[Federal Register: May 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 85)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 23593-23595]
[DOCID:fr04my10-19]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 65

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0003; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1096]

Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Interim rule.

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

SUMMARY: This interim rule lists communities where modification of the
Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) is appropriate because
of new scientific or technical data. New flood insurance premium rates
will be calculated from the modified BFEs for new buildings and their
contents.

DATES: These modified BFEs are currently in effect on the dates listed
in the table below and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in
effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
    From the date of the second publication of these changes in a
newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety (90) days in
which to request through the community that the Deputy Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administrator reconsider the changes. The
modified BFEs may be changed during the 90-day period.

ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each
community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin C. Long, Acting Chief,
Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646-2820, or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The modified BFEs are not listed for each
community in this interim rule. However, the address of the Chief
Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFE
determinations are available for inspection is provided.
    Any request for reconsideration must be based on knowledge of
changed conditions or new scientific or technical data.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is
shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
    The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain
qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).
    These modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management
criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required.
They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any
existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain
management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter
requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other
Federal, State, or regional entities. The changes in BFEs are in
accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This interim rule is
categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10,
Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not
been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Regulatory Classification. This interim rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This interim rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This interim rule
meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65

    Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

0
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows:

PART 65--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  65.4  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  65.4 are amended
as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Date and name of
         State and county            Location and Case      newspaper where     Chief executive officer          Effective date of         Community No.
                                            No.          notice was published         of community                 modification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona:

    Maricopa.....................  Town of Buckeye (09-  November 19, 2009;    The Honorable Jackie A.    March 26, 2010................          040039
                                    09-0764P).            November 26, 2009;    Meck, Mayor, Town of
                                                          Arizona Business      Buckeye, 530 East Monroe
                                                          Gazette.              Avenue, Buckeye, AZ
                                                                                85326.
    Maricopa.....................  Unincorporated areas  November 19, 2009;    The Honorable Andrew W.    March 26, 2010................          040037
                                    of Maricopa County    November 26, 2009;    Kunasek, Chairman,
                                    (09-09-0764P).        Arizona Business      Maricopa County Board of
                                                          Gazette.              Supervisors, 301 West
                                                                                Jefferson Street, 10th
                                                                                Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003.
California:
    San Diego....................  Unincorporated areas  November 20, 2009;    The Honorable Dianne       March 29, 2010................          060284
                                    of San Diego (09-09-  November 27, 2009;    Jacob, Chairwoman, San
                                    1604P).               San Diego             Diego County Board of
                                                          Transcript.           Supervisors, 1600
                                                                                Pacific Highway, San
                                                                                Diego, CA 92101.
    Santa Clara..................  City of Santa Clara   October 21, 2009;     The Honorable Patricia M.  February 25, 2010.............          060350
                                    (09-09-0375P).        October 28, 2009;     Mahan, Mayor, City of
                                                          Santa Clara Weekly.   Santa Clara, 1500
                                                                                Warburton Avenue, Santa
                                                                                Clara, CA 95050.
Colorado:
    Douglas......................  Unincorporated areas  November 12, 2009;    The Honorable Melanie      March 19, 2010................          080049
                                    of Douglas County     November 19, 2009;    Worley, Chairman,
                                    (09-08-0908P).        Douglas County News-  Douglas County Board of
                                                          Press.                Commissioners, 100 3rd
                                                                                Street, Castle Rock, CO
                                                                                80104.
    Grand........................  Town of Fraser (10-   November 19, 2009;    The Honorable Fran Cook,   March 26, 2010................          080073
                                    08-0009P).            November 26, 2009;    Mayor, Town of Fraser,
                                                          Middle Park Times.    P.O. Box 370, Fraser, CO
                                                                                80442.
    Grand........................  Unincorporated areas  November 19, 2009;    The Honorable Gary         March 26, 2010................          080280
                                    of Grand County (10-  November 26, 2009;    Bumgarner, Chairman,
                                    08-0009P).            Middle Park Times.    Grand County Board of
                                                                                Commissioners, P.O. Box
                                                                                264, Hot Sulphur
                                                                                Springs, CO 80451.
    Teller.......................  Unincorporated areas  November 4, 2009;     The Honorable James        March 11, 2010................          080173
                                    of Teller County      November 11, 2009;    Ignatius, Chairman,
                                    (09-08-0500P).        Pikes Peak Courier    Teller County Board of
                                                          View.                 Commissioners, P.O. Box
                                                                                959, Cripple Creek, CO
                                                                                80813.
    Teller.......................  City of Woodland      November 4, 2009;     The Honorable Steve        March 11, 2010................          080175
                                    Park (09-08-0500P).   November 11, 2009;    Randolph, Mayor, City of
                                                          Pikes Peak Courier    Woodland Park, 220 West
                                                          View.                 South Avenue, Woodland
                                                                                Park, CO 80866.
Illinois:
    Will.........................  Village of            November 30, 2009;    The Honorable Michael P.   December 21, 2009.............          170771
                                    Plainfield (08-05-    December 7, 2009;     Collins, President,
                                    4590P).               Herald News.          Village of Plainfield,
                                                                                24401 West Lockport
                                                                                Street, Plainfield, IL
                                                                                60544.
    Will.........................  Unincorporated areas  November 30, 2009;    The Honorable Lawrence M.  December 21, 2009.............          170695
                                    of Will County (08-   December 7, 2009;     Walsh, Executive, Will
                                    05-4590P).            Herald News.          County, 302 North
                                                                                Chicago Street, Joliet,
                                                                                IL 60432.
Louisiana: Livingston............  Unincorporated areas  November 10, 2009;    The Honorable Mike         March 17, 2010................          220113
                                    of Livingston         November 17, 2009;    Grimmer, President,
                                    Parish (09-06-        The Advocate.         Livingston Parish, P.O.
                                    0692P).                                     Box 427, Livingston, LA
                                                                                70754.
Minnesota: Anoka.................  City of Ramsey (09-   November 20, 2009;    The Honorable Thomas G.    December 14, 2009.............          270681
                                    05-4652P).            November 27, 2009;    Gamec, Mayor, City of
                                                          Anoka County Union.   Ramsey, 7550 Sunwood
                                                                                Drive Northwest, Ramsey,
                                                                                MN 55303.
Nevada: Lyon.....................  Unincorporated areas  November 25, 2009;    The Honorable Phyllis      April 2, 2010.................          320029
                                    of Lyon County (09-   December 2, 2009;     Hunewill, Chair, Lyon
                                    09-0238P).            Dayton Courier.       County Board of
                                                                                Commissioners, 30 Desert
                                                                                Creek Road, Wellington,
                                                                                NV 89444.
South Dakota:
    Lincoln......................  Unincorporated areas  November 5, 2009;     The Honorable Dale L.      October 28, 2009..............          460277
                                    of Lincoln County     November 12, 2009;    Long, Chairman, Lincoln
                                    (09-08-0747P).        Lennox Independent.   County Board of
                                                                                Commissioners, 27115
                                                                                475th Avenue,
                                                                                Harrisburg, SD 57032.
    Lincoln......................  Town of Tea (09-08-   November 5, 2009;     The Honorable John         October 28, 2009..............          460143
                                    0747P).               November 12, 2009;    Lawler, Mayor, Town of
                                                          Lennox Independent.   Tea, 600 East 1st
                                                                                Street, Tea, SD 57064.
Tennessee: Bradley...............  City of Cleveland     November 30, 2009;    The Honorable Tom          April 6, 2010.................          470015
                                    (09-04-1322P).        December 7, 2009;     Rowland, Mayor, City of
                                                          Cleveland Daily       Cleveland, P.O. Box
                                                          Banner.               1519, Cleveland, TN
                                                                                37311.
Texas:
    Bell.........................  City of Killeen (08-  October 13, 2009;     The Honorable Timothy L.   October 30, 2009..............          480031
                                    06-2994P).            October 20, 2009;     Hancock, Mayor, City of
                                                          Killeen Daily         Killeen, P.O. Box 1329,
                                                          Herald.               Killeen, TX 76540.
    Lubbock......................  City of Lubbock (08-  November 16, 2009;    The Honorable Tom Martin,  March 23, 2010................          480452
                                    06-2723P).            November 23, 2009;    Mayor, City of Lubbock,
                                                          Lubbock Avalanche-    P.O. Box 2000, Lubbock,
                                                          Journal.              TX 79457.
Virginia: Arlington..............  Unincorporated areas  December 3, 2009;     The Honorable Barbara A.   April 9, 2010.................          515500
                                    of Arlington County   December 10, 2009;    Favola, Chairperson,
                                    (09-03-1117P).        Sun-Gazette.          Arlington County Board,
                                                                                2100 Clarendon
                                                                                Boulevard, Suite 813,
                                                                                Arlington, VA 22201.
Wisconsin: Milwaukee.............  Village of Hales      November 12, 2009;    The Honorable Robert G.    March 19, 2010................          550524
                                    Corners (09-05-       November 19, 2009;    Ruesch, President,
                                    4413P).               My Community Now.     Village of Hales
                                                                                Corners, 5740 South
                                                                                124th Street, Hales
                                                                                Corners, WI 53130.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: April 27, 2010.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Mitigation,
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-10340 Filed 5-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: July 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 139)]
[Notices]
[Page 41394-41395]
[DOCID:fr18jy08-128]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58144; File No. SR-Phlx-2008-49]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Transaction Charges Applicable to Linkage ``P'' and ``P/A''
Orders

July 11, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 30, 2008, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Phlx, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4 thereunder,\4\ proposes to extend for a one-year period until July
31, 2009, a pilot program relating to transaction fees applicable to
the execution of Principal Acting as Agent Orders (``P/A Orders'') \5\
and Principal Orders (``P Orders'') \6\ sent to the Exchange via the
Intermarket Options Linkage (``Linkage'') under the Plan for the
Purpose of Creating and Operating an Intermarket Option Linkage (the
``Plan'').\7\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at http://www.phlx.com, at the Exchange, and the
Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \5\ A P/A Order is an order for the principal account of a
specialist (or equivalent entity on another participant exchange
that is authorized to represent Public Customer orders), reflecting
the terms of a related unexecuted Public Customer order for which
the specialist is acting as agent. See Exchange Rule 1083(k)(i).
    \6\ A Principal Order is an order for the principal account of
an Eligible Market Maker and is not a P/A Order. See Exchange rule
1083(k)(ii).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 44482 (June 27,
2001), 66 FR 35470 (July 5, 2001) (File No. 4-429) (Amendment to
Plan to Conform to the Requirements of Securities Exchange Act Rule
11Ac1-7); 43573 (November 16, 2000), 65 FR 70851 (November 28, 2000)
(File No. 4-429) (Order Approving Phlx Joining the Plan); and 43086
(July 28, 2000), 65 FR 48023 (August 4, 2000) (File No. 4-429)
(Approval of the Plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Phlx 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 Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections
A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the current
pilot program for one year, through July 31, 2009. No substantive
changes are being made to the pilot as it currently operates other than
to extend the pilot through July 31, 2009.
    Currently, the Exchange charges $0.25 per option contract for P
Orders sent to the Exchange and $0.15 per option contract for P/A
Orders.
    By extending the current pilot program, the Exchange should remain
competitive with other exchanges that charge fees for P Orders and P/A
Orders.\8\ Consistent with current practice, the Exchange will charge
the clearing member organization of the sender of P Orders and P/A
Orders. Also, consistent with current practice, the Exchange will not
charge for the execution of Satisfaction Orders sent through Linkage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., SR-ISE-2008-52 (filed June 24, 2008) and SR-CBOE-
2008-69 (filed June 30, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of
fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the

Act \9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of
the Act \10\ in particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of
reasonable fees and other charges among Exchange members and issuers
and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange believes that its
proposal to extend the pilot program relating to transaction fees for
Linkage P and P/A Orders provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members by charging
the same fees to all such members using the Exchange's facilities for
transaction services relating to Linkage P Orders, and by charging the
same fees to all such members using the Exchange's facilities for
transaction services relating to Linkage P/A Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The proposed rule change is being designated by the Exchange as a
``non-controversial'' rule pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
\11\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder \12\ because the
foregoing rule change: (i) Does not significantly affect the protection
of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) by its terms, does not
become operative for 30 days after the date of filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has satisfied the
pre-filing requirement contained in subparagraph (f)(6)(iii) of Rule
19b-4.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2008-49 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2008-49. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-Phlx-2008-49 and should be submitted on or before August
8, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-16403 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 197 (Friday, October 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61304-61308]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24253]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0673; FRL-9916-61]

Cancellation of Pesticides for Non-Payment of Year 2014
Registration Maintenance Fees; Summary of Orders Issued

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), the payment of an annual maintenance fee is required to keep
pesticide registrations in effect. The fee due last January 15, 2014,
has gone unpaid for 199 registrations. If the fee is not paid, the EPA
Administrator may cancel these registrations by order and without a
hearing; orders to cancel these registrations have been issued.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mick Yanchulis, Information Technology
and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Product-specific status inquiries may be made by calling toll-free,
1-800-444-7255.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. Although this
action may be of particular interest to persons who produce or use
pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0673, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Complete lists of registrations canceled for non-payment of the
maintenance fee are also available for reference in the OPP Docket.

II. Background

    Section 4(i)(5) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136a-1(i)(5)) requires that all
pesticide registrants pay an annual registration maintenance fee, due
by January 15 of each year, to keep their registrations in effect. This
requirement applies to all registrations granted under FIFRA section 3
as well as those granted under FIFRA section 24(c) to meet special
local needs. Registrations for which the fee is not paid are subject to
cancellation by order and without a hearing.
    Under FIFRA, the EPA Administrator may reduce or waive maintenance
fees for minor agricultural use pesticides when it is determined that
the fee would be likely to cause significant impact on the availability
of the pesticide for the use.
    In fiscal year 2014, maintenance fees were collected in one billing
cycle. In late November of 2013, all holders of either FIFRA section 3
registrations or FIFRA section 24(c) registrations were sent lists of
their active registrations, along with forms and instructions for
responding. They were asked to identify which of their registrations
they wished to maintain in effect, and to calculate and remit the
appropriate maintenance fees. Most responses were received by the
statutory deadline of January 15. A notice of intent to cancel was sent
in April of 2014 to companies who did not respond and to companies who
responded, but paid for less than all of their registrations. Since
mailing the notices of intent to cancel, EPA has maintained a toll-free
inquiry number through which the questions of affected registrants have
been answered.
    In fiscal year 2014, the Agency has waived the fee for 266 minor
agricultural use registrations at the request of the registrants.
Maintenance fees have been paid for about 15,999 FIFRA section 3
registrations, or about

97% of the registrations on file in December 2013. Fees have been paid
for about 1,746 FIFRA section 24(c) registrations, or about 88% of the
total on file in December 2013. Cancellations for non-payment of the
maintenance fee affect about 194 FIFRA section 3 registrations and
about 5 FIFRA section 24(c) registrations.
    The cancellation orders generally permit registrants to continue to
sell and distribute existing stocks of the canceled products until
January 15, 2015, 1 year after the date on which the fee was due.
Existing stocks already in the hands of dealers or users, however, can
generally be distributed, sold, or used legally until they are
exhausted. Existing stocks are defined as those stocks of a registered
pesticide product which are currently in the United States and which
have been packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the
effective date of the cancellation order.
    The exceptions to these general rules are cases where more
stringent restrictions on sale, distribution, or use of the products
have already been imposed, through special reviews or other Agency
actions. These general provisions for disposition of stocks should
serve in most cases to cushion the impact of these cancellations while
the market adjusts.

III. Listing of Registrations Canceled for Non-Payment

    Table 1 of this unit lists all of the FIFRA section 24(c)
registrations, and Table 2 of this unit lists all of the FIFRA section
3 registrations which were canceled for non-payment of the 2014
maintenance fee. These registrations have been canceled by order and
without hearing. Cancellation orders were sent to affected registrants
via certified mail in the past several days. The Agency is unlikely to
rescind cancellation of any particular registration unless the
cancellation resulted from Agency error.

 Table 1--FIFRA Section 24(c) Registrations Cancelled for Non-Payment of
                          2014 Maintenance Fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               SLN No.                            Product name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA-08-0018...........................  Beleaf 50 SG Insecticide.
HI-03-0003...........................  Dormex.
NY-12-0003...........................  Tsunami DQ.
OR-10-0007...........................  Bird Shield Bird Repellent
                                        Concentrate.
SD-98-0005...........................  Compound Drc-1339 Concentrate-
                                        Staging Areas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2--FIFRA Section 3 Registrations Cancelled for Non-Payment of 2014
                             Maintenance Fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Registration No.                       Product name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
000527-00108.........................  Ml-17G.
000527-00129.........................  D.C. San.
000641-00001.........................  Gopher-Go.
000641-00002.........................  Gopher-Go Ag Bait.
000777-00097.........................  Twister 2.
000777-00116.........................  Suzie Q.
001022-00518.........................  Cunapsol-1.
001022-00522.........................  Cunapsol-5.
001022-00536.........................  Pol-Nu Curap 20.
001270-00029.........................  Zep-O-San.
001270-00204.........................  Zep Veto Germicidal Bowl Cleaner.
001769-00266.........................  Al-Chek.
001769-00374.........................  Ancocide 4010.
003546-00041.........................  Shoofly Flying Insect Killer.
003573-00056.........................  Tide With Bleach II.
003573-00058.........................  Gain With Bleach II.
004713-00004.........................  Kenya Pyrethrum Extract Crude
                                        Concentrate A.
005073-00021.........................  Tox-O-Wik II.
007627-00021.........................  Stockade Fly Control Mineral Mix.
007627-00022.........................  Stockade Fly Control Block.
007627-00026.........................  Stockade Fly Control For Horses
                                        With Rabon Oral Larvicide.
007687-00003.........................  Root Force.
007698-00019.........................  Fly Patrol 19.
007698-00020.........................  Fly Patrol 4.
007698-00021.........................  Rolyx Fescue Mag.
008154-00009.........................  Sanamax Swimming Pool Water
                                        Disinfectant.
008668-00001.........................  Dog Shield.
008730-00073.........................  Hercon Disrupt Bio-Flake LBAM.
008730-00076.........................  Hercon Disrupt Bio-Tie LBAM.
009198-00118.........................  The Andersons Dithiopyr Herbicide
                                        I.
009198-00157.........................  The Andersons GC Fertilizer Plus
                                        0.029% Bifenthrin.
009198-00159.........................  The Andersons Fertilizer Plus
                                        O.029% Bifenthrin.
009198-00196.........................  The Andersons Golf Products
                                        Fertilizer Plus Fungicide Vii.
009198-00224.........................  The Andersons GC 0.15% Granular
                                        Bifenthrin Insecticide.
009198-00226.........................  The Andersons Insect Killer
                                        Granules With 0.15% Bifenthrin.
009198-00229.........................  Andersons Golf Products Fluid
                                        Fungicide.
009198-00232.........................  The Andersons Fertilizer Bait
                                        Granules Plus 0.058% Bifenthrin.
009198-00243.........................  The Andersons Ferti-Bait FA With
                                        Distance.
009215-00008.........................  All Clear Granular Swimming Pool
                                        & Spa Sanitizer.
009404-00081.........................  Weed & Feed With 1.28% Atrazine
                                        For St. Augustine Lawns.
009404-00093.........................  Sunniland Atra-4 St. Augustine
                                        Lawn Weed Killer.

009436-00002.........................  Sodium Hypochlorite Solution.
009591-00170.........................  Prokill Choice Insecticide.
009608-00002.........................  Roach Prufe.
009608-00003.........................  Termite Prufe.
009768-00047.........................  Iodine Concentrate 20.
009902-00003.........................  Disposer Care Garbage Disposer
                                        Cleaner & Disinfectant
                                        (Sanitizer).
010190-00016.........................  Citridyne.
010613-00001.........................  Conclor.
010772-00003.........................  Armicarb Sodium Bicarbonate,
                                        F.C.C.
011411-00006.........................  Leslie's Refillable Chlorinator
                                        Cartridge.
011411-00007.........................  Leslie's Algi-Kill.
011411-00017.........................  Spa Chlor Brite III.
011623-00046.........................  Multipurpose Insect Spray.
011930-00001.........................  Omego Mist ULV.
011930-00006.........................  Pervade Mosquito Larvicide
                                        Petroleum Oil.
011930-00007.........................  Pyrifos Mist ULV 2 E.C.
011930-00010.........................  Pyrifos One Mist ULV E.C.
011930-00014.........................  Opti Mist 31-66 ULV.
011930-00016.........................  Actiperm 10% E.C. Multi-Purpose
                                        Insecticide.
021718-20001.........................  Hypochlorite Solution.
033270-00016.........................  Tomahawk.
033871-20001.........................  Sodium Hypochlorite Solution 15.
035896-00019.........................  Copper Sulfate Pentahydrate.
042850-00001.........................  Results Indoor Insect Killer.
042850-00004.........................  Diatect Multipurpose Insecticide
                                        II.
042850-00005.........................  Diatect Insecticide V.
044446-00069.........................  Ppp Flea & Tick Cycleblock Total
                                        Release Fogger.
045728-00031.........................  Vancide Mz-96.
045849-00001.........................  Chlorine Liquified Gas Under
                                        Pressure.
046043-00015.........................  Swimming Pool Chlorinating Shock.
046923-00012.........................  Coppercide 50.
049403-00014.........................  Nipacide X.
049403-00020.........................  Nipa Bit Press Paste.
049403-00026.........................  Nipacide Bit 10.
050675-00002.........................  Pink Boll Worm Pheromone
                                        Technical.
051549-20002.........................  SAF-T-Chlor.
051934-00007.........................  Liquid Ant Killer Bait.
052991-00013.........................  Mosquitol-L.
053053-00009.........................  Bioshield 50.
053053-00010.........................  Bioshield 150.
053053-00011.........................  Envirosystems Proshield 3651 I.
053053-00012.........................  Envirosystems Proshield 3651 D.
054382-00003.........................  Taktic E.C.
055195-00003.........................  Coldcide 0.25%.
056362-00004.........................  Sodium Hypochlorite--12.5.
058035-00016.........................  Ceannard Diuron 80DF.
058035-00018.........................  Ceannard Diuron/Bromacil 80DF.
058035-00019.........................  Ceannard Bromacil 80DF.
058185-00005.........................  Koban 30.
058185-00032.........................  Duosan Broad Spectrum Contact
                                        Ornamental Fungicide.
058880-00003.........................  12.5% Sodium Hypochlorite
                                        Solution.
059074-00005.........................  Superchlor 7.
059807-00007.........................  Marathon 1% Granular.
059807-00008.........................  Marathon 60 WP.
060061-00011.........................  Pettit Marine Paint Premium Line
                                        Super Premium Performance
                                        Antifouling.
060061-00015.........................  Woolsey/Z*Spar Super Tox Anti-
                                        Fouling Finish B-71 Blue.
060061-00030.........................  Wood Treat MB Concentrate.
060061-00044.........................  Pettit Marine Paint Anti-Fouling
                                        1636 Red Yacht Copper.
060061-00081.........................  Acp-60 Ablative Copper Polymer
                                        Antifouling Bottom Paint.
060061-00088.........................  Sscc-3359 Sap Stain Control
                                        Concentrate.
060061-00093.........................  Double Diamond Sapstain Control
                                        Chemical.
060061-00105.........................  Woodlife Ii Stain And Wood
                                        Preservative.
060061-00113.........................  LTC-3.
062498-00005.........................  Pool Pride 80z Chlorinating
                                        Sticks.
062575-00006.........................  Biestergard Captan 50-WP.
065458-00006.........................  Plato Industries Pest Strip.
065615-00003.........................  Scoot Tm Squirrel.
066338-00001.........................  Sodium Hypochlorite Solution.
067071-00053.........................  Acticide Mkw1.
067470-00006.........................  Ethylene Oxide.
067470-00007.........................  Ethylene Oxide 100 R.
067470-00008.........................  Oxyfume 2000.

067470-00009.........................  Oxyfume 2002.
067470-00010.........................  Steriflo.
067517-00054.........................  Permethrin Wettable Powder
                                        Packet.
067771-00001.........................  Moss-Kil Roof Strip.
068543-00038.........................  Bengal Insecticide Concentrate 5.
068849-20001.........................  Sodium Hypochlorite Solution.
068868-00003.........................  Surcide ICP-A.
068934-00001.........................  Aqua Select Water Filter.
069361-00028.........................  Topdog 41% Plus.
069361-00029.........................  Pendim Weed And Feed.
069361-00031.........................  Pendim 3.3 EC Herbicide.
069361-00032.........................  Pendim H20 Herbicide.
069361-00034.........................  Triclopyr Butoxyethyl Ester
                                        Technical.
069361-00042.........................  Repar Fipronil Technical.
069587-00003.........................  Timbercote 2000a.
070369-00001.........................  Microstat 2.
070567-00002.........................  Sodium Hypochlorite Solution
                                        (12.5%).
070585-00002.........................  Larvadex 2sl.
070778-00001.........................  Squirrel Away.
071065-00002.........................  Companion Dry Concentrate
                                        Biological Fungicide.
071218-00001.........................  Genesis Xtra.
071771-00001.........................  Messenger.
072159-00002.........................  Imidapro 2SC Systemic
                                        Insecticide.
072160-00001.........................  Peroxy-Solv.
072637-00002.........................  Green Screen Powder Animal
                                        Repellent.
072790-00001.........................  Pin Nip 2EC.
072852-00003.........................  Electrolite 25.
072852-00004.........................  Electrolite 31.
072897-00001.........................  Triosyn T50.
072897-00002.........................  Triosyn T50 Powder.
073748-00003.........................  Kontrol 2-2.
074843-00004.........................  Insect Shield Concentrate 15D.
074943-00001.........................  Mega-Lure 3000.
075341-00006.........................  Osmose Flurods.
075341-00011.........................  Cop-R-Nap.
075341-00015.........................  Ord-X029.
075512-00001.........................  Ebiox Trukleen Wipes.
075630-00001.........................  Zinc Borate.
079442-00010.........................  Exosex C.
079442-00012.........................  Exosex OF.
079533-00004.........................  Coleman Insect Repellent.
080967-00007.........................  Revolution.
081910-00002.........................  TCMTB.
081910-00003.........................  Casacide T200.
081974-00001.........................  Gasco Sanitizing Solution.
082539-00002.........................  Bug Candle.
083222-00011.........................  Lambda-Cy Ag Gold.
083529-00007.........................  Sharda Imidacloprid 75 WP Ag.
083529-00008.........................  Sharda Imidacloprid 75 WP T&O
                                        Insecticide.
083529-00009.........................  Sharda Imidacloprid 75 WP PCO
                                        Insecticide.
083529-00029.........................  Tebu 45DF.
083857-00003.........................  Mguard.
084059-00005.........................  Moi-401 EP.
084888-00001.........................  Nivalis Technical.
084888-00002.........................  Nivalis.
085125-00002.........................  Attractive Toxic Sugar Bait.
085724-00002.........................  Aako Chlorpyrifos Technical.
085948-00002.........................  Cb-104.
086461-00001.........................  Glyphosate 41%.
086461-00006.........................  Mepiquat Chloride 4.2%.
086461-00015.........................  Lambda-Cyhalothrin 13% EC
                                        Insecticide.
086516-00001.........................  Bug Blockade Insecticide.
086868-00001.........................  Phortress Fungicide.
086871-00001.........................  Kill Fleas Dead.
087134-00003.........................  Sh-12.5.
087273-00003.........................  Tri Pro Tabs.
087290-00006.........................  Willowood Glyphonator 41%.
087290-00014.........................  Willowood Imidacloprid 4SC.
087290-00015.........................  Willowood Glyphosate 4.
087290-00021.........................  Willowood Imidacloprid 2SC.
087290-00023.........................  Willowood Glyphosate 41%.
088211-00001.........................  BC 250.

088800-00002.........................  Appox-D 3000.
089016-00002.........................  Lag 2.
089016-00003.........................  Lag 3.
089016-00004.........................  Lag 4.
089016-00005.........................  Lag 5.
089103-00001.........................  Cloractive.
089385-00001.........................  Ryzofuel.
089466-00001.........................  Classic Pools Chlorine Solution.
089557-00001.........................  Green Label.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    The effective date of cancellation will be the date of the
cancellation order. The orders effecting these requested cancellations
will generally permit a registrant to sell or distribute existing
stocks until January 15, 2015, 1 year after the date on which the fee
was due.
    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products
which are currently in the United States and which have been packaged,
labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the
cancellation order. Unless the provisions of an earlier order apply,
existing stocks already in the hands of dealers or users can be
distributed, sold, or used legally until they are exhausted, provided
that such further sale and use comply with the EPA-approved label and
labeling of the affected product. Exception to these general rules will
be made in specific cases when more stringent restrictions on sale,
distribution, or use of the products or their ingredients have already
been imposed, as in a special review action, or where the Agency has
identified significant potential risk concerns associated with a
particular chemical.

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

    Dated: September 22, 2014.
Jack Housenger,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-24253 Filed 10-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 183 (Friday, September 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57916-57921]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22883]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70419; File No. SR-FINRA-2013-024]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to the Discovery Guide Used in Customer Arbitration
Proceedings, as Modified by Amendment No. 1

September 16, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On April 1, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') approved a proposal filed by the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') to update the Discovery Guide
(``Guide'') used in customer arbitration proceedings.\1\ According to
FINRA, the Guide supplements the discovery rules contained in the FINRA
Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (``Customer
Code''). It includes an introduction describing the discovery process
generally, and explains how arbitrators should apply the Guide in
arbitration proceedings. The introduction is followed by two Document
Production Lists (one for firms and associated persons, and one for
customers) that enumerate the documents that parties should exchange
without arbitrator or staff intervention (collectively, the ``Lists'').
The Guide only applies to customer arbitration proceedings, and not to
intra-industry cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Exchange Act Rel. No. 64166 (Apr. 1, 2011), 76 FR 19155
(Apr. 6, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the rulemaking process to update the guide in April
2011, FINRA agreed to establish the Discovery Task Force (``Task
Force'') under the auspices of FINRA's National Arbitration and
Mediation Committee. FINRA charged the Task Force with reviewing
substantive issues relating to the Guide on a periodic basis to keep
the Guide current as products change and new discovery issues arise.
FINRA stated that it would ask the Task Force to review issues related
to electronic discovery (``e-discovery'') and product cases.
    On June 3, 2013, FINRA filed with the Commission, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange
Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ a proposed rule change to
amend the Guide to provide general guidance on electronic discovery
(``e-discovery'') issues and product cases and to clarify the existing
provision relating to affirmations made when a party does not produce
documents specified in the Guide. FINRA believes that the proposed rule
change, as described below, fulfills its commitment to review the
topics of e-discovery and product cases with the Task Force that FINRA
established in 2011.\4\ The Task Force also reviewed concerns raised by
forum users about a potential loophole created by the wording of the
Guide's affirmation section describing when and how a party indicates
that there are no responsive documents in the party's possession,
custody, or control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on June 20, 2013.\5\ The Commission received eighteen comment
letters on the proposal.\6\ On September 4, 2013, FINRA responded to
the comments and filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\7\
This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment
No. 1. The text of the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment
No. 1, is available on FINRA's Web site at http://www.finra.org, at the
principal office of FINRA, on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Act Rel. No. 69761 (June 13, 2013), 78 FR 37261
(June 20, 2013).
    \6\ Comment letters were submitted by Mary Alice McLarty,
President, American Association for Justice, dated July 11, 2013
(``AAJ Letter''); Katrina M. Boice, Aidikoff, Uhl and Bakhtiari,
dated July 10, 2013 (``Boice Letter''); Carl J. Carlson, Tousley
Brain Stephens, PLLC, dated July 11, 2013 (``Carlson Letter'');
Steven B. Caruso, Esq., Maddox Hargett & Caruso, P.C., dated June
20, 2013 (``Caruso Letter''); David T. Bellaire, Esq., Executive
Vice President and General Counsel, Financial Services Institute,
dated July 11, 2013 (``FSI Letter''); Glenn S. Gitomer, McCausland
Keen & Buckman, dated July 11, 2013 (``Gitomer Letter''); Dale
Ledbetter, Ledbetter & Associates, P.A., dated July 11, 2013
(``Ledbetter Letter''); Seth E. Lipner, Professor of Law, Zicklin
School of Business, Baruch College, Member Deutsch Lipner, dated
July 11, 2013 (``Lipner Letter''); Peter Mougey, Levin, Papantonio,
Thomas, Mitchell, Rafferty, & Proctor, P.A., dated July 11, 2013
(``Mougey Letter''); Jill I. Gross, Director, Crystal Green, Student
Intern, Susan Papacostas, Student Intern, Investor Rights Clinic,
Pace University School of Law, dated July 11, 2013 (``Pace
Letter''); Scott C. Ilgenfritz, President, Public Investors
Arbitration Bar Association, dated July 11, 2013 (``PIABA Letter'');
Scott Silver, Silver Law Group, dated July 11, 2013 (``Silver
Letter''); Brian N. Smiley, Smiley Bishop Porter, LLP, dated July
11, 2013 (``Smiley Letter''); John R. Snyder and Matthew C.
Applebaum, Bingham McCutchen LLP, dated July 8, 2013 (``Snyder and
Applebaum Letter''); Debra G. Speyer, Esq., Law Offices of Debra G.
Speyer, dated July 10, 2013 (``Speyer Letter''); Victoria
Mikhelashvili, Legal Intern, Nathaniel R. Torres, Legal Intern, and
Christine Lazaro, Esq., Director, Securities Arbitration Clinic, St.
Vincent DePaul Legal Program, Inc., St. John's University School of
Law, dated July 11, 2013 (``St. John's Letter''); Leonard Steiner,
Attorney, dated July 10, 2013 (``Steiner Letter''); and Matthew W.
Woodrufff, Esq., Attorney at Law, dated July 10, 2013 (``Woodruff
Letter'').
    \7\ Letter from Margo A. Hassan, Assistant Chief Counsel, FINRA
Dispute Resolution, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
dated September 4, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

A. E-Discovery

1. Form of Production
    FINRA is proposing to amend the Guide's introduction to state that
parties are encouraged to discuss the form in which they intend to
produce documents and, whenever possible, to agree to the form of
production. The provision would require parties to produce electronic
files in a ``reasonably usable format.'' The term ``reasonably usable
format'' would refer, generally, to the format in which a party
ordinarily maintains a document, or to a converted format that does not
make it more difficult or burdensome for the requesting party to use
during a proceeding.
    The proposed guidance would also state that when arbitrators are
resolving contested motions about the form of document production, they
should consider the totality of the circumstances, including:
    (1) For documents in a party's possession or custody, whether the
chosen form of production is different from the form in which a
document is ordinarily maintained;
    (2) For documents that must be obtained from a third-party (because
they are not in a party's possession or custody), whether the chosen
form of production is different from the form in which the third-party
provided it; and
    (3) For documents converted from their original format, a party's
reasons for choosing a particular form of production; how the documents
may have been affected by the conversion to a new format; and whether
the requesting party's ability to use the documents is diminished by
any change in the documents' appearance,

searchability, metadata, or maneuverability.
    Regarding the third factor, FINRA states that it intends to provide
arbitrators with guidance on the terms ``appearance,''
``searchability,'' ``metadata,'' and ``maneuverability'' in training
materials to be posted on its Web site.
2. Cost or Burden of Production
    In conjunction with the proposed guidance on e-discovery, FINRA
also proposes to amend the Guide's discussion on cost or burden of
production. Currently, the Guide states that if the arbitrators
determine that the document is relevant or likely to lead to relevant
evidence, they should consider whether there are alternatives that can
lessen the cost or burden impact, such as narrowing the time frame or
scope of an item on the Lists, or determining whether another document
can provide the same information. FINRA proposes to amend this
provision to advise arbitrators that they may order a different form of
production if it would lessen the cost or burden impact of producing
electronic documents.
    FINRA believes that requiring document production in a reasonably
usable format and providing general guidance on e-discovery and the
costs and benefits of document production would provide arbitrators
with the awareness and flexibility to tailor document production to the
needs of each case and help parties to resolve an e-discovery dispute
in a cost effective manner.

B. Product Cases

    FINRA is proposing to amend the Guide's introduction to add
guidance on product cases. The Guide would state that a ``product
case'' is one in which one or more of the asserted claims centers
around allegations regarding the widespread mismarketing or defective
development of a specific security or specific group of securities. The
Guide would enumerate some of the ways that product cases differ from
other customer cases. In particular, in product cases: (1) The volume
of documents tends to be much greater; (2) multiple investor claimants
may seek the same documents; (3) the documents are not client specific;
(4) the product at issue is more likely to be the subject of a
regulatory investigation; (5) the cases are more likely to involve a
class action with documents subject to a mandatory hold;\8\ (6) the
same documents may have been produced to multiple parties in other
cases involving the same security or to regulators; and (7) documents
are more likely to relate to due diligence analyses performed by
persons who did not handle the claimant's account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A mandatory hold is an act by an entity to preserve
documents and electronic information relevant to a lawsuit or
government investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Guide would explain that the Lists may not provide all of the
documents parties typically request in a product case relating to,
among other things, a firm's creation of a product, due diligence
reviews of a product, training on or marketing of a product, or post-
approval review of a product. The Guide would emphasize that, in a
product case, parties are not limited to the documents enumerated in
the Lists. It would also stress that the Customer Code provides a
mechanism for parties to seek additional documents. Finally, the Guide
would explain that parties do not always agree on whether a case is a
product case, and the arbitrators may ask the parties to explain their
rationale for asserting that a case is, or is not, a product case.

C. Affirmations

    The Guide provides for affirmations when a party indicates that
there are no responsive documents in the party's possession, custody,
or control. The ``affirmation language'' provides that, upon the
request of a party seeking documents, the customer, or appropriate
person at the firm who has knowledge, must state that the party
conducted a good faith search for the documents, describe the extent of
the search, and state that based on the search there are no requested
documents (the ``Affirmation Language'').
    FINRA is proposing to amend the Affirmation Language to make clear
that a party may request an affirmation when an opposing party makes
only a partial production. The revised language would provide that, if
a party does not produce a document specified in the Lists, upon the
request of the party seeking the document that was not produced, the
customer or the appropriate person at the brokerage firm who has
knowledge must affirm in writing that the party conducted a good faith
search for the requested document. FINRA is also proposing to require a
party to state the sources searched in the affirmation.
    FINRA believes that the proposed revisions would clarify the
Affirmation Language and reduce disputes over requests for
affirmations.

D. Clarifying Amendments

    FINRA is proposing to add additional sub-headings to the Guide's
introduction to break the introduction into distinct sections that
address specific concerns. The new headings would be: ``Flexibility in
Discovery;'' ``Cost or Burden of Production;'' ``Requests for
Additional Documents;'' ``Form of Production;'' and ``Product Cases.''
    FINRA is also proposing to move the sentence that reads: ``[w]here
additional documents are relevant in a particular case, parties can
seek them in accordance with the time frames provided in the 12500
series of rules'' to the section that would be titled ``Requests for
Additional Documents.'' FINRA is also proposing to add the phrase ``may
be'' before ``relevant'' to reflect that relevancy is not always
established at the time that a party requests additional documents.
Finally, FINRA is proposing to amend the sentence in that paragraph
that states that ``[a]rbitrators must use their judgment in considering
requests for additional documents and may not deny document requests on
the grounds that the documents are not expressly listed in the
Discovery Guide'' to add the term ``solely'' before the phrase ``on the
grounds.''
    FINRA believes that the proposed clarifying amendments will add
clarity to the Guide.

III. Summary of Comment Letters and FINRA's Response

    As noted above, the Commission received eighteen comment letters on
the proposed amendments to the Guide.\9\ While the comment letters
expressed general support for the proposed amendments, each comment
letter raised concerns with particular aspects of the proposed
amendments. The comment letters and FINRA's response \10\ are
summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 6.
    \10\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. E-Discovery

1. Form of Production
    One commenter suggested that production of a document in one format
(electronically) should not preclude its production in other
formats.\11\ This commenter also stated that a party should be
permitted to seek production of a document in the format in which it
was given to the customer and also in a summary format. In addition,
this commenter urged FINRA to require a firm, at the request of the
customer, to produce a document in any or all of the formats that the
firm makes available to customers online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Woodruff Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA responded that cooperation between parties is a ``hallmark of

discovery in the FINRA forum.''\12\ Accordingly, FINRA stated that its
proposal amends the Guide to highlight its expectation that the parties
will discuss their discovery needs and, whenever possible, agree to the
format. To facilitate agreement, FINRA noted that the proposal also
requires parties to produce electronic files in a ``reasonably usable
format.'' FINRA believes that requiring cooperation in discovery, and
requiring parties to produce documents in a reasonably usable format,
are sufficient to ensure that parties are able to get the documents
they need in a suitable format. Therefore, FINRA believes the
commenter's suggested revisions are unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See FINRA Rule 12505 of the Customer Code (Cooperation of
Parties in Discovery) (requiring parties to cooperate to the fullest
extent practicable in the exchange of documents to expedite the
arbitration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter recommended that FINRA add ``the size of the
proceeding'' and ``the relative resources of the parties'' to the list
of factors that arbitrators consider when they are determining whether
electronic files have been produced in a reasonably usable format.\13\
Similarly, another commenter suggested that FINRA advise its
arbitrators to consider the potential costs to customers of producing
documents in certain formats.\14\ A different commenter urged FINRA to
amend the Guide to state that parties are expected to discuss key words
and phrases to be used to search for documents prior to production.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Woodruff Letter.
    \14\ See Pace Letter (stating that ``customers of limited means
may have difficulty producing documents in any format other than
hard copy'').
    \15\ See St. John's Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA acknowledged the concerns of these three commenters but
believes they are best addressed through arbitrator training.
Accordingly, FINRA stated that it will identify these concerns in its
arbitrator training materials, which are published on FINRA's Web site.
    One commenter suggested that FINRA revise its proposed definition
of ``reasonably useable format'' by replacing the phrase ``during a
proceeding'' with ``in connection with the arbitration'' to clarify
that the requirement applies to all pre-hearing phrases of the
arbitration and is not limited to the arbitration hearing itself.\16\
FINRA responded that it intended the requirement to apply all phases of
the proceeding and amended the proposal as suggested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Woodruff Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter recommended that FINRA revise one of the factors
arbitrators consider when determining whether documents are being
produced in a reasonably useable format by replacing the word
``maneuverability'' with ``versatility.'' \17\ FINRA believes that the
term ``maneuverability'' was correctly defined and was the appropriate
term in the context of the proposed amendments. FINRA therefore
declined to amend the Guide as the commenter proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Woodruff Letter (recommending revising the factor to
read ``whether the requesting party's ability to use the documents
is diminished by a change in the documents' appearance,
searchability, metadata, or versatility'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter suggested that allowing arbitrators to determine the
relevance of documents and consider alternatives to e-discovery, as
proposed, would make it more difficult for plaintiffs to discover
relevant information.\18\ As an alternative, that commenter recommended
that FINRA rely on the subparts of Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure relating to e-discovery as a guidepost.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See AAJ Letter.
    \19\ See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) (Conference of the Parties;
Planning for Discovery) (in relevant part, generally requiring the
parties to meet and confer to develop a discovery plan); and Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) (requiring the court to limit the frequency and
extent of discovery based on certain facts and circumstances, such
as the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative,
or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient,
less burdensome, or less expensive; the party seeking discovery has
had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the
action; or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs
its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in
controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at
stake in the action and the importance of the discovery in resolving
the issues).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA responded that it believes that arbitrators are in the best
position to manage the discovery process and to determine the relevance
of requested documents. FINRA also stated that the Guide currently
provides arbitrators the flexibility to tailor the discovery process to
the facts and circumstances of each case, including the needs of the
parties. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change furthers
flexibility in the discovery process by (1) directing arbitrators to
consider the totality of the facts and circumstances when resolving
motions related to the form of production and (2) requiring parties to
produce electronic documents in a reasonably usable format. In sum,
FINRA believes the proposal would improve the efficiency and cost
effectiveness of the arbitration process. FINRA also believes that the
proposed guidance is consistent with the principles of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure governing discovery cited by the
commenter.\20\ Therefore, FINRA declined to amend the proposed rule
change as suggested by the commenter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter requested that FINRA include language in the Guide
requiring the producing party to state whether the documents being
produced are in the format in which they are ordinarily maintained, or
in the case of documents obtained from a third-party, the format in
which the third party provided them. In this commenter's view, if a
party produces documents in a format different than the format in which
they are ordinarily maintained or were obtained from a third-party, the
party should explain the differences between them in detail sufficient
for the recipient to understand their significance, including whether
the party omitted any information from the original format.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Carlson Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA responded that it believes that the proposal already
addresses the commenter's concerns. Specifically, FINRA stated that the
proposal would encourage parties to discuss and agree, if possible, to
the form in which they intend to produce documents, and instruct
arbitrators who are resolving disputes about the form of production to
consider (1) whether the form of productions is different from the form
in which the document is ordinarily maintained; (2) whether it is
different from the form that was received from a third-party; and (3)
the producing party's reasons for converting a document to a particular
form for production and how the conversion may have affected the
documents. Therefore, FINRA declined to amend the proposal as requested
by the commenter.
    One commenter viewed the proposal as vague and suggested that FINRA
state that if parties are unable to reach an agreement regarding the
form of production, the responding party should produce an electronic
document in the form in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a
reasonably usable format.\22\ FINRA responded that the proposal would
require parties to produce electronic documents in a ``reasonably
usable format'' and that it believes its definition of ``reasonably
usable'' is sufficiently clear. Therefore, FINRA declined to amend the
proposed rule change as suggested by the commenter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Mougey Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Cost or Burden of Production
    One commenter objected to the proposal to advise arbitrators that
they may order a different form of production

if it would lessen the cost or burden impact of producing electronic
documents.\23\ Three commenters requested that FINRA provide
specificity on how parties would demonstrate that the cost or burden of
production is disproportionate to the need for the document.\24\ One
commenter suggested that FINRA require firms objecting to production
based on the cost or burden to submit an affidavit specifying their
objection.\25\ Similarly, another commenter recommended requiring a
party objecting to production based on the cost or burden to submit an
affirmation of the purported cost or burden.\26\ One commenter urged
FINRA to amend the Guide to state that arbitrators should ``highly
scrutinize'' a firm's objections to production based on the cost or
burden of e-discovery.\27\ In addition, one commenter suggested that
FINRA educate its arbitrators about the importance of making parties
substantiate any objections to production based on cost and burden.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See AAJ Letter.
    \24\ See Pace Letter, Speyer Letter, and St. John's Letter.
    \25\ See PIABA Letter.
    \26\ See Caruso Letter.
    \27\ See Mougey Letter.
    \28\ See Smiley Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA responded that FINRA Rule 12508 requires a party objecting to
producing documents on the Lists or pursuant to a request made under
FINRA Rule 12507 (Other Discovery Requests) to explain, in writing, the
basis for the party's objection. Accordingly, a party objecting to
production based on cost or burden must explain the basis for the
party's objection to the arbitrators. The arbitrators must then
determine whether the party's demonstration is sufficient or if an
affidavit or affirmation is required. Accordingly, FINRA believes the
Customer Code and the Guide are sufficient to require parties to
support their objections and that its arbitrator training materials are
sufficient to make arbitrators aware of their obligations to require
parties to substantiate objections to production based on the cost and
burden. Therefore, FINRA declined to amend the proposal as suggested by
the commenters.

B. Product Cases

    Several commenters supported FINRA's proposal to add general
guidance about the types of documents that parties typically request in
product cases \29\ and, in particular, FINRA's acknowledgement that
parties typically request certain types of documents in product cases
that may not be on the Lists.\30\ Several commenters, however,
suggested revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Boice Letter, Caruso Letter, FSI Letter, Gitomer
Letter, Pace Letter, PIABA Letter, Silver Letter, Smiley Letter, and
Speyer Letter.
    \30\ See Boice Letter, Caruso Letter, Gitomer Letter, PIABA
Letter, and Speyer Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three commenters recommended that FINRA adopt a Document Production
List specific to product cases.\31\ One of the commenters asserted that
without a list of presumptively discoverable documents, arbitrators
could perceive the requested documents as less discoverable.\32\
Another commenter opined that FINRA's description of the types of
documents that parties typically request in product cases in the
introduction to the Guide would create a new category of discoverable
documents, which could confuse arbitrators and customers.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Mougey Letter, Pace Letter, and St. John's Letter.
    \32\ See Pace Letter.
    \33\ See St. John's Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA responded that it considered adding an item to the firm/
associated person Document Production List that would enumerate
specific documents that firms/associated persons would be required to
produce when a customer alleged that a claim was a product case. FINRA
believes, however, that having a list of presumptively discoverable
documents for parties to exchange without arbitrator or staff oversight
might not be appropriate in the context of product cases. FINRA
believes that such a list would have a significant economic impact on
firms because the typical volume of documents associated with product
cases is high, even though not every presumptively discoverable
document would have probative value for every product case.
Alternatively, FINRA stated that adopting general guidance would allow
the parties and arbitrators to tailor document discovery to the facts
and circumstances of each specific product case. Therefore, FINRA
declined to amend the proposal as suggested by the commenters.
    Two commenters recommended that FINRA advise arbitrators to
consider the cost or burden of production when deciding whether to
order the production of product specific documents at the request of a
customer.\34\ FINRA responded that the introduction to the Guide
provides general guidance for arbitrators considering objections based
on the cost or burden of production. FINRA stated that it expects
arbitrators to apply this guidance, as appropriate, throughout the
discovery process in all types of cases, including product cases. FINRA
also stated that upon approval of the proposal it would publish in its
arbitrator training materials instructions for arbitrators to consider
the cost or burden of production when deciding whether to order the
production of product specific documents. For those reasons, FINRA
declined to amend the proposal as suggested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See FSI Letter and Snyder and Applebaum Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter urged FINRA to specify that it does not intend to
sanction broad discovery requests for production made in other cases or
in response to a regulatory request (i.e., ``shortcut'' discovery).\35\
FINRA responded that the Customer Code and the Guide require parties to
cooperate in discovery. Thus, if a party objects to a request because
it is overly broad and/or lacks appropriate specificity, FINRA expects
the parties to discuss the issue. If the parties fail to resolve their
discovery issue, FINRA believes that the party objecting to production
has the responsibility for articulating the objection. Accordingly,
FINRA believes that it is unnecessary to specifically state that it
does not sanction ``shortcut'' discovery. Therefore, FINRA declined to
amend the proposal as suggested by the commenter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Snyder and Applebaum Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its proposal, FINRA listed several ways that product cases
differ from other customer cases and described the types of documents
that parties typically request in products cases. One commenter
suggested that FINRA state that (1) the presence of the enumerated
differences may not justify a threshold finding that a claim is a
product case, and (2) the list of documents that parties typically
request should not be the ``touchstone for what is relevant'' and/or
discoverable in a product case.\36\ FINRA responded that it designed
the proposed guidance to educate parties and arbitrators about product
cases, and when the parties disagree about whether a claim centers
around a product, to provide a mechanism for arbitrators to make a
threshold determination that a claim is, or is not, a product case.
Furthermore, it describes the types of documents that parties typically
request in product cases as a signal to the arbitrators that discovery
in product cases might reasonably go beyond the documents enumerated in
the Lists. For these reasons, FINRA declined to amend the proposal as
suggested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter suggested that FINRA provide specific guidance to
arbitrators regarding the scope of discovery in product cases to
prevent firms from limiting product discovery to

information given to the claimant or communications regarding the
claimant, rather than to information or communications relating to the
product.\37\ FINRA responded that the proposal already addresses the
commenter's concern because it (1) explains how product cases differ
from other customer cases and (2) instructs arbitrators that the
standard for discovery in the forum is whether a document is relevant
or likely to lead to relevant evidence.\38\ Therefore, FINRA declined
to amend the proposed rule change as suggested by the commenter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Mougey Letter.
    \38\ See the Arbitrator's Guide (at page 34) and the ``Discovery
Abuses & Sanctions'' Training. Both documents are available on
FINRA's Web site at http://www.finra.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Affirmations

    Four commenters opined that the Affirmation Language in the Guide
should not distinguish between documents on the Lists and additional
documents requested.\39\ Accordingly, they urged FINRA to replace the
provision allowing arbitrators to order an affirmation regarding
additional documents not on the Lists with a requirement for parties to
submit an affirmation at the request of a party seeking additional
documents not on the Lists. One commenter supported maintaining the
distinction between documents on the Lists and additional
documents.\40\ This commenter noted that the documents enumerated on
the Lists were subject to Commission review and a public comment
period, while any additional documents requested would not have been
subject to the same process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Caruso Letter, Pace Letter, Speyer Letter, and St.
John's Letter.
    \40\ See Snyder and Applebaum Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA responded that it believes that the commenters' concerns
require additional analysis and consideration. FINRA also stated that
the proposed rule change is an important step toward improving the
Guide language on affirmations and should be approved by the Commission
at this time. Therefore, while FINRA declined to amend the proposal as
suggested by the commenters, it stated that it will discuss their
comments with the Task Force and monitor the impact of amending the
Affirmation Language as proposed. FINRA stated that its staff would
then consider whether to seek FINRA Board approval of future amendments
to the Affirmation Language.
    One commenter suggested that FINRA clarify that it did not intend
to require affirmations in virtually all cases.\41\ FINRA responded
that it believes that the obligations and guidance regarding
cooperation in discovery as detailed in the Customer Code and Guide are
sufficient to ensure that parties do not routinely require
affirmations. Therefore, FINRA declined to amend the proposal as
suggested by the commenter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter recommended that FINRA amend the Guide to require
a producing party to identify the words used in an electronic search
for documents so that the requesting party could determine if the
search was appropriately comprehensive.\42\ FINRA responded by
reiterating its belief that pursuant to the Customer Code and Guide
parties should discuss their search terms. Furthermore, FINRA believes
that the topic should be addressed in arbitrator training, rather than
in the Guide. Therefore, while FINRA declined to amend the Affirmation
Language, it stated that it will include a discussion on search terms
in the arbitrator training materials on e-discovery if the Commission
approves the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See St. John's Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Training Materials

    One commenter suggested that FINRA published text related to the
proposal in its arbitrator training material prior to Commission
approval of the proposed rule change.\43\ FINRA responded that it
drafted the training materials at issue independent of the proposed
rule change. FINRA also stated that it published the training materials
at the recommendation of the Task Force to prepare arbitrators to
address the issues unique to product cases that could come before them.
In addition, FINRA stated that it drafted arbitrator training materials
consistent with the proposed guidance on product cases and will publish
them if the Commission approves the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Snyder and Applebaum Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Monitoring Implementation

    One commenter recommended that the Task Force monitor the
implementation of the proposed guidance, including by polling
arbitrators and claimants' counsel, and suggested possible follow-up
action if FINRA's general guidance proves insufficient.\44\ Similarly,
another commenter encouraged FINRA and the Commission to monitor the
extent to which the proposed amendments satisfy parties' discovery
needs.\45\ FINRA responded that it will monitor implementation of the
proposed rule change and work with the Task Force to design a survey
for parties and arbitrators that would gauge the success of the new
guidance. FINRA stated that, depending on its findings, it would then
consider next steps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See PIABA Letter.
    \45\ See Smiley Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After carefully considering the proposal, the comments submitted,
and FINRA's response to the comments, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent
with the requirements of the Exchange Act and rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities association.\46\ In
particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Exchange Act Section 15A(b)(6),\47\ which requires,
among other things, that the rules of a national securities association
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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \47\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed amendments to the Guide
would improve the arbitration process for the benefit of public
investors, broker-dealer firms, and associated persons who use the
FINRA Forum. Specifically, the Commission believes that the proposed
amendments would, among other things, help reduce the number and limit
the scope of disputes involving document production and other matters,
particularly with regard to e-discovery and product cases.
    The Commission has considered the commenters' views on the proposed
rule change and believes that FINRA responded appropriately to the
concerns raised. The Commission believes that, as FINRA noted in its
response letter, many of the comments have been addressed by the
proposed amendments or will be addressed through arbitrator training.
The Commission notes that FINRA stated that it consulted with the Task
Force in developing its responses to commenters. Moreover, FINRA stated
that it has committed to consult with the Task Force on its arbitrator
training

materials, and will continue to work with the Task Force to monitor
implementation of the proposed amendments. In addition, FINRA stated
that it will share the results of its survey with the Task Force and
consider any recommendations that Task Force makes for further
improvements to the Guide.
    For the reasons stated above, the Commission finds that the rule
change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Exchange Act Section 19(b)(2)
\48\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2013-024), as modified by
Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-22883 Filed 9-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


 [Federal Register: August 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 166)] [ Notices]                [Page 50317] [DOCID:fr26au08-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13144-000]

  Mananook Associates; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application

Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and

Competing Applications

August 19, 2008.

    On March 19, 2008, and supplemented on August 4, 2008, Mananook

Associates filed an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the

Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Grand

Manan Channel Project, located in the Grand Manan Channel in Washington

County, Lubec, Maine. The project uses no dam or impoundment.

    The proposed project would consist of: (1) 1,377 proposed tidal

current generating units, with a total installed capacity of 72-

megawatts, (2) a proposed transmission line, and (3) appurtenant

facilities. The project is estimated to have an annual generation of

158-gigawatt-hours, which would be sold to a local utility.

    Applicant Contact: Mr. Fred J. Moore, III, Mananook Associates,

P.O. Box 69, Perry, Maine 04667, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing

applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file

competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.

Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing

applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR

385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site

under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,

documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight

copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For

more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to

the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-

comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or

printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-

13144) in the docket number field to access the document. For

assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E8-19684 Filed 8-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P