[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 44900]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18922]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR11-117-000]

Crosstex North Texas Pipeline, L.P.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on July 8, 2011, Crosstex North Texas Pipeline,
L.P. filed a revised Statement of Operating Conditions to comply with
an unpublished Delegated letter order issued on June 24, 2011, in
Docket No. PR10-39-000.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 20, 2011.

    Dated: July 13, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-18922 Filed 7-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 111 (Monday, June 10, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26764-26766]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12126]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0911]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Red River, Shreveport, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing the operating schedule that
governs the draws of the Union Pacific Railroad bridge, mile 227.0, and
the Midsouth Railroad bridge, mile 228.2, across the Red River at
Shreveport, LA. This final rule will allow for the drawbridges to
remain in the closed-to-navigation position. While there is vessel
traffic on the waterway, no one has requested that either drawbridge be
open since 2007. Union Pacific Railroad and Midsouth Railroad, the
bridge owners, requested to update the operating schedule accordingly.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 10, 2019.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0911. In the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Eric A. Washburn, Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers,
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On June 21, 2018, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Red River, Shreveport,
LA in the Federal Register (83 FR 28785). We received 9 comments on
this rule.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
This rule changes the operating schedule for two bridges by revising
the regulations governing the Red River drawbridge operating
requirements under 33 CFR 117.491(c). Currently, this operating
schedule applies to the draws of all bridges on the Red River from,
mile 105.8 through mile 234.4. The operating schedule changes will
allow the drawbridges to remain closed to the passage of vessels.
However, pursuant 33 CFR 117.39, this rule includes a provision that
requires the owner or agency controlling the bridge to bring the draw
into full operational capability within three months if the District
Commander provides a notification that needs of navigation require
resumed operation of the spans.
    Navigation on the Red River in the vicinity of these bridges
consists primarily of recreational craft, and commercial use of the
waterway is only possible during periods of high water. Moreover, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does not maintain any project depth or
navigable channel on this reach of the Red River, nor does the U.S.
Coast Guard maintain any aids to navigation above mile 211.4. Under 33
CFR 117.491(d), the bridges above mile 234.4 need not open for the
passage of vessels. There are no alternate routes for vessels
transiting this section of the Red River.
    Union Pacific Railroad owns the Union Pacific Railroad bridge, mile
227.0, across the Red River at Shreveport, LA, and has requested that
the drawbridge regulation be amended to allow the bridge to remain in
the permanently closed position. Union Pacific provided the Coast Guard
with bridge logs that indicate that there has been no request for a
bridge opening since 2007. In the closed position, the Union Pacific
Railroad bridge, mile 227.0, provides 15.1 feet of vertical clearance
at mean high water.
    Midsouth Railroad owns the Midsouth Railroad bridge, mile 228.2,
across the Red River at Shreveport, LA,

and has also requested that the drawbridge remain in the permanently
closed position. Midsouth Railroad provided the Coast Guard with bridge
logs that indicate that there has been no request for a bridge opening
since 2007. In the closed position, the Midsouth Railroad bridge, mile
228.2, provides 37.0 feet of vertical clearance at mean high water.
    Under 33 CFR 117.39, the District Commander may authorize a
drawbridge to remain in the closed to navigation position and be
untended when there have been no requests for drawbridge openings for
two years. Due to the lack of significant navigation on this portion of
the Red River that requires draws to open and the fact that there has
been no request to open the draws in over ten years, the Coast Guard
believes that this rule is reasonable and should continue to meet the
present and future needs of navigation. Based on the records provided
by Union Pacific Railroad and Midsouth Railroad, it is expected that
the change will have no known impact to navigation or other waterway
users.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard provided a comment period of 60 days and nine
comments were received. All nine comments were concerned the
drawbridges will be permanently closed-to-navigation. The intent for
the rule change is not to permanently close the draws, but allow for
the drawbridges to remain in the closed-to-navigation position until
the need of navigation resumes, at which time the draws will be
required to open within three months notice from the District
Commander.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss First
Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the logs that were
provided by the bridge owners indicating that there has been no request
for a bridge opening since 2007. Moreover, once the needs of navigation
require the resumed operation of the spans, the owner or agency of the
drawbridges will be notified by the District Commander to restore the
draws to full operation within three months.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. While some owners or operators of
vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the
reasons stated in section V.A above this final rule would not have a
significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule would call for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a
determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or
procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from
further review, under

figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
    A Record of Environmental Consideration and a Memorandum for the
Record are not required for this rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  117.491 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.491   Red River.

* * * * *
    (c) The draws of the bridges above mile 105.8 through mile 234.4
need not open for passage of vessels. The owner or agency controlling
the bridge must restore the draw to full operation within three months
if notified by the District Commander that the needs of navigation
require resumed operation of the spans.
* * * * *

    Dated: April 29, 2019.
P.F. Thomas,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2019-12126 Filed 6-7-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 42 (Friday, March 5, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12821-12822]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04552]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0099]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Okeechobee Waterway, Indiantown,
FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notification of temporary deviation from regulations; request
for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Seaboard System Railroad Bridge,
across the

Okeechobee Waterway, mile 28.2, at Indiantown, Florida. The bridge
owner requested to start the three hour advance notice for an opening
earlier each evening and end it one hour later each morning. This
deviation will test a change to the drawbridge operation schedule to
determine whether a permanent change to the schedule is needed. The
Coast Guard is seeking comments from the public regarding these
proposed changes.

DATES: This deviation is effective without actual notice from March 5,
2021 through 11:59 p.m. on August 27, 2021. For the purposes of
enforcement, actual notice will be used from 1 a.m. on March 1, 2021
until March 5, 2021.
    Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before April 29, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2021-0099 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this test
deviation, call or email L.T. Samuel Rodriguez-Gonzalez, U.S. Coast
Guard, Sector Miami Waterways Management Division; telephone 305-535-
4307, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The Seaboard System Railroad Bridge across the Okeechobee Waterway,
mile 28.2, at Indiantown, Florida is a swing bridge with a seven foot
vertical clearance at mean high water in the closed position. The
normal operating schedule for the bridge is set forth in 33 CFR
117.317(e). Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.
    The bridge owner, CSX Transportation, requested that vessels
provide a three hour advance notification for a bridge opening during
the evening and overnight hours. The three hour advance notification
would align with the operating schedule of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) Locks along this portion of the Okeechobee Waterway.
After reviewing the draw tender logs, the Coast Guard determined that
allowing the bridge to change the start and end times for the advance
notice may meet the reasonable needs of navigation.
    Under this test deviation, the draw shall open on signal, except
that from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. the draw shall open if at least a three hour
advance notice is given. Advance openings can be arranged by contacting
CSX Transportation at 1-850-209-9528.
    The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through
our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their
transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

II. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
    Documents mentioned in this test deviation as being available in
this docket and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that
website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket
and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are
posted or a final rule is published.

    Dated: February 25, 2021.
Randall D. Overton,
Director, Bridge Administration, Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2021-04552 Filed 3-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 41 (Thursday, March 1, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 8863]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04139]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC18-59-000.
    Applicants: Ormat Technologies, Inc., U.S. Geothermal Inc.
    Description: Application For Authorization Pursuant to Section 203
of the Federal Power Act, et al. of Ormat Technologies, Inc., et al.
    Filed Date: 2/20/18.
    Accession Number: 20180220-5333.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/13/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER18-893-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to the OATT to
clean-up Part IV & Part VI re: Interconnection Process to be effective
4/23/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/21/18.
    Accession Number: 20180221-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-894-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation LGIA Oro
Verde Solar Project SA No. 150 to be effective 4/24/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/22/18.
    Accession Number: 20180222-5019.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-895-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1628R11 Western Farmers
Electric Cooperative NITSA NOA to be effective 2/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/22/18.
    Accession Number: 20180222-5021.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign
utility company status filings:

    Docket Numbers: FC18-1-000.
    Applicants: Parry Energy Storage, LP.
    Description: Notification of Self-Certification of Foreign Utility
Company Status of Parry Energy Storage, LP.
    Filed Date: 2/21/18.
    Accession Number: 20180221-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: FC18-2-000.
    Applicants: Elmira Energy Storage, LP.
    Description: Notification Self-Certification of Foreign Utility
Company Status of Elmira Energy Storage, LP.
    Filed Date: 2/21/18.
    Accession Number: 20180221-5139.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/14/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 22, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-04139 Filed 2-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 119 (Friday, June 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35343-35344]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14374]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13739-002]

Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLII, LLC; Notice of Final Environmental
Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part
380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 447897), the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for an original license for the proposed 5.25-
megawatt (MW) Braddock Locks and Dam Hydroelectric Project, which would
be located on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Braddock Locks and Dam
facility on the Monongahela River in the Borough of West Mifflin and
the City of Duquesne, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Commission staff
prepared a final Environmental Assessment (EA) which analyzes the
potential environmental effects of construction and operation of the
project and concludes that issuing a license for the project, with
appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute a major
federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment.
    A copy of the final EA is on file with the Commission and is
available for public inspection. The final EA may also be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access documents. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-

free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    For further information contact Andy Bernick at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 13, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-14374 Filed 6-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 236 (Monday, December 11, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85937-85938]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27146]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-557, OMB Control No. 3235-0618]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 173

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Securities Act Rule 173 (17 CFR 230.173) provides a notice of
registration to investors who purchased securities in a registered
offering under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.). A
Rule 173 notice must be provided by each underwriter or dealer to each
investor who purchased securities from the underwriter or dealer. The
Rule 173 notice is not publicly available. We estimate that it takes
approximately 0.0167 hour per response to provide the information
required under Rule 173 and that the information is filed by
approximately 5,720 respondents approximately 43,546 times a year for a
total of 249,083,120 responses. We estimate that the total annual
reporting burden for Rule 173 is 4,159,688 hours (0.0167 hours per
response x 249,083,120 responses).

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
by January 10, 2024 to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii)
David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, or by sending an email to: [email protected].

    Dated: December 6, 2023.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-27146 Filed 12-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 93 (Friday, May 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 29416]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10295]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-122, OMB Control No. 3235-0111]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Form T-2

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Form T-2 (17 CFR 269.2) is a statement of eligibility of an
individual trustee under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939. The
information is used to determine whether the individual is qualified to
serve as a trustee under the indenture. Form T-2 is filed on occasion.
The information required by Form T-2 is mandatory. This information is
publicly available on EDGAR. Form T-2 takes approximately 9 hours per
response to prepare and is filed by approximately 9 respondents. We
estimate that 25% of the 9 hours per response (2 hours) is prepared by
the filer for a total annual reporting burden of 18 hours (2 hours per
response x 9 responses).
    An agency may conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
by June 13, 2022 to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii)
David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, or by sending an email to: [email protected].

    Dated: May 9, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-10295 Filed 5-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 23, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9982-9984]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4011]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0043; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-192-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 Series
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    During production quality inspections of the aeroplane fuel
motive flow system, it was discovered that some motive flow check
valves (MFCV) were manufactured with an outlet fitting containing
red anodized threads. These MFCV do not provide adequate electrical
bonding between the valve and the adjacent fitting.
    In the absence of proper electrical bonding within the motive
flow system, the aeroplane fuel tank could be exposed to ignition
sources in the case of a lightning strike.
* * * * *

The unsafe condition is the potential for ignition sources inside the
fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could
result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 11, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard,
Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 416-375-
4539; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Delisio, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
New York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-0043;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-192-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2010-21, dated July 20, 2010 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''),
to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI
states:

    During production quality inspections of the aeroplane fuel
motive flow system, it was discovered that some motive flow check
valves (MFCV) were manufactured with an outlet fitting containing
red anodized threads. These MFCV do not provide adequate electrical
bonding between the valve and the adjacent fitting.
    In the absence of proper electrical bonding within the motive
flow system, the aeroplane fuel tank could be exposed to ignition
sources in the case of a lightning strike.
    This [TCCA] directive is issued to [do a general visual
inspection to] verify the proper configuration of the MFCV and if
required, replace the affected MFCV with a MFCV that has a
chemically filmed (gold color) outlet valve fitting, which provides
adequate electrical bonding.

The unsafe condition is the potential for ignition sources inside the
fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could
result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 84-28-08, dated March 11,
2010. The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 67 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 33 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $130 per product. Based on
these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S.
operators to be $196,645, or $2,935 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this proposed rulemaking under the authority
described in ``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701:
General requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA
with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by
prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the
Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses
an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products
identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2011-0043; Directorate Identifier
2010-NM-192-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by April 11, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401,
and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category; having serial
numbers 4001 through 4190 inclusive, 4199 through 4201 inclusive,
and 4203 through 4216 inclusive; equipped with a motive flow check
valve (MFCV) having part number (P/N) 2960018-101.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    During production quality inspections of the aeroplane fuel
motive flow system, it was discovered that some motive flow check
valves (MFCV) were manufactured with an

outlet fitting containing red anodized threads. These MFCV do not
provide adequate electrical bonding between the valve and the
adjacent fitting.
    In the absence of proper electrical bonding within the motive
flow system, the aeroplane fuel tank could be exposed to ignition
sources in the case of a lightning strike.
* * * * *

The unsafe condition is the potential for ignition sources inside
the fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors,
could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the
airplane.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Actions

    (g) Within 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this
AD, do a general visual inspection for red anodized threads of the
outlet fitting of the MFCV having P/N 2960018-101 installed in the
left and right wing fuel tanks, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-08,
dated March 11, 2010. If the MFCV has a chemical film coating (gold
color) outlet fitting, no further action is required by AD, except
as required by paragraph (i) of this AD.
    (h) If during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this
AD, a MFCV having a red anodized check valve outlet fitting is
found: Before further flight, replace the MFCV with a MFCV that has
a chemical film coating (gold color) check valve outlet fitting, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-28-08, dated March 11, 2010.
    (i) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
replacement MFCV having P/N 2960018-101, with a red anodized check
valve outlet fitting, on any airplane.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (j) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Program
Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone 516-
228-7300; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically
reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

Related Information

    (k) Refer to TCCA Airworthiness Directive CF-2010-21, dated July
20, 2010; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-08, dated March 11,
2010; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington on February 14, 2011.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-4011 Filed 2-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44130-44132]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17554]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0804]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Premarket Notification

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by September 23, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Gittleson, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Premarket Notification--21 CFR Part 807, Subpart E (OMB Control Number
0910-0120)--Extension

    Section 510(k) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and the implementing regulation under part
807 (21 CFR part 807, subpart E) requires a person who intends to
market a medical device to submit a premarket notification submission
to FDA at least 90 days before proposing to begin the introduction, or
delivery for introduction into interstate commerce, for commercial
distribution of a device intended for human use. Based on the
information provided in the notification, FDA must determine whether
the new device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed
device, as defined in Sec.  807.92(a)(3). If the device is determined
to be not substantially equivalent to a legally marketed device, it
must have an approved premarket approval application (PMA), Product
Development Protocol, Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE), Petition for
Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation (de novo), or be
reclassified into class I or class II before being marketed. FDA makes
the final decision of whether a device is substantially equivalent or
not equivalent.
    Section 807.81 states when a premarket notification is required. A
premarket notification is required to be submitted by a person who is:
(1) Introducing a device to the market for the first time; (2)
introducing a device into commercial distribution for the first time by
a person who is required to register; and (3) introducing or
reintroducing a device which is significantly changed or modified in
design, components, method of manufacturer, or the intended use that
could affect the safety and effectiveness of the device.
    Form FDA 3514, a summary cover sheet form, assists respondents in
categorizing administrative 510(k) information for submission to FDA.
This form also assists respondents in categorizing information for
other FDA medical device programs such as PMAs, investigational device
exemptions, and HDEs. Under Sec.  807.87(h), each 510(k) submitter must
include in the 510(k) either a summary of the information in the 510(k)
as required by Sec.  807.92 (510(k) summary) or a statement certifying
that the submitter will make available upon request the information in
the 510(k) with certain exceptions as per Sec.  807.93 (510(k)
statement). If the 510(k) submitter includes a 510(k) statement in the
510(k) submission, Sec.  807.93 requires that the official
correspondent of the firm make available within 30 days of a request
all information included in the submitted premarket notification on
safety and effectiveness. This information will be provided to any
person within 30 days of a request if the device described in the
510(k) submission is determined to be substantially equivalent. The
information provided will be a duplicate of the 510(k) submission
including any safety and effectiveness information, but excluding all
patient identifiers and trade secret and commercial confidential
information.
    Section 204 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act
(FDAMA) (Pub. L. 105-115) amended section 514 of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 360d). Amended section 514 allows FDA to recognize consensus
standards developed by international and national organizations for use
in satisfying portions of device premarket review submissions including
premarket notifications or other requirements. FDA has published and
updated the list of recognized standards regularly since enactment of
FDAMA and has allowed 510(k) submitters to certify conformance to
recognized standards to meet the requirements of Sec.  807.87. Form FDA
3654, the 510(k) Standards Data Form, standardizes the format for
submitting information on consensus standards that a 510(k) submitter
chooses to use as a portion of their premarket notification submission
(Form FDA 3654 is not for declarations of conformance to a recognized
standard). FDA believes that use of this form will simplify the 510(k)
preparation and review process for 510(k).
    Under Sec.  807.90, submitters may request information on their
510(k) review status 90 days after the initial login date of the
510(k). Thereafter, the submitter may request status reports every 30
days following the initial status request. To obtain a 510(k) status
report, the submitter should complete the status request form, Form FDA
3541, and fax it to the Center for Devices and Radiological Health
office identified on the form.
    The most likely respondents to this information collection will be
specification developers and medical device manufacturers.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
             Activity/21 CFR part/section/form No.                  Number of       responses per     Total annual     Average burden      Total hours
                                                                   respondents       respondent         responses       per response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
510(k) submission (807 subpart E).............................             3,900                 1             3,900                79           308,100
Summary cover sheet (807.87) and FDA 3514.....................             1,956                 1             1,956               0.5               978
                                                                                (30 minutes)
Status request (807.90(a)(3)) and FDA 3541....................               218                 1               218              0.25                55
                                                                                (15 minutes)
Standards (807.87(d) and (f)); FDA 3654.......................             2,700                 1             2,700                10            27,000
510(k) summary and statement (807.92 and 807.93)..............               225                10             2,250                10            22,500
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................  ................  ................  ................  ................           358,633
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Dated: July 16, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-17554 Filed 7-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


Notice of Filing of Pesticide Petition 8E7350; Fenamidone

EPA Registration Division contact: Susan Stanton;<PHONE_NUMBER>

Interregional Research Project No. 4

PP8E7350

 Summary of Petition

EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP8E7350) from Interregional
Research Project  No. 4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part
180.579 by establishing a tolerance for residues of fenamidone,
4H-imidazol-4-one,
3,5-dihydro-5-methyl-2-(methylthio)-5-phenyl-3-(phenylamino)-, (S)-,  in
or on the raw agricultural commodity Vegetables, root, except sugarbeet,
subgroup 1B, except radish at 0.2 ppm; turnip, leaves at 55 ppm;
coriander, leaves at 60 ppm; okra at 3.5 ppm; and a tolerance with
regional registration for grape at 1.0 ppm. EPA has determined that the
petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth
in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated
the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
supports granting of the petition.  Additional data may be needed before
EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism.  [The plant metabolism of fenamidone (RPA407213)
was evaluated in five distinct crops (lettuce, tomatoes, potatoes,
carrots and grapes) and is adequately understood.  In all cases, the
primary residue was the parent compound.  The only significant
metabolite was RPA410193 (17% of the total radioactive residue (TRR) in
grapes, 9% of the total radioactive residue (TRR) in tomatoes, <1% of
the total radioactive residue (TRR) in lettuce (mostly in the wrapper
leaves), and <1% of the total radioactive residue (TRR) in potatoes
(haulm or tubers)), and RPA406012 (4.5% of TRR in carrot tops).
RPA412708 and RPA412636 were minor metabolites reported in the lettuce
and potato studies and may account for part of the unidentified residue
reported in the grape and tomato metabolism studies.]

	2. Analytical method.  [Although residue levels approaching the
proposed tolerances are unlikely, independently validated enforcement
methods are available for determining residues of fenamidone and
relevant metabolites.  Residues are first extracted from the crop matrix
by blending or shaking with a mixture of acetonitrile and water.  After
filtration, an aliquot of the extract is rotary evaporated to near
dryness, then diluted with water.  Cleanup is accomplished on a HR-P
polymeric solid phase extraction (SPE) cartridge and an amino SPE
cartridge.  Residues are quantified by HPLC with tandem mass
spectrometric detection (LC/MS/MS).  The method limits of quantification
(LOQ) are 0.02 ppm or lower for fenamidone, and its metabolites, RPA
412636, RPA 412708, and RPA 410193 in test raw agricultural commodities
and processed fractions.]

3. Magnitude of residues.  [Complete residue data to support the
requested tolerances on root vegetables, except sugarbeet (subgroup 1B),
except radish; turnip greens; cilantro; okra and grape are available.
Potato and carrot residue data are used to support the tolerance for
subgroup 1B, except radish, mustard green data are used to support a
tolerance on turnip greens, lettuce and spinach residue data are used to
support a tolerance on cilantro, and non-pepper data is used to support
the tolerance on okra. The import tolerance data for grapes is being
used to support the domestic use east of the Rockies. All of these data
have been submitted to the EPA.

B. Toxicological Profile

1. Acute toxicity.  [A complete battery of acute toxicity studies for
fenamidone has been conducted.  Fenamidone has very low acute by the
oral, dermal and inhalation routes of exposure.    Fenamidone was
moderately irritating to the eye and non-irritating to the skin.  The
dermal sensitization study in guinea pigs was negative.  In an acute
neurotoxicity study in rats, fenamidone was not neurotoxic at doses up
to the limit dose of 2000 mg/kg.  The NOEL was 500 mg/kg for males and
125 mg/kg for females.]

	2. Genotoxicty.  [Fenamidone is not considered to be mutagenic based on
a battery of in vitro and in vivo mutagenicity studies.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity.  [A teratology study was
conducted using rats, with a resulting NOEL for maternal and
developmental toxicity of 150 mg/kg/day.  The LOEL was 1000 mg/kg/day,
based on significantly decreased body weight and food consumption in
dams, and decreased fetal body weights with slightly delayed skeletal
ossification secondary to maternal toxicity.  A rabbit teratology study
resulted in a maternal NOEL of 10 mg/kg/day and a developmental NOEL of
100 mg/kg/day (HDT).  The maternal LOEL was 30 mg/kg/day, based on
increased maternal liver weights at 30 and 100 mg/kg/day.  Fenamidone
demonstrates no potential to cause developmental toxicity in mammals.  A
two-generation reproduction study was conducted with rats with a
resulting NOEL for maternal and offspring toxicity of 5.15 mg/kg/day.
The maternal NOEL was based on decreased body weight and food
consumption.  The pup NOEL is based on F1 pup body weight decrease. The
reproductive NOEL was >328.3 mg/kg/day (males) and >459.6 mg/kg/day
(females).  Fenamidone is not considered a reproductive toxicant at
non-maternally toxic dose levels and shows no evidence of endocrine
effects. A developmental neurotoxicity study was conducted with rats.
The maternal NOAEL was 429 mg/kg/day and the offspring NOAEL was 92.3
mg/kg/day, based on decreased body weights during post-weaning.]

4. Subchronic toxicity.  [In a 13-week subchronic feeding study in rats,
the NOEL was 68.27 mg/kg/day (males) and 83.33 mg/kg/day (females).  The
LOEL was 343.93 mg/kg/day for males and 380.63 mg/kg/day for females
based on adaptive liver changes at 68.27 mg/kg/day and increased liver
and thyroid weights at the highest dose tested.  In a 13 week subchronic
feeding study in mice, the NOEL was 44.5mg/kg/day (males) and 54.1
mg/kg/day (females).  The LOEL was 220.2 mg/kg/day (males) and 273.9
mg/kg/day (females) based on increased liver weight at the high dose. In
a 28 day subchronic dermal study in rabbits, treatment produced a slight
decrease in food consumption and body weight in males at 1000 mg/kg/day.
 In a 13-week study in dogs, the NOEL was 100 mg/kg/day and the LOEL was
500 mg/kg/day.  In a subchronic neurotoxicity study in rats, there was
no evidence of neurotoxicity at dosage levels up to 5000 ppm (395.6 and
414.2 mg/kg/day), the MTD.  The NOEL for the study was 1000 ppm
(equivalent to 74.2 and 83.4 mg/kg/day).]

5. Chronic toxicity.  [A 1-year oral study with dogs resulted in a NOEL
of 100 mg/kg/day for both sexes, based on significantly increased liver
weights and biliary hyperplasia in the high dose.  The LOEL was 1000
mg/kg/day.  A 2-year combined chronic toxicity/ carcinogenicity study in
rats resulted in a NOEL for systemic toxicity of 2.83 mg/kg/day (males)
and 3.36 mg/kg/day (females).  The LOEL was 7.07 mg/kg/day (males) and
9.24 mg/kg/day (females).  No statistically significant, linear dose
response was observed for any tumor incidence.  A 104-week combined
carcinogenicity study in mice resulted in a NOEL of 9.5 mg/kg/day
(males) and 12.6 mg/kg/day (females).  The LOEL for carcinogenicity was
47.5 mg/kg/day (males) and 63.8 mg/kg/day (females).  The NOEL is based
on non-neoplastic liver changes and decreased body weight gain at the
top two dose levels.  Fenamidone demonstrates no potential for
carcinogenic effects in mammals.]

	6. Animal metabolism.  [Metabolism studies conducted with goat and hen
demonstrate that fenamidone is rapidly metabolized and excreted.
Residue levels in  edible animal tissues (meat, milk and eggs) are
negligible and do accumulate in those tissues.  The metabolic pathway
proceeds via cleavage of the amino-phenyl group and the thiomethyl group
with further metabolism by hydroxylation.  There is also evidence to
indicate that glucuronide and sulfate conjugates are formed.  A single
low dose (3 mg/kg), a single high dose (300 mg/kg) and a low dose (3
mg/kg) administered for 15 consecutive days were fed to rats.
Fenamidone was relatively well absorbed at a nominal dose of 3 mg/kg in
both sexes and intensively metabolized by phase I (oxidation, reduction
and hydrolysis) and II (conjugation) reactions.  The elimination of
radiolabeled fenamidone was relatively rapid with the majority of the
administered dose being excreted via the biliary route (for the low dose
experiments).  The comparison of the levels of radioactivity recovered
in bile kinetic and ADME studies suggested that a part of the
radioactivity excreted via the bile could be reabsorbed and subsequently
re-excreted via the urine.  High levels of radioactivity measured in
blood samples from the tissue kinetics also supported this hypothesis.
At the high dose level fenamidone was not very well absorbed:  Some
50-60% of the radioactivity was present as parent compound in the feces.
 Radioactivity was widely distributed in the tissues with predominance
in the thyroids, blood, liver, kidneys, fat and pancreas.  Fenamidone is
therefore expected to be rapidly and extensively metabolized and
excreted in mammals.]

	7. Metabolite toxicology.  [The major dietary metabolites of
fenamidone, RPA 412708, RPA 410193 and RPA 412636 were evaluated for
mammalian toxicity in an acute oral toxicity study, a 90-day repeated
dose study and in genotoxicity tests.  The metabolites are considered to
be of comparable toxicity to the parent fenamidone.]

	8. Endocrine disruption.  [Chronic, lifespan, and multi-generational
bioassays in mammals and acute and subchronic studies on aquatic
organisms and wildlife did not reveal endocrine effects.  Any endocrine
related effects would have been detected in this definitive array of
required tests.  The probability of any such effect due to agricultural
uses of fenamidone is negligible.]

C. Aggregate Exposure

1. Dietary exposure.  [A dietary exposure assessment was conducted for
fenamidone what included all current and proposed uses of fenamidone
Therefore the aggregate exposure would consist of any potential
exposures to fenamidone residues from the root vegetables, except
radish, turnip greens, cilantro and okra in addition to the previously
registered crops. The acute reference dose (aRfD) of 0.92 mg/kg bw/day
is based on a NOAEL of 92 mg/kg bw/day from the developmental
neurotoxicity study in rat and the standard 100X uncertainty factor (10X
interspecies and 10X intraspecies). The chronic RfD (cRfD) of 0.03 mg/kg
bw/day is based on a NOAEL of 2.83 mg/kg bw/day from the two-year rat
chronic study and the UF of 100X.]

	i. Food.  [Acute and chronic dietary analyses were conducted to
estimate exposure to potential fenamidone residues in/on the crops and
crop groups mentioned above. Tier III analyses were conducted for both
the acute and chronic scenarios using the DEEM( (Exponent, Inc.)
software.  The acute dietary exposure estimates at the 99.9th percentile
of exposure for the US Population was 3.6% of the acute Reference Dose
(aRfD).  The population subgroup with the highest exposure was Infants
at 14% of the aRfD.  Chronic dietary exposure estimates from potential
residues of fenamidone for the US Population was 3% of the chronic RfD
(cRfD).  The sub-population with the highest exposure was Children 1-2
at 9% of the cRfD.].

	ii. Drinking water.  [US EPA’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for
Drinking Water Exposure and Risk Assessments was used to perform the
drinking water assessment.  This SOP uses a variety of tools to conduct
drinking water assessments, including water models such as SCI-GROW,
FIRST, PRZMS/EXAMS, and available monitoring data.  If monitoring data
are not available, then the models are used to predict potential
residues in surface and ground water and the highest levels are assumed
to be the drinking water residue.  In the case of fenamidone, monitoring
data do not exist, therefore SCI-GROW and FIRST were used to estimate a
water residue.  The calculated drinking water levels of comparison
(DWLOC) for acute and chronic exposure for all adults and children
exceed the modeled drinking water estimated environmental concentration
(EEC).  The acute DWLOC values are 421724 ppb for the general
population, 10754 ppb for infants and 11343 ppb for children 1-2,
compared to  the worst-case acute drinking water EEC of  178 ppb from
the June 21, 2007 EPA HED risk assessment.  The chronic DWLOC values are
951 ppb for the general population, 263 ppb for infants and 252 ppb for
children 1-2, compared to a worst-case chronic drinking water EEC of 178
ppb from the above EPA reference.  These drinking water levels of
comparison are based on conservative dietary (food) exposures and are
typically expected to be much higher under actual use scenarios.]

	2. Non-dietary exposure.  [Fenamidone is not registered for residential
uses (food or non-food), thereby eliminating any potential for
residential exposure or non-occupational exposure.]

D. Cumulative Effects

[Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, when considering whether to
establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider
“available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a
particular pesticide’s residues and other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.  There is no available data to determine
whether fenamidone has a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk
assessment.  Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a
cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity,
fenamidone does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by
other substances.  For the purposes of this tolerance petition,
therefore, it has not been assumed that fenamidone has a common
mechanism of toxicity with other substances.]

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population.  [Using the assumptions and data described above,
based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data, it is
concluded that the dietary exposure from the proposed uses of fenamidone
will utilize at most 3.6% of the aRfD and 3.0% of the cRfD for the US
Population.  EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of
the RfD because the RfD represents the level at or below which daily
aggregate exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risk to
human health.  Drinking water levels of comparison based on the dietary
and aggregate exposures are greater than highly conservative estimated
levels, and would be expected to be well below the 100% level of the
RfD, if they occur at all.  Therefore, there is a reasonable certainty
that no harm will occur to the US Population from aggregate exposure
(food and drinking water) to residues of fenamidone.]

	2. Infants and children.  [In consideration of the toxicology database
as discussed above, EPA has determined that there is no extra
sensitivity of infants and children, and therefore the default FQPA
safety factor can be removed.  Using the assumptions and data described
in the exposure section above, the percent of the aRfD and cRfD that
will be used for exposure to residues of fenamidone in food for infants
and children (the most highly exposed subgroups) is 14% (acute
assessment for infants) and 9% (chronic assessment for children 1-2),
respectively. There are no non-dietary concerns for infants and
children.  As with adults, drinking water levels of comparison are
higher than the worst case drinking water estimated concentrations and
are expected to use well below 100% of the reference dose, if they occur
at all.  Therefore, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
occur to infants and children from aggregate exposure to residues of
fenamidone.]

F. International Tolerances

[Codex MRLs are not yet established for fenamidone.]

 PAGE  3

 PAGE  5

 PAGE  4


[Federal Register: October 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 202)]
[Notices]
[Page 61746]
[DOCID:fr19oc06-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-407-002]

Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation; Notice of Compliance
Filing

October 12, 2006.
    Take notice that on October 6, 2006, Gas Transmission Northwest
Corporation (GTN) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Third Revised Volume No. 1-A, the following tariff sheets, to become
effective January 1, 2007:

Second Revised Sheet No. 221.
Original Sheet No. 221A .

    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-17464 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 126 (Friday, July 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 39517]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14107]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL OP-OFA-023]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed June 17, 2022 10 a.m. EST Through June 27, 2022 10 a.m. EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20220086, Draft Supplement, NMFS, WA, The Makah Tribe Request
to Hunt Gray Whales, Comment Period Ends: 08/15/2022, Contact: Grace
Ferrara<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20220087, Final, FERC, LA, MP66-69 Compression Relocation and
Modification Amendment MP33 Compression Station Modification Amendment
Project, Review Period Ends: 08/01/2022, Contact: Office of External
Affairs<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20220088, Draft, USAF, WY, Ground Based Strategic Deterrent
Deployment and Minuteman III Decommissioning and Disposal, Comment
Period Ends: 08/15/2022, Contact: Carla Pampe<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20220089, Final, USACE, SC, Charleston Peninsula Coastal Storm
Risk Management, Review Period Ends: 08/01/2022, Contact: Nancy Parrish
843-329-8050.
EIS No. 20220090, Draft Supplement, DOE, AK, Alaska LNG Project,
Comment Period Ends: 08/15/2022, Contact: Mark Lusk<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Amended Notice

EIS No. 20190132, Draft Supplement, USFS, MT, WITHDRAWN--Montanore
Evaluation Project, Comment Period Ends: 08/08/2019, Contact: Craig
Towery<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 06/21/2019; Officially Withdrawn
per request of the submitting agency.

    Dated: June 27, 2022.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2022-14107 Filed 6-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 192)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 56706-56707]
[DOCID:fr04oc07-18]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0835-200740(b); FRL-8475-3]

Approval of Implementation Plans of Kentucky: Clean Air
Interstate Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Kentucky State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on July 19, 2007. This revision
addresses the requirements of EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR),
promulgated on May 12, 2005, and subsequently revised on April 28,
2006, and December 13, 2006. EPA is proposing to determine that the SIP
revision fully implements the CAIR requirements for Kentucky.
Therefore, as a consequence of the SIP approval, EPA will also withdraw
the CAIR Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) concerning sulfur dioxide
(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX) annual, and
NOX ozone season emissions for Kentucky. The CAIR FIPs for
all States in the CAIR region were promulgated on April 28, 2006, and
subsequently revised on December 13, 2006.
    CAIR requires States to reduce emissions of SO2 and
NOX that significantly contribute to, and interfere with
maintenance of, the national ambient air quality standards for fine
particulates and/or ozone in any downwind state. CAIR establishes State
budgets for SO2 and NOX and requires States to
submit SIP revisions that implement these budgets in States that EPA
concluded did contribute to nonattainment in downwind states. States
have the flexibility to choose which control measures to adopt to
achieve the budgets, including participating in the EPA-administered
cap-and-trade programs. In the SIP revision that EPA is proposing to
approve, Kentucky would meet CAIR requirements by participating in the
EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs addressing SO2,
NOX annual, and NOX ozone season emissions.
    In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is
approving the Commonwealth's SIP revision as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document.
Any parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at
this time.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 5, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2007-0835, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0835'', Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Heidi Lesane, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heidi LeSane Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9074. Mrs. LeSane can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct
final rule which is published in the Rules Section of this Federal
Register.

    Dated: September 21, 2007.
J.I. Palmer, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E7-19328 Filed 10-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Appendix II.B.4.

Spreadsheet with Data from Repeated Dosing

Comparative Cholinesterase Studies (Juvenile and Adult Rats)

This appendix is available on EPA’s website at

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/common_mech_groups.htm#op"
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/common_mech_groups.htm#op

A CD containing the data in this appendix may also be obtained by

contacting the Office of Pesticide Programs Public Docket

Docket #  EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0618

One Potomac Yard

12777 S. Crystal Drive Room S-4400

Arlington, Virginia, 22202

703-305-5805

Monday through Friday, 8:30 am – 4:00 pm


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9959-9961]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03102]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68843; File No. SR-C2-2013-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Related to the Opening of the Complex Order Book

February 6, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 28, 2013, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Exchange has designated the proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, which renders it effective upon filing
with the Commission.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is proposing to amend its complex order rules. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site (http://www.c2exchange.com/Legal/RuleFilings.aspx), at the
Exchange's Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts 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 this proposed rule change is to include a
description in Rule 6.13 of the manner in which complex orders are
currently processed through the Exchange's complex order book (``COB'')
when the COB opens for trading. Currently the rule does not include
this level of detail, so the Exchange is proposing to include this
information within the rule to provide additional clarity on the
current operation of the COB in response to Trading Permit Holder
inquiries about its operation. The Exchange notes that it is simply
including additional detail in its rules on the existing process when
the COB opens. No changes to the process are being contemplated by this
rule change filing.
    In particular, the proposed rule change will provide that complex
orders, including stock-option orders, do not participate in opening
rotations conducted pursuant to Rule 6.11 for individual option
series.\5\ When the last of the individual component option series legs
that make up a complex order strategy has opened (and, in the case of a
stock-option strategy, when the underlying stock has opened), the COB
for that strategy will then open for trading. The COB for a given
complex order strategy will open with no trade,\6\ except as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes that, under the current provisions of
Rule 6.11, the Exchange could determine whether to designate various
complex order types as eligible for the Rule 6.11 opening process on
a class-by-class basis (just as it would for any other order type).
See Rule 6.11(a)(1). To date, the Exchange has not determined to
include complex orders (including stock-option orders) in the Rule
6.11 opening process (this process has instead been limited to
simple orders). With this proposed rule change, SR-C2-2013-003, the
Exchange would no longer be permitted to designate complex order
(including stock-option order) order types as eligible for the Rule
6.11 opening process. If, in the future, the Exchange would desire
to designate certain complex order (including stock-option order)
order types as being eligible to participate in the Rule 6.11
opening process, such a determination would be subject to a separate
rule change filing.
    \6\ For example, the COB would move to an open state with no
trade if there are no complex orders resting for the strategy or if
there are complex orders on only one side of the COB at a net
price(s) that does not touch or cross the derived net market. The
``derived net market'' for a stock-option order strategy will be
calculated using the Exchange's best bid or offer in the individual
option series leg(s) and the NBBO in the stock leg. The ``derived
net market'' for any other complex order strategy will be calculated
using the Exchange's best bid or offer in the individual series
legs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the COB will open with a trade against the individual
component option series legs if there are complex orders on only one
side of the COB that are marketable against the opposite side of the
derived net market. The resulting execution will occur at the derived
net market price to the extent marketable. Any remaining balance would
be processed as it would on an intra-day basis as set forth in Rule
6.13 (including being subject to the applicable complex order priority
and price check parameter provisions set forth in Rule 6.13). This
provision for ``legging'' against the individual series legs is not
applicable to stock-option order strategies. (Stock-option orders
processed through COB generally only trade against other stock-option
orders. Stock-option orders processed through COB generally do not
trade against individual component option series legs, except in one
limited circumstance for market orders at the conclusion of a complex
order RFQ auction (``COA'').\7\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Rule 6.13.06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, if the derived net market for a given complex order
strategy is $1.00-$1.20 for 100 units and the only interest in the COB
is a complex order to buy the strategy at a net debit price

of $1.21 for 120 units, then 100 units of the complex order would trade
at a net price of $1.20 against the individual component series legs
and the remaining 20 units of the complex order would be subject to
processing under Rule 6.13 (e.g., remain in the COB if not marketable
against the individual orders and quotes in the electronic book or
other complex orders in the COB, execute or cancel if marketable
subject the applicable priority and price check parameters).
    Second, the COB will open with a trade against complex orders if
there are complex orders on both sides of the COB that are marketable
against each other and that are priced within the derived net market.
The resulting execution will occur at a market clearing price that is
inside the derived net market and that matches complex orders to the
extent marketable. In determining the priority, the COB gives priority
to complex orders whose net price is better than the market clearing
price first, and then to complex orders at the market clearing
price.\8\ This provision for complex orders to trade against each other
is applicable to stock-option order strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This ``market clearing price'' process for executing complex
orders when the COB opens is similar to the process for executing
simple orders when an individual component options series opens. See
Rule 6.11(g)(1) (``In determining the priority of orders and quotes
to be traded at a single clearing price, the System gives priority
to market orders first, then to limit orders and quotes whose price
is better than the opening price, and then to resting orders and
quotes at the opening price.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, assume the derived net market for a given complex
order strategy is $1.00-$1.20 for 100 units and there is a complex
order in the COB to sell the strategy at a net credit price of $1.19
for 20 units, a complex order in the COB to sell the strategy at a net
credit price of $1.18 for 10 units, and a complex order in COB to buy
the strategy at a net debit price of $1.19 for 50 units. When the COB
opens, 30 units of the buy strategy would trade at a net price of $1.19
against the two sell strategies. The remaining 20 units of the buy
strategy would be subject to processing under Rule 6.13 (e.g., remain
in the COB if not marketable against the individual orders and quotes
in the electronic book or other complex orders in the COB, execute or
cancel if marketable subject the applicable priority and price check
parameters).
    As another example, if the derived net market for a given stock-
option order strategy is $5.00--$5.20 for 100 units and there is a
stock-option order in the COB to sell the strategy at a net credit
price of $5.19 for 20 units, a stock-option order in the COB to sell
the strategy at a net credit price of $5.18 for 10 units, and a stock-
option order in COB to buy the strategy at a net debit price of $5.19
for 50 units, then 30 units of the buy strategy would trade at a net
price of $5.19 against the two sell strategies. The remaining 20 units
of the buy strategy would be subject to processing under Rule 6.13
(e.g., remain in the COB if not marketable against the derived net
market (considering the individual orders and quotes in the electronic
book for the component options series legs and the NBBO in the stock
leg) or other stock-option orders in the COB, or execute or route for
manual processing if marketable subject the applicable priority and
price check parameters).
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
\9\ in general and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act \10\ in particular in that it should promote just and equitable
principles of trade, serve to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and
protect investors and the public interest. In particular, the Exchange
believes that including detail within the rules should provide
additional clarity and avoid any confusion on the current operation of
the COB open. The Exchange also believes that the operation of the COB
increases opportunities for all types of market participants (e.g.,
public customers, broker-dealers and market-makers) to participate in
the trading of complex orders. This participation may promote liquidity
and result in better prices for customers throughout the trading day,
including when the COB opens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    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. As noted above, the Exchange
believes that including detail within the rules should provide
additional clarity and avoid any confusion on the current operation of
the COB open. The Exchange also believes that the operation of the COB
increases opportunities for all types of market participants (e.g.,
public customers, broker-dealers and market-makers) to participate in
the trading of complex orders. This participation may promote liquidity
and result in better prices for customers throughout the trading day,
including when the COB opens.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

    Because the foregoing rule does not (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-C2-2013-003 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2013-003. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use

only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2013-003 and should be
submitted on or before March 5, 2013.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-03102 Filed 2-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P