[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 22 (Monday, February 3, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5952-5953]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02045]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0751; FRL-10004-42]

Pesticide Registration Review; Interim Decisions and Case
Closures for Several Pesticides; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's interim
registration review decisions for the following chemicals: 2,4-DB, 3-
MCH, aliphatic solvents, alkyl imidazolines, bromoxynil, buprofezin,
chondrostereum purpureum, diflubenzuron, dikegulac sodium, diquat
dibromide, fluthiacet-methyl, hydramethylnon, inorganic polysulfides
(also known as calcium polysulfide or lime sulfur), IR3535, lufenuron,
o-Benzyl-p-Chlorophenol, octenol, PMD, Potato Leaf Roll Virus
Resistance Gene, starlicide (DRC-1339), trifluralin, tri-n butyl
tetradecyl phosphonium chloride (TTPC), uniconazole-p, zinc and zinc
salts, and zoxamide. In addition, it announces the closure of the
registration review case for 1-(3-chloroallyl)-3,5,7-triaza-1-
azoniaadamantane (CTAC) because the last U.S. registrations for this
pesticide have been canceled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For pesticide specific information, contact: The Chemical Review
Manager for the pesticide of interest identified in the Table in Unit
IV.
    For general information on the registration review program,
contact: Melanie Biscoe, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P),
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 305-7106; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action.

II. Background

    Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide
registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the
statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform
its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human
health or the environment. As part of the registration review process,
the Agency has completed interim decisions for all pesticides listed in
the Table in Unit IV. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each
pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other
knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.

III. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals listed
in the Table in Unit IV pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural
Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C.
Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the
registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under
FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only
if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA
section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with
widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must
perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the
use of a pesticide in or on food.

IV. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability
of EPA's interim registration review decisions for the pesticides shown
in the following table. The interim registration review decisions are
supported by rationales included in the docket established for each
chemical.

                            Table--Registration Review Interim Decisions Being Issued
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Registration review case name and                                                  Chemical review manager and
               number                                 Docket ID No.                      contact information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,4-DB, Case Number 0196............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0661                          Samantha Thomas,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
3-Methyl-2-cyclohexen-1-one (3-MCH),  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0671                          Joseph Mabon,
 Case Number 6074<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-0177.
Aliphatic solvents, Case Number 3004  EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0039                          Veronica Dutch,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Alkyl imidazolines, Case Number 3010  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0620                          Peter Bergquist,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Bromoxynil and Bromoxynil Esters,     EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0896                          Tiffany Green,
 Case Number 2070<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-0314.
Buprofezin, Case Number 7462........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0373                          Patricia Biggio,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Chondrostereum purpureum, Case        EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0051                          Bibiana Oe,
 Number 6091<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-8162.
Diflubenzuron, Case Number 0144.....  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0714                          Christian Bongard,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Dikegulac sodium, Case Number 3061..  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0771                          Jonathan Williams,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.

Diquat dibromide, Case Number 0288..  EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0846                          Jordan Page,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-0467.
Fluthiacet-methyl, Case Number 7280.  EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0285                          Eric Fox<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Hydramethylnon, Case Number 2585....  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0869                          Carolyn Smith,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-8325.
Inorganic polysulfides (also known    EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0102                          Katherine St. Clair,
exception occurred on : 2020-02045.htm
exception occurred on : 2020-02045.htm
 as calcium polysulfide or lime                                                      stclair[email protected]
 sulfur) Case Number 4054.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
IR3535, Case Number 6046............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0106                          Alexandra Boukedes,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Lufenuron, Case Number 7627.........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0098                          Andy Muench,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-8263.
o-Benzyl-p-Chlorophenol (OBPCP),      EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0423                          Erin Dandridge,
 Case Number 2045<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Octenol, Case Number 6033...........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0940                          Joseph Mabon,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-0177.
p-Methane-3,8-diol (PMD), Case        EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0693                          Joseph Mabon,
 Number 6017<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-0177.
Potato Leaf Roll Virus Resistance     EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0416                          Michael Glikes,
 Gene, Case Number 6505<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Starlicide (DRC-1339), Case Number    EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0696                          Nathan Sell,
 2610<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-8020.
Trifluralin, Case Number 0179.......  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0417                          Matthew Khan,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-8613.
Tri-n Butyl Tetradecyl Phosphonium    EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0952                          Daniel Halpert,
 Chloride (TTPC), Case Number 5111<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Uniconazole-P, Case Number 7007.....  EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0729                          Jaclyn Pyne,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-0445.
Zinc and Zinc Salts, Case Number      EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0011                          Michael McCarroll,
 4099<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Zoxamide, Case Number 7032..........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0391                          Sergio Santiago,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed interim registration review decisions for the
chemicals in the table above were posted to the docket and the public
was invited to submit any comments or new information. EPA addressed
the comments or information received during the 60-day comment period
for the proposed interim decisions in the discussion for each pesticide
listed in the table. Comments from the 60-day comment period that were
received may or may not have affected the Agency's interim decision.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58(c), the registration review case docket for
the chemicals listed in the Table will remain open until all actions
required in the interim decision have been completed.
    This document also announces the closure of the registration review
case for 1-(3-chloroallyl)-3,5,7-triaza-1-azoniaadamantane (CTAC) (Case
Number 3069, Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0004) because the last
U.S. registrations for these pesticides have been canceled.
    Background on the registration review program is provided at:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: January 27, 2020.
Mary Reaves,
Acting Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2020-02045 Filed 1-31-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 244 (Thursday, December 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76842-76843]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30148]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0001]

Food and Drug Administration/American Academy of Ophthalmology
Workshop on Developing Novel Endpoints for Premium Intraocular Lenses;
Public Workshop

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the following
public workshop entitled ``FDA/American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO)
Workshop on Developing Novel Endpoints for Premium Intraocular
Lenses.'' The main topic of this workshop is the current challenges in
the assessment of innovative intraocular lens (IOL) designs with a
focus on endpoint methodologies used in evaluating IOL safety and
effectiveness. Experts in subjects ranging from patient reported
outcomes to objective measures of accommodation will give talks on the
latest developments in the field. Participants will then engage in in-
depth discussions of the pros and cons of various methods used to
assess premium IOLs, and work to devise a plan to further promote
innovation in this device area. The primary goal of the workshop is to
improve the regulatory science for evaluating premium IOLs, which in
turn may enhance the efficiency with which safe and effective premium
IOLs get to the market. This public workshop is being rescheduled due
to the government shutdown.
    Date and Time: The public workshop will be held on March 28, 2014,
from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Materials may be picked up starting at 7:30
a.m.
    Location: The public workshop will be held at FDA's White Oak
Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 31 Conference Center, the
Great Room (rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993. Entrance for the public
workshop participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where
routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and
security information, please refer to http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm.
    Contact: Michelle Tarver, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX: 301-847-
8126, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Registration: AAO will charge a registration fee to cover its share
of the expenses associated with the workshop. The registration fee is
$250 for Academy members and $400 for non-members. Registration is
available on a first-come, first-served basis. Persons interested in
attending this public workshop must register online. The deadline for
online registration is March 27, 2014, at 5 p.m. EDT. There will be no
onsite registration on the day of the public workshop. Early
registration is recommended because facilities are limited and,
therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each
organization. To register for the public workshop, please visit the AAO
Web site (http://www.aao.org/meetings/iol_workshop.cfm). Those
interested in attending but unable to access the electronic
registration site should fax the PDF form on the AAO Web site (http://www.aao.org/meetings/upload/FDA_iol_workshop_reg.pdf) to 415-561-
8575. Those without Internet access should contact AAO Customer Service
to register at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). Please provide
complete contact information for each attendee, including name, title,
affiliation, address, email, and telephone number. If there are any
questions with registration, please contact the AAO administrative
offices at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Registrants will receive confirmation after
they have been accepted. You will be notified if you are on a waiting
list.
    This public workshop is being rescheduled due to the government
shutdown. It was originally scheduled for October 11, 2013. Those who
registered for the original workshop date were contacted by AAO
individually and offered either a complete refund or the option to have
those monies applied to the rescheduled date registration. Any
questions about this process should be addressed to AAO Customer
Service at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free).
    Food and beverages will be available for purchase by participants
during the workshop breaks.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Ms. Susan Monahan at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>
no later than March 14, 2014.
    For more information on the workshop, please see FDA's Medical
Devices News & Events--Workshops & Conferences calendar at http://

www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm.
(Select this public workshop from the posted events list.)
    Streaming Webcast of the Public Workshop: The morning session but
not the afternoon session of this public workshop will also be Webcast.
Persons interested in viewing the Webcast must register online by 5
p.m. EDT, March 14, 2014. Early registration is recommended because
Webcast connections are limited. Organizations are requested to
register all participants, but to view using one connection per
location. Webcast participants will be sent technical system
requirements after registration and will be sent connection access
information after March 24, 2014. If you have never attended a Connect
Pro event before, test your connection at https://collaboration.fda.gov/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm. To get
a quick overview of the Connect Pro program, visit http://www.adobe.com/go/connectpro_overview. (FDA has verified the Web site
addresses in this document, but FDA is not responsible for any
subsequent changes to the Web sites after this document publishes in
the Federal Register.)
    Transcripts: Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is
available, it will be accessible at http://www.regulations.gov. It may
be viewed at the Division of Dockets Management, Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. A
transcript will also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM,
after submission of a Freedom of Information request. Written requests
are to be sent to the Division of Freedom of Information (ELEM-1029),
Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Bldg.,
Rockville, MD 20857. A link to the transcript will also be available
approximately 45 days after the public workshop on the Internet at
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm. (Select this public workshop from the posted events list.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Cataract surgery is the most commonly performed elective procedure
in the United States with over 3 million patients being implanted with
an IOL. Over the past two decades, IOLs have undergone significant
design changes allowing them to correct for a spectrum of visual
distances and refractive errors. As IOL technology evolves, some
endpoints for the evaluation of the technology are also evolving.
Endpoints and strategies for assessing the relative safety and
effectiveness of these innovative lens designs are in various stages of
development. At this workshop, not only will some of these novel
endpoints and the challenges with assessments of these endpoints be
identified, but these endpoints also will be prioritized for further
discussion, development, and validation. Breakout sessions following
the didactic portion of the workshop will allow for more in-depth group
discussions of potential approaches to address these challenges.
    The workshop seeks to involve industry and academia in addressing
the challenges in the development of novel endpoints for premium IOLs.
By bringing together all of the relevant stakeholders, which include
clinicians, researchers, industry representatives, and regulators, to
this workshop, we hope to facilitate the improvement of regulatory
science in this rapidly evolving product area.
    FDA and AAO recognize the unique opportunity this workshop provides
for all stakeholders of the ophthalmic device community and that the
knowledge and education provided from this workshop will further
strengthen our mission of protecting the public health.

II. Topics for Discussion at the Public Workshop

    Topics to be discussed at the public workshop include, but are not
limited to:
     Safety assessments for premium IOLs and how they could
differ from those for monofocal IOLs.
     Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) measures and the need to
develop and validate them for assessing the safety and effectiveness of
premium IOLs.
     Objective assessments of accommodation and their
challenges.
     Subjective assessments of accommodation and Extended Depth
of Focus (EDF) and their challenges.
    These topics will be presented by experts in the associated area
and the afternoon will allow for more in-depth discussions of the given
topics in small breakout sessions.

    Dated: December 12, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-30148 Filed 12-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 148 (Thursday, August 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42823-42824]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16720]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP21-477-000]

Enable Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization and Establishing Intervention and Protest Deadline

    Take notice that on July 22, 2021, Enable Gas Transmission, LLC
(Enable), 910 Louisiana Street, Ste. 48040, Houston, Texas 77002, filed
in the above referenced docket a prior notice pursuant to sections
157.205, 157.208, and 157.211 of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Enable's
blanket certificate issued in Docket Nos. CP82-384-000 and CP82-384-
001, for authorization to construct: (i) The 2.6-mile-long, 8-inch-
diameter JM-44 pipeline from Enable's existing Line J to a new meter
station; (ii) the Nucor Meter Station; (iii) the 0.6-mile-long, 8-inch-
diameter JM-44A pipeline; and (iv) aboveground auxiliary facilities at
the tie-in locations on Enable's existing Line J and Line JM-40 all
located in Mississippi County, Arkansas (Nucor Pipeline Project). The
project will allow Enable to transport 5,000 dekatherms per day of firm
transportation capacity to Nucor Corporation's Cold Steel Mill (Nucor).
Enable states that the project is being proposed because they claim
that the local distribution company that currently delivers Nucor's
natural gas cannot meet Nucor's additional volumes requirements. The
estimated cost for the project is $3,798,095, all as more fully set
forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to
public inspection.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
exception occurred on : 2021-16720.htm
exception occurred on : 2021-16720.htm
Regulatory Commission at FERCOnline[email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application should be directed to
Lisa Yoho, Sr. Director Regulatory and FERC Compliance, Enable Gas
Transmission, LLC, 910 Louisiana Street, 48th floor, Houston, Texas
77002, by phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, by facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Public Participation

    There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review
of this project: You can file a protest to the project, you can file a
motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the
project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to
intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to
intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 28,
2021. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is
explained below.

Protests

    Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the NGA,\1\ any person \2\ or the Commission's staff may file a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed or if a
protest is filed and then withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed
time for filing a protest, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request for authorization
will be considered by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 157.205.
    \2\ Persons include individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities. 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section
157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,\3\ and must be submitted by
the protest deadline, which is September 28, 2021. A protest may also
serve as a motion to intervene so long as the protestor states it also
seeks to be an intervenor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 18 CFR 157.205(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interventions

    Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this
proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of
Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently
challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \4\ and the regulations under the NGA \5\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is September 28, 2021. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
your interest in the proceeding. For an individual, this could include
your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene. For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \5\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are
filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied.
Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late
and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide
justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations. A

person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list
maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies
(paper or electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by
all other parties.

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The
Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments
on or before September 28, 2021. The filing of a comment alone will not
serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party,
you must intervene in the proceeding.

How To File Protests, Interventions, and Comments

    There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and
comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number
CP21-477-000 in your submission.
    (1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by
using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the
Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and
Filings. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; first select General'' and then select ``Protest'',
``Intervention'', or ``Comment on a Filing''; or \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Additionally, you may file your comments electronically by
using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's
website at www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings.
Using eComment is an easy method for interested persons to submit
brief, text-only comments on a project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to
the address below.\7\ Your submission must reference the Project docket
number CP21-477-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Hand-delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be
delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option
1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-
8258 or [email protected]
    Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant
either by mail or email (with a link to the document) at: Lisa Yoho,
Sr. Director Regulatory and FERC Compliance, Enable Gas Transmission,
LLC, 910 Louisiana Street, 48th floor, Houston, Texas 77002 or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any subsequent submissions by an
intervenor must be served on the applicant and all other parties to the
proceeding. Contact information for parties can be downloaded from the
service list at the eService link on FERC Online.

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at
(866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link as described above. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission,
such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. For more information and to register, go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: July 30, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-16720 Filed 8-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31277-31279]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11645]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77822; File No. SR-CBOE-2016-043]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule To Amend the Fees Schedule

May 12, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 2, 2016, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Frequent Trader Program. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at
the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. On April 1, 2016,
the Exchange adopted a program that offers transaction fee rebates to
Customers (origin code ``C'') that meet certain volume thresholds in
CBOE VIX Volatility Index options (``VIX options'') and S&P 500 Index
options (``SPX''), weekly S&P 500 options (``SPXW'') and p.m.-settled
SPX Index options (``SPXpm'') (collectively referred to as ``SPX
options'') provided the Customer registers for the program (the
``Frequent Trader Program'' or ``Program'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See SR-CBOE-2016-023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To participate in the Frequent Trader Program, Customers register
with the Exchange. Once registered, the Customer is provided a unique
identification number (``FTID'') that can be affixed to each of its
orders. The FTID allows the Exchange to identify and aggregate all
electronic and manual trades during both the Regular Trading Hours and
Extended Trading Hours sessions from that Customer for purposes of
determining whether the Customer meets any of the various volume
thresholds. The Customer has to provide its FTID to the Trading Permit
Holder (``TPH'') submitting that Customer's order to the Exchange
(executing agent'' [sic] or ``executing TPH'') and that executing TPH
would have to enter the Customer's FTID on each of that Customer's
orders.\4\ As there are instances in which a Customer's FTID was not or
could not be, affixed to an order, the Exchange also provided executing
TPHs the ability to submit to the exchange [sic] a form (the ``Frequent
Trader Program--Volume Corrections Form'' or ``Corrections Form'') that
would provide a mechanism for executing TPHs to identify transactions
to the Exchange that should have been, but were not, associated with
particular FTIDs. More specifically, the executing TPH can identify on
the form the ``correct'' FTID that should be associated with a specific
transaction, so that such volume is properly counted towards the
appropriate Customer's aggregated volume for purposes of determining
what tier, if any, the customer meets. Currently, the Fees Schedule
provides that the Corrections Form must be submitted to the Exchange
within 3 business days in order to ensure timely processing (``3
business day rule'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange notes that it is the responsibility of the
Customer to request that the executing TPH affix its FTID to its
order(s), and that it is voluntarily for the executing TPH to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to provide that for the month of April
2016, it will not enforce the requirement that the Corrections Form be
submitted within 3 business days and instead provide that the
Corrections Form will be accepted through May 4, 2016 (by 5:00 p.m.
CST), for all transactions, regardless of when in April the
transaction(s) occurred. Specifically, the Exchange notes that a number
of executing TPHs were unable to (i) affix FTIDs onto their Customers'
orders and (ii) complete and submit the Corrections Form within 3
business days for their Customers registered in the Frequent Trader
Program. Many TPHs are still familiarizing themselves with this new
program and its requirements and as such the Exchange desires to give
them additional time to implement their systems and procedures,
including their systems and procedures related to completing and
submitting the Corrections Form. Additionally, the Exchange does not
wish to penalize the Customers who would miss out on rebates they would
otherwise be entitled to if the deadline is not extended. Accordingly,
the Exchange does not wish to enforce the 3 business day rule for April
2016. The Exchange believes providing additional time to submit
Corrections Forms will ensure Customers are not unfairly deprived of
any rebates that they are entitled to under the Frequent Trader Program
for the month of April.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\5\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \7\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes not enforcing the 3 business
day rule for

the month of April 2016 provides executing TPHs additional time to
submit Corrections Forms, which removes impediments to and perfects the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and
protects investors and the public interest as it avoids penalizing
Customers who would otherwise miss out on rebates they are entitled to
under the Frequent Trader Program. Corrections Forms allow the Exchange
to ensure that a customer's total volume at the end of the month
accurately reflects their real trading volume, including volume from
transactions that, upon submission of the order, did not reflect their
FTID. As noted above, many TPHs are still in the process of
familiarizing themselves with the new Frequent Trader Program and its
requirements and do not yet have the systems or procedures in place to
process the Corrections Forms within the timeframe the Exchange
initially required. As such, the Exchange does not believe it would be
fair to the Customers to enforce the 3 business day rule for the first
month of the Frequent Trader Program (i.e., April 2016). Additionally,
waiving the 3 business day rule for April 2016 eliminates confusion in
that it gives the executing TPHs extra time to understand the
requirements of the Program and implement policies, procedures, and
system changes needed to properly take advantage of the program, which
again removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system, and protects investors and
the public interest.

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 because the proposed change
applies uniformly to all executing TPHs of Customer FTID orders and
because it provides for a clear process to rectify scenarios in which a
FTID(s) were not or could not be applied to Customer's order and where
Corrections Forms were not submitted in a timely manner in April 2016.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will not cause an
unnecessary burden on intermarket competition because it only applies
to trading on CBOE. To the extent that the proposed changes make CBOE a
more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges,
such market participants are welcome to become CBOE market
participants.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the
Exchange to provide the Commission with written notice of its intent
to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and
the text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days
prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such
shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Commission has
determined to waive the five business day requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \10\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \11\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. Consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest, waiver of the
30-day operative delay will provide TPHs with additional time (to May
4) to submit Corrections Forms for participating Customer transactions
that occurred in April under the new Frequent Trader Program, which
should help TPHs acclimate to the new process for submitting their
participating Customer trades to CBOE and thereby ensure that their
April volume under the program accurately reflects their trading
volume. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and
designates the proposal operative upon filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2016-043 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-CBOE-2016-043. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only

information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2016-043, and should be submitted
on or before June 8, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-11645 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 77471]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30192]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-7563-000]

Meserve, Richard A.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on December 18, 2014, Richard A. Meserve submitted
for filing, an application for authority to hold interlocking
positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
16 U.S.C. 825(b) and part 45 of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR part
45.
    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. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 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 January 8, 2015.

    Dated: December 18, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30192 Filed 12-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 83 (Wednesday, April 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23817-23818]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09092]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
    Docket Number: PR20-52-000.
    Applicants: ETC Katy Pipeline, Ltd.
    Description: submits tariff filing per 284.123(b)(1)+(g):
Certification of Unchanged State Rate Election of ETC Katy Pipeline,
LLC to be effective 4/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/17/2020.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>91.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/2020.
    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/2020.

    Docket Number: PR20-53-000.
    Applicants: Southcross CCNG Transmission Ltd.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)/: Rate Election and
Amended Statement of Operating Conditions to be effective 4/20/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/20/2020.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>43.
    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/2020.

    Docket Number: PR20-47-001.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)+(g): Amended SOR and
SOC 4.30.2020 to be effective 3/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/22/2020.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>05.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/13/2020.
    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/2020.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-797-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Remove X-234 References to be
effective 5/23/2020.

    Filed Date: 4/22/20.
    Accession Number: 20200422-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-798-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Removal of Expiring Total
Agreement to be effective 6/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/22/20.
    Accession Number: 20200422-5013.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-799-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Compliance filing TETLP OFO April 2020 Penalty
Disbursement Report.
    Filed Date: 4/22/20.
    Accession Number: 20200422-5019.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/20.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered,
but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 23, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-09092 Filed 4-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12172-12174]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04469]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2021-N-0873]

Patrick Charles Bishop: Final Debarment Order

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing an order
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) debarring
Patrick Charles Bishop for a period of 5 years from importing or
offering for import any drug into the United States. FDA bases this
order on a finding that Mr. Bishop was convicted of one felony count
under Federal law for conspiracy to commit fraud. The factual basis
supporting Mr. Bishop's conviction, as described below, is conduct
relating to the importation into the United States of a drug or
controlled substance. Mr. Bishop was given notice of the proposed

debarment and was given an opportunity to request a hearing to show why
he should not be debarred. Mr. Bishop provided notice to FDA that he
acquiesced to the debarment; FDA received that notice on January 4,
2022. As such, his debarment commenced on the date FDA was notified of
acquiescence.

DATES: This order is applicable January 4, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit applications for termination of debarment to the
Dockets Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaime Espinosa, Division of
Enforcement (ELEM-4029), Office of Strategic Planning and Operational
Policy, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug Administration,
12420 Parklawn Dr., Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 306(b)(1)(D) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(b)(1)(D))
permits debarment of an individual from importing or offering for
import any drug into the United States if FDA finds, as required by
section 306(b)(3)(C) of the FD&C Act, that the individual has been
convicted of a felony for conduct relating to the importation into the
United States of any drug or controlled substance. On July 9, 2021, Mr.
Bishop was convicted, as defined in section 306(l)(1) of FD&C Act, in
the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, when the
court entered judgment against him for the offense of conspiracy to
commit fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371.
    FDA's finding that debarment is appropriate is based on the felony
conviction referenced herein. The factual basis for this conviction is
as follows: As contained in the plea agreement in Mr. Bishop's case,
filed on January 7, 2021, in which he pleaded guilty, he owned Patrick,
LLC and employed other individuals. Using the business name ``Best
Peptide Supply, LLC,'' he ordered PNC-27 from GL Biochem (Shanghai),
Ltd., a supplier based in China, and used the PNC-27 to manufacture
drug products intended for the treatment of cancer in humans. FDA has
not approved PNC-27 for use in the United States as a drug to treat any
disease, including any form of cancer. He obtained PNC-27 under the
false pretense that he intended to use the product solely for
laboratory research purposes. In fact, he provided invoices to GL
Biochem that did not use the term ``PNC-27'' and included the statement
``FOR RESEARCH ONLY.'' He falsely certified to GL Biochem that the
product he was purchasing from GL Biochem was ``restricted to
laboratory research purposes, excluding clinical research on [the]
human body.''
    Mr. Bishop also falsely represented to FDA personnel that the
product shipped from GL Biochem was to be used for laboratory testing
and scientific research. Mr. Bishop directed GL Biochem to ship the
PNC-27 to his residences and other locations in the State of Alabama
where he used the PNC-27 he purchased to manufacture drug products
intended for human use to treat cancer. Specifically, along with
others, Mr. Bishop knowingly caused PNC-27 to be processed into a
``water-based PNC-27 drug product'' as well as suppositories using
methods, controls, and facilities that did not conform to current good
manufacturing practice. Mr. Bishop sold and distributed the unapproved,
misbranded, and adulterated PNC-27 drug products he manufactured to
individuals in other States and countries; these drug products failed
to bear directions for use, and some bore no labeling whatsoever. To
avoid detection by FDA and to conceal the nature of these unapproved,
misbranded, and adulterated drug products, Mr. Bishop operated under
the business name ``Immuno Cellular Restoration Program, Inc. (ICRP)''
and used the terms, ``research,'' ``sample,'' ``ICRP'' and
``ICRPstudy.com'' on his product labels and shipping documentation. Mr.
Bishop received millions of dollars in payments for his unapproved,
misbranded, and adulterated PNC-27 drug products.
    As a result of this conviction, FDA sent Mr. Bishop, by certified
mail, on October 18, 2021, a notice proposing to debar him for a 5-year
period from importing or offering for import any drug into the United
States. The proposal was based on a finding under section 306(b)(3)(C)
of the FD&C Act that Mr. Bishop's felony conviction for one count of
conspiracy to commit fraud was for conduct relating to the importation
into the United States of any drug or controlled substance because he
conspired to illegally import, manufacture, and distribute in
interstate commerce unapproved, misbranded, and adulterated drug
products while concealing this conduct from Federal authorities in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 371. In proposing a debarment period, FDA
weighed the considerations set forth in section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C
Act that it considered applicable to Mr. Bishop's offense and concluded
that the felony offense warranted the imposition of a 5-year period of
debarment.
    The proposal informed Mr. Bishop of the proposed debarment and
offered him an opportunity to request a hearing, providing him 30 days
from the date of receipt of the letter in which to file the request,
and advised him that failure to request a hearing constituted a waiver
of the opportunity for a hearing and of any contentions concerning this
action. Mr. Bishop received the proposal and notice of opportunity for
a hearing on October 25, 2021. Mr. Bishop sent a memorandum to FDA,
dated November 3, 2021, wherein he stated that he acquiesced to the
proposed debarment. FDA received the memorandum on January 4, 2022. In
accordance with section 306(c)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act, Mr. Bishop's
period of debarment shall commence on the date FDA received notice he
acquiesced to the debarment, which was January 4, 2022 (21 CFR part
12).

II. Findings and Order

    Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Office of Human and Animal
Food Operations, under section 306(b)(3)(C) of the FD&C Act, under
authority delegated to the Assistant Commissioner, finds that Mr.
Patrick Charles Bishop has been convicted of a felony under Federal law
for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of any
drug or controlled substance. FDA finds that the offense should be
accorded a debarment period of 5 years as provided by section
306(c)(2)(A)(iii) of the FD&C Act.
    As a result of the foregoing finding, Mr. Bishop is debarred for a
period of 5 years from importing or offering for import any drug into
the United States, effective January 4, 2022. Pursuant to section
301(cc) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(cc)), the importing or offering
for import into the United States of any drug or controlled substance
by, with the assistance of, or at the direction of Mr. Bishop is a
prohibited act.
    Any application by Mr. Bishop for termination of debarment under
section 306(d)(1) of the FD&C Act should be identified with Docket No.
FDA-2021-N-0873 and sent to the Dockets Management Staff (see
ADDRESSES). The public availability of information in these submissions
is governed by 21 CFR 10.20(j).
    Publicly available submissions will be placed in the docket and
will be viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets
Management Staff (see ADDRESSES) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 25, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-04469 Filed 3-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: October 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 205)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 62881-62886]
[DOCID:fr22oc08-11]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 385

[Docket No. RM08-8-000; Order No. 718]

Ex Parte Contacts and Separation of Functions

Issued October 16, 2008.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission is revising its regulations to clarify its
rules governing ex parte contacts and separation of functions as they
apply to proceedings arising out of investigations initiated under Part
1b of the Commission's regulations. The revisions specify when
Commission litigation staff and persons outside the Commission may
contact decisional employees once the Commission has established
proceedings on matters that had been investigated under Part 1b. The
Commission also is revising its regulations governing intervention to
clarify that intervention is not permitted as a matter of right in
proceedings arising from Part 1b investigations.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will become effective November 21,
2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wilbur Miller, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202) 502-8953<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    1. On May 15, 2008, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) \1\ proposing to revise its regulations governing ex
parte contacts and interventions in the context of investigations under
Part 1b of its regulations.\2\ Specifically, the NOPR proposed to
revise the Commission's regulations governing ex parte contacts and
separation of functions to clarify the circumstances in which
Commission litigation staff and outside persons may contact
Commissioners and decisional staff while an investigation is pending.
The NOPR further proposed to clarify the Commission's regulations
governing intervention to provide that intervention is not available as
of right in a proceeding arising from an investigation under Part 1b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Ex Parte Contacts and Separation of Functions, 73 FR 29451
(May 21, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,634 (2008).
    \2\ 18 CFR part 1b.

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

I. Background

    2. In the NOPR, the Commission noted that, while its regulation
governing interventions provided that there is no intervention in a
Part 1b investigation, the regulation did not address the subject of
intervention in a proceeding arising from a Part 1b investigation.\3\
The NOPR explained that the Commission's precedents have recognized
that, because a proceeding arising from an investigation is focused on
the alleged conduct of a specific entity, intervention ordinarily is
inappropriate and may delay or sidetrack the proceeding.\4\ The NOPR
therefore proposed to revise the regulation to provide that
intervention is not available as of right in a proceeding arising from
a Part 1b investigation. The Commission noted that, under this
revision, it would retain the ability to permit intervention in cases
where it might be appropriate, as the Commission had in fact done on
past occasions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214.
    \4\ See Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., 121 FERC ] 61,282, at P
19 & n.28 (2007) (ETP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. With respect to off-the-record communications, the NOPR
explained that the current Commission rules created a potential
inconsistency between the ability of Commission litigation staff and
persons outside the Commission to contact Commissioners and decisional
staff in situations where, as the result of a Part 1b investigation,
the Commission initiates proceedings other than trial-type proceedings.
The NOPR further noted some uncertainty within the regulated community
about the application of the ex parte rules in the context of Part 1b
investigations. The NOPR proposed to revise the Commission's ex parte
\5\ and separation of functions \6\ regulations to provide that neither
outside persons nor litigation staff may engage in off-the-record
communications with Commissioners and decisional staff once the
Commission has initiated a proceeding in connection with a Part 1b
investigation, regardless of the type of proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Rule 2201 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.2201 (2008).
    \6\ Rule 2202 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.2202 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. The NOPR also made reference to the Revised Policy Statement on
Enforcement,\7\ which was issued at the same time as the NOPR. In the
Revised Policy Statement on Enforcement, the Commission announced that,
as a matter of policy, Commissioners and their personal staffs will no
longer accept oral communications about pending investigations from the
subjects of those investigations. Such communications will have to be
in writing. This measure is a policy and not a part of the Commission's
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Enforcement of Statutes, Regulations, and Orders, 123 FERC ]
61,156 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. In total, the Commission received 14 comments regarding the
NOPR. Multiple State Utilities Commissions joined the comments of the
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC).\8\ In
addition, the Industry Associations' (IA) comments represented the
views of several entities.\9\ In general, the commenters expressed
appreciation of the Commission's attempt to refine its enforcement
practices, but expressed concern with both the proposal prohibiting
intervention as a matter of right in enforcement proceedings, as well
as the proposal regarding ex parte contacts with decisional staff prior
to the issuance of an order to show cause.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Public Utilities Commissions of California, Indiana,
Nevada, Ohio, and South Dakota, as well as the Public Service
Commissions of New York, Maryland, and West Virginia, and the
Illinois Commerce Commission, supported the comments of NARUC.
    \9\ The Industry Association consists of the American Gas
Association, the Edison Electric Institute, the Electric Power
Supply Association, the Independent Petroleum Association of
America, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, the
Natural Gas Supply Association, and the Process Gas Consumers Group.
    \10\ Several commenters filed interventions or requested to
intervene out of time, or requested to file late comments. These
included the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, the Public
Service Commission of West Virginia, the Illinois Commerce
Commission, the Maryland Public Service Commission, the Public
Utilities Commission of the State of California, the Public Service
Commission of the State of New York, and the Public Utilities
Commission of Ohio. The Commission will treat all such submissions
as comments on the NOPR and has considered them regardless of when
they were filed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

A. Intervention

    6. The bulk of the comments expressed concern about the NOPR's
proposal to revise the Commission's intervention rules to provide that
there is no intervention as a matter of right in proceedings arising
from Part 1b investigations. For the most part, the commenters were
concerned with specific situations that may arise from time to time in
which they believe intervention would be warranted. A few comments
reflected broader concerns about possible restrictions on intervention.
1. Broader Issues
    7. With respect to broader concerns, the National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association and American Public Power Association (NRECA/
APPA), and Ergon Energy Partners, LP (Ergon), assert that the
Commission should not adopt the proposed rule abolishing intervention
as a matter of right in enforcement proceedings. NRECA/APPA state that
the proposed rule is ``likely unlawful to the extent it purports to
eliminate statutory intervention rights'' and is unnecessary in light
of the standards contained in Rule 214.\11\ They assert that it would
be more consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) if the
Commission followed the standards contained in the existing rule.\12\
They further suggest that, as an alternative to the automatic grant of
a timely, unopposed intervention, the Commission could adopt procedures
employed by other agencies that provide for public notice and comment
periods on consent decrees.\13\ Ergon, while agreeing that intervention
in an investigation may be inappropriate, suggests that the Commission
modify the rule to allow third parties the opportunity for meaningful
participation in proceedings that directly affect their interests, and
to allow intervention once the Commission finds culpable conduct.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NRECA/APPA Comments at 2, 5.
    \12\ Id. at 6-9 (citing 5 U.S.C. 554(c)(1)).
    \13\ Id. at 6, 11. NRECA/APPA cite Federal Trade Commission and
Department of Justice Regulations. Id. at 11.
    \14\ Ergon Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. We do not agree that the proposed revisions will contravene any
statutory right to intervene. The APA requires agencies to give
interested parties an opportunity for ``the submission and
consideration of facts, arguments, offers of settlement, or proposals
of adjustment when time, the nature of the proceeding, and the public
interest permit.'' \15\ The concerns underlying the NOPR's proposal are
directly related to these considerations. In an adjudicative proceeding
before the Commission, third parties typically provide facts to assist
us in developing a case. However, the purpose of investigations and
enforcement proceedings is to examine instances of potential wrongdoing
and take remedial action where needed. Only in unusual circumstances,
as discussed below, would third parties have additional information
that is necessary for the Commission's investigation. As we have stated
previously:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 5 U.S.C. 554(c)(1) (emphasis added).

    As a general proposition, when a Part 1b investigation becomes
an enforcement action, we find that it would be inappropriate to
allow entities to intervene as parties to the proceeding. We find
that allowing parties to

intervene during an enforcement action potentially would be contrary
to the public interest and would interfere with the Commission
considering issues in a timely and judicious manner. This is because
in such an enforcement proceeding, the Commission is considering
closely the particular actions/inactions, rights, obligations and,
potentially violations and penalties of the subject party--here,
ETP. Such a proceeding is different from a rate filing, rulemaking,
or other proceeding where the rights of third parties are clearly
affected. Allowing third parties to intervene in enforcement
proceedings in pursuit of their own objectives could delay or
sidetrack a proceeding extending or even creating additional
uncertainty for the subject party.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ ETP, 121 FERC ] 61,282, at P 19.

    Furthermore, the presence of intervenors could damage the ability
of the Commission to conduct investigations, impair our ability to
enter into settlements, and be contrary to the public interest. If our
ability to enter into settlements is impaired, the result could be
litigation of matters that could otherwise be settled, draining
Commission enforcement resources. Since litigation could be prolonged,
the benefits of settlements could be delayed, perhaps for years.
Another result from the strain on the Commission's investigative
resources could be fewer investigations, with fewer remedies being
imposed and fewer signals being sent to the industry regarding which
sorts of behaviors might expose an entity to an enforcement action,
along with greater costs and prolonged uncertainty imposed on the
subjects of investigation.
    9. We consider our views in line with judicial precedent on the
subject of an agency's considerable discretion in making enforcement
decisions.\17\ This discretion extends, among other things, to the
decision whether to initiate an enforcement proceeding \18\ as well as
the conduct of the proceeding and any settlement efforts.\19\ Inclusion
of third parties as a matter of right would necessarily cede a portion
of the Commission's discretion to those parties. Furthermore, the
proposal made by NRECA/APPA that the Commission rely on the standards
currently contained in Rule 214 would limit or eliminate the
Commission's ability to take into account parameters such as time and
the nature of the proceeding, even though those parameters are
specifically set out in the APA. The current rule focuses on the nature
of the prospective intervenor's interest, not on the unique
considerations that pertain to an enforcement proceeding.\20\ We
therefore find that NRECA/APPA's proposal is not appropriate to the
enforcement context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985) (agency
decisions regarding conduct of enforcement actions are presumptively
unreviewable by the courts).
    \18\ Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. FERC, 252 F.3d 456, 459 (DC
Cir. 2001) (BG&E) (``agency's decision not to exercise its
enforcement authority, or to exercise it in a particular way, is
committed to its absolute discretion'').
    \19\ Id. at 458 (decision to settle is committed to FERC's
nonreviewable discretion).
    \20\ Rule 214(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. In our view, the NOPR's proposal addresses Ergon's concerns
that third parties be able to participate in proceedings that directly
implicate their interests, where those interests can be addressed in a
manner that does not unduly hamper the Commission's enforcement
efforts. As noted in the NOPR, the Commission has recognized that, on
occasion, special circumstances might justify intervention in an
enforcement proceeding. One such situation was an intervention in an
enforcement proceeding where a state public service commission sought
to clarify the impact of a settlement on state interests.\21\ The
Commission also has noted that intervention might be appropriate to
allow parties to participate in the allocation of disgorged
profits.\22\ The proposed revisions to Rule 214 do not categorically
bar interventions in proceedings arising from Part 1b investigations.
Situations in which intervention would be appropriate are, however,
necessarily limited in keeping with the nature of the enforcement
function and the significant discretion accorded the Commission in that
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Williams Gas Pipelines Central, Inc., 94 FERC ] 61,285
(2001).
    \22\ ETP, 121 FERC ] 61,282 at P 19 & n.28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Specific Situations
    11. NARUC and the state regulatory bodies argue that state entities
should be able to intervene given their unique position as regulators
charged with serving the public interest.\23\ The state regulators
argue that they have a direct interest in enforcement proceedings due
to the impact on their ratepayers \24\ and that their collaboration
will enhance enforcement efforts by avoiding duplicative efforts and
inconsistent outcomes.\25\ They further maintain that the NOPR's
proposal is inconsistent with section 308 of the Federal Power Act
(FPA),\26\ which authorizes the Commission to admit interested state
and local entities as parties to its proceedings.\27\ According to
NARUC, the FPA contains ``no qualifiers regarding the type of FERC
proceedings'' to which a state may be granted party status.\28\ NARUC
proposes to allow states to intervene as a matter of right, and
institute a process requiring ``specific notification of parties that
could have an interest in these determinations, including affected
State commissions.'' \29\ NARUC also states that the Commission should
clarify that the resolution of a Part 1b proceeding will not affect the
rights of states to pursue their own remedies for the wrongdoing that
was the subject of the FERC investigation.\30\ The Public Service
Commission of Maryland additionally asserts that state commissions must
be able to intervene as of right to request rehearing in enforcement
proceedings.\31\ Finally, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission
proposes that market monitors be allowed to intervene and be informed
of the status of ongoing investigations.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ NARUC Comments at 5.
    \24\ Id. at 5-6.
    \25\ Id. at 6.
    \26\ 16 U.S.C. 825g(a).
    \27\ NARUC Comments at 3; see New York Pub. Serv. Comm'n
Comments at 4 (Commission should preserve carefully crafted balance
by continuing to recognize state interests); Pub. Serv. Comm'n of
Maryland Comments at 3 (it would be counterproductive not to include
state regulatory authority in enforcement proceedings).
    \28\ NARUC Comments at 3.
    \29\ Id. at 8.
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Maryland Comments at 4.
    \32\ Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission Comments at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. One other specific circumstance drawing concern was North
American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) Reliability Standards
investigations, particularly so-called ``root cause'' investigations to
determine which entity is at fault for alleged violations of NERC
reliability standards.\33\ Public Service Electric and Gas Company
(PSEG), while agreeing with the Commission generally about intervention
in Part 1b investigations, states that, ``because in the RTO/ISO
construct responsibility for complying with NERC Reliability Standards
does not in every case align with responsibilities between PJM and its
members,'' NERC Reliability Standards investigations are substantially
different from other Part 1b investigations and participants deserve
more latitude in joining other parties. PSEG asserts that, in the
interest

of due process, it may be necessary in enforcement proceedings arising
from reliability standards investigations to ``widen the scope of
permitted interventions,'' \34\ and that an entity accused of a NERC
violation must be allowed to argue that another entity is responsible
for the violation, and join them as a party to the proceeding prior to
the penalty phase in order to ensure that there is an accurate finding
of the ``root cause'' entity.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ There may be many situations where several entities could
be investigated for violations for facts arising out of the same
event and in such a case we would expect each entity would be
afforded the full rights allowed to a subject of an enforcement
action. Moreover, the conduct of any entity that might mitigate the
severity of the violation or penalty as to the subject of an
investigation can always be evaluated in an enforcement action
regardless of whether such other entity is an intervenor.
    \34\ PSEG Comments at 3.
    \35\ Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. As we note above, nothing in the proposed revisions to Rule 214
precludes intervention in enforcement proceedings. While clarifying
that there is no right to intervene in proceedings arising from Part 1b
investigations, the Commission nevertheless retains the discretion to
take into account specific circumstances that might favor intervention,
although such circumstances would be uncommon and the participation by
intervenors may be limited to specific matters.
    14. We disagree with PSEG that there is any fundamental difference
concerning interventions in investigations carried out by the Regional
Entities and the Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) with respect
to possible violations of Reliability Standards approved by the
Commission and in Part 1b investigations conducted by the Commission
staff into the same kinds of violations. The Commission found in Order
No. 672 that, in general, there should be no right to intervene in
investigations carried out by Regional Entities or the ERO, for the
same reasons that interventions are not permitted in our staff's Part
1b investigations.\36\ We note that in its investigation, a Regional
Entity or the ERO has authority to inquire into all facts relevant to
whether a violation of a Reliability Standard occurred, and to identify
all entities, whether listed on the ERO's compliance registry or not,
whose actions related to the possible violation of a Reliability
Standard.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability
Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and
Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, 71 FR
8662 (Feb. 17, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,204 at P 510, order
on reh'g, Order No. 672-A, 71 FR 19814 (April 18, 2006), FERC Stats.
& Regs. ] 31,212 (2006).
    \37\ See Reliability Standard Compliance and Enforcement in
Regions with Regional Transmission Organizations or Independent
System Operators, 122 FERC ] 61,247, at P 19 (2008) (NERC and
Regional Entities will conduct thorough investigations that will
examine the ``root cause'' of violations, and would extend such
investigations to entities not listed on NERC's compliance registry
if necessary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. We also stated in Order No. 672 that if a Regional Entity or
the ERO concluded that interventions would be appropriate in a
particular proceeding it would conduct arising from an investigation
into possible violations of Reliability Standards, it must receive
advance authorization to do so from the Commission.\38\ The Commission,
therefore, will be in a position to evaluate on a case-by-case basis
whether allowing interventions in a particular Regional Entity or ERO
proceeding would be appropriate.\39\ We anticipate that the Commission
could consider the issues PSEG mentions when making this determination
in particular cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Order No. 672 at P 511.
    \39\ See, e.g., North American Electric Reliability Council;
North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 119 FERC ] 61,060,
at P 150, order on reh'g, 120 FERC ] 61,260 (2007) (recognizing
exceptions to the general rule that no interventions should be
permitted in Regional Entity and NERC enforcement proceedings, but
stating that exceptions to this rule exist, which the Commission
would evaluate in advance upon request on a case-by-case basis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. We do not agree with the expansive view of state participation
in enforcement proceedings taken by NARUC and some of the state
regulatory bodies. The proposed revisions are in no way inconsistent
with the FPA. Section 308 of the FPA states as follows:

    In any proceeding before it, the Commission, in accordance with
such rules and regulations as it may prescribe, may admit as a party
any interested State, State commission, municipality, or any
representative of interested consumers or security holders, or any
competitor of a party to such proceeding, or any other person whose
participation in the proceeding may be in the public interest.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 16 U.S.C. 825g(a). Section 15(a) of the Natural Gas Act, 15
U.S.C. 717n(a), includes a nearly identical provision.

Although this provision recognizes the role of state authorities, it
does not draw a fundamental distinction between them and other
interested persons. Furthermore, the FPA leaves the Commission with
discretion to prescribe appropriate rules and to admit parties when it
is ``in the public interest.'' By using `may' instead of `shall,' it is
clear that section 308 establishes no right of intervention. The
section merely authorizes the Commission to admit state commissions
into FERC proceedings. Nothing in the provision prevents the Commission
from recognizing the differing public interests that may be at stake in
different types of proceedings. The provision likewise places no
limitations on the considerations that the Commission may take into
account in determining the public interest.
    17. In our view, as a general matter the availability of
intervention in enforcement proceedings would be inconsistent with the
discretion in pursuing enforcement measures that Congress has afforded
the Commission. The DC Circuit, for instance, has determined that the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) \41\ places no limitations on the Commission's
exercise of its enforcement powers. The court has stated, ``At every
turn the NGA confirms that FERC's decision how, or whether, to enforce
that statute is entirely discretionary.'' \42\ Congress evinced no
intention to ``cabin FERC's enforcement discretion,'' because if it
had, it would have used ``obligatory terms such as `must,' `shall,' and
`will,' not the wholly precatory language employed in the act.'' \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 717, et seq. There is no meaningful difference
between the relevant provisions of the NGA and those of the FPA.
Compare 15 U.S.C. 717s(a) with 16 U.S.C. 825m, and 15 U.S.C. 717m
with 16 U.S.C. 825f. Analogous provisions of the NGA and FPA are to
be read in pari materia. See, e.g., Arkansas-Louisiana Gas Co. v.
Hall, 453 U.S. 571, 577 n.7 (1981).
    \42\ BG&E, 252 F.3d at 460.
    \43\ Id. at 461.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. We also see no reason why the revisions to Rule 214 would have
any impact upon the ability of states to pursue remedies for wrongdoing
that was the subject of a Part 1b investigation. The revisions address
only the availability of intervention in proceedings arising from Part
1b investigations. As the above discussion shows, the Commission's
enforcement powers lie within its own discretion and the revisions
therefore do not deprive any person or entity of any remedies that it
previously possessed.
    19. Although we fully recognize the significant role played in
oversight and enforcement by state regulatory commissions, the
Commission has the sole authority to enforce its own jurisdictional
statutes. As the courts have recognized, enforcement authority is
generally considered discretionary with the agencies to which it is
granted. In our view, the effective exercise of that discretion
requires that enforcement proceedings remain focused on the primary
issue, which is the alleged misconduct of the respondent. The revisions
to Rule 214 nevertheless will leave the Commission with the ability in
appropriate cases to permit the participation of third parties, but
that participation will be tailored to appropriate situations based on
factors that are unique to the particular enforcement context.
    20. For similar reasons, we are not persuaded by the various
suggestions

that we solicit participation in investigations and enforcement
proceedings. Given that we expect intervention to be permitted only in
unusual situations, measures designed to invite such participation will
in most cases result in delay and distraction from the central issues.
Consequently, we find it appropriate to adopt the revisions to Rule 214
contained in the NOPR.

B. Off-the-Record Communications

    21. The Commission received comments on the NOPR's proposed
revisions to its ex parte and separation of functions rules from IA
representing the views of several entities. The IA states that it
supports the Commission's goal of equal treatment of investigative
staff and subjects of an investigation subsequent to a show cause
order, and argues that the Commission should extend the proposal to
include the early stages of the investigation.\44\ In its view,
allowing Commission investigative staff unrestricted access to
decisional employees, while allowing the subject of an investigation
only written communication, puts the subject of an investigation at a
disadvantage in making its case to the Commission. The IA specifically
requests that the Commission ``allow oral communications with
Commissioners and other decision-making employees by both
[i]nvestigative [s]taff and the [s]ubject.'' \45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ IA Comments at 2.
    \45\ Id. at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. The IA also makes specific procedural suggestions. It maintains
that the subject of an investigation should be allowed to respond to
the investigator's report and should be provided with ``the full set of
material facts and legal conclusions appearing in the investigator's
report, at the same time the report or draft is submitted to any
decisional employee.'' \46\ It further requests clarification of Order
No. 711.\47\ That Order states that a ``notice of intent to seek a show
cause order `shall provide sufficient information and facts' to enable
the Subject to prepare a response.'' \48\ The IA requests that
``sufficient information and facts'' be clarified to mean ``all of the
material facts and legal conclusions being relied on in the
investigator's report.'' \49\ It further requests that a subject be
allowed to respond to an investigator's report if it is revised after a
response is filed.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Id. at 3.
    \47\ Submissions to the Commission upon Staff Intention to Seek
an Order to Show Cause, Order No. 711, 73 FR 29431 (May 21, 2008),
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,270 (2008).
    \48\ Id. at 9.
    \49\ Id.
    \50\ Id. at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. The IA's comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
Although the NOPR made reference to the Revised Policy on Enforcement,
which was issued on the same date, it was the latter that announced the
policy whereby neither Commissioners nor their personal staffs will
receive oral communications, in person or by telephone, about pending
investigations from the subjects of those investigations. That policy
does not appear in any regulation proposed here. The NOPR proposed only
to revise the rules on separation of functions and off-the-record
communications to clarify that both outside persons and Commission
investigative staff will be able to communicate with decisional staff
during the same time periods, specifically while an investigation is
pending until the point at which the Commission initiates an
enforcement proceeding. The NOPR did not in any way address the
procedures for staff to submit, and the subject of an investigation to
respond to, a request for a show cause order. Those procedures
therefore cannot be addressed properly here. The Commission therefore
will adopt the proposed revisions to its rules governing off-the-record
communications and separation of functions.

III. Information Collection Statement

    24. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require OMB
to approve certain information collection requirements imposed by
agency rule.\51\ This Final Rule does not contain any information
collection requirements and compliance with the OMB regulations is thus
not required.

IV. Environmental Analysis

    25. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\52\
Issuance of this Final Rule does not represent a major federal action
having a significant adverse effect on the quality of the human
environment under the Commission's regulations implementing the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Part 380 of the Commission's
regulations lists exemptions to the requirement to draft an
Environmental Analysis or Environmental Impact Statement. Included is
an exemption for procedural, ministerial or internal administrative
actions.\53\ This rulemaking is exempt under that provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 5 CFR 1320.12.
    \52\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats.
& Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \53\ 18 CFR 380.4(1) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    26. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \54\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This Final Rule concerns solely procedural matters. The Commission
certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact upon
participants in Commission proceedings. An analysis under the RFA is
not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 5 U.S.C. 601-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Document Availability

    27. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington DC 20426.
    28. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
    29. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    30. These regulations are effective November 21, 2008. The
Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule
is not a ``major rule'' as defined in section 351 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 385

    Administrative practice and procedure, Electric utilities,
Penalties, Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Part 385,
Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows.

PART 385--RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

0
1. The authority citation for Part 385 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 551-557; 15 U.S.C. 717-717z, 3301-3432; 16
U.S.C. 791a-825v, 2601-2645; 28 U.S.C. 2461; 31 U.S.C. 3701, 9701;
42 U.S.C. 7101-7352, 16441, 16451-16463; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App.
U.S.C. 1-85 (1988).

0
2. Amend Sec.  385.214 by adding new paragraph (a)(4) to read as
follows:

Sec.  385.214  Intervention (Rule 214).

    (a) * * *
    (4) No person, including entities listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2) of this section, may intervene as a matter of right in a
proceeding arising from an investigation pursuant to Part 1b of this
chapter.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  385.2201 by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as
follows:

Sec.  385.2201  Rules governing off-the-record communications (Rule
2201).

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Contested on-the-record proceeding means
    (i) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, any
proceeding before the Commission to which there is a right to intervene
and in which an intervenor disputes any material issue, any proceeding
initiated pursuant to rule 206 by the filing of a complaint with the
Commission, any proceeding initiated by the Commission on its own
motion or in response to a filing, or any proceeding arising from an
investigation under part 1b of this chapter beginning from the time the
Commission initiates a proceeding governed by part 385 of this chapter.
    (ii) The term does not include notice-and-comment rulemakings under
5 U.S.C. 553, investigations under part 1b of this chapter, proceedings
not having a party or parties, or any proceeding in which no party
disputes any material issue.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  385.2202 by revising it to read as follows:

Sec.  385.2202  Separation of functions (Rule 2202).

    In any proceeding in which a Commission adjudication is made after
hearing, or in any proceeding arising from an investigation under part
1b of this chapter beginning from the time the Commission initiates a
proceeding governed by part 385 of this chapter, no officer, employee,
or agent assigned to work upon the proceeding or to assist in the trial
thereof, in that or any factually related proceeding, shall participate
or advise as to the findings, conclusion or decision, except as a
witness or counsel in public proceedings.

 [FR Doc. E8-25103 Filed 10-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P