[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48526-48528]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19151]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70104; File No. SR-NYSE-2013-55]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending One of the Supplemental Liquidity Provider Credits in its
Price List

August 2, 2013.
    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 July 22, 2013, New York Stock Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange''
or ``NYSE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend one of the Supplemental Liquidity
Provider (``SLP'') credits in its Price List. The Exchange proposes to
implement the fee change effective August 1, 2013. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, 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 self-regulatory organization
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 Exchange proposes to amend one of the SLP credits in its Price
List. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective
August 1, 2013.
    SLPs are eligible for certain credits when adding liquidity to the
Exchange.\3\ The amount of the credit is determined by the ``tier''
that the SLP qualifies for, which is generally based on the SLP's level
of quoting and the average daily volume (``ADV'') of liquidity added by
the SLP in assigned securities, excluding early closing days for the
ADV calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The SLP program provides incentives for quoting and adds
competition to the existing group of liquidity providers. An SLP can
either be a proprietary trading unit of a member organization (an
``SLP-Prop'') or a registered market maker at the Exchange (an
``SLMM''). See NYSE Rule 107B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange provides a credit of $0.0025 per transaction, or
$0.0020 per transaction for Non-Displayed Reserve Orders,\4\ for an SLP
that adds liquidity to the NYSE in securities with a per share price of
$1.00 or more if the SLP (i) Meets the 10% average or more quoting
requirement in an assigned security pursuant to Rule 107B (quotes of an
SLP-Prop and an SLMM of the same member organization are not
aggregated), (ii) adds liquidity for all assigned SLP securities in the
aggregate (including shares of both an SLP-Prop and an SLMM of the same
member organization) of an ADV of more than 0.22% of NYSE consolidated
ADV (``CADV''), (iii) adds liquidity for all assigned SLP securities in
the aggregate (including shares of both an SLP-Prop and an SLMM of the
same member organization) of an ADV during the billing month that is at
least an 0.18% increase over the SLP's September 2012 Adding ADV \5\
(``SLP Baseline ADV''), and (iv) has a minimum provide ADV for all
assigned SLP securities of 12 million shares.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A Non-Displayed Reserve Order is a limit order that is not
displayed, but remains available for potential execution against all
incoming automatically executing orders until executed in full or
cancelled. See NYSE Rule 13 (Definitions of Orders).
    \5\ Adding ADV is ADV that adds liquidity to the NYSE during the
billing month. Adding ADV excludes any liquidity added by a
Designated Market Maker.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68021 (October 9,
2012), 77 FR 63406 (October 16, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2012-50).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the third requirement for this
credit to require that the SLP add liquidity for all assigned SLP
securities in the aggregate

(including shares of both an SLP-Prop and an SLMM of the same member
organization) of an ADV during the billing month that is at least equal
to the SLP Baseline ADV plus 0.18% of NYSE CADV in the billing
month.\7\ For example, assume that an SLP's Baseline ADV is 15 million
shares, and NYSE CADV in the billing month is 3.5 billion shares. To
meet the third requirement for this credit under the current Price
List, the SLP will need to add liquidity for all assigned SLP
securities in the aggregate (including shares of both an SLP-Prop and
an SLMM of the same member organization) of an ADV during the billing
month of at least 15,027,000 shares (1.0018 x the SLP's Baseline ADV of
15 million shares). Under the proposed change, the SLP will need to add
liquidity for all assigned SLP securities in the aggregate of an ADV
during the billing month that is at least 6.3 million shares (3.5
billion NYSE CADV x 0.18%) more than the SLP's Baseline ADV, or a total
adding liquidity of at least 21.3 million shares (6.3 million shares
plus the SLP's Baseline ADV of 15 million shares). The remaining
requirements for this credit will remain the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange notes that its affiliate, NYSE Arca Equities,
Inc., recently implemented a similar requirement for its ``Tape B
Step Up Tier.'' See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69926 (July
3, 2013), 78 FR 41154 (SR-NYSEArca-2013-67).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the proposed change is not otherwise
intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of
any problems that member organizations, including SLPs, would have in
complying with the proposed change. The Exchange believes that it is
subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the
Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to amend the requirement for
the credit so that SLPs will be required to provide an ADV during the
billing month that is at least equal to the SLP Baseline ADV plus 0.18%
of NYSE CADV because the revised requirement will encourage SLPs to
provide a higher level of liquidity in their assigned securities based
on trading activity in that billing month, rather than relating it only
to September 2012 activity. The Exchange believes the proposed changes
to the requirement for the credit are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the credit is open to all SLPs on an equal
basis. In addition, SLPs have higher quoting obligations than other
market participants, and in turn provide higher volumes of liquidity,
which contributes to price discovery and benefits all market
participants. As such, it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
to offer SLPs credits that are relatively higher than other market
participants that do not have such obligations.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition. For these reasons, the Exchange
believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\10\ 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. Specifically, the Exchange believes the
revised credit for SLPs reflects the need for the Exchange to adjust
financial incentives to attract order flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 credits
available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment,
the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and credits 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 and credits in response, and because market participants may
readily adjust their trading practices, the Exchange believes that the
degree to which fee or credit changes in this market may impose any
burden on competition is extremely limited. As a result of all of these
considerations, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change
will impair the ability of member organizations 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 solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \11\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \12\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \13\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(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 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-NYSE-2013-55 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-NYSE-2013-55. 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-NYSE-2013-55 and should be submitted on or before August
29, 2013.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-19151 Filed 8-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 211 (Wednesday, October 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65873-65874]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26713]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RC11-6-003]

North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on October 12, 2012, the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC) submitted a compliance filing in
accordance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Order (FERC
or Commission) in North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 140
FERC ] 61,215 (2012) (September 20 Order).
    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 email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 13, 2012.

    Dated: October 24, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-26713 Filed 10-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 149 (Friday, August 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47049-47050]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18576]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0108; Notice 2]

Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC (Bridgestone),\1\
has determined that certain Bridgestone brand replacement tires
manufactured between June 19, 2011 and March 17, 2012, do not fully
comply with paragraph Sec.  5.5(f) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light
Vehicles. Bridgestone has filed an appropriate report dated July 19,
2012, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC is a manufacturer
of replacement equipment and is registered under the laws of the
state of Delaware.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule
implementing those provisions at 49 CFR Part 556, Bridgestone has
petitioned for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Notice of
receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day public comment
period, on December 3, 2012 in the Federal Register (77 FR 71679). No
comments were received. To view the petition and all supporting
documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site
at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search
instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2012-0108.''

Contact Information: For further information on this decision contact
Mr. Abraham Diaz, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-
5310, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Equipment Involved: Affected are approximately 1,102 Firestone
Firehawk Wide Oval AS size 245/40R19 and 245/35R20 brand tires
manufactured between June 19, 2011, and March 17, 2012. Only 97 of the
affected tires are no longer under the control of the petitioner.
Therefore, only those 97 tires are the subject of this petition.
    Rule Text: Section S5.5 of FMVSS No. 139 specifically states:

    S5.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in paragraphs (a)
through (i) of S5.5, each tire must be marked on each sidewall with
the information specified in S5.5(a) through (d) and on one sidewall
with the information specified in S5.5(e) through (i) according to
the phase-in schedule specified in S7 of this standard. The markings
must be placed between the maximum section width and the bead on at
least one sidewall, unless the maximum section width of the tire is
located in an area that is not more than one-fourth of the distance
from the bead to the shoulder of the tire. If the maximum section
width that falls within that area, those markings must appear
between the bead and a point one-half the distance from the bead to
the shoulder of the tire, on at least one sidewall. The markings
must be in letters and numerals not less than 0.078 inches high and
raised above or sunk below the tire surface not less than 0.015
inches . . .
    (f) The actual number of plies in the sidewall, and the actual
number of plies in the tread area, if different . . .

    Summary of Bridgestone's Analyses: Bridgestone explains that the
noncompliance is that due to a mold labeling error the sidewall marking
on the reference side of the tires incorrectly describes the actual
number of plies in the tread area of the tires and therefore does not
comply with paragraph Sec.  5.5(f) of FMVSS No. 139. Specifically, the
tires in question were inadvertently manufactured with ``TREAD 1
POLYESTER 2 STEEL 1 NYLON.'' The labeling should have been ``TREAD 1
POLYESTER 2 STEEL 2 NYLON.''
    Bridgestone stated its belief that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety because the subject tires meet
or exceed all performance requirements as required in part by FMVSS No.
139 and that the noncompliant labeling has no impact on the operational
performance or safety of vehicles on which these tires are mounted.
    Bridgestone points out that NHTSA has previously granted similar
petitions for non-compliances in sidewall markings.
    Bridgestone has also informed NHTSA that it has corrected future
production and will re-label the 1,005 contained tires to reflect
correct construction.
    In summation, Bridgestone believes that the described noncompliance
of the subject tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and
that its petition, to exempt from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.

    NHTSA Decision: The agency agrees with Bridgestone that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The agency
believes that the true measure of inconsequentiality to motor vehicle
safety in this case is that there is no effect of the noncompliance on
the operational safety of vehicles on which these tires are mounted.
The safety of people working in the tire retread, repair, and recycling
industries must also be considered.
    Although tire construction affects the strength and durability,
neither the agency nor the tire industry provides information relating
tire strength and durability to the number of plies and types of ply
cord material in the tread and sidewall. Therefore, tire dealers and
customers should consider the tire construction information along with
other information such as the load capacity, maximum inflation
pressure, and tread wear, temperature, and traction ratings to assess
performance capabilities of various tires. In the agency's judgment,
the incorrect labeling of the tire construction information in this
case will have an inconsequential effect on motor vehicle safety
because most consumers do not base tire purchases or vehicle operation
parameters on the number of plies in a tire.
    The agency also believes the noncompliance will have no measurable
effect on the safety of the tire retread, repair, and recycling
industries. The use of steel cord construction in the sidewall and
tread is the primary safety concern of these industries. In this case,
since the tires are marked correctly with respect to steel ply content,
this potential safety concern does not exist.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that
Bridgestone has met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 139
noncompliance and is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Bridgestone's petition is hereby granted and the
petitioner is exempted from the obligation of providing notification
of, and a remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to approximately 97 tires that Bridgestone no longer
controlled at the time that it determined that a noncompliance existed
in the subject tires. However, the granting of this petition does not
relieve tire distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale,
offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of the noncompliant tires under their control after
Bridgestone notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

    Issued on: July 25, 2013.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-18576 Filed 8-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: January 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 17)]
[Notices]
[Page 3830-3831]
[DOCID:fr26ja07-97]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

January 19, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG07-30-000.
    Applicants: Whirlwind Energy, LLC.
    Description: Whirlwind Energy, LLC submits an Exempt Wholesale
Generator Notice of Self Certification.
    Filed Date: 01/18/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070118-5040.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 08, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER01-316-023.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England submits its Index of Customers for the
fourth quarter of 2006.
    Filed Date: 01/16/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070117-0227.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 06, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-647-009; ER01-3001-016.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits a
compliance report pursuant to the Commission's order 11/28/06.
    Filed Date: 01/16/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070116-5148.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 06, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-636-006.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits a Large Generator Interconnection Agreement w/Columbia
Community Windpower, LLC and American Transmission Company.
    Filed Date: 01/16/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070118-0077.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 06, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-662-006.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits a Large Generator Interconnection Agreement w/Darlington Wind
Farm, LLC and American Transmission Company.
    Filed Date: 01/16/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070118-0079.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 06, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-864-005.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits a Large Generator Interconnection Agreement w/Forward Energy,
LLC and American Transmission Company.
    Filed Date: 01/16/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070118-0078.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 06, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1457-002.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: E. ON U.S., LLC on behalf of Louisville Gas and
Electric Co et al. submits amended Firm Point-to-Point transmission
service agreements with Illinois Municipal Electric Agency pursuant to
the Commission's 12/15/06 letter order.
    Filed Date: 01/16/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070118-0080.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 06, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-433-000.
    Applicants: Interstate Power and Light Company; Great River Energy;
Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency.
    Description: Interstate Power and Light Company on behalf of Great
River Energy et al. submits the Alliant Energy-West Joint Pricing Zone
Revenue Allocation Agreement entered on 12/14/06.
    Filed Date: 01/16/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070119-0102.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 06, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-435-000.
    Applicants: Northeast Utilities Service Company.
    Description: Northeast Utilities Service Co on behalf of The
Connecticut Light and Power et al submits Schedule 21-NU to Section II
of the ISO New England Tariff for Transmission, Markets and Services.
    Filed Date: 01/17/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070118-0076.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 07, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-436-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Company.
    Description: American Electric Power Service Corp as agent for Ohio
Power Co et al submits an Interconnection Agreement with American
Transmission Systems, Inc etc.
    Filed Date: 01/17/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070118-0075.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 07, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-437-000.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Operating Companies.
    Description: Xcel Energy Operating Companies submits Sixth Revised
Sheet 48 et al to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 3, to be
effective 1/1/07.
    Filed Date: 01/17/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070118-0074.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 07, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-438-000.
    Applicants: Carolina Power & Light Company.
    Description: Carolina Power & Light Co submits an Intermediate
Power Purchase Agreement with North Carolina Electric Membership
Corporation.
    Filed Date: 01/17/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070118-0274.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 07, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-439-000.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Idaho Power Company submits its notice of cancellation
of a Service Agreement No. 136, under its OATT w/Bonneville Power
Administration--Power Business Line.
    Filed Date: 01/17/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070118-0272.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 07, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-440-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits an executed
interconnection service agreement and an executed construction service
agreement with G.A.S.-ACCESS Pioneer Crossing Energy, LLC and
Metropolitan Edison Co.
    Filed Date: 01/17/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070118-0271.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 07, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-441-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection LLC submits an executed
interconnection service agreement among PJM, Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm
LLC et and a notice of cancellation for an interim interconnection
service agreement.
    Filed Date: 01/17/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070119-0203.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 07, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-442-000.
    Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc.
    Description: Southern Company Services Inc, agent for Alabama Power
Company et al submits a rollover network integration transmission
service agreement under the OATT of FERC Electric Tariff, Fourth
Revised Volume 5.
    Filed Date: 01/18/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070119-0204.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 08, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-444-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.; New England Power Pool.
    Description: ISO New England Inc et al jointly submits revised
tariff sheets reflecting a proposed amendment to the ISO New England
Information Policy.
    Filed Date: 01/18/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070119-0206.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 08, 2007.

    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
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<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-1168 Filed 1-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 83 (Monday, April 30, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25361-25362]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10316]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0199]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier Southeast, Chicago, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the Navy Pier Southeast Safety
Zone in Chicago Harbor during various periods from July 4, 2012 through
July 28, 2012. This action is necessary and intended to ensure safety
of life on the navigable waters of the United States immediately prior
to, during, and immediately after fireworks events. Enforcement of this
safety zone will establish restrictions upon, and control movement of,
vessels in a specified area immediately prior to, during, and
immediately after various fireworks events. During the enforcement
period, no person or vessel may enter the safety zones without
permission of the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.931 will be enforced at various
times between 9:00 p.m. on July 4, 2012 through 10:30 p.m. on July 28,
2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email MST2 Rebecca Stone, Prevention Department, Coast Guard
Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety
Zone; Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier Southeast, Chicago, IL listed in 33 CFR
165.931 for the following events:
    (1) Navy Pier Fireworks; on July 4, 2012 from 9:00 p.m. through
11:00 p.m.; on July 7, 2012 from 10:00 p.m. through 10:30 p.m.; on July
11, 2012 from 9:15 p.m. through 9:45 p.m.; on July 14, 2012 from 10:00
p.m. through 10:30 p.m.; on July 18, 2012 from 9:15 p.m. through 9:45
p.m.; on July 21, 2012 from 10:00 p.m. through 10:30 p.m.; on July 25,
2012 from 9:15 p.m. through 9:45 p.m.; and on July 28, 2012 from 10
through 10:30.
    All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port,
Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative to enter,
move within or exit the safety zone. Vessels and persons granted
permission to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or
directions of the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or
her on-scene representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels
shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.931 and 5
U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance
notification of these enforcement periods via broadcast Notice to
Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port, Sector
Lake Michigan, will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying the
public when enforcement of the safety zone established by this section
is suspended. If the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan,
determines that the safety zone need not be enforced for the full
duration stated in this notice, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to
Mariners to grant general permission to enter the safety zone. The
Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene
representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

    Dated: April 9, 2012.
C.W. Tenney,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan,
Acting.
[FR Doc. 2012-10316 Filed 4-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 196 (Thursday, October 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70663-70664]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22461]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-1119]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Food Canning
Establishment Registration, Process Filing, and Recordkeeping for
Acidified Foods and Thermally Processed Low-Acid Foods in Hermetically
Sealed Containers

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, we, or us) is
announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the
collection of information by November 13, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for Public
Comments'' or by using the search function. The OMB control number for
this information collection is 0910-0037. Also include the FDA docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amber Sanford, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Food Canning Establishment Registration, Process Filing, and
Recordkeeping for Acidified Foods and Thermally Processed Low-Acid
Foods in Hermetically Sealed Containers--21 CFR 108.25 and 108.35, and
21 CFR Parts 113 and 114

OMB Control Number 0910-0037--Extension

    Section 402 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act)
(21 U.S.C. 342) deems a food to be adulterated, in part, if the food
bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance that may
render it injurious to health. Section 301(a) of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 331(a)) prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction
into interstate commerce of adulterated food. Under section 404 of the
FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 344), our regulations require registration of food
processing establishments, filing of process or other data, and
maintenance of processing and production records for acidified foods
and thermally processed low-acid foods in hermetically sealed
containers. These requirements are intended to ensure safe
manufacturing, processing, and packing procedures and to permit us to
verify that these procedures are being followed. Improperly processed
low-acid foods present life-threatening hazards if contaminated with
foodborne microorganisms, especially Clostridium botulinum. The spores
of C. botulinum need to be destroyed or inhibited to avoid production
of the deadly toxin that causes botulism. This is accomplished with
good manufacturing procedures, which must include the use of adequate
heat processes or other means of preservation.
    To protect the public health, our regulations require that each
firm that manufactures, processes, or packs acidified foods or
thermally processed low-acid foods in hermetically sealed containers
for introduction into interstate commerce register the establishment
with us using Form FDA 2541 (Sec. Sec.  108.25(c)(1) and 108.35(c)(1)
(21 CFR 108.25(c)(1) and 108.35(c)(1)). In addition to registering the
plant, each firm is required to provide data on the processes used to
produce these foods, using Forms FDA 2541d, FDA 2541e, and FDA 2541f
for all methods except aseptic processing, or Form FDA 2541g for
aseptic processing of low-acid foods in hermetically sealed containers
(Sec. Sec.  108.25(c)(2) and 108.35(c)(2)). Plant registration and
process filing may be accomplished simultaneously. Process data must be
filed prior to packing any new product, and operating processes and
procedures must be posted near the processing equipment or made
available to the operator (21 CFR 113.87(a)).
    Regulations in parts 108, 113, and 114 (21 CFR parts 108, 113, and
114) require firms to maintain records showing adherence to the
substantive requirements of the regulations. These records must be made
available to FDA on request. Firms also must document corrective
actions when process controls and procedures do not fall within
specified limits (Sec. Sec.  113.89, 114.89, and 114.100(c)); to report
any instance of potential health-endangering spoilage, process
deviation, or contamination with microorganisms where any lot of the
food has entered distribution in commerce (Sec. Sec.  108.25(d) and
108.35(d) and (e)); and to develop and keep on file plans for recalling
products that may endanger the public health (Sec. Sec.  108.25(e) and
108.35(f)). To permit lots to be traced after distribution, acidified
foods and thermally processed low-acid foods in hermetically sealed
containers must be marked with an identifying code (Sec.  113.60(c)
(thermally processed low-acid foods) and Sec.  114.80(b) (acidified
foods)).
    The records of processing information are periodically reviewed
during factory inspections by FDA to verify fulfillment of the
requirements in parts 113 or 114. Scheduled thermal processes are
examined and reviewed to determine their adequacy to protect public
health. In the event of a public health emergency, records are used to
pinpoint potentially hazardous foods rapidly and thus limit recall
activity to affected lots.
    As described in FDA regulations, processors may obtain the paper
version of Forms FDA 2541, FDA 2541d, FDA 2541e, FDA 2541f, and FDA
2541g at https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FoodFacilityRegistration/AcidifiedLACFRegistration/ucm2007436.htm.
Processors mail completed paper forms to us. However, processors who
are subject to Sec.  108.25 and/or Sec.  108.35 have an option to
submit Forms FDA 2541, FDA 2541d, FDA 2541e, FDA 2541f, and FDA 2541g
electronically.
    Although we encourage commercial processors to use the electronic
submission system for plant registration and process filing, we will
continue to make paper-based forms available. To standardize the burden
associated with process filing, regardless of whether the process
filing is submitted electronically or using a paper form, we are
offering the public the opportunity to use four forms, each of which
pertains to a specific type of commercial processing and is available
both on the electronic submission system and as a paper-based form. The
electronic submission system

and paper-based form ``mirror'' each other to the extent practicable.
The four process filing forms are as follows:
     Form FDA 2541d (Food Process Filing for Low-Acid Retorted
Method);
     Form FDA 2541e (Food Process Filing for Acidified Method);
     Form FDA 2541f (Food Process Filing for Water Activity/
Formulation Control Method); and
     Form FDA 2541g (Food Process Filing for Low-Acid Aseptic
Systems).
    Description of Respondents: The respondents to this information
collection are commercial processors and packers of acidified foods and
thermally processed low-acid foods in hermetically sealed containers.
    In the Federal Register of March 21, 2023 (88 FR 16990), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Number of
         21 CFR section; activity            Form FDA No.      Number of     responses per   Total annual    Average burden per response    Total hours
                                                              respondents     respondent       responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
108.25(c)(1) and 108.35(c)(2); Food                   2541           1,218               1           1,218  0.17 (10 minutes)...........             207
 canning establishment registration.
108.25(c)(2); Food process filing for                2541e           2,078               7          14,546  0.33 (20 minutes)...........           4,800
 acidified method.
108.35(c)(2); Food process filing for low-           2541d             842               7           5,894  0.33 (20 minutes)...........           1,945
 acid retorted method.
108.35(c)(2); Food process filing for                2541f             111               4             444  0.33 (20 minutes)...........             147
 water activity/formulation control method.
108.35(c)(2); Food process filing for low-           2541g             168              11           1,848  0.75 (45 minutes)...........           1,386
 acid aseptic systems.
108.25(d), 108.35(d) and (e); Report of                N/A               1               1               1  4...........................               4
 any instance of potential health-
 endangering spoilage, process deviation,
 or contamination with microorganisms
 where any lot of the food has entered
 distribution in commerce.
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ............................           8,489
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    We base our estimates in table 1 on registrations, process filings,
and reports received. The estimates for hours per response are based on
our experience with similar programs and information received from
industry.

                                                   Table 2--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of                      Average  burden
                           21 CFR section                               Number of       records per      Total annual         per          Total hours
                                                                      recordkeepers     recordkeeper       records       recordkeeping
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
113.100 and 114.100................................................          10,392                1           10,392              250        2,598,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Our regulations require that processors mark thermally processed
low-acid foods in hermetically sealed containers (Sec.  113.60(c)) and
acidified foods (Sec.  114.80(b)) with an identifying code to permit
lots to be traced after distribution. No burden has been estimated for
the third-party disclosure requirements in Sec. Sec.  113.60(c) and
114.80(b) because the coding process is done as a usual and customary
part of normal business activities. Coding is a business practice in
foods for liability purposes, inventory control, and process control in
the event of a problem. Under 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2), the time, effort, and
financial resources necessary to comply with a collection of
information are excluded from the burden estimate if the reporting,
recordkeeping, or disclosure activities needed to comply are usual and
customary because they would occur in the normal course of activities.
    Since the publication of the 60-day notice we have adjusted our
burden estimate. Our estimated burden for the information collection
reflects an increase of 3,606 total burden hours and a corresponding
increase of 10,141 total annual responses. This increase corresponds
with data obtained from past submissions.

    Dated: October 5, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-22461 Filed 10-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33132-33134]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15148]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0740; FRL-9980-81--Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; Revisions to Stage I and II Vapor
Recovery Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Tennessee
through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC)
on November 11, 2017, for the purpose of establishing minor changes to
the gasoline dispensing regulations, including adding clarifying
language and effective and compliance dates and specifying the counties
subject to the reporting requirement rule. EPA has determined that
Tennessee's November 11, 2017, SIP revision is approvable because it is
consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and with EPA's
regulations and guidance.

DATES: This rule is effective August 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0740. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Sheckler can also be
reached via electronic mail at
[email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On November 11, 2017, TDEC submitted a SIP revision to EPA seeking
to add clarity for the benefit of the regulated community with gasoline
dispensing facilities. Tennessee is making a minor change to its rules
regarding gasoline dispensing facilities (GDF) at subparagraph (1)(d)
of rule 1200-03-18-.24--``For any GDF otherwise exempt from
subparagraph (c) of this paragraph based on monthly throughput, if the
GDF ever exceeds the applicability threshold specified in subparagraph
(c) of this paragraph, it shall be subject to the requirements of
subparagraph (c) of this paragraph and shall remain subject to those
requirements even if its throughput later falls below the threshold.
The owner or operator shall inform the Technical Secretary within 30
days following the exceedance.'' The revision clarifies the meaning and
application of subparagraph (1)(d) of rule 1200-03-18-.24 by adding the
words ``ever'' and ``and shall remain subject to those requirements''
italicized above.
    In addition, this revision replaces the phrase ``the effective date
of this rule'' with the actual effective date of the rule (July 14,
2016) and replaces ``three years after effective date'' with the actual
date of the rule for compliance (August 14, 2019). Finally, this
revision adds the list of counties (Davidson, Rutherford, Shelby,
Sumner, Knox, Anderson, Williamson and Wilson) that need to report to
their permitting authority (if they emit more than 25 tons in a
calendar year) and the cross reference to the existing reporting
requirement in rule 1200-03-18-.02 to simplify the issuances of notices
of authorization under pending permit-by-rule provisions.

    Pursuant to CAA section 110(l), the Administrator shall not approve
a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress (as defined in CAA section 171), or any other applicable
requirement of the Act. The State's addition of clarifying language,
specific dates for the gas dispensing rule's effective and compliance
dates, as well as specifying the counties subject to the reporting
requirement under the cross-referenced rule are approvable under
section 110(l) because they merely clarify the application of the rule
and are consistent with the CAA and federal regulations.
    In this action, EPA is approving TDEC's request to revise the Stage
II requirements in the State of Tennessee. EPA published a proposed
rulemaking on April 12, 2018 (83 FR 16279), to approve this revision.
The details of Tennessee's submittal and the rationale for EPA's action
are explained in the proposed rulemaking. The comment period for this
proposed rulemaking closed on May 16, 2018. While EPA received six
unrelated comments, EPA did not receive any adverse comments for the
proposed approval during the public comment period.

II. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of TDEC
Regulation section 1200-03-18-.24 entitled ``Gasoline Dispensing
Facilities-Stage I and II Vapor Recovery,'' effective August 31, 2017.
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office
(please contact the person identified in the ``For Further Information
Contact'' section of this preamble for more information). Therefore,
these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP,
have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully
federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the
effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be
incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve the November 11, 2017,
revision to the Tennessee SIP, concerning Regulation 1200-03-18-24,
Stage I and II Vapor Recovery Requirements, submitted by the TDEC. This
action makes minor changes to clarify the Regulation's meaning and
applicability. EPA has determined that Tennessee's November 11, 2017,
SIP revision related to the Stage I and II Vapor Recovery Requirements
is consistent with the CAA and EPA's regulations and guidance related
to removal of Stage II requirements from the SIP and that these changes
will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment or any other applicable requirement of the CAA, and
therefore satisfy section 110(l).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 17, 2018. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 2, 2018.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart RR--Tennessee

0
2. Section 52.2220, is amended under CHAPTER 1200-3-18 VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS by revising the entry for ``Section 1200-3-18-.24, Gasoline
Dispensing Facilities'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2220   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                                       Table 1--EPA-Approved Tennessee Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                State
          State citation                Title/subject      effective date             EPA approval date                         Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      CHAPTER 1200-3-18 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Section 1200-3-18-.24.............  Gasoline Dispensing         8/31/2017  7/17/2018, [Insert citation of          .....................................
                                     Facilities.                            publication].

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-15148 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 8)]
[Notices]
[Page 1503]
[DOCID:fr12ja07-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-126-000]

Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Flowthrough Crediting
Mechanism

January 4, 2007.
    Take notice that on December 29, 2006, Sea Robin Pipeline Company,
LLC (Sea Robin) submitted its Annual Flowthrough Crediting Mechanism
Filing. Sea Robin states that this filing was made pursuant to section
22 of the General Terms and Conditions of Sea Robin's FERC Gas Tariff,
which requires the crediting of certain amounts received as a result of
resolving monthly imbalances between its gas and liquefiables shippers
and under its operational balancing agreements as described in Section
6 of its Tariff, and to accumulate amounts received as a result of
imposing scheduling penalties as described in section 7 of its Tariff.
    Sea Robin reports that it received $210,294.06 in excess of amounts
paid to shippers for the twelve months ended October 31, 2006. In
accordance with section 22.2 of its Tariff, this excess amount will be
credited to shippers, based upon shippers transportation volumes for
the twelve months ended October 31, 2006.
    Sea Robin further states that copies of this filing are being
served on all jurisdictional customers, applicable state regulatory
agencies and parties to this proceeding.
    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 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 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 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 January 11, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-277 Filed 1-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


 ADVANCE \y63

	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	REGION III

1650 Arch Street

	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103-2029

									February 7, 2013

The Honorable Randy C. Huffman

Secretary, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection

Division of Air Quality

601 57th Street, SE

Charleston, WV 25304-2943

Dear Secretary Huffman:

On December 11, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
received a revision to the West Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP)
from the Department of Environmental Protection.  This SIP revision
requests redesignations of the Charleston 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
nonattainment area to attainment and approval of the Area’s
maintenance plans.  EPA has determined that the submittal is
administratively and technically complete, and is reviewing it to
prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR).

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to
Rose Quinto, Office of Air Quality Planning, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.  She is
the principal contact for this rulemaking.

	     Sincerely,

	/s/

Diana Esher, Director

                          			            Air Protection Division

cc:  John Benedict, WVDEP

       Fred Durham, WVDEP

	Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474


III. Allometric Plots with Triclopyr and 2,4 D From studies on triclopyr [ also an organic acid], there is good evidence for a high affinity, low capacity, active secretory process that was saturated by low plasma triclopyr concentrations. As plasma triclopyr concentrations increased, tubular reabsorption begins to exceed secretion, resulting in decreased renal clearance. In comparisons among several species, the volume of distribution, normalized for body weight, was constant across all species. While clearance and half life could be allometrically scaled to body weight for the rat, monkey, and human, the dog had a much slower clearance and longer half life for triclopyr elimination than predicted allometrically. The data demonstrate that the pharmacokinetics of triclopyr in the dog are markedly different than the rat, monkey, and human.

To illustrate, a comparison of triclopyr volume of distribution [ Vd], clearance [ Cl], and half life vs body weight [ W] for rat, monkey, dog, human, and mouse is shown below. The volume of distribution for triclopyr was well described for all species by the equation V d = 0.08 W1.09 [ Figure 7A]. The relationship between clearance [ mL/ hr] and body weight for the rat, monkey, and human was well described by the equation Cl = 86 W0.78 [ Figure 7B]. The clearance of triclopyr in the dog was clearly lower than in rat, monkey, and human and was not adequately described by scaling to other species. Similarly, analysis of elimination half life vs body weight indicated that the dog was an outlier [ Figure 7C]. The relationship between half life and body weight for the other species was described by the equation t 1/ 2 = 4.68 W0.06.

Figure . Triclopyr allometric relationship between body weight and ( A) volume of distribution Vd ( all species); ( B) renal clearance Clr ( excluding dog); and ( C) elimination half life t1/ 2 ( excluding dog). This figure was adapted from Timchalk and Nolan ( 1997). ATTACHMENT A 46 Similarly, a comparison of 2,4 D volume of distribution [ V d], clearance [ Cl], and half life vs body weight [ W] for rat, dog, human, pig, calf, and mouse is shown below.

The volume of distribution for 2,4 D was well described for all species by the equation Vd = 0.12W1.11 [ Figure 2A]. In all species, the Vd was relatively small and equivalent to the volume of blood and extracellular water. The relationship between renal clearance ( mL hr 1) and body water for mice, rats, pigs, calves, and humans was well described by the equation Clr = 37 W0.86] [ Figure 2B]. The clearance of 2,4 D in the dog was clearly lower than in all other species and was not adequately described by scaling. Likewise, analysis of elimination half life vs body weight indicated that the dog was an outlier. If the dog was excluded, the relationship for the other species was described by the equation t 1/ 2 = 2.14 W0.27 [ Figure 2C].

Figure 2. 2,4 D allometric relationship between body weight and ( A) volume of distribution Vd ( all species); ( B) renal clearance Clr ( excluding dog); and ( C) elimination half life t1/ 2 ( excluding dog). Note: for rat and dog there were 3 data sets. Rat: 3 sets at 5 mg/ kg; Dog: 2 sets at 5 and 1 at 1 mg/ kg.

IV. Conclusion.

The decreased relative capacity of the dog to eliminate organic acids results in higher blood levels in the dog relative to those found in the rat and consequently, effects are seen at lower dose levels in the dog than in the rat. Although the precise mechanism for this difference is not known, an evaluation of the data on the organic acid triclopyr suggests increased reabsorption by the dog. ATTACHMENT A 47 For 2,4 D, the most likely mechanism [ according to the registrant] is a low capacity to actively secrete 2,4 D from the kidney, although reabsorption of 2,4 D cannot be excluded as a potential mechanism. While there is definitely substantial evidence that the dog has a lower clearance capacity for organic acids than what is predicted using allometric scaling, although the mechanism to explain the difference is not clear, it is not considered an unique, species specific, mechanism and therefore, the data on the dog cannot be ruled out. However, the difference in the elimination pattern among dogs and other mammalian species persuaded HIARC that the rat was a better predictor than the dog of the potential toxicity of 2,4 D to man.

Additional information considered:

( 1) Both the dog and human excrete 2,4 D conjugate in addition to 2,4 D acid, whereas the rat excretes only 2,4 D acid.

( 2) Variation in excretion of 2,4 D observed among human subjects [ males] may be due to decreased capacity to excrete organic acids and/ or differences in reabsorption from the tubular filtrate.

( 3) Data indicate that there is a sex dependent difference in the deposition of 2,4 D in Sprague Dawley rats [ male rats demonstrate a greater ability to clear 2,4 D relative to females] and the human pharmacokinetic data available on 2,4 D are for males only.

( 4) In the recently submitted study, rats and dogs of both sexes were administered either 5 or 50 mg/ kg [ orally] in side by side comparison of the pharmacokinetics, metabolism, and excretion of 2,4 D. The pharmacokinetics of 2,4 D in dogs were essentially proportional in relation to dose level, which may indicate that the clearance mechanism is saturated at both dose levels. In the rat, the pharmacokinetics were not proportional. There was a disproportional increase in the area under the curve [ AUC] in the rat with respect to the increase in dose level [ a 10 fold increase in dose resulted in up to a 59 fold increase in AUC and

19 fold increase in the C max in plasma], suggesting that the clearance mechanism was saturated at the high dose level [ 50 mg/ kg] in the rat.

( 5) In the rat, effects are observed at dose levels greater than 50 mg/ kg, or when the clearance mechanism has been saturated, which also occurs in the dog but at a lower dose level [ 5 mg/ kg].

( 6) The Task Force's opinion that the RfD decision on triclopyr is a precedent for not utilizing the dog data in risk assessment is in error.

In a letter dated 2/ 4/ 03, the Industry Task Force II on 2,4 D Research Data concludes that the use of the rat in preference to the dog " is not without precedent within the Agency for other renally excreted organic acid herbicides." Reference is made to the October 21, 1996 RfD Committee memo on triclopyr and their reconsideration of the Reference Dose [ HED Document No. 012093]. The Committee concluded that " the biological/ toxicological significance of the kidney effects in the one year dog study is questionable and they appear to be the result of physiological adaptation and may not be of toxicological significance." [ emphasis added]. It was also concluded by the Committee that the dog is not the appropriate animal model for kidney toxicity testing of triclopyr, although no specific explanation was offered for this latter conclusion. It appears that since the effects observed in the dog were considered adaptative [ not toxic], the study/ dog was not considered appropriate. ATTACHMENT A 48 The effects observed in the triclopyr dog study were increases in serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen. It appears that physiological adaptation was the reason for concluding the dog to be inappropriate for use in setting the RfD, not an unique sensitivity or lower capacity to excrete organic acids, which is the argument presented by the Task Force for 2,4 D.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27595-27596]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11012]

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

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: EC14-85-000.
    Applicants: J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation, J.P. Morgan
Commodities Canada Corporation, BE Alabama LLC, Mercuria Energy
America, Inc.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization under Section 203
and Requests for Confidential Treatment and Waivers of J.P. Morgan
Ventures Energy Corporation, et al.
    Filed Date: 5/5/14.
    Accession Number: 20140505-5276.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/14.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER11-2059-004.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 2014-05-06 LTTR compliance filing to be effective 1/9/
2011.
    Filed Date: 5/6/14.
    Accession Number: 20140506-5047.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2366-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Errata Filing--Compliance Filing Docket Nos. ER09-659-
002 and EL 12-2-000 to be effective 7/31/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/29/14.
    Accession Number: 20140429-5221.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-618-003; ER12-2570-004.
    Applicants: Westwood Generation, LLC, Panther Creek Power
Operating, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Westwood
Generation, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 5/5/14.
    Accession Number: 20140505-5274.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1582-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 2014-05-06--ATC D-T Update Batch 1 Supplement to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 5/6/14.
    Accession Number: 20140506-5038.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1606-001.
    Applicants: Cosima Energy, LLC.
    Description: Amended MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 5/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/6/14.
    Accession Number: 20140506-5095.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1690-000.
    Applicants: Monterey SW LLC.
    Description: Amendment to April 9, 2014 Monterey SW LLC tariff
filing and Request for Shortened Comment Period.
    Filed Date: 5/2/14.
    Accession Number: 20140502-5252.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1879-000.
    Applicants: FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.
    Description: FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. Reactive Power Rate
Schedule FERC No. 1 to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 5/5/14.
    Accession Number: 20140505-5227.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1880-000.
    Applicants: Monongahela Power Company.
    Description: Monongahela Power Co. Reactive Power Tariff Rate
Schedule FERC No. 3 to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/5/14.
    Accession Number: 20140505-5259.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1881-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 2014-05-06--SA 2660 Pleasant Valley-GRE E&P Agreement
(J278) to be effective 5/7/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/6/14.
    Accession Number: 20140506-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/14.

    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: May 6, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-11012 Filed 5-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 153 (Thursday, August 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44458-44459]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17153]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-433, OMB Control No. 3235-0489]

Proposed Collection; 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:
    Rule 17a-6

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information provided for in Rule 17a-6 (17 CFR 240.17a-6) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The Commission
plans to submit this existing collection of information to

the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and
approval.
    Rule 17a- permits national securities exchanges, national
securities associations, registered clearing agencies, and the
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (``MSRB'') (collectively,
``SROs'') to destroy or convert to microfilm or other recording media
records maintained under Rule 17a-1, if they have filed a record
destruction plan with the Commission and the Commission has declared
the plan effective.
    There are currently 35 SROs: 24 national securities exchanges, 1
national securities association, the MSRB, and 9 registered clearing
agencies. Of the 35 SROs, only 2 SRO respondents have filed a record
destruction plan with the Commission. The staff calculates that the
preparation and filing of a new record destruction plan should take 160
hours. Further, any existing SRO record destruction plans may require
revision, over time, in response to, for example, changes in document
retention technology, which the Commission estimates will take much
less than the 160 hours estimated for a new plan. The Commission
estimates that each SRO that has filed a destruction plan will spend
approximately 30 hours per year making required revisions. Thus, the
total annual time burden is estimated to be approximately 60 hours per
year based on two respondents (30 x 2). The approximate internal
compliance cost per hour is $428, resulting in a total internal cost of
compliance for these respondents of approximately $25,680 per year (60
hours at $428 per hour).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o
Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 6, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-17153 Filed 8-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18296-18297]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06946]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of
the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the
Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee will
hold a public meeting on Thursday April 2, 2020, by remote means and/or
at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F St. NE, Washington, DC 20549.

PLACE: The meeting will begin at 4:00 p.m. (ET) and will be open to the
public. The meeting will be conducted by remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F St. NE, Washington, DC 20549. Members
of the public may watch the webcast of the meeting on the Commission's
website at www.sec.gov.

STATUS: This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a majority of
the Commission may attend the meeting.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda for the meeting includes welcome
remarks and a discussion regarding the impact of the COVID-19 Novel
Coronavirus on investors and its implications (which may include a
recommendation of the Committee).

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed;
please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 30, 2020.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-06946 Filed 3-30-20; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 8725]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3310]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Baseline Filings

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enstor Grama Ridge Storage and     Docket No. PR10-97-002.
 Transportation, L.L.C..
EasTrans, LLC....................  Docket No. PR10-30-001.
DCP Guadalupe Pipeline, LLC......  Docket No. PR10-31-002.
DCP Raptor Pipeline, LLC.........  Docket No. PR10-42-001.
Jackson Pipeline Company.........  Docket No. PR10-59-001.
Overland Trail Transmission, LLC.  Docket No. PR10-23-001.
Pelico Pipeline, LLC.............  Docket No. PR10-41-001.
Enstor Katy Storage and            Docket No. PR10-101-002.
 Transportation, L.P..             Not Consolidated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that on February 3, 2011, February 4, 2011, February 7,
2011, and February 8, 2011, respectively, the applicants listed above
submitted a revised baseline filing of their Statement of Operating
Conditions for services provided under section 311 of the Natural Gas
Policy Act of 1978 (``NGPA'').
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion 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 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 Tuesday, February 15, 2011.

    Dated: February 8, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-3310 Filed 2-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P