[ Federal Register: December 11, 2002 ( Volume 67, Number 238)] [ Notices] [ Page 76176 76177] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [ wais. access. gpo. gov] [ DOCID: fr11de02 35]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP 2002 0269; FRL 7189 6]

Ethoprop; Availability of Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces availability of the Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( IRED) document for the pesticide active ingredient ethoprop. The IRED represents EPA's formal regulatory assessment of the health and environmental data base of the subject chemical and presents the Agency's interim determination regarding which pesticidal uses are eligible for reregistration.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Britten, Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308 8179; e mail address: britten. anthony@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) or the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA); environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the use of pesticides. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP 2002 0269. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305 5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. To access IRED documents and IRED fact sheets electronically, go directly to the REDs table on the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs Web site, at http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ rere gistration/ status. htm . An electronic version of the latest public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.

II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

EPA has assessed the risks posed by the use of the active ingredient ethoprop, and issued an IRED for this organophosphate ( OP) pesticide. EPA issues an IRED for a pesticide that is undergoing reregistration, requires a reregistration eligibility decision, and also needs a cumulative assessment under FQPA. The IRED, issued after EPA completes the individual pesticide's aggregate risk assessment, may include taking risk reduction measures; for example, reducing risks to workers or eliminating uses that the registrant no longer wishes to maintain, to gain the benefits of these changes before the final RED can be issued following the Agency's consideration of cumulative risks. Through cumulative risk assessment, EPA will consider whether the risks posed by a group of pesticides that act the same way in the body meet the current safety standard of `` reasonable certainty of no harm'' as defined by the FQPA. Provided that risk mitigation measures stipulated in the IRED document are adopted, EPA has made the determination that ethoprop fits into its own `` risk cup'' that is, its individual and aggregate risks are within acceptable levels. Thus, ethoprop products, except for the liquid formulation, are eligible for reregistration, pending consideration of the cumulative risk for all OPs. The Agency will make a reregistration eligibility decision for the liquid formulation of ethoprop at a later time, provided certain conditions are fulfilled. All registrants of pesticide products containing the active ingredient listed in this document have been sent the IRED document, and must respond to labeling requirements and product specific data requirements ( if applicable) within 8 months of its receipt. Products also containing other pesticide active ingredients will not be reregistered until those other active ingredients are [[ Page 76177]]

determined to be eligible for reregistration. The reregistration program is being conducted under Congressionally mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes both the need to make timely reregistration decisions and to involve the public. EPA worked extensively with affected parties to reach the decisions presented in the IRED document. Numerous opportunities for public comment were offered as the IRED was being developed. The ethoprop IRED document, therefore, is issued in final, without a formal public comment period.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

The legal authority for this IRED falls under FIFRA, as amended in 1988 and 1996. Section 4( g)( 2)( A) of FIFRA directs that, after submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, `` the Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active ingredient are eligible for reregistration,'' before calling in product specific data on individual end use products, and either reregistering products or taking `` other appropriate regulatory action.''

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Chemicals, Pesticides and pests.

Dated: November 22, 2002. Lois Rossi, Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [ FR Doc. 02 31163 Filed 12 10 02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560 50 S


[Federal Register: August 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 163)]
[Notices]
[Page 42892-42894]
[DOCID:fr25au09-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

August 14, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER01-1822-006.
    Applicants: Indigo Generation LLC, Larkspur Energy LLC, Wildflower
Energy LP.
    Description: Indigo Generation LLC, et al. Notification of Non-
Material Change in Status.
    Filed Date: 08/12/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090812-5083.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 02, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-370-009.

    Applicants: Midwest Independent System Transmission Operator, Inc.
    Description: Missouri River Energy Services et al. submits
Attachment O transmission rate formula tariff sheet under the Midwest
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc Open Access Transmission
and Energy Markets Tariff.
    Filed Date: 08/12/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090813-0232.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 02, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1119-001.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Compliance Refund Report of Pacific Gas and Electric
Company.
    Filed Date: 08/12/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090812-5077.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 02, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1573-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits an executed
amendment to the Grizzly Development and Mokelumne Settlement Agreement
with the City of Santa Clara, California.
    Filed Date: 08/12/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090813-0028.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 02, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1574-000.
    Applicants: MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Description: MidAmerican Energy Company submits First Revised Rate
Schedule 42 with ITC Midwest LLC dated effective 9/1/09 et al.
    Filed Date: 08/12/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090813-0026.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1575-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits an Amended and Restated Facilities Construction Agreement with
Benton County Wind Farm, LLC, to be effective 8/13/09.
    Filed Date: 08/12/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090813-0100.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 02, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1576-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator Inc submits
filing to request a limited waiver, to the extent the Commission deems
a waiver necessary, from the application of Attachment C of its Market
Administration etc.
    Filed Date: 08/12/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090813-0227.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 02, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1577-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: The California Independent System Operator Corp
submits Amendment No. 5 to the Interconnected Control Area Operating
Agreement with Sacramento Municipal Utility District.
    Filed Date: 08/12/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090813-0223.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 02, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1578-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits for Commission filing and acceptance Amendment 1 etc.
    Filed Date: 08/12/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090813-0226.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 02, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1579-000.
    Applicants: Central Maine Power Company.
    Description: Central Maine Power Company submits the Engineering
and Procurement Agreement dated 7/14/09 with Fox Islands Electric
Cooperative, Inc designated as Original Service Agreement CMP-EP-3.
    Filed Date: 08/13/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090813-0156.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 03, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1581-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits amended and restated generator interconnection agreement among
Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation, et al.
    Filed Date: 08/13/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090814-0074.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 03, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1582-000.
    Applicants: Consolidated Edison Company of New York.
    Description: Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc submits
an amendment to Con Edison's Delivery Service Rate Schedule 96.
    Filed Date: 08/14/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090814-0076.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 04, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1583-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits revised sheet of the
Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Filed Date: 08/14/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090814-0077.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 04, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1584-000.
    Applicants: Tampa Electric Company.
    Description: Tampa Electric Company submits amendment of
transmission service agreement with Auburndale Power Partners, Limited
Partnership.
    Filed Date: 08/14/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090814-0075.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 04, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that

enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is
added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online
service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call (866) 208-
3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-20357 Filed 8-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 216 (Monday, November 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69222-69223]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28366]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL_9931-89-OEI]

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision
Approval, State of Maine

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of Maine's
request to revise/modify certain of its EPA-authorized programs to
allow electronic reporting.

DATES: EPA's approval is effective November 9, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop
2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-
1175<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR.
CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory
alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure
that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper
counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local
government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving,
electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to
EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA
approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on
consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the
state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic
reporting. Additionally, Sec.  3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3,
subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and
modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option
of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures
available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An
application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the
state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to
implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered
by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems
that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.
    On September 11, 2015, the Maine Department of Environmental
Protection (ME DEP) submitted an application titled ``National Network
Discharge Monitoring Report System'' for revisions/modifications to its
EPA-approved stormwater and pretreatment programs under title 40 CFR to
allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed ME DEP's request to
revise/modify its EPA-authorized programs and, based on this review,
EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of
authorized program revisions/modifications set out in 40 CFR part 3,
subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's
decision to approve Maine's request to revise/modify its following EPA-
authorized programs to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR parts

122 and 403, is being published in the Federal Register:

    Part 123--EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; and
    Part 403--General Pretreatment Regulations For Existing And New
Sources Of Pollution.

    ME DEP was notified of EPA's determination to approve its
application with respect to the authorized programs listed above.

Matthew Leopard,
Director, Office of Information Collection.
[FR Doc. 2015-28366 Filed 11-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 5, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 87)]
[Notices]
[Page 26485]
[DOCID:fr05my06-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. TS06-8-000; TS06-9-000]

High Island Offshore System, L.L.C.; Petal Gas Storage; Notice of
Filing

April 28, 2006.
    Take notice that on March 27, 2006 High Island Offshore System,
L.L.C. and Petal Gas Storage filed a joint request for partial waiver
of the standards of conduct, pursuant to Commission Order No. 2004.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 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 May 15, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-6842 Filed 5-4-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37327-37329]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15974]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75293; File No. SR-Phlx-2015-29]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX Phlx LLC; Notice of
Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend and
Restate Certain Rules That Govern the NASDAQ OMX PSX

June 24, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On March 20, 2015, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend and restate certain Phlx rules that
govern NASDAQ OMX PSX (``PSX'') in order to provide a clearer and more
detailed description of certain aspects of its functionality. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on April 6, 2015.\3\ The Commission received no comment letters
regarding the proposed rule change. On May 13, 2015, the Commission
extended to July 5, 2015, the time period in which to approve the
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be
disapproved.\4\ On June 22, 2015, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change.\5\ This order approves the proposed rule
change, as amended, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74618 (March 31,
2015), 80 FR 18452 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74954, 80 FR 28739
(May 19, 2015).
    \5\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange proposed to correct
typographical errors in the original filing, further improve the
clarity of certain rule language, and include additional explanation
with regard to the purpose of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Amended Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to amend and restate certain Phlx rules that
govern PSX in order to provide additional detail and clarity regarding
its order type functionality.\6\ This proposed rule change is a
response to Chair White's request that each equities exchange conduct a
comprehensive review of the operation of each of the order types that
it offers to members.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Notice, 80 FR at 18452-53.
    \7\ See id. at 18453; see also Mary Jo White, Chair, Commission,
Speech at the Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. Global Exchange and
Brokerage Conference (June 5, 2014), available at http://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370542004312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Exchange believes that its current rules and other public
disclosures provide a comprehensive description of the operation of PSX
and are sufficient for members and the investing public to have an
accurate understanding of its market structure, it also acknowledges
that a restatement of certain rules will further clarify the operation
of its system.\8\ For instance, Phlx believes that adding examples of
order type operation to its rules will promote greater understanding of
the Exchange's market structure.\9\ In addition, Phlx asserts that
certain functionality previously described as an ``order type'' is more
precisely characterized as an attribute that may be added to a
particular order.\10\ Accordingly, this proposed rule change
distinguishes between ``Order Types'' and ``Order Attributes,'' and
provides descriptions of the Order Attributes that may be attached to
particular Order Types.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Notice, 80 FR at 18453.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Phlx Rule 3301 (Definitions) sets forth most of the
rules governing Order Types and Order Attributes, as well as other
defined terms that pertain to trading securities on PSX.\12\ Phlx
proposes to amend Rule 3301. Phlx also proposes to amend the
definitions pertaining to Order Types and Order Attributes and to
relocate them from Rule 3301 to new Rules 3301A (Order Types) and 3301B
(Order Attributes), respectively.\13\ In addition, Phlx proposes to
delete Rule 3305 as the information contained therein is superseded by
proposed Rules 3301A and 3301B.\14\ Lastly, Phlx proposes certain
conforming and technical changes to Rule 3306.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Rule 3301.
    \13\ See proposed Rules 3301A and 3301B.
    \14\ See Rule 3305.
    \15\ Phlx states that, in subsequent proposed rule changes, it
plans to restate the remainder of its Rules numbered 3302 through
3316 so that they appear sequentially following Rule 3301B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Phlx represents that, except where specifically stated otherwise,
all proposed rules are restatements of existing rules and are not
intended to reflect substantive changes to rule text or the operation
of PSX.\16\ Proposed Rule 3301A related to Order Types

contains definitions and descriptions of Price to Comply Orders, Price
to Display Orders (referred to as ``Price to Comply Post Orders'' in
current Rule 3301),\17\ Non-Displayed Orders, Post-Only Orders, and
Market Maker Peg Orders. Proposed Rule 3301B related to Order
Attributes contains definitions and descriptions of time-in-force
(``TIF'') modifiers, order size, order price, pegging, minimum
quantity, routing, discretion, reserve size, attribution, intermarket
sweep order designation, and display.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Notice, 80 FR at 18453.
    \17\ See Notice, 80 FR at 18456 n.29.
    \18\ The Notice contains additional details related to proposed
Rules 3301A and 3301B. See Notice, 80 FR at 18452-70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange proposes to add language further
explaining the operation of the following order types: Post-Only
Orders, orders with a TIF of IOC, including Routable Orders and Post-
Only Orders; Market Maker Peg Orders; orders with Midpoint Pegging,
Primary Pegging or Market Pegging; and orders designated with both
Pegging and Routing attributes.\19\ For example, the Exchange states
that for Order Types that list both Pegging and Routing as possible
Order Attributes, the two Order Attributes may be combined since
Pegging serves to establish the price of the order, while Routing
establishes the market center(s) to which the system's routing
functionality may direct a routed order if liquidity is available at
that price.\20\ The Exchange also proposes to add further specification
regarding the availability of certain order types only through certain
communication protocols by stating that a Post-Only Order with a TIF of
IOC may not be entered through the RASH or FIX protocols.\21\ In
addition, the Exchange proposes to add language stating that one or
more Order Attributes may be assigned to a single order, but if the use
of multiple Order Attributes would result in contradictory
instructions, the system will reject the order or remove non-conforming
Order Attributes.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Amendment No. 1.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\23\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\24\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest; and are not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act because the reorganized
and enhanced descriptions of its Order Types, Order Attributes, and
related System functionality should promote just and equitable
principles of trade and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and the national market system by providing greater clarity
concerning certain aspects of the System's operations.\25\ In addition,
the Commission notes that Phlx believes that the proposed rule change
should contribute to the protection of investors and the public
interest by making Phlx's rules easier to understand.\26\ Further, Phlx
believes that additional specificity in its rules will promote a better
understanding of the Exchange's operation, thereby facilitating fair
competition among brokers and dealers and among markets.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Notice, 80 FR at 18467.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, according to the Exchange, the proposal
does not add any new functionality but instead re-organizes the
Exchange's order type rules and provides additional detail regarding
the order type functionality currently offered by the Exchange. Based
on the Exchange's representation, the Commission believes that the
proposed rule change does not raise any novel regulatory considerations
and should provide greater specificity, clarity and transparency with
respect to the order type functionality available on the Exchange. In
addition, the Commission notes that the Exchange's proposed rule
changes provide additional detail related to functionality for certain
order types and the handling of orders during initial entry and after
posting to the PSX Book. Accordingly, the Commission believes that this
proposed rule change should provide greater transparency with respect
to the Exchange's order type functionality. For these reasons, the
Commission believes that the proposal should help to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general,
protect investors and the public interest.
    The Commission finds good cause to approve the filing, as amended
by Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, prior to the thirtieth
day after the date of publication of notice of filing thereof in the
Federal Register. The proposed amendments should further increase the
Exchange's transparency with respect to the operation of various order
types and modifiers, and serve to enhance investors' understanding of
the tools available with respect to the handling of their orders.
Accelerated approval would allow the Exchange to update its rule text
immediately, thus providing users with greater clarity with respect to
the use and potential use of functionality offered by the Exchange. In
addition, the initial proposal was open for comment for twenty-one days
after publication and generated no comment. Accordingly, the Commission
believes that good cause exists, consistent with sections 6(b)(5) and
19(b) of the Act,\28\ to approve the filing, as amended by Amendment
No. 1 to the proposed rule change, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5); 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2015-029 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2015-029. 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-Phlx-2015-029 and should be
submitted on or before July 21, 2015.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\29\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2015-29) be, and it
hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-15974 Filed 6-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 234 (Thursday, December 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70124-70125]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26629]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0492; FRL-9613-01-OCSPP]

United States Department of Justice and Parties to Certain
Litigation; Transfer of Data

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that pesticide related information
submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including information
that may have been claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)
by the submitter, will be transferred to the U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ) and parties to certain litigation. This transfer of data is in

accordance with the CBI regulations governing the disclosure of
potential CBI in litigation.

DATES: Access to this information by DOJ and the parties to certain
litigation is ongoing and expected to continue during the litigation as
discussed in this Notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is being provided pursuant to 40
CFR 2.209(d) to inform affected businesses that EPA, via DOJ, will
provide certain information to the parties and the Court in the
consolidated matters of American Soybean Association v. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency et al., Case No. 20-1441 (D.C. Cir.)
(``Dicamba Litigation''). The information is contained in documents
that have been submitted to EPA pursuant to FIFRA and FFDCA by
pesticide registrants or other data-submitters, including information
that has been claimed to be, or determined to potentially contain, CBI.
In the Dicamba Litigation, the Petitioner seeks judicial review of
three EPA registration decisions for products that contain dicamba for
use on dicamba-tolerant cotton and soybeans, issued under FIFRA, 7
U.S.C. 136 et seq.
    The documents are being produced as part of the Administrative
Record of the decision at issue and include documents that registrants
or other data-submitters may have submitted to EPA regarding the
pesticide dicamba, and that may be subject to various release
restrictions under federal law. The information includes documents
submitted with pesticide registration applications and may include CBI
as well as scientific studies subject to the disclosure restrictions of
FIFRA section 10(g), 7 U.S.C. 136h(g).
    All documents that may be subject to release restrictions under
federal law are designated as ``Protected Information'' under a
Protective Order that was entered by the court in the Dicamba
Litigation on November 4, 2021 (Doc. No. 1920892). The Protective Order
precludes public disclosure of any such documents by the parties in
this action who have received the information from EPA and limits the
use of such documents to litigation purposes only. If filed with the
Court, the Protective Order requires that such documents be filed under
seal and not be available for public review.

(Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.; 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.)

    Dated: November 22, 2021.
Marietta Echeverria,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2021-26629 Filed 12-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10588-10590]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03485]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96926; File No. SR-ISE-2023-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend ISE
Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 6 To Modify the Crossing Fee Cap

February 14, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 1, 2023, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the ISE Pricing Schedule at Options
7, Section 6 to modify the Crossing Fee Cap.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/ise/rules, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 6.H to increase the Crossing Fee
Cap.
    As set forth in Options 7, Section 6.H, the Exchange presently
offers a Crossing Fee Cap of $150,000 per month, per Member, on all
Firm Proprietary \3\ transactions that are part of the originating or
contra-side of a Crossing Order.\4\ Fees charged by the Exchange for
Responses to Crossing Orders \5\ are not included in the calculation of
the monthly fee cap. Surcharge fees charged by the Exchange for
licensed products and the fees for index options as set forth in
Section 5 are not included in the calculation of the monthly fee
cap.\6\ For purposes of the Crossing Fee Cap, the Exchange will
attribute eligible volume to the Member on whose behalf the Crossing
Order was executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Firm Proprietary order is an order submitted by a member
for its own proprietary account.
    \4\ Crossing Orders are contracts that are submitted as part of
a Facilitation, Solicitation, PIM, Block or QCC order. All eligible
volume from affiliated Members is aggregated for purposes of the
Crossing Fee Cap, provided there is at least 75% common ownership
between the Members as reflected on each Member's Form BD, Schedule
A.
    \5\ ``Responses to Crossing Order'' is any contra-side interest
submitted after the commencement of an auction in the Exchange's
Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order Mechanism, Block Order
Mechanism or PIM. See Options 7, Section 1(c).
    \6\ In addition, a service fee of $0.00 per side currently
applies to all order types that are eligible for the fee cap. The
service fee would apply once a Member reaches the fee cap level and
would apply to every contract side above the fee cap. A Member who
does not reach the monthly fee cap is not charged the service fee.
Once the fee cap is reached, the service fee shall apply to eligible
Firm Proprietary orders in all Nasdaq ISE products. The service fee
is not calculated in reaching the cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, the Exchange proposes to increase the Crossing Fee
Cap from $150,000 to $200,000. The Exchange also proposes that once a
Member exceeds the fee cap level, the Member will be subject to a
reduced transaction fee of $0.02 per capped contract. Thus, if a Member
exceeds the $200,000 Crossing Fee Cap in a given month, the Member
would be charged a reduced fee of $0.02 per contract for their Crossing
Orders instead of $0.20 (for Crossing Orders except orders submitted in
the Price Improvement Mechanism (``PIM'')) \7\ or $0.10 (for PIM
orders). The Exchange notes that Members may also currently qualify for
discounted fees (or qualify for free executions) on their Firm
Proprietary PIM orders if they meet certain PIM volume requirements.\8\

The Exchange therefore proposes to stipulate that the Member will be
subject to a reduced transaction fee of $0.02 per capped contract,
unless the Member also qualifies for free executions. The Exchange
further proposes to delete all references to the service fee in this
Section 6.H. As noted above, the Exchange currently does not charge any
service fees in relation to the Crossing Fee Cap as this fee is set to
$0.00, and the Exchange therefore proposes to delete this obsolete fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As described in Options 3, Section 13, PIM is a process by
which an EAM can provide price improvement opportunities for a
``Crossing Transaction,'' which is comprised of the order the EAM
represents as agent (the ``Agency Order'') and a counter-side order
for the full size of the Agency Order (the ``Counter-Side Order'').
Upon the entry of a Crossing Transaction into the PIM, PIM responses
(i.e., ``Improvement Orders'') may be entered during the auction
exposure period.
    \8\ See Options 7, Section 3 (note 13) (providing that other
than for Priority Customer orders, the $0.10 PIM fee is $0.05 per
contract for orders executed by Members that execute an ADV of 7,500
or more contracts in the PIM in a given month. Members that execute
an ADV of 12,500 or more contracts in the PIM will be charged $0.02
per contract. The discounted fees are applied retroactively to all
eligible PIM volume in that month once the threshold has been
reached); and Options 7, Section 4 (note 9) (providing that other
than for Priority Customer orders, the $0.10 PIM fee is $0.05 per
contract for orders executed by Members that execute an ADV of 7,500
or more contracts in the PIM in a given month. Members that execute
an ADV of 12,500 or more contracts in the PIM will not be charged a
fee. The discounted fees are applied retroactively to all eligible
PIM volume in that month once the threshold has been reached). As
emphasized in the foregoing, a Member could potentially qualify for
free executions on their PIM orders and also exceed the Crossing Fee
Cap in a given month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Crossing Fee Cap will increase under this proposal and
Members will be charged a nominal transaction fee of $0.02 per capped
contract once the fee cap level is exceeded, the Exchange believes that
Members will continue to be incentivized to bring Firm Proprietary
Crossing Order flow to ISE to achieve the benefits of the cap on their
Crossing Order transactions fees.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility,
and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposed changes to its Pricing Schedule are
reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is
subject to significant competitive forces in the market for options
securities transaction services that constrain its pricing
determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive
has long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities
and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers' . . . .'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
options security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of
sixteen options exchanges to which market participants may direct their
order flow. Within this environment, market participants can freely and
often do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues
in response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. As such,
the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to
increase its liquidity and market share relative to its competitors.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the Crossing
Fee Cap from $150,000 to $200,000 is reasonable. The Crossing Fee Cap
was established to reward Members for executing a higher volume of Firm
Proprietary Crossing Orders on the Exchange by capping the associated
fees. The Exchange believes that the increased fee cap will be set at a
level that continues to appropriately reward Members for executing high
volumes of such Crossing Orders. Despite the proposed increase, the
Exchange believes that Members will continue to be incentivized to
bring Firm Proprietary Crossing Order flow to ISE to receive the
benefits of capped fees for their Crossing Order transactions. In that
vein, the Exchange believes that its proposal to begin charging a
transaction fee of $0.02 per capped contract once the Member has
exceeded the Crossing Fee Cap level is reasonable because it is a
nominal amount compared to the $0.20 fee for Crossing Orders (except
PIM orders) and the $0.10 fee for PIM orders normally assessed to
Members for their Firm Proprietary orders. As such, the Exchange
believes that the Crossing Fee Cap, as amended, still serves to lower
fees for Members that transact certain qualifying Firm Proprietary
Crossing Order volume on ISE, thus enabling these Members the ability
to lower costs. The Exchange further believes that it is reasonable to
assess no fees instead of assessing the reduced $0.02 transaction fee
for capped contracts in the event the Member exceeds the Crossing Fee
Cap level in a given month and also qualifies for free executions under
a separate incentive program. Given the interactions of various
incentive programs that apply to Crossing Orders (and in this case, PIM
orders) as noted above, the Exchange wants to ensure that Members get
the most favorable incentive they qualify for under its Pricing
Schedule. The Exchange also believes that the proposed changes to
remove all references to the service fee in the Crossing Fee Cap is
reasonable. As noted above, the Exchange currently does not charge any
service fees in relation to the Crossing Fee Cap as this fee is set to
$0.00. The Exchange therefore proposes to delete this fee to avoid
potential confusion by market participants.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes described above to
the Crossing Fee Cap are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the changes will apply uniformly to all Members engaged in Firm
Proprietary trading in options classes traded on the Exchange. The
Exchange does not believe that it is unfairly discriminatory to offer
the Crossing Fee Cap to Firm Proprietary transactions as differentiated
pricing already exists on the Exchange's Pricing Schedule to encourage
different segments of order flow. For instance, the Exchange generally
provides Priority Customer \13\ orders more favorable pricing through
lower or no transaction fees, including Priority Customer Crossing
Orders that are presently assessed no fees, and through rebate
opportunities like the Priority Customer rebate currently provided for
adding liquidity in Non-Select Symbols.\14\ Professional Customer \15\
orders are presently charged a lower transaction fee for executed QCC
orders and for orders

executed in the Solicited Order Mechanism ($0.10 for Professional
Customers versus $0.20 for all other non-Priority Customers).\16\
Broker-Dealer \17\ and Firm Proprietary orders are incentivized in the
Exchange's PIM and Facilitation Rebate program.\18\ Market Makers \19\
are offered rebates through the Exchange's Market Maker Plus
program.\20\ The Exchange further believes there is nothing
impermissible about offering the Crossing Fee Cap solely to Firm
Proprietary transactions given that this practice is consistent with
firm fee caps in place on other options exchanges.\21\ To the extent
the amended Crossing Fee Cap continues to encourage additional Firm
Proprietary Crossing Order flow to ISE, such increased order flow
brings increased liquidity and additional opportunities for interaction
with this order flow, which ultimately benefits all market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ A ``Priority Customer'' is a person or entity that is not a
broker/dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders
in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its
own beneficial account(s), as defined in Nasdaq ISE Options 1,
Section 1(a)(37).
    \14\ See Options 7, Sections 3 and 4. Non-Select Symbols are
options overlying all symbols that are not included in the Penny
Interval Program.
    \15\ A ``Professional Customer'' is a person or entity that is
not a broker/dealer and is not a Priority Customer.
    \16\ See Options 7, Sections 3 (note 16) and Section 4 (note
14).
    \17\ A ``Broker-Dealer'' order is an order submitted by a member
for a broker-dealer account that is not its own proprietary account.
    \18\ See Options 7, Sections 6.C.
    \19\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to Competitive Market
Makers and Primary Market Makers, collectively. See Options 1,
Section 1(a)(21).
    \20\ See Options 7, Sections 3 (note 5).
    \21\ See, e.g., Monthly Firm Fee Cap in Nasdaq Phlx Options 7,
Section 4; and Firm and Broker Dealer Monthly Fee Cap in NYSE Arca
Options Fees and Charges at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/arca-options/NYSE_Arca_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of intra-market
competition, the Exchange does not believe that this proposal will
place any category of market participant at a competitive disadvantage.
As discussed above, the proposed changes to the Crossing Fee Cap will
apply uniformly to all Members engaged in Firm Proprietary trading in
options classes traded on the Exchange. To the extent the amended
Crossing Fee Cap continues to provide an incentive for Members to bring
additional Firm Proprietary Crossing Order flow to the Exchange, such
order flow brings increased liquidity to the benefit of all market
participants.
    In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at
other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other
exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted
from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges.
Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and
because market participants may readily adjust their order routing
practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes
in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely
limited. In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to
market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market
share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the
proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order
execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the
financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\22\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public
interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2023-05 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2023-05. 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2023-05 and should be submitted on
or before March 14, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-03485 Filed 2-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 20, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69594-69595]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27839]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0972; Directorate Identifier 2002-NM-009-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that
proposed a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A330
series airplanes. The NPRM would have required replacement of the
elevator servo-controls with new servo-controls when the existing parts
have reached their operational life limit. Since the NPRM was issued,
we have determined that more restrictive maintenance requirements and
airworthiness limitations are necessary and that NPRM does not
adequately address the identified unsafe condition. Accordingly, the
NRPM is withdrawn.

DATES: As of November 20, 2013, the proposed rule, which was published
in the Federal Register on September 18, 2003, (68 FR 54694), is
withdrawn.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD action, the NPRM (68 FR 54694,
September 18, 2003), the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We proposed to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations
(14 CFR part 39) with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for a new
AD for all Airbus Model A330 series airplanes. The NPRM, FAA Docket No.
FAA-2013-0972, Directorate Identifier 2002-NM-009-AD identified as the
``Directorate Identifier'' in this AD action), was published in the
Federal Register on September 18, 2003 (68 FR 54694). The NPRM proposed
to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products.

    The Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC),
which is the aviation authority for France, issued French Airworthiness
Directive 2001-545(B) R1, dated October 16, 2002 (referred to after
this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    The operational life limits of the aircraft servo-controls, and
in particular of the elevator servo-controls given in the Revision 8
of AMM Chapter 05-11-00 Configuration 1 (dated September 15, 1999)
are not addressed by the definition of the structural life limits of
Safe Life items as defined in Section 9.1 (Life limits/Monitored
parts) of the Airworthiness Limitations Section (located in the MPD
Section 9) which replaces the aircraft AMM Chapter 05-11. As a
result these life limits are removed from the above documents and
integrated into this [French] Airworthiness Directive (AD).
    In addition, this [French] AD restates the life limits
requirements of AD 95-032-008(B) R1, and introduces provisional
operational life limits for P/N's SC-4800-7A and SC-4800-9.
    The aim of this [French] AD is to require the removal and
replacement of the servo-controls when they have reached their
operational life limits.
    The Revision 1 of this [French] AD aims to increase the
operational life limit in active mode of Elevator Servo-controls P/N
SC4800 listed in paragraph COMPLIANCE 3.2.3. of this [French] AD,
following new test results demonstrating a provisional life of
40,000 cycles and to remove reference of P/N SC4800-2 amendments A,
B, C, D, E, F or G and SC4800-4 amendment H which are not anymore in
service under this identification.

The NPRM (68 FR 54694, September 18, 2003) resulted from reports of
cracking in the end caps and along the barrel on elevator servo-
controls that exceeded their operational life limits, which could lead
to hydraulic leakage and internal damage within the servo-control. The
proposed actions were intended to prevent hydraulic leakage and
internal damage of the elevator servo-controls due to cracks in the end
caps and along the barrel, which could result in a reduction in the
elevator's protection against vibration or loss of the hydraulic
circuit, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. You
may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Actions Since NPRM (68 FR 54694, September 18, 2003) Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM (68 FR 54694, September 18, 2003), we have
determined that more restrictive maintenance requirements and
airworthiness limitations are necessary to adequately address the
identified unsafe condition. French Airworthiness Directive 2001-545(B)
R1, dated October 16, 2002, was superseded by The European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive 2012-0020, dated January
30, 2012, which mandates the use of Airbus A330 Airworthiness
Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4--Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision
03, dated September 9, 2011. The replacement requirements and
thresholds for parts originally defined in the NPRM are now contained
in Airbus A330 ALS Part 4--Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 03,
dated September 9, 2011. We have issued NPRM Docket No. FAA-2013-0834,
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-045-AD (78 FR 66861, November 7, 2013),
which corresponds to EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0020, dated
January 30, 2012. The NPRM, FAA Docket No. FAA-2013-0834, Directorate
Identifier 2012-NM-045-AD, applies to certain Airbus Model A330 and
A340 series airplanes and proposes to mandate the requirements now
contained in Airbus A330 ALS Part 4--Aging Systems Maintenance,
Revision 03, dated September 9, 2011.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (68 FR 54694, September
18, 2003) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

FAA's Conclusions

    Upon further consideration, we have determined that more
restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are
necessary to adequately address the unsafe condition identified in the
NPRM (68 FR 54694, September 18, 2003), and that additional rulemaking
is necessary. Accordingly, the NPRM is withdrawn.
    Withdrawal of the NPRM (68 FR 54694, September 18, 2003) does not
preclude the FAA from issuing another related action or commit the FAA
to any course of action in the future.

Regulatory Impact

    Since this action only withdraws an NPRM (68 FR 54694, September
18, 2003), it is neither a proposed nor a final rule and therefore is
not covered under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February
26, 1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Withdrawal

    Accordingly, we withdraw the NPRM, Docket No. FAA-2013-0972,
Directorate Identifier 2002-NM-009-AD, which published in the Federal
Register on September 18, 2003 (68 FR 54694).

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 24, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-27839 Filed 11-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

MEMORANDUM

TO:		Jeff Telander, EPA/OAQPS/ESD/MICG

FROM:	David Hendricks, EC/R Incorporated

		Shannon Cox, EC/R Incorporated

DATE:		August 19, 2004

SUBJECT:	Trip Report for the Site Visit to W.C. Richards Company of
Carolina in Aberdeen, North Carolina on July 27, 2004.

I.	Purpose

	The purpose of this visit was to examine the paint manufacturing
processes and any emission control measures in place at W.C. Richards
Company of Carolina.  During the visit, our intent was to observe the
paint manufacturing operations firsthand and discuss: (1) the
facility’s air emissions associated with paint manufacturing; (2) the
measures employed to reduce emissions; (3) the costs incurred from the
control of emissions; and, (4) wastes generated as a result of emission
control measures.

II.	Place and Date

	W.C. Richards Company of Carolina

	101 East Maple Street

	Aberdeen, North Carolina 28315

	July 27, 2004

III. 	Attendees

	W.C. Richards Company of Carolina

	William F. Abel, Plant Manager

	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC

	Jeff Telander

	EC/R Incorporated

	David Hendricks

	Shannon Cox

	National Paint and Coatings Association

	David Darling, Director, Environmental Affairs

IV.	Discussion

A.	Overview of the Facility and Products

	W.C. Richards Company of Carolina (W.C. Richards) is a family-owned
business that was established in 1938.  The Aberdeen, North Carolina
facility has been in operation since about 1976.  Paint manufactured at
W.C. Richards is sold to the original equipment manufacturing sector
where it is typically applied to metal substrates.  The coatings are
also used on some fiberglass and plastic substrates.  Custom paint
blends are formulated to meet each customer’s performance
specifications.  Production is customer-driven so there is very little
product in stock at the facility.  Only formulations that are sold to
multiple customers are kept in stock.  Batch sizes range from 1 gallon
to 1,100 gallons, but the larger batch sizes are very rare.  The average
batch size is about 100 gallons.  Solvent-borne paints constitute about
50 to 60 percent of total production, high solids paints constitute
about 20 to 30 percent of overall production, and waterborne paints
account for about 30 percent of total production.  The facility operates
one shift per day and five days per week.  Twelve to fourteen people are
employed at the facility.  About 60,000 gallons of paint were produced
during the preceding year.  About 10 years ago, the plant was producing
400,000 to 500,000 gallons of paint per year.

B.	Emissions and Controls

	The amount of air emissions at the facility are dependent on the mix of
products, but the plant manager estimated that about 4,000 pounds of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) are emitted per year when the plant is
running at about 60 percent of capacity.  Emissions are estimated using
the AP-42 method, or by multiplying the estimated VOC content of the
product by the quantity in gallons and multiplying by a 2 percent loss
factor.  The calculation used for estimating emissions from waterborne
paints is presented as Calculation 1.  A similar calculation used for
estimating emissions from solvent-borne paints is presented as
Calculation 2.

	Calculation 1.  VOC Emissions from Production of Waterborne Paints:

		3.4 * Quantity of Paint (gallons) * 2% = Emissions of VOC in pounds

	Calculation 2.  VOC Emissions from Production of Solvent-borne Paints:

		4.5 * Quantity of Paint (gallons) * 2% = Emissions of VOC in pounds

	The use of pigments and other solid raw materials contribute to
emissions of particulate matter (PM).  Emissions of PM are captured
through flexible vent hoses placed near process tanks as pigments and
other solids are added to a batch.  The PM is controlled through the use
of a baghouse.

	Pollution prevention measures are used to prevent VOC emissions and
include covers on tanks, scheduling of batches from production of light
colors to dark colors to reduce the frequency of cleaning, and reuse and
recycling of solvent used for cleaning.

C.	Manufacturing Process

	Four main steps are used to manufacture paint at W.C. Richards: (1)
premix, (2) letdown, (3) quality control, and (4) filling.  Equipment
used for paint manufacturing includes bulk solvent storage tanks, bulk
resin storage tanks, small container raw material storage, portable
process tanks, stationary process tanks, high speed dispersers (HSDs),
vertical sand mills, pebble mills, and packages and containers for
product shipment.

	1.	Raw Material Storage and Assembly

	Bulk raw materials are stored in 3,800 gallon tanks.  The facility has
four tanks for solvents and eight tanks for resin, but is currently
using only one of each type.  The tanks are filled from tanker trucks.
Solvent tanks are located outside and resin tanks are located inside of
the facility.  A dyke surrounds each group of bulk storage tanks.  A
piping system ending in a manifold brings raw materials from the bulk
storage tanks to the manufacturing area.  During assembly of raw
solvents and resins, a portable process tank is rolled onto a scale
underneath the manifold.  Bulk raw materials are released from the
manifold into the process tank.  After filling, a small bucket is placed
under the manifold to catch any drips of material.

	Packages of pigments and empty containers are stored in a building
apart from the main building.  Any flammable materials are brought into
the main building because it is equipped with a sprinkler system.
Purchase orders and batch tickets list a coded set of ingredients.  All
packages of pigments are labeled with the same codes used on the batch
tickets.  During assembly of pigments, the worker uses an electric scale
to weigh out the amount of pigment specified on the coded batch ticket
into a paper grocery bag.  The assembled raw materials are set on a
pallet and brought into the production area.  Most of the pigments used
at W.C. Richards do not contain hazardous metals.  However, to meet the
requirements of certain end-users, some pigments containing hazardous
metals are used at the facility.  The plant manager estimated that less
than 1,000 pounds of pigments containing hazardous metals are used per
year.  At one point, a surcharge was levied on products that contained
heavy metals to offset the waste disposal costs incurred by the facility
for disposal of hazardous wastes and to encourage customers to allow
W.C. Richards to substitute alternative materials for the hazardous
pigments.  Due to increased competition from other manufacturers, W.C.
Richards is no longer able to levy the surcharge.

	2.	Premix

	W.C. Richards has both portable and stationary process tanks.  Due to
the generally small batch sizes, the large stationary process tanks have
not been used for several years.  During premix, resins, wetting agents,
and pigments are loaded into the portable process tank.  A flexible vent
hose is placed near the opening of the tank as pigments are loaded to
capture and vent dust into a baghouse.  The portable process tank is
placed under a stationary HSD.  The agitator shaft of the HSD is lowered
into the process tank and mixes the raw materials.  All process tanks
are covered during mixing.  Some products require a milling stage
following mixing with the HSD to further disperse the pigments. While
the milling stage is generally conducted after the HSD process,
sometimes raw materials are blended in a mill as a first stage.

	Both vertical sand mills and pebble mills are used at the facility for
grinding.  If a vertical sand mill is used, the portable process tank
containing the intermediate product is rolled near the mill.  A flexible
hose is used to transfer the intermediate product from the portable
process tank and into the bottom of the mill.  The intermediate product
is pumped up through a cylinder filled with media and a series of discs
connected by a shaft.  A screen surrounds the cylinder to hold in the
media.  The discs are rotated to act similarly to the agitator shaft of
an HSD.  Pigments are dispersed as the intermediate product flows
through the media-filled cylinder.  The product is then pumped from the
top of the mill through a flexible hose and into a second portable
process tank.  Using the vertical sand mill, the grinding process
requires only the time necessary for the intermediate product to flow
through the mill.  If the pebble mill is used for grinding, the
intermediate product is loaded into the mill and is dispersed at one
time.  As the mill circulates, the media disperses the pigment.  The
grinding process requires one or two days using the pebble mill.  While
heat-up from the grinding process itself is sufficient for grinding
using the vertical sand mill, if the pebble mill is used for grinding
the HSD must be used as a first stage to ensure that the temperature of
the intermediate product is at least 120 degrees when it is loaded into
the pebble mill.  Water jackets are used to prevent excessive heat-up
during use of the vertical sand mill.

	Portable process tanks and mills are cleaned to avoid contamination
from batch changes.  Recycled solvent is typically used for this
cleaning operation.  Once the recycled solvent is spent it is stored for
incineration.  Mills are cleaned using batch solvent.  The batch solvent
is used to flush the mill and is then added to the letdown tank or used
in another batch.  If water is used instead of solvent to clean the
tanks and mills after production of waterborne paint, the wastewater can
be combined with solvent stored for incineration.  To clean the agitator
shaft on the HSD, a drum with solvent is placed under the shaft.  A
brush is dipped into the solvent and brushed along the agitator shaft to
remove residual materials.  The plant manager attempts to schedule paint
production from batches of light colors to dark colors to reduce the
frequency of cleaning.

	3.	Letdown

	After premix, the next step of the process is called letdown.  During
this stage, remaining ingredients are added to the intermediate product
to bring the batch to its final volume.  The materials are added into
the same portable process tank that was used for premix.

	4.	Quality Control

	Following letdown, a sample of the product is tested in the quality
control (QC) lab.  Each formulation is quality tested for a series of
parameters including color, sag, viscosity, and grind.  Small ovens are
used to force samples to dry and for testing baking enamels.  After a
batch passes QC, a sample of the final product is kept for one year.
The first time a new formulation is created, the paint manufacturing
process is carried out in a small scale in the QC lab prior to
production of the full batch size.

	5.	Filling

	After a batch passes QC, it is filled into containers of various size.
All filling is conducted by hand as the facility does not have
sufficient production volume to warrant the use of automated equipment.
The final product is filled into one gallon containers, five gallon
containers, or drums.

V.	Summary and Conclusion

	Waterborne, solvent-borne, and high solids paints for the original
equipment manufacturing sector are produced at the W.C. Richards Company
of Carolina facility in Aberdeen, North Carolina.  Paint is produced
using four main steps: premix, letdown, quality control, and filling.
Emission controls consist of the use of vents and baghouses for capture
and control of particulate matter and the use of pollution prevention
practices including covered process tanks, reuse and recycling of
solvent for equipment cleaning, and batch scheduling to reduce the need
for equipment cleaning for prevention of VOC emissions.  The plant
manager stressed that W.C. Richards faces tough competition from larger
companies.  He also stated that the cost of complying with an emission
standard would present an economic challenge to the facility and could
force the 潣灭湡⁹畯⁴景戠獵湩獥⹳̍഍ഄ̍഍ഄ഍഍

഍

഍഍


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 98 (Friday, May 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 29233]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12436]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-3552-000]

Glacial Energy of New England, Inc.; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Glacial Energy of New England, Inc.'s application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is June 2, 2011.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for 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>.

    Dated: May 13, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-12436 Filed 5-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 36 (Friday, February 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 5783]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03088]

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

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 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 the background documentation for this
information collection at the following website, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Charles Riddle, Acting Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o
Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: February 19, 2019.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-03088 Filed 2-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P