[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 191 (Friday, October 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59763-59764]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25011]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14276-002; Docket No. AD13-9-000]

FFP Project 92, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing,
Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for Environmental
Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Preliminary Terms
and Conditions, and Preliminary Fishway Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Original Major License.
    b. Project No.: 14276-002.
    c. Date filed: April 16, 2015.
    d. Applicant: FFP Project 92, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Kentucky River Lock and Dam No. 11
Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The proposed project would be located on the Kentucky
River in Estill and Madison Counties, Kentucky, at the existing
Kentucky River Lock and Dam No. 11 which is owned by the Commonwealth
of Kentucky and operated by the Kentucky River Authority. The project
would not affect federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR part 5 of the Commission's regulations
and Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013.
    h. Applicant Contact: Kellie Doherty, Rye Development, LLC, 745
Atlantic Avenue, 8th floor, Boston, MA 02111; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Sarah Salazar, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, and email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments,
recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary
prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice; reply
comments are due 75 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene, protests, comments, recommendations, preliminary
terms and conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions using the
Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14276-002.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready
for environmental analysis.
    l. The proposed project would be located at the Commonwealth of
Kentucky's existing Kentucky River Lock and Dam No. 11, which was
originally constructed from 1904 to 1906 by the U.S. Corps of Engineers
for the purpose of transportation. There is a single lock chamber with
a total length of 148 feet and width of 52 feet on the south end of the
dam. However, a concrete bulkhead and miter gates were installed in
front of the lock structure and it is no longer being used for
navigational purposes. The Kentucky River Authority currently operates
the dam to maintain the upriver channel depth and an impoundment to
withdraw water for municipal drinking water purposes. The impoundment
also serves the purposes of providing opportunities for recreation and
habitat for fish and wildlife.
    The proposed project would be operated in a run-of-river mode. The
proposed project would include: (1) The existing 579-acre impoundment,
with a normal pool elevation of 585.60 feet North American Vertical
Datum of 1988; (2) the existing 208-foot-long, 35-foot-high fixed crest
dam; (3) a new 275-foot-long, 75-foot-wide reinforced concrete intake
channel equipped with trashracks with 3-inch bar spacing; (4) a new
140-foot-long, 64.5-foot-wide powerhouse that includes a 30-foot-long,
47-foot- high, 64.5-foot-wide intake and headgate structure built
within the existing lock structure; (5) two new horizontal Pit Kaplan
turbine generator units each rated at 2.5 megawatts (MW); (6) a new
190-foot-long, 78-foot-wide tailrace; (7) a new 40-foot-long, 40-foot-
wide substation; (8) a new 212-foot, 4.16 kilovolt (kV) underground
transmission cable from the generators to the new substation and a new
approximately 4.5-mile-long, 69- kV overhead transmission line
extending from the new substation at the powerhouse to an existing
substation located near Waco, Kentucky; and (9) appurtenant facilities.
The proposed project would generate about 18,500 megawatt-hours
annually, which would be sold to a local utility.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene
in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action
to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments
filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with
the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any
comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified comment date for the particular application.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'', ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', ``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,''
``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``PRELIMINARY TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or
``PRELIMINARY FISHWAY PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or
motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the
applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.
    o. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application
must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention
deadline date, a competing development application, or a notice of
intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of
intent allows an interested person to file the competing development
application no later than 120 days after the specified intervention
deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will not be
accepted in response to this notice.
    A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address,
and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an
unequivocal statement of intent to submit a development application. A
notice of intent must be served on the applicant named in this public
notice.

    Dated: September 25, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-25011 Filed 10-1-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


December 15, 2010

Katie H. Weyrauch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OPP/Pesticide Re-evaluation Division
One Potomac Yard
2777 S. Crystal Drive
Arlington, VA 22202

Dear Ms Weyrauch:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft FR Notice and letter from the Migrant Clinicians Network requesting that all pesticide labels be available in both English and Spanish. I provided the documents to the SFIREG Pesticide Operations and Management (POM) Working Committee and ask that you consider these comments on behalf of SFIREG POM as you consider the Migrant Clinicians Network request.

For the following reasons, the SFIREG POM Committee opposes the proposal to require all pesticide labels to be available in both English and Spanish:

1.	Pesticide labels are already long and complicated.  Adding a Spanish section to each label will essentially double the length of labels, making it more difficult for users to read and understand the label. This will decrease compliance and increase risk.

2.	EPA has been intensively working with SFIREG for quite some time to develop clear, concise, and enforceable pesticide labels.  This has been a major undertaking in English, let alone in another language.  Allocating EPA resources toward developing Spanish labels will certainly detract from the work being done on label improvement.

3.	Very few states have bi-lingual inspectors that are fluent in both English and Spanish.  At the present time, there are many labels that contain Spanish, although the official, enforceable label is the English version.  If Spanish labels become required, they will likely be viewed as enforceable documents and inspectors will eventually encounter a Spanish-speaking applicator that will claim that they are using a pesticide according to the Spanish label. In that situation, how will non-Spanish-speaking inspectors be able to determine whether or not the applicator is complying with the Spanish labeling?

4.	If inclusion of Spanish labeling is required, somebody at EPA (and in many states) will need to verify that the Spanish text is an accurate translation of the English label. In the current system of voluntary Spanish labels, this is not a requirement because the enforceable label is the English version.  Verifying that the Spanish label is an accurate translation will present major challenges for EPA and states, especially at a time in which many government agencies are experiencing budget and staff reductions.

5.	If EPA grants the Migrant Clinicians Network request to require pesticide labels in Spanish, it is a small leap to assume that some pesticide users will argue that they do not need to speak or read English to use pesticides in the Unites States.  It is also a small leap to assume that users will then request that certification programs and exams be offered in Spanish.  Very few, if any, states have the staff and resources to offer training or exams in Spanish or any language other than English.  It should be noted that most pesticide training programs are experiencing serious budget decreases.

In summary, SFIREG POM does not oppose the current system of voluntary inclusion of Spanish language on pesticide labels because it is understood that the enforceable label is the English version. However, we would oppose any requirement for Spanish to be included on pesticide labels because it would require significant commitments of time, staff, and money to develop, enforce, and review the Spanish labeling.  In our opinion, EPA and state lead agency time and resources would be better spent on working together to ensure that English versions of labeling are clear, concise, and enforceable.

If the Agency does decide to go ahead and require the inclusion of Spanish on some or all pesticide labels, then SFIREG POM feels strongly that the only enforceable label should be the English version.  State lead agencies would use only English labels for compliance and enforcement purposes.  It is would also be advisable for EPA to require registrants to self certify that the English and Spanish labels are identical in every way. If not, then registrants would be in violation for multiple counts of distributing misbranded products.

Again, the SFIREG POM Committee appreciates the opportunity to review and offer input on the draft FR Notice and request from the Migrant Clinicians Network.  We would welcome the opportunity to expand on our comments and discuss our concerns further.

Please contact me at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>with any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Jim Gray
North Dakota Department of Agriculture
Chair, SFIREG POM Committee


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 160 (Thursday, August 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 51458]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21083]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending July 30, 2011

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under subpart
B (formerly subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers,
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0143.
    Date Filed: July 29, 2011.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: August 19, 2011.
    Description: Application of TwinAir Calypso Limited, Inc.
requesting authority to conduct scheduled passenger operations as a
commuter air carrier.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2011-21083 Filed 8-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register: December 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 235)]
[Notices]
[Page 69203]
[DOCID:fr07de07-40]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Institution of Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

December 3, 2007.

Ameren Services Company Northern   Docket No. EL07-86-000.
 Indiana Public Service Company
 v. Midwest Independent
 Transmission System Operator,
 Inc.
Great Lakes Utilities Indiana      Docket No. EL07-88-000.
 Municipal Power Agency Missouri
 Joint Municipal Electric Utility
 Commission Prairie Power, Inc
 Southern Minnesota Municipal
 Power Agency Wisconsin Public
 Power Inc. v. Midwest
 Independent Transmission System
 Operator, Inc.
Wabash Valley Power Association,   Docket No. EL07-92-000.
 Inc. v. Midwest Independent
 Transmission System Operator,
 Inc..

    On November 28, 2007, the Commission issued an order that
instituted a proceeding in the above-referenced dockets, pursuant to
Section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) 16 U.S.C. 824e, to review
evidence and to establish a just and reasonable Revenue Sufficiency
Guarantee cost allocation methodology for market participants under the
Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.'s Open Access
Transmission and Energy Markets Tariff. Ameren Service Company, et al.,
121 FERC ] 61,205 (2007).
    The refund effective date in the above-docketed proceeding,
established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, is August 10, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-23767 Filed 12-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 138 (Thursday, July 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42988-42989]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17196]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69983; File Nos. SR-NYSE-2012-57; SR-NYSEMKT-2012-58]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE
MKT LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Changes Deleting NYSE Rules
95(c) and (d) and NYSE MKT Rules 95(c) and (d)--Equities and Related
Supplementary Material

July 12, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On October 26, 2012, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') and
NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'') (collectively, the ``Exchanges'') each
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\ proposed rule changes
(``Proposals'') to delete NYSE Rules 95(c) and (d) and related
Supplementary Material and NYSE MKT Rules 95(c) and (d)--Equities and
related Supplementary Material, respectively. The Proposals were
published for comment in the Federal Register on November 15, 2012.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68185 (November 8,
2012), 77 FR 68188 (SR-NYSE-2012-57) (``NYSE Notice''); Release No.
68186 (November 8, 2012), 77 FR 68191 (SR-NYSEMKT-2012-58) (``NYSE
MKT Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 21, 2012, the Commission extended the time period in
which to either approve, disapprove, or to institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the Proposals, to February 13, 2013.\4\
On February 13, 2013, the Commission instituted proceedings to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the Proposals.\5\ On May 14,
2013, the Commission designated July 12, 2013, as the date by which the
Commission would either approve or disapprove the Proposals.\6\ The
Commission received no comment letters regarding the Proposals. This
order approves the Proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68522, 77 FR 77160
(December 31, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2012-57); Release No. 68521, 77 FR
77152 (SR-NYSEMKT-2012-58) (December 31, 2012).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68923 (February 13,
2013), 78 FR 11928 (February 20, 2013) (``Order Instituting
Proceedings'').
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69575, 78 FR 29406
(May 20, 2013). The Commission noted that July 13, 2013 is a
Saturday and, therefore, designated July 12, 2013 as the date by
which the Commission would either approve or disapprove the
Proposals. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    The Exchanges propose to delete NYSE Rules 95(c) and (d) and
related Supplementary Material, and NYSE MKT Rules 95(c) and (d)--
Equities and related Supplementary Material concerning restrictions on
the ability of a Floor broker to engage in intra-day trading.\7\
Currently, NYSE Rule 95(c) states that if a Floor broker acquires a
position for an account during a particular trading session, while at
the same time on behalf of that same account, representing market or
limit orders at the minimum variation on both sides of the market, the
Floor broker may liquidate or cover the position only pursuant to a new
order, which must be time-recorded upstairs and upon receipt on the
Floor.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As noted by NYSE MKT, NYSE MKT Rule 95--Equities is an
almost identical version of NYSE Rule 95, and was adopted at the
time of acquisition of The Amex Membership Corporation by NYSE
Euronext. See NYSE MKT Notice, 77 FR at 68191. NYSE MKT stated that
the rationale for the adoption of NYSE MKT Rules 95(c)--Equities and
(d)--Equities was the same as the rationale for the adoption of NYSE
Rules 95(c) and (d) in 1994. Id. Given that the NYSE and NYSE MKT
rules are virtually identical, and that the rationale for the
adoption of the rules is the same, references to the text of NYSE
Rule 95 in this order and the rationale for its adoption, unless
otherwise noted, apply equally to NYSE MKT Rule 95--Equities.
    \8\ See NYSE Rule 95(c). NYSE Rule 95(c) further provides that
all liquidating orders must be marked as ``BC'' when covering a
short position, or ``SLQ'' when liquidating a long position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Rule 95(d) defines an account as any account in which the same
person or persons is directly or indirectly interested.\9\ NYSE Rule
95(d) further states that a Floor broker representing an order to
liquidate or cover a position, which was established during the same
trading session at a time when the broker represented orders at the
minimum variation on both sides of the market for the same account,
must execute that liquidating or covering order before any other order
on the same side of the market for that account.\10\ NYSE Rule 95
Supplementary Material .20 and .30 sets forth examples applicable to
NYSE Rule 95(c) and (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See NYSE Rule 95(d).
    \10\ See NYSE Rule 95(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE adopted Rules 95(c) and (d) and related Supplementary Material
.20 and .30 in 1994 to address ``intra-day trading'' by Floor
brokers.\11\ Intra-day trading occurs when a market participant places
orders on both sides of the market and attempts to garner the spread by
buying at the bid and selling at the offer. According to NYSE, Rule
95(c) was meant to address situations where a Floor broker may have
been perceived as having an advantage over other market participants,
such as individual investors, because the Floor broker could trade on
both sides of the market without leaving the crowd.\12\ At the time the
rule was adopted, according to NYSE, orders entered in the NYSE
specialist's book experienced greater latency than orders handled by
Floor brokers. Specifically, the NYSE specialist's book orders could
not be executed until the specialist manually executed them, while
Floor brokers could stand at the point of sale and trade more quickly
than specialists.\13\ According to NYSE, requiring the Floor broker to
obtain a new liquidating order was designed to reduce the immediacy
with which a Floor broker could react to changing market conditions on
behalf of an intra-day trading account by requiring the Floor broker to
leave the crowd in order to receive a new liquidating order.\14\ The
restriction was meant to ``enhance investors' confidence in the
fairness and orderliness of the Exchange market.'' \15\ In approving
this proposal, the Commission noted that the intra-day trading strategy
employed by professionals ``provide[d] the perception that public
customer orders [were] being disadvantaged by the time and place
advantage of intra-day traders.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34363 (July 13,
1994), 59 FR 36808 (July 19, 1994) (``Rule 95(c) Adopting
Release'').
    \12\ See NYSE Notice, 77 FR at 68189. The NYSE states that Rule
95(c)'s requirement that a liquidating order be ``new'' effectively
required that a Floor broker leave the Crowd before entering a
liquidating order (selling what had been bought, for example)
because there was no way for the Floor broker to receive the new
order (or otherwise communicate with a customer) from the Crowd. See
id., 77 FR at 68189 n.6.
    \13\ See NYSE Notice, 77 FR at 68189.
    \14\ See NYSE Notice, 77 FR at 68189.
    \15\ Rule 95(c) Adopting Release at 36809.
    \16\ Id. at 36810.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of its proposal to eliminate Rule 95(c) and (d), NYSE
stated that incoming electronic orders are now executed automatically
in microseconds, and ``book'' orders receive immediate limit order
display. As a result, NYSE argued that the concern that Floor broker
customers could ``crowd out small customer limit orders and delay or
prevent their execution,'' \17\ no longer applied in the current market
structure.\18\ In support of its proposal to eliminate Rule 95(c) and
(d), NYSE also argued that there is no longer a competitive advantage
to being on the Floor when engaging in the type of intra-day trading
addressed by those rules.\19\ According to NYSE, many off-Floor
participants are able to synthesize market information across multiple

markets faster than a Floor broker could while located on the
Floor.\20\ Accordingly, even if there continues to be a time and place
advantage for Floor brokers by virtue of their presence on the Floor,
the type of information available to Floor brokers is no longer the
type of information that would provide Floor brokers with an advantage
in connection with intra-day trading.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Rule 95(c) Adopting Release at 38611.
    \18\ See NYSE Notice, 77 FR 68189.
    \19\ See id.
    \20\ See NYSE Notice, 77 FR at 68189.
    \21\ See id. at 68189-68190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of these changes to its market and to overall market
structure, NYSE contended that Rules 95(c) and (d) are no longer
operating to place Floor brokers on equal footing with other market
participants, but instead are placing them at a disadvantage in the
largely automatic market that has developed in the almost twenty years
since the restrictions were put in place.\22\ According to NYSE,
deleting Rules 95(c) and (d) and the related Supplementary Materials
would place Floor brokers on a more equal footing with other market
participants utilizing automatic executions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See id., 77 FR at 68190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\23\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the Proposals are
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\24\ in that they are
designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism for a free
and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest, and Section 6(b)(8) of the
Act,\25\ in that they do not impose any burden on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act. In particular, the
Commission believes that the Proposals are consistent with these
provisions because they are designed to place Floor brokers on more
equal footing with other market participants that enter interest
electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the Exchanges have undergone fundamental
changes since the adoption of Rules 95(c) and (d), and that these
changes have largely allayed the specific concerns that these rules
were designed to address. For example, given the increasing automation
of the Exchanges, the Commission believes that there is a diminished
concern that Floor brokers engaging in intra-day trading could ``crowd
out'' public customer orders by virtue of their location on the trading
Floor in relation to Designated Market Makers (formerly specialists).
The Commission also notes that these rules only apply to instances
where a Floor broker is representing both sides of an order at the
minimum variation; to the extent that securities trading at the minimum
variation are typically more liquid and have a higher trading volume,
this further reduces the concern that Floor brokers could crowd out
other market participants through intra-day trading.
    In the Order Instituting Proceedings, the Commission expressed
concern that the elimination of Rules 95(c) and (d) may not be
consistent with the requirements of the Act. Specifically, given
benefits conferred by the Exchanges upon Floor brokers, such as
preferential parity allocation of executed shares, the Commission noted
that removing the restrictions imposed by Rule 95(c) and (d) could
produce unfair advantages for Floor brokers. While the Commission
recognizes that the deletion of Rules 95(c) and (d) may competitively
benefit Floor brokers, the Commission believes that, on balance, the
Proposals are consistent with the Act because the specific concerns
that these rules were originally designed to address have been largely
allayed.
    For the reasons stated above, the Commission finds that the
Proposals are consistent with the requirements of the Act.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\26\ that the proposed rule changes (SR-NYSE-2012-57 and SR-
NYSEMKT-2012-58) be, and hereby are, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-17196 Filed 7-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 240 (Friday, December 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71636-71637]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27301]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0083; FRL-8793-06-OSCPP]

Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New
Active Ingredients--December 2021

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has received applications to register pesticide products
containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered
pesticide products. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and
opportunity to comment on these applications.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 18, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number and the File Symbol of interest as shown in the body of
this document, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/about-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Smith, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), main telephone number: (703)
305-7090, email address: [email protected]; The mailing address for
each contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's
name, division, and mail code. The division to contact is listed at the
end of each pesticide petition summary.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register pesticide products
containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered
pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4)
(7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and
opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of
these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these
applications. For actions being evaluated under EPA's public
participation process for registration actions, there will be an
additional opportunity for public comment on the proposed decisions.
Please see EPA's public participation website for additional
information on this process (http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/public-participation-process-registration-actions).

A. Notice of Receipt--New Active Ingredients

    1. File Symbols: 52991-GL and 51934-ET. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-
OPP-2021-0651. Applicant: Spring Regulatory Sciences on behalf of
Bedoukian Research, Inc., 21 Finance Drive, Danbury, CT 06810-4192.
Product name: Bedoukian Serricornin Technical Pheromone and Cidetrak
CB. Active ingredient: Mating disruptant, rac-4S,6S,7S-serricornin at
63.0% and 5.0% by weight, respectively. Proposed classification/Use:
Mating disruption for cigarette beetle, lasioderma serricorne. Contact:
BPPD.
    2. File Symbol: 91283-RE. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0786.
Applicant: Amo[eacute]ba SA 38 Avenue des Fr[egrave]res Montgolfier, F-
69680 Chassieu, France (c/o SciReg, Inc. 12733 Director's Loop,
Woodbridge, VA 22192). Product name: Amo[eacute]ba EP #2. Active
ingredient: Antimicrobial--Willaertia Magna C2c.Maky at 1%. Proposed
use: For control of microbial slime (bioslime), microbially induced
non-public health corrosion and non-public health general microbial
flora in cooling towers waters. Contact: BPPD.
    3. File Symbol: 91283-RG. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0786.
Applicant: Amo[eacute]ba SA 38 Avenue des Fr[egrave]res Montgolfier, F-
69680 Chassieu, France (c/o SciReg, Inc. 12733 Director's Loop,
Woodbridge, VA 22192). Product name: Amo[eacute]ba EP #1. Active
ingredient: Antimicrobial--Willaertia Magna C2c.Maky at 1%. Proposed
use: For control of microbial slime (bioslime), microbially induced
non-public health corrosion and non-public health general microbial
flora in cooling towers waters. Contact: BPPD.
    4. File Symbol: 91283-RN. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0786.
Applicant: Amo[eacute]ba SA 38 Avenue des Fr[egrave]res Montgolfier, F-
69680 Chassieu, France (c/o SciReg, Inc. 12733 Director's Loop,
Woodbridge, VA 22192). Product name: Amo[eacute]ba TGAI. Active
ingredient: Antimicrobial--Willaertia Magna C2c.Maky at 1%. Proposed
use: For control of microbial slime (bioslime), microbially induced
non-public health corrosion and non-public health general microbial
flora in cooling towers waters. Contact: BPPD.
    5. File Symbol: 91283-RR. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0786.
Applicant: Amo[eacute]ba SA 38 Avenue des Fr[egrave]res Montgolfier, F-
69680 Chassieu, France (c/o SciReg, Inc. 12733 Director's Loop,
Woodbridge, VA 22192). Product name: Amo[eacute]ba EP #3. Active
ingredient: Antimicrobial--Willaertia Magna C2c.Maky at 1%. Proposed
use: For control of microbial slime (bioslime), microbially induced
non-public health corrosion and non-public health general microbial
flora in cooling towers waters. Contact: BPPD.
    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: December 7, 2021.
Delores Barber,
Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division,
Office of Program Support.
[FR Doc. 2021-27301 Filed 12-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 73010]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23465]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ24-1-000]

Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on October 11, 2023, Oncor Electric Delivery
Company LLC submits tariff filing: Oncor TFO Tariff Rate Changes to be
effective September 11, 2023.
    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.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at https://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 1, 2023.

    Dated: October 18, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-23465 Filed 10-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 130)]
[Notices]
[Page 39307-39311]
[DOCID:fr08jy10-136]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62424; File No. SR-EDGX-2010-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Implementing
Fees for Use of EDGX Exchange, Inc.

June 30, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 30, 2010, the EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or the
``EDGX'') 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 self-regulatory organization. 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 establish its initial fees and rebates
applicable to Members \3\ of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rule 15.1(a)
and (c). The Exchange intends to implement this rule proposal
immediately upon commencement of its operations as a national
securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the changes described herein are applicable to EDGX Members.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at http://www.directedge.com.

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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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
    On March 12, 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') approved EDGX Exchange, Inc.\4\ (the ``Exchange'')
Form 1 application under the Act, which sought registration as a
national securities exchange pursuant to Section 6 of the Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EDGA Exchange, Inc. will file a separate fee schedule with
the Commission.
    \5\ See Securities and Exchange Release No. 61698 (March 12,
2010), 75 FR 13151 (March 18, 2010) (approving File No. 10-196).
EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA'') was also approved as an exchange, and
will file a separate 19b-4 filing with its fee schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EDGX Exchange proposes to implement a fee schedule applicable to
use of the Exchange commencing on the date it begins operating as a
national securities exchange. The Exchange currently intends to
commence operations as a national securities exchange on July 2, 2010.
Please find below a description of the fees and rebates that the
Exchange intends to impose under the initial, proposed fee schedule.

(i) Fees for Removing Liquidity

    For securities priced $1.00 and over, the Exchange is proposing to
charge $0.0029 per share for executions that remove liquidity from the
Exchange. For securities priced less than $1.00, there is a charge of
0.10% of the total value of the transaction.
    The rebates for removing liquidity will apply to securities traded
on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading privileges that are listed
on: (A) The New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE''); (B) regional exchanges,
such as NYSE Arca Equities (``NYSE Arca'') and NYSE Alternext US
(``NYSE Alternext,'' formerly the American Stock Exchange); and (C) the
NASDAQ Stock Market (``Nasdaq'') (``Tape A Securities'', ``Tape B
Securities'' and ``Tape C Securities'', respectively, and collectively,
``All Tapes'').

Applicable Flags \6\

    For orders in Tapes B and C Securities that remove liquidity from
the EDGX book, a charge of $0.0029 per share is proposed, as described
above, and this situation yields Flag ``N.'' For orders in Tape A
Securities that remove liquidity from the EDGX book, a charge of
$0.0029 is proposed, as described above, and this situation yields Flag
``W.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The following rebates and fees apply to orders in securities
priced $1 and over. For securities priced less than $1.00, there is
a charge of 0.10% of the total value of the transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For orders that remove liquidity from LavaFlow ECN, a charge of
$0.0029 per share is proposed and this situation yields Flag ``U.''
However, if a Member posts an average of 100,000 share or more per day
using a ROLF strategy (yielding Flag ``M''), then said Member's fee
when routed to LavaFlow decreases to $0.0023 per share (yielding Flag
``U''). The latter rate reflects a pass-through of the LavaFlow ECN
fee. A ROLF strategy sweeps the EDGA book and the remainder routes to
LavaFlow.
    For orders that remove liquidity in the Pre-Opening \7\ and Post-
Closing \8\ Sessions in securities on all Tapes, a charge of $0.0029
per share is also proposed. This situation yields Flag ``6.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As defined in EDGA Rule 1.5(q).
    \8\ As defined in EDGA Rule 1.5(p).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) Standard Rebates for Adding Liquidity

    For securities priced $1.00 and over, the Exchange is proposing to
rebate $0.0029 per share for executions that add liquidity to the
Exchange. For securities priced less than $1.00, there is a rebate of
$0.00003 to add liquidity. The Exchange believes that this rebate is
appropriate as it represents 30% of the minimum price increment for
securities priced less than $1.00 ($0.0001) and effectively aligns the
rebate with access fee caps under Regulation NMS.\9\ The charge for
adding liquidity will apply to securities traded on the Exchange
pursuant to unlisted trading privileges that are Tape A Securities,
Tape B Securities, and Tape C Securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Access Rule of Regulation NMS limits the fees any
trading center can charge, or allow to be charged, for accessing its
protected quotations, both displayed and reserve size, to no more
than $0.003 per share. See Rule 610(c) of Regulation NMS, Securities
and Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496 (June
29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, Members can qualify for a rebate of $0.0032 per share for
all liquidity posted on EDGX if they add or route at least 5,000,000
shares of average daily volume prior to 9:30 a.m. or after 4:00 p.m.
(includes all flags except 6) and add a minimum of 50,000,000 shares of
average daily volume on EDGX in total, including during both market
hours and Pre-Opening and Post-Closing Sessions. For the month of July
2010 only, these average daily volume thresholds (5,000,000 and
50,000,000) will be multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which
shall be the sum of the daily consolidated volumes for each Exchange-
traded symbol for all days that such symbol is traded on the Exchange
during the month of July and the denominator of which shall be the
monthly consolidated volume for all Exchange-traded symbols during the
month of July. This calculation adjusts these volume thresholds during
the month of July when trading is being phased into the Exchange from
Direct Edge's ECN and reflects the portion of the volume that occurs on
the Exchange during the month.
    Additionally, upon a Member's request, EDGX Exchange will aggregate
share volume calculations for wholly owned affiliates on a prospective
basis.

Applicable Flags \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The following rebates and fees apply to orders in
securities priced $1.00 and over. For securities priced less than
$1.00, there is no rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For orders in Tape B Securities that add liquidity to the EDGX
book, a rebate of $0.0029 per share is proposed, as described above,
and this situation yields Flag ``B.'' For orders in Tape A

Securities that add liquidity to the EDGX book, a rebate of $0.0029 per
share is proposed, as described above, and this situation yield Flag
``V.'' For orders in Tape C Securities that add liquidity to the EDGX
book, a rebate of $0.0002 per share is proposed, as described above,
and this situation yields Flag ``Y.'' For all cases described above,
Members could receive higher rebates if they meet the thresholds
described above.
    For those orders that add liquidity on LavaFlow ECN, a rebate of
$0.0024 per share is proposed and this situation would yield Flag
``M.'' However, if a Member posts an average of 100,000 shares or more
using a ROLF routing strategy, yielding flag M, then such Member's fee,
when removing liquidity from LavaFlow, will decrease to $0.0023 per
share and yield flag U, as described above. For orders that add
liquidity in the Pre-Opening and Post-Closing Sessions in Tapes A & C
Securities, a rebate of $0.0029 per share is proposed (yielding Flag
``3''). For those orders that add liquidity in the Pre-Opening and
Post-Closing Sessions in Tape B securities, a rebate of $0.0029 per
share is also proposed (yielding Flag ``4''). However, Members could
receive higher rebates if they meet the thresholds described above.
    The Exchange believes that this fee structure is equitable in that
it applies uniformly to all Members and provide higher rebates for
higher volume thresholds, resulting from lower administrative costs.
Destination-specific fees are also based, in part, on fees charged by
other market centers.

(iii) Routing Charges

    The Exchange proposes to charge the routing charges described
below. All charges by the Exchange for routing are applicable only in
the event that an order is executed. In other words, there is no charge
for orders that are routed away from the Exchange but are not filled.
In connection with routing of orders away from the Exchange, the
Exchange proposes to charge $0.0029 per share for securities priced
$1.00 and over and 0.30% of the total dollar value of the transaction
\11\ for securities priced less than $1.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This charge applies in all cases, except when (i) routing
to the NYSE, where securities priced under $1.00 are charged $0.0021
per share when removing liquidity; (ii) when routing to Nasdaq BX
and removing liquidity in Tapes A & C Securities, where securities
priced under $1.00 are charged 0.10% of the dollar value of the
transaction; and (iii) when routing to Nasdaq and removing liquidity
in securities on all Tapes, securities priced under $1.00 are
charged 0.20% of the dollar value of the transaction. These fees are
proposed to be indicated by footnote number 3 being appended to the
``C,'' ``J,'' ``L,'' and ``2'' flags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For destination specific orders, the following fees/rebates are
proposed to apply to all securities priced $1 and over:\12\ For orders
that are routed to Nasdaq using the INET order type, and remove
liquidity in Tape B Securities, a charge of $0.0030 per share is
proposed (yielding Flag ``2''). For securities routed to Nasdaq using
the INET order type and that remove liquidity in Tape A & C Securities,
a charge of $0.0030 per share is proposed (yielding Flag ``L''). The
INET order type sweeps the EDGA book and removes liquidity from Nasdaq,
if the order is marketable, or posts on Nasdaq, if the order is non-
marketable. Members routing an average daily volume (``ADV''): (i) Less
than 5,000,000 shares will be charged $0.0030 per share, as described
above; (ii) equal to or greater than 5,000,000 shares but less than
20,000,000 shares will be charged Nasdaq's best removal tier rate per
share; (iii) equal to or greater than 20,000,000 shares but less than
30,000,001 shares will be charged Nasdaq's best removal tier rate--
$0.0001 per share; and (iv) equal to or greater than 30,000,001 shares
will be charged Nasdaq's best removal tier rate--$0.0002 per share. The
rates, in all cases, are calculated for shares removed from Nasdaq. The
Exchange believes that this fee structure is equitable in that it
applies uniformly to all Members and provides lower fees for higher
volume thresholds, resulting from lower administrative costs.
Destination-specific fees are also based, in part, on fees charged by
other market centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For securities priced below $1.00, a standard routing
charge of 0.30% of the total dollar value of the transaction
applies, except when routing to the NYSE, as described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For those orders routed to Nasdaq that add liquidity, a rebate of
$0.0020 per share is proposed (yielding Flag ``A''). For orders routed
to Nasdaq OMX BX in Tape A and C Securities and that remove liquidity,
a rebate of $0.0001 per share is proposed (yielding Flag ``C''). For
orders routed or re-routed to NYSE and that remove liquidity, a charge
of $0.0021 per share is proposed (yielding Flag ``D'').\13\ For orders
routed to NYSE that add liquidity, a rebate of $0.0013 per share is
proposed (yielding Flag ``F''). For orders routed to NYSE Arca in Tape
A & C Securities that remove liquidity, a charge of $0.0030 per share
is proposed (yielding Flag ``G''). For orders routed to EDGA Exchange,
Inc., a charge of $0.0029 per share is proposed (yielding Flag ``I'').
For orders routed to Nasdaq that remove liquidity, a charge of $0.0030
per share is proposed (yielding Flag ``J''). For orders routed to the
BATS Exchange (``BATS'') using a ROBA order type, a charge of $0.0025
per share is proposed (yielding Flag ``K''). A ROBA order type sweeps
the EDGA book and routes to BATS Exchange as an immediate or cancel
(IOC) order, with the remainder being cancelled if there is no
execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This charge, instead of the standard 0.30% of the dollar
value of the transaction described above, also applies to securities
priced less than $1.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For orders using the ROUQ or ROUC order types, a charge of $0.0020
per share is proposed (yielding Flag ``Q''). A ROUQ order type sweeps
the EDGA book, then routes to other destination centers. A ROUC order
type sweeps the EDGA book, then other destination centers, then Nasdaq
OMX BX, then NYSE, and the remainder posts to EDGX. For any orders that
are re-routed by EDGA, a charge of $0.0030 per share is proposed
(yielding Flag ``R''). For Directed Intermarket Sweep Orders \14\
(yielding Flag ``S''), a charge of $0.0033 per share is proposed. For
orders that are routed and no other flag applies, a standard charge of
$0.0029 per share applies, as discussed above (yielding Flag ``X'').
For orders that are routed using the ROUZ order type, a charge of
$0.0010 per share is proposed (yielding Flag ``Z''). A ROUZ order type
sweeps the EDGA book before interacting with solicited orders. For
orders routed during the Pre-Opening and Post-Closing Sessions, a
charge of $0.0030 per share applies (yielding Flag ``7''). For orders
that are routed using the ROUD or ROUE order types, a charge of $0.0020
is proposed (yielding Flag ``T''). A ROUD order sweeps the EDGA book
before being routed to other destination centers. A ROUE order type
sweeps the EDGA book, then other destination centers, and any remainder
routes to other market centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ As defined in EDGA Rule 11.5(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The differences between the fees charged for routing to specific
market centers and routing of specific order types described above are
due to different cost structures at the various market centers to which
orders may be routed and other factors. Similarly, lower transaction
fees at other destination centers permit the Exchange to charge lower
routing fees for orders routed to such venues. Because the Exchange
incurs additional costs and performs additional services in connection
with the routing of Directed ISOs, it charges a higher routing fee for
such orders. Finally, because the Exchange believes that a uniform
routing fee for all other orders routed away from the Exchange (other
than those described above) provides

Members with certainty as to transaction costs, it proposes to charge a
standard routing fee of $0.0029 per share, as described above, for such
orders, rather than further differentiating routing fees that it
charges to Members.

Other Charges and Flags

    For customer internalization (i.e, same MPID),\15\ there is no
charge nor rebate because the fees for removing liquidity would be
offset by the rebate received for adding liquidity. This situation
yields Flag ``E.'' During the Pre-Opening and Post-Closing sessions,
there are also no charges nor rebates, but this situation yields Flag
``5.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ This occurs when two orders presented to the Exchange from
the same Member (i.e, MPID) are presented separately and not in a
paired manner, but nonetheless inadvertently match with one another.
Members are advised to consult Rule 12.2 respecting fictitious
trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For orders that execute during the Nasdaq opening cross (NOOP), it
is proposed that these orders will be charged $0.0005 per share and
yield Flag ``O.'' However, this fee is proposed to be capped at $10,000
per month per Member, which is a pass-through of Nasdaq's opening cross
cap.
    For Direct Edge opening transactions, where Members match with each
other at the midpoint of the national best bid/offer (``NBBO'') during
EDGX's opening process, IPO, or post-halt, a charge of $0.0010 is
proposed, yielding flag ``OO.''
    For Mid-Point Match (``MPM'') orders,\16\ the following applies:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ As defined in EDGX Rule 11.5(c)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Where a Member added liquidity in the MPM product, a
charge of $0.0010 per share is proposed (yielding Flag ``MM.'')
     Where a Member removed liquidity in the MPM product, a
charge of $0.0010 per share is proposed (yielding Flag ``MT.'')
     A MPM Cross, where a Member crossed/matched with itself in
the MPM product (Member is both sides of the trade), there is no charge
proposed (yielding Flag ``AA'').
    The lower charge for MPM orders is designed to incent Members to
use this order type, which provides price improvement by providing
liquidity at the midpoint, and is similar to existing pricing for this
order type on the International Securities Exchange, LLC.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57828 (May 15,
2008), 73 FR 30433 (May 27, 2008) (SR-ISE-2008-38).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\18\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\19\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. The proposed rule change reflects a competitive pricing
structure designed to incent market participants to direct their order
flow to the Exchange. Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed
rates are equitable in that they apply uniformly to all Members and
provide higher rebates for higher volume thresholds, resulting from
lower administrative costs. The Exchange believes the fees and credits
remain competitive with those charged by other venues and therefore
continue to be reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that
opt to direct orders to the Exchange rather than competing venues.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rates further the
objectives of Regulation NMS by promoting competition and granting fair
and equal access to all exchange participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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) of the Act \20\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \21\ thereunder. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \21\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGX-2010-04 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-EDGX-2010-04. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission,\22\ 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 a.m. and 3 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-
EDGX-2010-04 and should be submitted on or before July 29, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on
Exchange's Web site at http://www.directedge.com, on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, at EDGX, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-16563 Filed 7-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 21, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55322-55323]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25157]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-1031]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Passaic River, Newark, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Routes 1 & 9 (Lincoln Highway)
Bridge across the Passaic River, mile 1.8 at Newark, New Jersey. This
deviation is necessary to facilitate structural steel repairs at the
lift span and allowing the bridge owner to temporarily close the draw
for forty-seven days.

DATES: This deviation is effective without actual notice from November
21, 2017 until 11:59 p.m. on January 5, 2018. For the purposes of
enforcement, actual notice will be used from 12:01 a.m. on November 20,
2017 until November 21, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-1031, is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Judy K. Leung-Yee, Bridge Management
Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone
212-514-4336, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The owner of the bridge, the New Jersey
Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation in order
to facilitate structural steel repairs at the lift span.
    The Routes 1 & 9 Bridge across the Passaic River, mile 1.8, at
Newark, New Jersey is a vertical lift bridge with a vertical clearance
of 40 feet at mean high water and 45 feet at mean low water in the
closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are
listed at 33 CFR 117.739(b).
    This temporary deviation will allow the Routes 1 & 9 Bridge to
remain in the closed position from 12:01 a.m. on November 20, 2017 to
11:59 p.m. on January 5, 2018. The waterway users are seasonal
recreational vessels and commercial vessels of various sizes.
Coordination with waterway users indicated no objection to the proposed
closure of the draw. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an
opening may do so at all times. The bridge will not be able to open for
emergencies. There is no alternate route for vessels to pass.
    The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through
our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so vessel operators may arrange their transits
to minimize any

impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: November 16, 2017.
Christopher J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-25157 Filed 11-20-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P