[Federal Register: March 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 51)]
[Notices]
[Page 12642-12643]
[DOCID:fr16mr07-106]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55438; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change to Extend Two Pilot Programs That Allow RMMs and e-DPMs to
Have up to One Affiliated Market-Maker Physically Present in the
Trading Crowd

March 9, 2007.
    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 February 22, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposal 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)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE proposes to extend two pilot programs allowing Remote Market-
Makers (``RMMs'') and Electronic DPMs (``e-DPMs'') to have up to one
separate affiliated Market-Maker physically present in the trading
crowd. The CBOE proposes to extend the pilots until March 14, 2008. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on CBOE's Web site
(http://www.cboe.org/Legal), at the CBOE's Office of the Secretary, and

at the Commission.

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 CBOE Rules 8.4(c)(i) and 8.93(vii)
to extend the pilot programs allowing an RMM and e-DPM the option to
have up to one separate affiliated Market-Maker physically present in
the trading crowds where it operates as an RMM or e-DPM, respectively
(such Market-Makers would be required to trade on a separate
membership).\5\ The pilots would be extended from March 14, 2007 until
March 14, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The SEC previously extended the pilot programs for 6 months,
from September 14, 2006 until March 14, 2006. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 54443 (September 14, 2006), 71 FR 55237
(September 21, 2006) (granting immediate effectiveness to SR-CBOE-
2006-77).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In July of 2003, the SEC approved the e-DPM program, including the
pilot program.\6\ The pilot allows e-DPM firms to maintain a physical
presence in the trading crowd through an affiliated Market-Maker who
would also be able to stream a quote. The pilot, however, limits the
number of separate affiliates per trading crowd to one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50003 (July 12,
2004), 69 FR 43028 (July 19, 2004) (approving SR-CBOE-2004-24).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In March of 2005, the SEC approved the RMM program, including the
pilot program.\7\ The pilot allows RMM firms to maintain a physical
presence in the trading crowd through an affiliated Market-Maker who
would also be able to stream a quote. The pilot limits the number of
separate affiliates per trading crowd to one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51366 (March 14,
2005), 70 FR 13217 (March, 18, 2005) (approving SR-CBOE-2004-75).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE has provided the Commission, under separate cover, data
relating to these Pilot Programs, which the SEC staff is reviewing.\8\
The Exchange has committed to providing by September 14, 2007, data
required by the Pilots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange has committed to providing by September 14,
2007, updated data required by the Pilots. Telephone conversation
between Patrick Sexton, Associate General Counsel, CBOE and Sonia
Trocchio, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission
(March 7, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a
national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of
Section 6(b) of the Act.\9\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\10\ which requires that the rules of an exchange be designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any

burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \11\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4
\12\ thereunder because it does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; (iii) become operative for 30 days
from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate; and the Exchange has given the Commission
written notice of its intention to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to filing. At any time within 60 days of
the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily
abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) of the Act,\13\ the proposal does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of its filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that
the Commission waive the 30-day operative date, so that the pilots may
continue without interruption. The Commission believes that the
proposed rule change does not raise any new regulatory issues and,
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
has determined to waive the 30-day operative date.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the operative date of this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CBOE-2007-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-19. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. 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-CBOE-2007-19 and should be
submitted on or before April 6, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-4812 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement, and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation 2. OMB control number b.

None a. ___ ___ ___ ___  ___ ___ ___ ___ 2060 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a.

New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement instructions 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a.

Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: ______/______/______ c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes

No 6. Requested expiration date a.

Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify:

7. Title National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Surface Coating Operations 8. Agency form number( s) ( if applicable)

9. Keywords: Air Pollution Control, Intergovernmental Relations, Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Surface Coating Operations, Reporting and Recordkeeping, Requirements, Clean Air Act, Environmental Protection 10. Abstract: Respondents are owners and operators of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Surface Coating Operations. Respondents must submit one time initial notifications, initial compliance notification, and semiannual reports of compliance. Recordkeeping of parameters related to air pollution control technologies is required. The reports and records will be used to demonstrate compliance with the standards.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. ___ Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. ___ Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local, or Tribal Governments 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. p Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 1590 b. Total annual responses 180 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 20 % c. Total annual hours requested 139,380 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 139,380 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change X ( new collection) 2. Adjustment __________________________________ 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 3.6 c. Total annualized cost requested 3.6 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 3.6 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change X ( new collection) 2. Adjustment 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. ____ Application for benefits e. ____ Program planning or management b. ____ Program evaluation f. ____ Research c. ____ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. ____ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a.

Recordkeeping b. G Third party disclosure c.

Reporting 1. G On occasion 2. G Weekly 3. G Monthly 4. G Quarterly 5.

Semi annually 6. G Annually 7. G Biennially 8.

Other ( describe) initial 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

G Yes

No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer question regarding the content of this submission)

Name: Ms. Kim Teal, OAQPS, ESD, CCPG ( C539 03)

Phone: ( 919) 541 5580 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8 ( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8 ( b)( 3):

( i) Why the information is being collected;

( ii) Use of information;

( iii) Burden estimate;

( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory);

( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Office Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Director, Regulatory Information Division Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 190 (Monday, October 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60006-60007]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24138]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0268]

Hours of Service of Drivers: Trailways Companies Application for
Exemption

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA has received an application from Trailways companies
identified below (``Trailways'') for an exemption from the hours-of-
service (HOS) record of duty status provision in 49 CFR 395.8(c) that
requires every commercial motor vehicle driver to record his or her
duty status for each 24-hour period using methods prescribed in that
section. FMCSA considers the request to be on behalf of all regular-
route passenger carrier drivers. Trailways requests that these drivers
be exempted from the requirement to enter a change in duty status on
the daily log for breaks in driving time of 10 minutes or less, for the
limited purpose of picking up or setting off passengers, baggage, or
small express packages. Such time would not be considered a change of
duty status for the purposes of 49 CFR 395.8(c). FMCSA requests public
comment on Trailways' application for exemption.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 31, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System Number FMCSA-2012-0268 by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the exemption process, see the Public
Participation heading below. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to www.regulations.gov, and follow the online
instructions for accessing the dockets, or go to the street address
listed above.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the
U.S. Department of Transportation's online privacy policy at
www.dot.gov/privacy or the complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on December 29, 2010 (75 FR 82133).
    Public Participation: The Federal eRulemaking Portal is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can get electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the ``help'' section
of the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site. If you want us to notify
you that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed,
stamped envelope or postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that
appears after submitting comments online. Comments received after the
comment closing date will be included in the docket, and we will
consider late comments to the extent practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver
and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Bus and Truck Standards and
Operations; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in
the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period and explain
the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed
(49 CFR 381.300(b)).

Request for Exemption

    Trailways (Adirondack Trailways, Pine Hill Trailways, and New York
Trailways) offers scheduled passenger-carrier service throughout New
York State and to the nearby Canadian cities of Montreal and Toronto.
Trailways states that its exemption application is for fixed-route
carriers and their drivers who are often away from the controls of the
vehicle for brief periods of time of less than 10 minutes to assist
passengers or make one of several passenger pick-ups and drop-offs
along the route.
    Trailways advises that until March 2011 they and other motor
carriers had been operating in accordance with a 1996 interpretation of
49 CFR 395.8(c) issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
The 1996

interpretation excluded regular-route passenger carrier CMV drivers
from having to record a location entry on the driver's record of duty
status (RODS) for non-driving periods of less than 10 minutes. The RODS
simply showed the stop as driving time. In March 2011, New York State
officials began enforcing a literal interpretation of the rule,
requiring that a change in duty status be entered on the log any time
the driver leaves the operating controls of the CMV. Trailways is
concerned that the violations will have a negative effect on the
companies' and the drivers' Compliance Safety Accountability ratings,
as well as schedules and passenger service because of the delays needed
to make the entries.
    Instead of complying with the provisions in 49 CFR 395.8(c),
Trailways requests that their drivers with regularly scheduled routes
be exempted from changing their duty status from ``driving'' to ``on-
duty not driving'' when making stops of less than 10 minutes.
    Trailways notes that the 1996 rule interpretation reduces the
amount of total time a driver can drive in a duty period. Without the
1996 interpretation, the times drivers spend at stops to load
passengers, freight, etc. would be logged as on-duty/not driving,
increasing the driving time available, but creating an additional
administrative distraction every time the driver leaves the controls
regardless of the reason or the limited amount of time away from the
vehicle controls. Trailways further advises that their carriers provide
flag stops and that having to update the log at each flag stop
increases the amount of time that the motorcoach may be delaying
traffic while waiting for the pick-up and/or discharge of passengers
and luggage, and then waiting for the driver to update the log before
continuing the route. According to Trailways, in many instances the
large number of brief stops will not fit on the log if the driver makes
all of the required entries.
    Trailways notes that the maximum possible driving time would be
reduced and that traffic congestion could be reduced. FMCSA believes
this would ensure that operations under the exemption would be at least
as safe as operations that comply with the requirements on change of
duty status.
    FMCSA is extending Trailways' request to be on behalf of all
regular-route for-hire passenger-carrier drivers because the same need
for the exemption likely applies to them as well as Trailways.
Including all regular-route for-hire passenger carrier drivers in the
exemption will preclude the need for other carriers to file identical
exemption requests, and will provide for consistent enforcement because
the same provisions would be applied to all similar scenarios involving
brief stops by drivers of these carriers during their regular-route
operations.
    A copy of Trailways' exemption application is available for review
in the docket for this notice.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b)(4), FMCSA
requests public comment on the Trailways application for an exemption
from certain provisions of the driver's record of duty status rules in
49 CFR part 395. The Agency will consider all comments received by
close of business on October 31, 2012. Comments will be available for
examination in the docket at the location listed under the ADDRESSES
section of this notice. The Agency will consider to the extent
practicable comments received in the public docket after the closing
date of the comment period.

    Issued on: September 21, 2012 .
 Larry W. Minor,
 Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-24138 Filed 9-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Placeholder: confidential business information item

Arkema Comment on 8-26-08

For more information please contact Ross Brennan by phone at
202-343-9226 or by email at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register: April 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 63)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15218-15219]
[DOCID:fr03ap09-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0162]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Houma Navigation Canal, Mile
36.0, at Houma, Terrebonne Parish, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
SR 661 Swing Bridge across the Houma Navigation Canal, mile 36.0, in
Houma, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. The deviation is necessary to
replace the wedge assemblies on the bridge. This deviation allows the
bridge to remain closed during daytime hours with three approved
openings and remain in the open-to-navigation position at night for the
passage of vessels.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on April 20, 2009
through 8 p.m. on April 30, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2009-0162 and are available online
at http://www.regulations.gov. They are also available for inspection
or copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and
the Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Administration Branch, Hale
Boggs Federal Building, Room 1313, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans,
Louisiana 70130-3310 between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Frank, Bridge Administration
Branch, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development has requested a temporary deviation from the operating
schedule of the State Route 661 Swing Bridge across the Houma
Navigation Canal, mile 36.0, in Houma, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana.
The closure is necessary to allow for repairs to the bridge. From
Monday, April 20, 2009, until Thursday, April 30, 2009, the contractor
plans to work from 6 a.m. until 8 p.m. daily with three scheduled
openings for the passage of vessels. From 8 p.m. until 6 a.m. daily,
the bridge will remain in the open to navigation position for the
passage of vessels.
    The vertical clearance of the swing bridge in the closed-to-
navigation position is 1.0 feet and unlimited in the open-to-navigation
position. If for any reason, the contractor is not working during this
period, the bridge will be returned to normal operation and must open
on signal. If the maintenance work is completed prior to April 30,
2009, the bridge will be returned to normal operation. The bridge owner
will keep the Coast Guard informed as to any change in the schedule so
that proper notices to mariners may be issued informing the public of
changes to the operation of the bridge.
    Presently, the bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.455
which requires the draw of the bridge across the Houma Navigation Canal
at S661, mile 36.0 at Houma, to open on signal, except that the draw
need not be opened for the passage of vessels Monday through Friday
except holidays from 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., from 11:45 a.m. to 12:15
p.m., from 12:45 p.m. to 1:15 p.m., and 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. This
deviation will allow the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation
position from 6 a.m. until 8 p.m. daily; except that, the draw will
open on signal for the passage of vessels at 8 a.m., noon, and 4 p.m.
From 8 p.m. until 6 a.m., the bridge will remain in the open-to-
navigation position for the passage of vessel. The temporary deviation
will begin on Monday, April 20, 2009 and continue through 8 p.m. on
Thursday, April 30, 2009. Navigation on the waterway consists of tugs
with tows, fishing vessels and recreational craft. Due to prior
experience and coordination with waterway users it has been determined
that this closure will not have a significant effect on these vessels.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: March 16, 2009.
David M. Frank,
Bridge Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E9-7528 Filed 4-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 44766]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20476]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL17-90-000]

Linden VFT, LLC, v. Public Service Electric and Gas Company, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on September 18, 2017, pursuant to sections 206
and 306 \1\ of the Federal Power Act, and Rules 206 and 215 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and 385.215, Linden VFT, LLC (Linden VFT
or Complainant) filed a formal complaint against Public Service
Electric and Gas Company (PSEG) and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM)
(jointly Respondents) alleging that, PSEG's refusal to consent to an
amendment of the Interconnection Service Agreement between Linden VFT,
PSEG and PJM to reflect Linden VFT's reduction in service level of its
Transmission Withdrawal Rights from Firm to Non-Firm is unjust and
unreasonable, all as more fully explained in the complaint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824(e) and 825e (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on
the contacts for Respondents as listed on the Commission's list of
Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for electronic 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
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>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 10, 2017.

    Dated: September 19, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-20476 Filed 9-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 8, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26950-26953]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11076]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0249; FRL-9669-7]

Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes;
California; Western Mojave Desert Ozone Nonattainment Area;
Reclassification to Severe

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), EPA is granting a
request from the State of California to reclassify the Western Mojave
Desert ozone nonattainment area from ``Moderate'' to ``Severe-15'' for
the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
EPA is also reclassifying Indian country under the jurisdiction of the
Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California located within
the boundaries of the Western Mojave Desert area in the same manner,
following consultation with the Tribe, to maintain consistency with the
classification of the surrounding areas under State jurisdiction.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on June 7, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number, EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0249,
for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Lo, Air Planning Office (AIR-2),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.

I. Reclassification of Western Mojave Desert to Severe-15 Ozone
Nonattainment

    Effective June 15, 2004, EPA designated and classified the ``Los

Angeles and San Bernardino Counties (Western Mojave Desert)'' area in
California (Western Mojave Desert) under the CAA as ``Subpart 2/
Moderate'' nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\1\ See 69 FR
23858, at 23884 (April 30, 2004) and 40 CFR 81.305. Our classification
of the Western Mojave Desert area as a ``Moderate'' ozone nonattainment
area established a requirement that the area attain the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than six
years from the date of designation as nonattainment, i.e., June 15,
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This action applies only to the classification of this ozone
nonattainment area for purposes of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA
intends to take separate actions to designate and classify areas of
the nation that meet or do not meet the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 14, 2008, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
submitted a request that EPA reclassify three California areas
(including the Western Mojave Desert area) designated nonattainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.\2\ For the Western Mojave Desert ozone
nonattainment area, CARB requested reclassification from ``Moderate''
to ``Severe-17.'' \3\ On March 14, 2012, CARB submitted a clarification
requesting that EPA reclassify the Western Mojave Desert area from
``Moderate'' to ``Severe.'' \4\ Consistent with section 181(b)(3) of
the CAA, we are granting the State's request and reclassifying the
Western Mojave Desert area from ``Moderate'' to ``Severe-15''
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\5\ We are not
establishing a schedule for plan submissions at this time and intend to
do so in a subsequent action, if necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See February 14, 2008 letter from James N. Goldstene,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. In addition to the
Western Mojave Desert area, CARB requested that EPA reclassify the
Ventura County and Sacramento Metro ozone nonattainment areas under
CAA section 181(b)(3) to higher classifications for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. Pursuant to this request, EPA reclassified the Ventura
County area from ``Moderate'' to ``Serious'' nonattainment effective
June 19, 2008 (73 FR 29073, May 20, 2008), and reclassified the
Sacramento Metro area from ``Serious'' to ``Severe-15''
nonattainment effective June 4, 2010 (75 FR 24409, May 5, 2010).
    \3\ CARB subsequently submitted a SIP revision for this area to
address the attainment demonstration and related requirements for
severe-17 ozone nonattainment areas. See July 22, 2008 letter and
enclosures from James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to
Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9.
    \4\ See March 14, 2012 letter from James N. Goldstene, Executive
Director, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.
    \5\ Section 181(b) of the CAA does not authorize EPA to grant a
request for reclassification of a ``Moderate'' ozone nonattainment
area to ``Severe-17.'' See, e.g., EPA's final rule reclassifying the
San Joaquin Valley ozone nonattainment area, 66 FR 56476 at 56478
(November 8, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the State of California does not have jurisdiction over
Indian country located within its borders, CARB's request to reclassify
the Western Mojave Desert area does not apply to Indian country under
the jurisdiction of the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of
California, which is located within the boundaries of the Western
Mojave Desert nonattainment area. EPA implements federal Clean Air Act
programs, including reclassifications, in this area of Indian country
consistent with our discretionary authority under sections 301(a) and
301(d)(4) of the Clean Air Act. EPA has consulted with the Twenty-Nine
Palms Band of Mission Indians of California regarding CARB's request
and the Tribe has agreed to reclassification of its tribal land within
the Western Mojave Desert nonattainment area consistent with the
surrounding areas under State jurisdiction.\6\ Accordingly, we are
reclassifying the entire Western Mojave Desert nonattainment area (both
the portion under State jurisdiction and the portion under the Tribe's
jurisdiction) from ``Moderate'' to ``Severe-15'' for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See email dated April 11, 2012 from Marshall Cheung, Tribal
EPA Director, Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of
California, to Colleen McKaughan, Associate Director, EPA Region IX
Air Division, Re: West Mojave Desert Reclassification or ``Bump-
up.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are approving CARB's reclassification request under section
181(b)(3) of the Act, which provides for ``voluntary reclassification''
and states: ``The Administrator shall grant the request of any State to
reclassify a nonattainment area in that State in accordance with table
1 of subsection (a) of this section to a higher classification. The
Administrator shall publish a notice in the Federal Register of any
such request and of action by the Administrator granting the request.''
The provision for voluntary reclassification has been brought forward
as part of the transition from the 1-hour ozone standard to the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard. See 40 CFR 51.903(b) (``A State may request a
higher classification for any reason in accordance with section
181(b)(3) of the CAA'') and 40 CFR 51.903(a), Table 1. Because the
plain language of section 181(b)(3) mandates that we approve such a
request, EPA is granting CARB's request for voluntary reclassification
under section 181(b)(3) for the Western Mojave Desert ozone
nonattainment area, and EPA is reclassifying the area from ``Moderate''
to ``Severe-15'' for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. With respect to that
portion of the Western Mojave Desert area that is under the
jurisdiction of the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of
California, EPA has consulted with the Tribe and the Tribe has agreed
to reclassification of the area from ``Moderate'' to ``Severe-15''
consistent with the surrounding areas under State jurisdiction. As a
result of this action, Western Mojave Desert must now attain the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than
fifteen years from the date of designation as nonattainment, i.e., June
15, 2019. EPA will address in future rulemaking actions, as necessary,
any issues relating to timing and content of plan submissions under
this new classification.
    EPA has determined that today's action falls under the ``good
cause'' exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) which, upon finding ``good cause,'' authorizes
agencies to dispense with public participation where public notice and
comment procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the
public interest.'' With respect to that portion of the Western Mojave
Desert area that is under State jurisdiction, public notice and
opportunity for comment prior to today's action are unnecessary because
EPA's reclassification of the Western Mojave Desert area to ``Severe-
15'' is mandated by the CAA and does not involve any exercise of
discretion. Public notice and comment are also unnecessary with respect
to our reclassification of Indian country under the jurisdiction of the
Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California located within
the Western Mojave Desert area, because the Tribe has agreed to
reclassification of these tribal lands consistent with the surrounding
State lands.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. With respect
to lands under State jurisdiction, voluntary reclassifications under
section 181(b)(3) of the CAA are based solely upon requests by the
State and EPA is required under the CAA to grant them. These actions do
not, in and of themselves, impose any new requirements on any sector of
the economy. In addition, because the statutory requirements are
clearly defined with respect to the differently

classified areas, and because those requirements are automatically
triggered by classification, reclassification does not impose a
materially adverse impact under Executive Order 12866. With respect to
Indian country, reclassifications do not establish deadlines for air
quality plans or plan revisions. For these reasons, this action is also
not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001).
    In addition, I certify that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This action does not
contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4), because EPA is required to grant requests by States
for voluntary reclassifications and such reclassifications in and of
themselves do not impose any federal intergovernmental mandate, and
because tribes are not subject to implementation plan submittal
deadlines that apply to states as a result of reclassifications.
    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes.'' One Indian tribe (the Twenty-Nine Palms
Band of Mission Indians of California) has jurisdiction over Indian
country located within the boundaries of the Western Mojave Desert
area. EPA implements federal Clean Air Act programs, including
reclassifications, in this area of Indian country consistent with our
discretionary authority under sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of the
Clean Air Act. EPA has concluded that this final rule might have tribal
implications for the purposes of Executive Order 13175 but will not
impose substantial direct costs upon the Tribe, nor does it preempt
Tribal law. This final rule does not affect implementation of new
source review for new or modified stationary sources proposed in Indian
country within the boundaries of the Western Mojave Desert area because
such sources are already subject to the permitting requirements that
apply in ``Severe'' nonattainment areas for purposes of the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS. This reclassification might affect projects proposed in
this area of Indian country that require Federal permits, approvals, or
funding under EPA's General Conformity rule because of the lower de
minimis thresholds triggered by reclassification (25 tons per year for
volatile organic compounds or oxides of nitrogen). Given the potential
implications, EPA contacted tribal officials to provide an opportunity
for meaningful and timely input into this action. As discussed in
section I of this document, on April 11, 2012, the Tribe agreed to the
reclassification of its tribal lands within the Western Mojave Desert
area consistent with the surrounding State lands.
    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act.
    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045,
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because EPA interprets Executive
Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern
health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section
5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the
regulation.
    Reclassification actions do not involve technical standards and
thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).
    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States. This reclassification action relates
to ozone, a pollutant that is regional in nature, and is not the type
of action that could result in the types of local impacts addressed in
Executive Order 12898.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 9, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, National parks, Ozone, Wilderness areas.

    Dated: April 26, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 81--[Amended]

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--[Amended]

0
2. Section 81.305 is amended in the table for ``California--Ozone (8-
hour

Standard)'' by revising the entry for ``Los Angeles and San Bernardino
Counties (Western Mojave Desert), CA'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.305  California.

* * * * *

                                                California--Ozone
                                                (8-Hour Standard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Designation a                       Category/classification
        Designated area        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Date \1\            Type             Date \1\                Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Los Angeles and San Bernardino  ...........  Nonattainment.........     6/7/2012  Subpart 2/Severe-15.
 Counties (Western Mojave
 Desert), CA.
Los Angeles County (part).....  ...........  Nonattainment.........     6/7/2012  Subpart 2/Severe-15.
    That portion of Los
     Angeles County which lies
     north and east of a line
     described as follows:
     Beginning at the Los
     Angeles-San Bernardino
     County boundary and
     running west along the
     Township line common to
     Township 3 North and
     Township 2 North, San
     Bernardino Base and
     Meridian; then north
     along the range line
     common to Range 8 West
     and Range 9 West; then
     west along the Township
     line common to Township 4
     North and Township 3
     North; then north along
     the range line common to
     Range 12 West and Range
     13 West to the southeast
     corner of Section 12,
     Township 5 North and
     Range 13 West; then west
     along the south
     boundaries of Sections
     12, 11, 10, 9, 8, and 7,
     Township 5 North and
     Range 13 West to the
     boundary of the Angeles
     National Forest which is
     collinear with the range
     line common to Range 13
     West and Range 14 West;
     then north and west along
     the Angeles National
     Forest boundary to the
     point of intersection
     with the Township line
     common to Township 7
     North and Township 6
     North (point is at the
     northwest corner of
     Section 4 in Township 6
     North and Range 14 West);
     then west along the
     Township line common to
     Township 7 North and
     Township 6 North; then
     north along the range
     line common to Range 15
     West and Range 16 West to
     the southeast corner of
     Section 13, Township 7
     North and Range 16 West;
     then along the south
     boundaries of Sections
     13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and
     18, Township 7 North and
     Range 16 West; then north
     along the range line
     common to Range 16 West
     and Range 17 West to the
     north boundary of the
     Angeles National Forest
     (collinear with the
     Township line common to
     Township 8 North and
     Township 7 North); then
     west and north along the
     Angeles National Forest
     boundary to the point of
     intersection with the
     south boundary of the
     Rancho La Liebre Land
     Grant; then west and
     north along this land
     grant boundary to the Los
     Angeles-Kern County
     boundary.
San Bernardino County (part)..  ...........  Nonattainment.........     6/7/2012  Subpart 2/Severe-15.
    That portion of San
     Bernardino County which
     lies north and east of a
     line described as
     follows: Beginning at the
     San Bernardino-Riverside
     County boundary and
     running north along the
     range line common to
     Range 3 East and Range 2
     East, San Bernardino Base
     and Meridian; then west
     along the Township line
     common to Township 3
     North and Township 2
     North to the San
     Bernardino-Los Angeles
     County boundary; And that
     portion of San Bernardino
     County which lies south
     and west of a line
     described as follows:
     latitude 35 degrees, 10
     minutes north and
     longitude 115 degrees, 45
     minutes west.

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-11076 Filed 5-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81205-81206]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27541]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OGC-2020-0612; FRL 10017-99-OGC]

Proposed Settlement Agreement; Biological Evaluations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement agreement; request for public
comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Administrator's October 16, 2017, Directive Promoting Transparency and
Public Participation in Consent Decrees and Settlement Agreements,
notice is hereby given of a proposed settlement agreement in the five
consolidated petitions for review in Center for Biological Diversity,
et al. v. EPA (D.C. Cir. Nos. 15-1054, 15-1176, 15-1389, 15-1462 and
16-1351) in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia. In 2015 and 2016, the Center for Biological Diversity and
other Petitioners (collectively, ``Petitioners'') filed five petitions
for review of registrations containing five active ingredients:
flupyradifurone, bicyclopyrone, benzovindiflupyr, cuprous iodide, and
haluaxifen-methyl. The five petitions for review alleged that EPA
violated the Endangered Species Act (``ESA'') by failing to consult on
the effects to listed species when registering products containing the
five new active ingredients. The Court consolidated the cases on June
20, 2018. The registrants for each active ingredient other than cuprous
iodide sought and were granted intervention.
    EPA, the Petitioners and the Defendant-Intervenors (collectively,
``the Parties'') are proposing to enter into an out-of-court settlement
agreement, which, among other things, calls for the Parties to file a
Joint Motion for Order on Consent requesting that the Court order EPA
to: complete a final effects determination for any use of cuprous
iodide that is approved for sale and distribution by August 13, 2021;
complete final Biological Evaluations for two of the other active
ingredients by September 30, 2025 and the remaining two active
ingredients by September 30, 2027; and initiate consultation with the
National Marine Fisheries Service and/or the Fish and Wildlife Service
(Services) as appropriate based on the outcome of the Biological
Evaluations.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed settlement agreement must be
received by January 14, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2020- 0612 online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method).
For comments submitted at www.regulations.gov, follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
generally will not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin S. Koch, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances Law Office (2333A), Office of General Counsel, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Settlement Agreement

    In 2015 and 2016, Petitioners filed five petitions for review in
the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as EPA issued registrations
for five new active ingredients, namely flupyradifurone, bicyclopyrone,
benzovindiflupyr, cuprous iodide, and halauxifen-methyl. The petitions
for review alleged that EPA violated Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA by
failing to consult on the effects to listed species of the five new
active ingredients. The Court consolidated the cases on June 20, 2018.
The registrants for each active ingredient other than cuprous iodide
sought and were granted intervention.
    The Parties have been engaged in settlement negotiations to reach
an agreement in this case. The proposed settlement agreement between
the Parties calls for, among other things, the Parties to file a Joint
Motion for Order on Consent requesting that the Court order EPA to: (1)
Complete a final effects determination for any use of cuprous iodide
that is approved for sale and distribution by August 13, 2021; (2)
complete final Biological Evaluations (BEs) for two of the other active
ingredients by September 30, 2025 and the remaining two active
ingredients by September 30, 2027; and (3) initiate consultation as
appropriate based on the outcome of the BEs.
    Similar to the settlement agreement in CBD, et al. v. EPA, et al.
(Case No. CV-11-0293-JCS (N.D. Cal.)), this proposed settlement
agreement provides for the possibility of extending these dates if
specific events occur, such as an extension of a comment period.
    In addition to the commitments above, the settlement agreement
provides that within three months of issuance of draft BEs or no later
than December of 2024 and 2026, the Parties will meet and discuss
potential interim measures. The settlement agreement also provides that
EPA will maintain a web page that includes the settlement agreement,
associated court orders, and a link to an independent 3rd-party web
page hosted, maintained, and funded by Defendant-Intervenors.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed settlement agreement from persons who are not named as parties
to the litigation in question. EPA may withdraw or withhold consent to
the proposed settlement if the comments disclose facts or
considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate,
improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the ESA
or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Unless EPA
determines that consent should be withdrawn, the terms of the proposed
settlement agreement will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Settlement
Agreement

A. How can I get a copy of the proposed settlement agreement?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by EPA-HQ-
OGC-2020-0612) contains a copy of the proposed settlement agreement and
proposed order that will be filed with the Joint Motion for Order on
Consent. The EPA is temporarily suspending its Docket Center and
Reading Room for public visitors, with limited exceptions, to reduce
the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will
continue to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and
webform. We encourage the public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov/ as there may be a delay in processing mail and
faxes. Hand deliveries or couriers will be received by scheduled
appointment only. For further information and updates on EPA Docket
Center services, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area
health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond
rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.
    The electronic version of the public docket for this action
contains a copy of the proposed settlement agreement and proposed order
that will be filed with the Joint Motion for Order on Consent, and is
available through https://www.regulations.gov. You may use
www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index
listing of the contents of the official public docket, and access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once
in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then
select ``search.'' It is important to note that EPA's policy is that
public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be
made available for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without
change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information
claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute is not included in the official public docket or in the
electronic public docket.
    EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted
material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's
electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper
form in the official public docket. Please refer to the information
above about the current status of the EPA Docket Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the www.regulations.gov website to submit comments to EPA
electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The
electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(email) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
email comment directly to the Docket without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

Joseph E. Cole,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2020-27541 Filed 12-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 90)]
[Notices]
[Page 27299-27300]
[DOCID:fr10my06-112]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53751]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Declaration of Effectiveness of the Fingerprint Plan of
the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.

May 2, 2006.
    On May 1, 2006, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'' or ``SEC'') an amended fingerprinting plan (``Amended
Plan'') pursuant to Rule 17f-2(c) \1\ under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (``Act'').\2\ The Amended Plan \3\ supersedes and replaces the
NASD's current fingerprinting plan.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 240.17f-2(c).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
    \3\ Attached hereto as Exhibit A.
    \4\ The Commission declared the current fingerprint plan of the
NASD effective in 1988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NASD believes that the Amended Plan will be an improvement over
the current NASD fingerprinting plan. It permits the NASD to record in
the Central Registration Depository (``CRD'') the status of
fingerprints submitted to the Attorney General. Through the CRD system,
NASD makes available to a member or other securities industry
participant that has submitted fingerprints the status and results of
such fingerprints after submission to the Attorney General. In
addition, the NASD has made other minor clarifying and typographical
revisions.
    Under the NASD's current fingerprinting plan, members or other
securities industry participants submit fingerprints and identifying
information, on paper or electronically, to the NASD, which then
forwards the cards to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (``FBI'')
(the fingerprint processing arm of the Office of the Attorney General
of the United States). The FBI identifies submitted fingerprints,
retrieves relevant criminal history information, and returns
fingerprint reports (including the original paper fingerprint cards, if
any) to the NASD. Under the terms of the Amended Plan, the member or
other securities industry participant will be able to view the status
and results of fingerprints, including any relevant criminal history
information, through the CRD system.
    The Commission has reviewed the procedures detailed in the Amended
Plan and believes that the Amended Plan is consistent with the public
interest and the protection of investors. Enabling members or other
securities industry participants to view the status and results of
fingerprints, including relevant criminal history information, through
the CRD system should improve the efficiency of members or other
securities industry participants in identifying persons who may be
subject to statutory disqualification more rapidly. Thus, the
Commission declares the Amended Plan to be effective.
    The Commission notes that securities industry fingerprinting
procedures are in a state of flux due to rapidly advancing technology.
In the event that an industry-wide standard is adopted or becomes
prevalent and in the event that this Amended Plan substantially differs
therefrom, the Commission would expect the NASD to revise its
fingerprinting plan to incorporate the industry-wide standard.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(17)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.

Exhibit A--National Association of Securities Dealers, Incorporated;
Fingerprint Plan

    National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'') submits
this Fingerprint Plan (``Plan'') pursuant to Rule 17f-2(c) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''). This Plan
supersedes and replaces the NASD's Fingerprint Plan approved by the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') on June 22, 1976,
and as amended thereafter.
    The purpose of this Plan is to facilitate securities industry
participants' compliance with Section 17(f)(2) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 17f-2 thereunder, by providing a facility for securities industry
participants to

have the fingerprints of their partners, directors, officers, and
employees processed by the Attorney General of the United States or his
designee (hereinafter ``Attorney General'') as required by Section
17(f)(2) and Rule 17f-2, thereunder. NASD, pursuant to a Plan filed
with and declared effective by the Commission, processes fingerprint
records of securities industry participants as described herein
consistent with those provisions.
    NASD accepts fingerprints and identifying information from member
firms and other securities industry participants required to be
fingerprinted pursuant to Rule 17f-2. Securities industry participants
may submit fingerprints and identifying information on paper or
electronically, provided such submissions are consistent with protocols
and requirements established by the Attorney General.
    NASD accepts a single set of fingerprints and identifying
information for an associated person in lieu of separate fingerprint
submissions by affiliated NASD member firms with which the individual
is associated in satisfaction of the Section 17(f)(2) fingerprinting
requirement, provided that the NASD affiliate member firms are under
common ownership or control as reported on Form BD, and that affiliate
information is provided with the initial application for registration.
    NASD transmits fingerprints and identifying information, on paper
or electronically, to the Attorney General for identification and
processing, consistent with protocols and requirements established by
the Attorney General.
    NASD receives processed results from the Attorney General (on paper
or electronically) and transmits those results via paper or electronic
means to authorized recipients (i.e., to a member or other securities
industry participant that submitted the fingerprints and to regulators
for licensing, registration and other regulatory purposes), consistent
with protocols and requirements established by the Attorney General. In
cases where the Attorney General's search on the fingerprints submitted
fails to disclose prior arrest data, NASD transmits that result to the
securities industry participant that submitted the fingerprints. In
cases where the Attorney General's search yields Criminal History
Record Information (CHRI), NASD transmits that information to the
securities industry participant that submitted the fingerprints. With
respect to members, NASD also reviews any CHRI returned by the Attorney
General to identify persons who may be subject to statutory
disqualification under the Exchange Act and to take action, as
appropriate, with respect to such persons.
    NASD advises its members and member applicants of the availability
of fingerprint services and any fees charged by NASD in connection with
those services and the processing of fingerprints pursuant to this
Plan. NASD will file any such NASD member fees with the Commission
pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act.
    NASD maintains copies of fingerprint processing results received
from the Attorney General with respect to fingerprints submitted by
NASD pursuant to this Plan, in accordance with NASD's Record Retention
Plan filed with the Commission. Any maintenance of fingerprint records
by NASD shall be for NASD's own administrative purposes, and NASD is
not undertaking to maintain fingerprint records on behalf of NASD
members pursuant to Rule 17f-2(d)(2). NASD records in the Central
Registration Depository (CRD[supreg]) the status of fingerprints
submitted to the Attorney General. Through the CRD system, NASD makes
available to a member that has submitted fingerprints the status and
results of such fingerprints after submission to the Attorney General.
    NASD shall not be liable for losses or damages of any kind in
connection with its fingerprinting services, as a result of its failure
to follow, or properly to follow, the procedures described above, or as
a result of lost or delayed fingerprint cards, electronic fingerprint
records, or fingerprint reports, or as a result of any action by NASD
or NASD's failure to take action in connection with this Plan.
 [FR Doc. E6-7100 Filed 5-9-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: December 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 239)]
[Notices]
[Page 74080-74082]
[DOCID:fr14de05-117]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52920; File No. SR-PCX-2005-112]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Pacific Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change and
Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Revisions to the Series 4
Examination Program

December 7, 2005.
    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 November 3, 2005, the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (``PCX'' 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 PCX. On
November 22, 2005, PCX filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change. PCX has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a
stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning,
administration, or enforcement of an existing rule of the self-
regulatory organization pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as
amended, 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)(i).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    PCX is filing revisions to the study outline and selection
specifications for the Limited Principal--Registered Options (Series 4)
examination program. The proposed revisions update the material to
reflect changes to the laws, rules, and regulations covered by the
examination, as well as modify the content of the examination program
to track more closely the functional workflow of a Series 4 limited
principal. PCX is not proposing any textual changes to the PCX Rules.
The revisions that PCX is submitting with this filing supersede all
prior revisions to the Series 4 examination program submitted by PCX.
    The revised study outline is available on PCX's Web site (http://www.pacificex.com
), at PCX, and at the Commission. However, PCX has

omitted the Series 4 selection specifications from this filing and has
submitted the specifications under separate cover to the Commission
with a request for confidential treatment pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under
the Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 240.24b-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, PCX 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. PCX 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
    Pursuant to Section 6(c)(3) of the Act,\6\ which allows PCX to
examine and verify the standards of training, experience, and
competence for persons associated with PCX Options Trading Permit
(``OTP'') Holders or OTP Firms, PCX has developed examinations, and
requires satisfaction of examinations developed by other SROs, that are
designed to establish that persons associated with PCX OTP Holders or
OTP Firms have attained specified levels of competence and knowledge.
PCX periodically reviews the content of examinations to determine
whether revisions are necessary or appropriate in view of changes
pertaining to the subject matter covered by the examinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PCX Rule 9.18 states that no OTP Firm or OTP Holder shall be
approved to transact business with the public in options contracts,
unless those persons associated with the OTP Firm or OTP Holder who are
designated as Options Principals or who are designated as Registered
Representatives have been approved by and registered with the Exchange.
The Series 4 examination, an industry-wide examination, qualifies an
individual to function as a Registered Options and Security Futures
Principal, but only for purposes of supervising an OTP Holder's or OTP
Firm's options activities.\7\ The Series 4 examination tests a
candidate's knowledge of options trading generally, the industry rules
applicable to trading of option contracts, and the rules of registered
clearing agencies for options. The Series 4 examination covers, among
other things, equity options, foreign currency options, index options,
and options on government and mortgage-backed securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A Registered Options and Security Futures Principal also
must complete a firm-element continuing education program that
addresses security futures and a principal's responsibilities for
security futures before such person can supervise security futures
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Series 4 examination program is shared by PCX and the following
SROs: the American Stock Exchange LLC, the Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Inc., the New York Stock Exchange, Inc., the National
Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., and the Philadelphia Stock
Exchange, Inc.
    A committee of industry representatives, together with the staff of
the PCX and the other SROs, recently undertook a periodic review of the
Series 4 examination program. As a result of this review and as part of
an ongoing effort to align the examination more closely to the
supervisory duties of a Series 4 limited principal, PCX is proposing to
modify the content of the examination to track the functional workflow
of a Series 4 limited principal. More specifically, PCX is proposing to
revise the main section headings and the number of questions on each
section of the Series 4 study outline as follows: Options Investment
Strategies, decreased from 35 to 34 questions; Supervision of Sales
Activities and Trading Practices, increased from 71 to 75 questions;
and Supervision of Employees, Business Conduct, and Recordkeeping and
Reporting Requirements, decreased from 19 to 16 questions. PCX is
further proposing revisions to the study outline to reflect the SEC
short sale requirements. The revised examination continues to cover the
areas of knowledge required to supervise options activities.
    PCX is proposing these changes to the entire content of the Series
4 examination, including the selection specifications and question
bank. The number of questions on the Series 4 examination will remain
at 125, and candidates will continue to have three hours to complete
the exam. Also, each question will continue to count one point, and
each candidate must correctly answer 70 percent of the questions to
receive a passing grade.
2. Statutory Basis
    PCX believes that the proposed revisions to the Series 4
examination program are consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\8\ in
general, and further the objectives of Section 6(b)(1) \9\ in
particular, in that it is designed to enforce compliance by OTP Holders
and OTP Firms and persons associated with the rules of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    PCX does not believe that the proposed rule change, as amended,
will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The proposed rule change, as amended, has become effective pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act\10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1)
thereunder,\11\ in that the proposed rule change constitutes a stated
policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning,
administration, or enforcement of an existing rule of the self-
regulatory organization. PCX will announce the implementation date in a
Rule Adoption Notice to be published no later than 7 days after Notice
of this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The effective date of the original proposed rule is
November 3, 2005. The effective date of Amendment No. 1 is November
22, 2005. For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under
Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period
to commence on November 22, 2005, the date on which PCX submitted
Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-PCX-2005-112 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PCX-2005-112. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's

Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the

submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with
respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change
between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's
Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the PCX. 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-PCX-2005-112 and should be
submitted on or before January 4, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-7330 Filed 12-13-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


Year Month State Residential Revenue ( Thousand $) Commercial Revenue ( Thousand $) Industrial Revenue ( Thousand $) Transportation Revenue ( Thousand $)