the EPA to implement such a process for future
reports. Currently Syngenta maintains its official adverse effects
information files in a paper format. Correspondence related to new
adverse effects reports is generally communicated within the company in
electronic format, mostly via email.We are initiating the use of a
Documentum-based document management system to store regulatory
correspondence to supplement our paper records storage system.

Would you be more inclined to submit CBI on diskette, CD, or DVD, or via
web rather than on paper?  No

What benefits would electronic submission bring you in terms of burden
reduction or greater efficiency in compiling the information?

An electronic submission process would be more efficient and ease
submission of information to EPA and aid distribution of information
within Syngenta. At this time we do not have plans to eliminate our
paper archive, which contains the official copies of adverse effects
reports required by FIFRA 6(a)(2), but we have now instituted an
electronic system as a back-up.

Burden and Costs

Are the labor rates accurate?

The labor rates look reasonable, but no attempt was made to verify
accuracy.

The Agency assumes there is no capital cost associated with this
activity.  Is that correct?

	Yes

Bearing in mind that the burden and cost estimates include only burden
hours and costs associated with the paperwork involved with this ICR,
e.g., the ICR does not include estimated burden hours and costs for
conducting studies, are the estimated burden hours and labor rates
accurate?  If you provide burden and cost estimates that are
substantially different from EPA’s, please provide an explanation of
how you arrived at your estimates.

Syngenta's costs for administering its adverse effects reporting process
are generally higher than EPA's estimates, especially for studies.
Syngenta conducts studies at several of its global R&D facilities around
the world. Results from these studies are reviewed by a committee of
approximately 6 to 8 scientific and technical expertsfamiliar with
adverse effects reporting obligations from around the world. This
committee typically meets twice per month to   discuss pending issues.
 Scientific and regul.  atory staff are involved in answering questions
and preparing the notification letter to EPA.  We estimate that this
process takes approximately 6 to 10 hours per study to complete. EPA's
estimate of the amount of time needed to report incidents (2.1 hours) is
in alignment with our experience.

Syngenta spends significant time training its staff in adverse effects
reporting requirements. A typical training session takes up to 4 hours
for a new employee and approximately 1 hour for bi-annual refresher
training. It appears that EPA did not include the time trainees spend
training programs as a cost. The cost for Syngenta is relatively high,
compared to EPA estimates, because of the large number of people that
must be trained.

Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been
missed?

No

 PAGE

 PAGE   3