[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 58986]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23527]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2719-009; ER10-2718-009; ER10-2578-011; ER10-
2633-009; ER10-2570-009; ER10-2717-009; ER10-3140-008.
    Applicants: Cogen Technologies Linden Venture, L.P., East Coast
Power Linden Holding, L.L.C., Fox Energy Company LLC, Birchwood Power
Partners, L.P., Shady Hills Power Company, L.L.C.,EFS Parlin Holdings,
L.L.C., Inland Empire Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of East Coast
Power Linden Holding, L.L.C., et al.
    Filed Date: 9/17/12.
    Accession Number: 20120917-5053.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2123-001.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.,
ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: SA 2452 ITCM-NMEPC-AEC-IPL Compliance to be effective
8/30/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/17/12.
    Accession Number: 20120917-5023.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2634-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: 2012-09-17 CAISO Regulatory Must-Take Generation
Amendment Filing to be effective 12/12/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/17/12.
    Accession Number: 20120917-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2635-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: SA 2426 MDU-Thunder Spirit Wind G752 to be effective
9/18/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/17/12.
    Accession Number: 20120917-5031.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2636-000.
    Applicants: Imperial Valley Solar 1, LLC.
    Description: Imperial Valley Solar 1, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.12: LGIA Co-Tenancy Agreement to be effective 11/16/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/17/12.
    Accession Number: 20120917-5062.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2637-000.
    Applicants: Commonwealth Edison Company.
    Description: Commonwealth Edison Company Notice of Cancellation of
Original Service Agreement No. C1052.
    Filed Date: 9/17/12.
    Accession Number: 20120917-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2638-000.
    Applicants: Commonwealth Edison Company.
    Description: Commonwealth Edison Company, Notice of Cancellation of
Original Service Agreement No. C1050.
    Filed Date: 9/17/12.
    Accession Number: 20120917-5076.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/12.

    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
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: September 17, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-23527 Filed 9-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


316B RULE TELEPHONE LOG Name of Caller: John Sunda, SAIC Date: July 30, 2002 Company Name: US Filter Street Address:

City/ State/ ZIP:

Person Contacted: Henry Petrovs Title: Sales Mgr Telephone #: 800 524 6324 ( dial 0 operator) I had sent list of questions previously to Glenn Zetterburg who apparently is moving to another department. He passed the questions on to Henry who decided to answer as much as possible when I called. See questions and answers below.

US FILTER RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FOR TRAVELING SCREEN MANUFACTURERS OBTAINED VIA PHONE CONTACT JULY 30, 2002 REPLACING COARSE MESH TRAVELING SCREENS WITH FINE MESH TRAVELING SCREENS Regarding equipment costs, he requested that we scan and send via email the confidential cost data sent to SAIC/ EPA previously so they can develop updated costs. He said that he could not locate files of the 1999 submission. Note all response information is printed in italics and red line.

General 1. In consultations and/ or projects, how often do you encounter site conditions at existing intakes where the existing screens cannot be readily accessed via crane? About 70 to 75% have problems accessing the intake screens by crane from overhead. In that case the screens are dismantled ( screen panels removed, chain removed and screen structure removed in sections that key into each other). Access problem may be due to structural cover/ building and may have access through side wall. This may add 30% to the installation costs which is typically $ 15,000 to $ 30,000 per unit.

2. What range of screen mesh opening sizes do you consider to be " fine mesh?" When facilities examine and/ or select finer mesh to reduce entrainment, what is the most common mesh size? Are there any differences in the fine mesh sizes commonly evaluated and/ or selected for new intakes versus existing intake retrofits? The industry standard is 3/ 8 inch to 1/ 4 inch where debris removal is the function. They have installed fine mesh from 0.5 mm to 3 mm but can not provide a typical value.

3. What is the range and typical spacing between multiple screen units at most existing intakes? In other words how wide are the columns/ walls at the screen location? How close can they be if space limitation is an issue? How much of the well width does the screen panel cover? For each screen add 1 ft 2 inches to screen width for well width. Distance between screen housings ranges from 6 inches to 4 ft ( typical value is 2 ft). For new systems recommend 3 ft for better equipment accessability.

4. How practical is it to replace screen panels only, versus replacing the entire mechanical unit? When finer mesh is required, how practical or common is it to replace screen panels only? What is the deciding factor? What are the relative cost savings compared to replacing the entire screen unit? They did this at Northern States Prairie Island Plant. In this case and others the fine mesh screens are installed on a seasonal basis. The reason they change back to coarse mesh is that during other times large debris such as leaves causes screen clogging problems which can require greater monitoring of the screens. It takes a 2 3 man ( 2 for small and 3 for big screens) crew 1.5 hours per basket. The baskets are 2 ft tall and the screen extends above the well. A 15 ft screen well depth will have 18 baskets, a 90 ft well will have 93 baskets. Adding fine mesh screens as an option will increase costs about 30%. Note screen replacement can be done while the screen is still functioning but at times of low debris & fish loading. Each panel is replaced and screen is rotated between each panel installation.

5. Can wedgewire type screen panels be used on traveling screens? They have looked into this and concluded it is feasible. But when the cost has been relayed to the customer, the customer decided the higher costs were not worth it. So they have not done this yet. He estimates using wedgewire will add 60% to the cost of the screen panels alone. He thinks Beaudrey and Brackett Green may have some experience.

6. What problems may be encountered in replacing coarse mesh with fine mesh traveling screens ( either screen panel only or entire unit). What are the typical solutions? Specifically,  Problems with collection of additional debris? Yes as noted above some replace coarse mesh screens during periods when fish are not affected.  Problems with increase in through screen velocity? Yes in that finer mesh will tend to plug up faster and result in less time to react  may require more monitoring by personnel.  Other problems ( describe) Will require additional spray headers and therefore more spraywater, larger spraywater pumps and may depend on type of pumps used ( example $ 8,000 increase) . 7. Can replacement of through flow with dual flow ( double entry single exit) screens be used to increase screen area and thus reduce through screen velocities and reduce impingement? For new systems the answer is yes, but for existing systems the answer is generally no. Part of the problem is that the existing screen well dimensions require a dual screen width of less than half the through screen width For example, an 11 ft screen will have a 5.3 ft space in front resulting in a 4 ft wide screen which even though the total screen area is double is still less than the original. Thus, the screen lost 2 ft of width. Add to this issues with differential velocities and changes in direction and potential for vortexing and pump cavitation, USF generally does not recommend dual flow retrofits.

8. What is the % open space for typical coarse mesh traveling screens ( e. g., 3/ 8 inch) that were evaluated and/ or installed at power plant intakes in the past? If not known, what is a typical wire gauge? What is the % open space for different sized fine mesh screens? He recommends we contact screen wire cloth manufacturers and their catalogs. Companies in clude Cambridge Wire Cloth ( Casmbridge MD) and Phoenix Wire. As examples a 3/ 8 inch mesh with 14 gauge wire has 54% open space compared to a 1 mm mesh with 32% open space. 9. Are you aware of any recent retrofit installations where the system capacity or flow volume was not increased, yet substantial civil/ structural modifications were necessary? No. If so:  What was done and why?  What was the facility name and location?  What were costs or who can we contact for cost information?

Equipment Costs 10. EPA previously obtained 1999 costs for single entry single exit traveling screens with the structural component made of carbon steel coated with epoxy paint and screens made of 304 stainless steel, with non metallic baskets. Can you provide delivered equipment costs for comparable ( freshwater) fine mesh ( using most common mesh size from above) screen units with widths in the range of 5, 10, 14  15 ft and well depths in the range of 10, 25, 50, 75, & 100ft? The 1999 traveling screen costs included:  Non metallic fish handling panels  Spray systems  Fish trough  Housings and transitions  Continuous operating features  Drive unit  Frame seals  Engineering He would like to see what data was submitted in 1999 first.

If we are unable to obtain updated costs we may use the ENR Construction Cost Index which results in a capital cost increase of 9% when updating 1999 costs to July 2002. Do you feel that this reasonably reflects the actual changes over this period? Can't comment on this.

11. What equipment materials do you recommend ( or are commonly selected) for corrosive environments, such as brackish and saltwater? What is the most common material selected for saltwater environments?  Carbon Steel with epoxy coating ( freshwater) can work in saltwater if used with cathodic protection  304 Stainless Steel is standard for screen panels in freshwater  316 Stainless Steel throughout can be used for saltwater  70/ 30 Copper Nickel  90/ 10 Copper Nickel For Zebra mussels most solutions use special paints or coatings for non screen components. Generally, Zebra Mussels do not colonize the screens. Biggest problem is that when they die the shells abrade the pumps and clog the condensers. Copper Nickel alloys are used to control biofouling through leaching of copper metal. Calvert Cliffs uses a 70/ 30 Copper nickel alloy to retard marine growth 12. Can you provide equipment costs of this corrosion resistant equipment or provide relative equipment cost difference compared to freshwater unit, such as a cost factor or percent increase? Use of all stainless steel ( 316) will increase screen costs by 2 to 2.5 times cost for freshwater unit.

13. What waterbodies are experiencing problems with Zebra mussels and how much extra are the equipment costs for special alloy construction or comparable materials? Again mostly a paint or coating issue no estimate provided.

14. If you indicated replacing screen panels only is practical, can you provide estimates of the costs for replacing the panels only, including both equipment and installation? As noted above add 30% for fine mesh screens but note that screens may be installed seasonally and require additional O& M costs associated with changeout and increased monitoring.

15. Please provide a description of installation methods and typical costs for screen units, and whether you perform such services including differences for wet versus dry installation. Also discuss relative cost of removal and disposal of existing screens ( are the costs minimal?). In general, about 80 to 85% of intakes have stopgates or stop logs for dewatering screen wells. In an example with a dewatered ( dry) well, 3 screens costing $ 450,000 ( I believe these are 15 ft) their installation costs were $ 60,000 resulting in about 14% ( percent goes up for smaller units). Add to this the cost of a crane ($ 15,000 to $ 20,000) and forklift for unloading.

16. Are there any special considerations for nuclear facilities ( e. g., does screen framing need to be stronger and more resistant to collapse) and how do the special considerations affect equipment selection, costs and/ or performance? Are there any other situations where similar requirements are common? Can you provide an equipment cost factor for selecting screens that meet these requirements versus typical non nuclear installations? Yes. The hassles of security issues, more paperwork, the fact that security personnel must observe everything add costs as well as the need for equipment with higher seismic performance and collapse protection increases costs by about 1.5 to 2.0.

17. Would converting to fine mesh screens have a significant effect on O& M costs? If so how much and why? One difference is the need to maintain tighter seals on fine mesh. Typical 3/ 8 in mesh has running clearances of 1/ 4 in. Tighter seals costs 5 to 10% ( greater for deeper screens) of equipment costs and require monitoring every 5 yr. Other costs such as increased operation and debris are marginal.

Construction Duration 18. When replacing existing screen units ( or screen panels only), approximately how long would the intake bay and/ or pumping unit need to be shut down? As noted earlier if just panels are replaced then no downtime is needed. In general it takes 3 to 7 days ( larger value if unit must be broken down). Usually scheduled during routine downtime. If more than one screen feed a pump they are usually designed such that one screen can handle full pump flow.

Testing 19. Once the new screens are installed, what kind of performance testing is typically required? Is this often part of the package if you perform installation? What are typical costs and how do these costs compare to other construction/ equipment costs? What factors affect the costs? Startup test costs are generally insignificant. In general, it takes one trip and two days and it may be a separate charge.

ADDING FISH HANDLING AND RETURN The following questions inquire about adding a fish handling and return system to an intake with traveling screens where no fish return existed before. This can involve either retrofitting existing screens with fish handling features or putting in new screening units. In either case, the questions also focus on the costs and technical aspects of the addition of a fish return sluice/ conduit ( and possibly fish pumps).

20. Do you sell fish return retrofit systems for existing traveling screens? Can most existing screens be retrofitted without replacing the entire unit? When is it more practical/ economical to replace the whole screening unit? What are the costs for adding fish buckets, spray systems and troughs either in relation to other costs cited or for equipment sizes described earlier? How much would the addition of fish buckets only reduce cost over replacing entire screen unit? While it is certainly possible, costs will depend on how much must be replaced. In addition unless we did the original installation we can't be sure of what modifications were made to the original equipment which may cause installation problems. A retrofit with replacement of baskets ( necesssary) replacemebnt of chain, elevate head section to add new spray and trough with rear discharge will cost about 80% of new unit. We agreed that in general ( and especially for my effort) a fish handling retrofit does not save enough over replacing the unit to be worth it.

21. How do you determine the design flow volume for the fish return conduit? Generally, what proportion of the intake flow is diverted to the fish return? Note that in past it was OK to return debris to the waterway but now if you remove it you must dispose of it. Rarely is debris combined with fish return. Could not come up with a general figure but gave the following example: a screen with a 6.5 ft wide basket width requires 244 gpm spraywater with 113 for debris, 104 for two fish spray headers and 27 for auxiliary ( fish) for a total of 131 for the fish return system. Note that varying well depth does not change these figures. Another example a 10 ft wide screen without fish handling required 260 gpm 22. Do you design, provide, or install fish return equipment such as pumps and return conduit? Not the conduit. Was not aware of need for fish pumps. If so:  How are the return pipes/ flume configured and sized?  Is there a minimum diameter to accommodate large fish?  What are typical slopes and velocities?  If pipes are used, do they tend to flow full?  What materials of construction are used for fish return conduits ( fiberglass)? Sometimes a requirement for a short conduit combined with a high elevation change requires the use of spiral arrangement to keep velocities down. Typical ( there is none) is 40 to 60 ft. One facility ion RI required 500 ft to get past flood gates. Sometimes pipes are used.

23. EPA Survey data show few existing traveling screen return systems use fish pumps. Under what circumstances would fish pumps be necessary? He has no experience here suggesting this is rare.

24. Do you have any cost data to share for adding fish return systems, especially fish pumps and return conduits? In general, what are typical equipment and installation unit costs for the conduit and support structure for return flows associated with intakes with capacities of 5,000 gpm to 500,000 gpm? If not available, who should we contact for more information? They do not do flumes or pumps.

25. What is the typical range of return conduit lengths? How does waterbody type influence return conduit length? For example, do lengths tend to be shorter for non tidal rivers and streams? See Question 22 26. Would there be any difference in intake downtime when adding fish handling features compared to downtime for screen replacement? No 27. What additional O& M cost would be associated with a fish return system besides the operation of the screens? None


           Test Orders Under TSCA Section 4: Questions and Answers
Section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) allows the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to require chemical manufacturers (including importers) and processors to develop information on existing chemicals and submit such information to EPA.
Under Section 4(a) (15 U.S.C. 2603(a)), pursuant to specific statutory requirements, EPA may issue an order requiring the development of information on a chemical. This Questions and Answers document is intended to help clarify the requirements of such an Order.
This collection of information is approved by the United States Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. (OMB Control No. 2070-0033). Responses to this collection of information are mandatory for certain persons, as specified at 15 U.S.C. 2601 et. seq. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to be 137 hours per response. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the Regulatory Support Division Director, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2821T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed form to this address.
The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies. The statements in this document are intended solely as guidance to aid in complying with EPA regulation.
EPA #:  EPA 705-G-2021-3737
OMB Control No.:  2070-0033
Date Issued:  Month Day, 2021
These Questions and Answers (Q&As) are intended to clarify the testing requirements and notification process questions for individuals subject to Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 4 Test Orders. Section 4 of TSCA allows EPA to require chemical manufacturers (including importers) and processors to develop information on chemical substances and submit such information to EPA.
These Q&As should be used for general information only and are not a substitute for the requirements in a specific TSCA Section 4 Test Order. Please carefully review the applicable Test Order for specific information on how to comply with its requirements.

For more help, visit EPA's Section 4 Test Order website, contact EPA's TSCA Hotline<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>) or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Document Overview:

OMB Control No.:  2070-0033	1
Date Issued:  Month Day , 2021	1
1.	General Questions Related to Test Orders	2
2.	Submission of Existing Data	4
3.	Fees Associated with the Order	4
4.	Company Ownership Scenarios	5
5.	Future/Past Production of Subject Chemical Substance	6
6.	Fulfilling Test Order Requirements	7
7.	Submission of Tests	7

General Questions Related to Test Orders
Does a company need to notify EPA that they have received the Order?
   The Order provides the procedures on how a company needs to notify EPA, including a deadline by which they must provide an initial response to the Order. This initial response also serves to indicate that the company has received (and acknowledged) the Order. EPA encourages Order recipients to contact EPA should they have questions regarding the Order.

A company processes the chemical substance subject to the Test Order but does not manufacture or import it. Are processors of a chemical substance required to respond to an Order?
   An Order may be issued to companies that manufacture (including import) and/or process the subject chemical substance(s). Review the Order to determine whether it applies to manufacturers, processors, or both manufacturers and processors. Additionally, in some orders the requirements for manufacturers and processors may differ.

   Note that a company should consider its responsibilities relating to the Order separately from other TSCA activities. For example, manufacturing and/or processing activities involving a chemical substance subject to an Order may result in them being subject to the Order's requirements even though they may not have been included on the final list of manufacturers subject to fee payment obligations for chemical substances subject to EPA-initiated risk evaluations (see 40 CFR 700.45(b)).

   Note that a company may claim that they are not subject to the Order if they do not manufacture or process the subject chemical substance or they believe the Order was otherwise sent to them in error. An explanation of the basis for the claim, along with appropriate supporting information to substantiate that claim, must be submitted using the Central Data Exchange (CDX) portal so that EPA can evaluate the claim. See the Order for details on this response option.

A Test Order has multiple tests. Does a company prepare one response that addresses all of the individual tests?  Or does a company prepare an individual response for each of the tests?
   Each Order specifies all of the tests required under the Order. If there are multiple tests that apply to a company, an option must be selected for each test and the options selected for all the tests are required to be included in the response.

If a company imports a finished product that includes the chemical substance subject to a Test Order, is the company still subject to a Test Order which identifies manufacturers as subject?
   Import is a manufacturing activity under TSCA. Importers are therefore subject to the Test Order (and all corresponding fees) as manufacturers. A recipient of an Order who is an importer of record of a chemical substance identified by the Order is responsible for testing requirements of the Order, even if the recipient does not store, handle, use, or otherwise directly deal with the chemical. Test Orders issued to date have not made an exception for import as part of an article.

Why does EPA include processors in the scope of a particular test order?
   Processors may be made subject to a Test Order where EPA identifies processing as a condition of use. These conditions of use are used to determine the pathways through which a person or the environment could be potentially exposed to this chemical.

Submission of Existing Data
Given that some of the chemicals receiving Test Orders are currently, or have been, evaluated by regulatory authorities in Europe and elsewhere, how much has the Agency considered whether the existing information for a chemical substance is sufficient? Is the Agency able to obtain any of that information on its own or is it reliant on companies to obtain the information for them?
   Through the EPA's Systematic Review process, the Agency evaluates reasonably available information. However, note that the Agency may not be aware of all data that is available and/or may not be able to access all data that may have been provided to other entities. To this end, EPA encourages companies to submit existing information believed to be responsive to the Test Order as companies may be in possession of studies unknown or inaccessible to the Agency.

   If the Agency finds sufficient information, it does not require testing for that information. Therefore, requiring a certain test signifies that the reasonably available information reviewed by the Agency was not sufficient for the needs of the risk evaluation.

Fees Associated with the Order
Does a company pay the fee associated with the Test Orders via the CDX website? How is this different than paying for the TSCA EPA-Initiated Risk Evaluation fees?
   Fees for Test Orders under TSCA Section 4 will be invoiced electronically by EPA. Invoice notices will be populated into the specific user's "Copy of Record" screen in CDX and will contain a button that will initiate the payment process. When an invoice is generated, notification e-mails will be sent to the user's CDX inbox and the e-mail address associated with the relevant CDX account. Payment information will be collected in CDX and then submitted to Pay.gov for processing. Users should not attempt to make payments directly to Pay.gov. For more information, please refer to TSCA Fees: Accessing and Submitting Payment for an Initial Response in CDX (note that this guidance refers specifically to fees for EPA-Initiated Risk Evaluations under TSCA rather than fees for Test Orders; however, the company follows the same process for paying a TSCA-related fee, selecting the Test Order fee rather than the Risk Evaluation fee).

   Companies will be invoiced for their portion of the fee associated with the TSCA Section 4 Test Order. The fee applies to manufacturers (including importers) who develop information in compliance with the Order and will be evenly split across such companies (accounting for small business considerations) unless a consortium is formed to split the cost of the applicable fee, in which case the consortium, after first notifying EPA that a consortium has been formed, will determine how fees will be split among members of the consortium. See 40 CFR § 700.45 for information concerning the fees.

   Note that there are a variety of fees associated with TSCA-related activities: https://www.epa.gov/tsca-fees/tsca-fees-table. For example, companies may have already received an invoice for the fee associated with the EPA-Initiated Risk Evaluation for the chemical substance. See this page for information on this fee: https://www.epa.gov/tsca-fees/final-list-fee-payers-next-20-risk-evaluations. As provided on this page, for EPA-initiated risk evaluations under TSCA Section 6, the total fee amount is $1,350,000. The total fee amount is shared amongst the manufacturers/importers identified on the final fees list for the risk evaluation. The amount each entity is responsible for varies depending on the total number of fee payers identified, and the number of entities identified as "small business concerns."

Company Ownership Scenarios
The Order lists two companies, one of which is the parent for the wholly owned subsidiary. One company received an email on behalf of both companies, but there is only one facility. Which must report to the Order?
   The parent company will ultimately be responsible for the testing requirements of this Order. However, the wholly owned subsidiary must still complete a response to the Order.

   The wholly owned subsidiary may respond to claim that they are not (separately) subject to this Order with the justification that they are a subsidiary of a company that is also a recipient of the Order and will be completing the required testing and therefore the testing would be duplicative. An explanation of the basis for the claim, along with appropriate supporting information to substantiate that claim, must accompany the response in the CDX portal so that EPA can evaluate the claim. This response must be submitted in the CDX portal by the deadline provided in this Order.

   If EPA cannot verify the claim, the original requirements and deadlines in the Order remain. If the claim is approved, EPA will notify the company that they are not subject to this Order.

Future/Past Production of Subject Chemical Substance
What support is EPA providing to support consortia building?
   EPA encourages consortia building. As a courtesy, the Agency is providing a way for companies to take the initial step of signaling to other companies their interest in forming consortia with those other companies. Should a company wish to join a consortium, they may contact the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Hotline. When a company contacts the Hotline, they can request to be added to a list of companies seeking to join a consortium for a given Test Order to signal the company's interest in forming a consortium for that Order and/or they can request to receive a current version of the list for a specified chemical substance. This list will be a living document and will continue to be updated indefinitely. A company can contact the TSCA Hotline by emailing<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. The TSCA hotline operates Monday through Friday, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time.

Can a company do some of the studies themselves and join a consortium for other studies?
   A company may choose a different response option for each of the tests required by the Order. A company claiming that it is Not Subject to the Order responds to the Order as a whole and thus would not select different response options for each testing requirement.

   For companies that join a consortium for purposes of responding to the Order, the Consortium Lead's response must confirm the formation of the consortium, identify its member companies, and list the testing obligations that the consortium plans to fulfill on behalf of each company by indicating each specific test. Note that in order for a Consortium Leader to be able to identify its member companies by Test Order number, the consortium members must already have responded to the Order indicating that they will be joining a consortium for the relevant test(s).

How does a staff person for a trade organization representing companies subject to the Order build a Test Order Consortium in CDX?
   Trade organization staff can create a consortium initial response by selecting `Consortium Response to Order' from the Submission Type list in the Section 4 Order application. The organization representative will be prompted to provide a consortium name and enter in the Test Order number for each consortium member. Please be aware that each consortium member must have already submitted their own response indicating that they are joining a consortium for at least one test within the Order. Complete the remaining information and submit.

When companies individually provide a response, do they need to specify the name of the consortium they are joining or just that they are joining a consortium?
   Consortium members will simply indicate that they are joining a consortium using the testing-specific drop-down menus within their individual response. Consortium leads will have to select the Consortium response to Order response type and provide the unique Test Order Numbers of the companies who will be joining their consortium. Because these Test Order Numbers are only provided to the companies to which they pertain, this will ensure that members and leads have coordinated with one another in the decision to form a consortium. Be sure to use the Test Order Number that matches the identifier that the consortium member used when it responded to the Order, for EPA issued two unique Test Order Numbers to each recipient, one for the recipient to use to indicate its status as a manufacturer and the other to respond as a processor. The participation of consortium members in consortia will be confirmed based on the submission of the lead.

Fulfilling Test Order Requirements
Can EPA provide a list of laboratories and equipment suppliers that will conduct the testing on the chemical substance subject to the Order?
   At this time, EPA is not able to provide a list of laboratories to a company. The Agency is looking into what resources it might be able to provide on this topic.

   For more information, please refer to the Good Laboratory Practices Standards Compliance Monitoring Program.

How can a company be assured that the testing it is conducting will satisfy the Test Order requirement? ?
   Companies are required to submit draft and final study plans for EPA to review before commencing testing. In developing the study plans, entities should review the required test protocol or guideline and ensure they are following or including all study plan parameters as required in the Order before submitting them to EPA. Study plan submissions should be robust and detailed, those that do not meet the basic criteria outlined in the Order will not qualify as meeting the study plan deadline and will not be considered an acceptable submission and will not be reviewed by EPA.
   Once a study plan is approved by EPA, the testing should strictly align with the EPA-approved study plan. If any technical difficulties are experienced during testing that would cause deviation from the approved study plan, EPA should be informed immediately, otherwise, the entity risks ultimately not complying with the testing requirement. After EPA receives final reports of required tests, the Agency will review them and inform the entity if they have fulfilled their testing requirement. This process is necessary to produce high quality data to inform the TSCA section 6 risk evaluation.
Can recipients of an Order modify their study plans in any way?
   Recipients may modify their study plans and submit modified study plans through CDX for approval in the draft study plan phase. If the modified study plans are found to have acceptable modifications, EPA will approve such study plans for use by companies. If EPA finds the modifications unacceptable, the Agency will provide comments. In that case, the company should submit a new study plan that addresses EPA's comments for the Agency to review and determine if acceptable. Testing should not be commenced until EPA approves the company's study plan.
Submission of Tests
What file formats are acceptable for test data submission in CDX?
   EPA will accept study reports in the file types: i5z, i6z, Word, Excel, and PDF. Where appropriate, the report should use the OECD Harmonized Template reporting format, and the underlying data should be submitted for a required test. Consult the Order to determine whether the OECD Harmonized Template is required for a given submission.

   Please note, there is no limit on the number of documents that may be submitted, however, the maximum capacity per submission is 600MB. Should you experience technical difficulties when submitting your information, please visit the CDX Help Desk at: https://cdx.epa.gov/Help.


TABLE 1 AVERAGE ANNUAL EPA RESOURCE REQUIREMENT NSPS FOR GLASS MANUFACTURING PLANTS ( 40 CFR PART 60, SUBPART CC)

REPORTING/ RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT EPA Hours/

Occurence ( A) Occurences/

Plant/ Year ( B) EPA Hours/

Year ( C= A* B ) ( C) Plants/ Year ( D) EPA Hours/

Year ( E= C* D)

( E)

INITIAL PERFORMANCE TESTS New or Modified Facility 40 1 40 0 0 REPEAT PERFORMANCE TEST New or Modificed Facility 40 0.2 8 0 0 REPORT REVIEW New or Modified Facility Notification of Construction/ Reconstruction 2 1 2 0 0 Notification of Modification 0.5 1 2 0 0 Notification of Actual Startup 0.5 1 0.5 0 0 Notification of Demonstration of Continuous Monitoring System 0.5 1 2 0 0 Notification of Physical of Operational Change 0.5 1 2 0 0 Notification of Initial Performance Test 0.5 1.2 0.6 0 0 Review Performance Test Results 8 1.2 9.6 0 0 Review Demonstration of Continuous Monitoring System  Included in Review of Performance Test Results

Review of Routine Maintence Report 2 1 2 23 46 Review Request for Alternative CMS 4 1 4 0 0 Review Excess Emissions Report 4 2 8 34 272 TOTAL ANNUAL HOURS 318 TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN $ 12,179 Assumptions Number of new plants 0 Number of existing plants 45 Rate of failed performance tests 20%

Percent of plants that will submit routine maintenance reports so that they are not considered modified or reconstructed 50%

Percent of plants that have modified processes and are required to submt excess emission reports 75%

Time required to participate with performance test ( per plant) 40 Time require to review construction notification ( hours) 2 Time required to review startup and initial test notifications ( hours) 0.5 Time required to review performance test results ( hours) 8 Time required to review notification of demonstration of CMS ( hours) 0.5 Time required to review request for alternative CMS 4 Time required to review routine maintenance reports ( hours) 2 Time required to review existing plant emission reports ( hours) 4 EPA labor rate $ 38.30


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 81539]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32831]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR16-10-000]

Breitburn Operating LP; Notice of Request for Temporary Waiver

    Take notice that on December 22, 2015, pursuant to Rule 202 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.202 (2014), Breitburn Operating LP
(Breitburn), filed a petition for temporary waiver of Interstate
Commerce Act sections 6 and 20, and the Commission's related oil
pipeline tariff and reporting requirements at 18 CFR parts 341 and 357,
with respect to certain oil pipeline gathering facilities in Oklahoma
which transport production from producing areas known as the Postle
Field Units. Breitburn states it has 100 percent ownership and title to
all throughput on the facilities which connect to Jayhawk pipeline for
ultimate transportation to downstream markets.
    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 (2014)) on or before
5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. 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.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on Tapstone.
    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 5 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 January 6, 2016.

    Dated: December 23, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-32831 Filed 12-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28823-28824]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10102]

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

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: EC19-27-000; EC20-94-000.
    Applicants: IIF US Holding LP, IIF US Holding 2 LP, IIF US Holding
LP, IIF US Holding 2 LP.
    Description: Informational Filing of November 16, 2018 and August
31, 2020 Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal
Power Act of IIF US Holding LP, et al.
    Filed Date: 5/3/22.
    Accession Number: 20220503-5217.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/24/22.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG22-110-000.
    Applicants: Arnold & Arnold LLP.
    Description: SJRR Power LLC submits Notice of Self-Certification of
Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 5/4/22.
    Accession Number: 20220504-5164.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/25/22.

    Docket Numbers: EG22-111-000.
    Applicants: Arnold & Arnold LLP.
    Description: Victoria Port Power II LLC submits Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 5/4/22.
    Accession Number: 20220504-5166.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/25/22.

    Docket Numbers: EG22-112-000.
    Applicants: Yaphank Fuel Cell Park, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Yaphank Fuel Cell Park, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/5/22.
    Accession Number: 20220505-5049.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/22.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1575-016; ER10-1827-009; ER10-2630-004; ER10-
2791-018; ER10-2792-018; ER10-2876-018; ER10-3230-012; ER10-3237-012;
ER10-3239-012; ER10-3240-012; ER10-3253-012; ER11-4111-003; ER13-1248-
002; ER13-1485-012; ER12-1777-001; ER15-2722-008; ER18-552-004; ER18-
1310-003; ER18-2264-008; ER19-289-007; ER19-461-003; ER19-2462-005;
ER21-684-001
    Applicants: Wheelabrator South Broward Inc., Macquarie Energy LLC,
Wheelabrator Concord Company, L.P., Cleco Cajun LLC, Macquarie Energy
Trading LLC, Wheelabrator Millbury Inc., Clean Energy Future-Lordstown,
LLC, Wheelabrator Saugus Inc., The Dayton Power and Light Company,
Wheelabrator Baltimore, L.P., Patua Project LLC, Hudson Ranch Power I
LLC, Wheelabrator Bridgeport, L.P., Wheelabrator North Andover Inc.,
Wheelabrator Westchester L.P., Wheelabrator Frackville Energy Company
Inc., Wheelabrator Portsmouth Inc., Louisiana Generating LLC, Big Cajun
I Peaking Power LLC, Bayou Cove Peaking Power LLC, NGP Blue Mountain I
LLC, Cleco Power LLC, Cottonwood Energy Company, LP.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Cottonwood Energy
Company, LP, et al.
    Filed Date: 5/2/22.
    Accession Number: 20220502-5402.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1332-009; ER17-1314-004; ER10-2397-004; ER10-
2398-011; ER10-2399-011; ER10-2400-016; ER10-2401-010; ER10-2402-009;
ER11-3414-010; ER19-1280-004; ER10-2403-010; ER20-2717-002; ER17-2541-
002; ER10-2423-010; ER10-2404-010; ER14-1933-011; ER20-2714-002; ER10-
2405-012; ER10-2406-012; ER17-2087-007; ER21-714-005; ER16-1152-005;
ER19-1281-004; ER14-1594-004; ER14-1596-004; ER10-2407-009; ER10-2408-
007; ER22-399-001; ER10-2409-011; ER10-2410-011; ER10-2411-012; ER10-
2412-012; ER17-1315-009; ER18-1189-006; ER10-2414-015; ER11-2935-013;
ER16-1724-008; ER19-1282-004; ER10-2425-011; ER18-1188-005; ER17-1316-
007; ER10-2424-009; ER17-1318-006; ER14-1934-005; ER14-1935-005; ER15-
1020-003; ER20-2746-003; ER19-2626-004; ER10-2426-003; ER20-245-002;
ER20-242-002; ER13-1816-016; ER19-1044-005; ER18-1186-006; ER15-1333-
009; ER10-2428-004; ER20-246-002.
    Applicants: Windhub Solar A, LLC, Wheat Field Wind Power Project
LLC, Waverly Wind Farm LLC, Turtle Creek Wind Farm LLC, Telocaset Wind
Power Partners, LLC, Sustaining Power Solutions LLC, Sunshine Valley
Solar, LLC, Sun Streams, LLC, Sagebrush Power Partners, LLC, Rosewater
Wind Farm LLC, Riverstart Solar Park LLC, Rising Tree Wind Farm III
LLC, Rising Tree Wind Farm II LLC, Rising Tree Wind Farm LLC, Redbed
Plains Wind Farm LLC, Rail Splitter Wind Farm, LLC, Quilt Block Wind
Farm LLC, Prairie Queen Wind Farm LLC, Pioneer Prairie Wind Farm I,
LLC, Paulding

Wind Farm IV LLC, Paulding Wind Farm III LLC, Paulding Wind Farm II
LLC, Old Trail Wind Farm, LLC, Meadow Lake Wind Farm VI LLC, Meadow
Lake Wind Farm V LLC, Meadow Lake Wind Farm IV LLC, Meadow Lake Wind
Farm III LLC, Meadow Lake Wind Farm II LLC, Meadow Lake Wind Farm LLC,
Meadow Lake Solar Park LLC, Marble River, LLC, Lost Lakes Wind Farm
LLC, Lone Valley Solar Park II LLC, Lone Valley Solar Park I LLC,
Lexington Chenoa Wind Farm LLC, Jericho Rise Wind Farm LLC, Indiana
Crossroads Wind Farm LLC, Hog Creek Wind Project, LLC, High Trail Wind
Farm, LLC, High Prairie Wind Farm II, LLC, Headwaters Wind Farm II LLC,
Headwaters Wind Farm LLC, Flat Rock Windpower II LLC, Flat Rock
Windpower LLC, Estill Solar I, LLC, Crossing Trails Wind Power Project
LLC, Cloud County Wind Farm, LLC, Broadlands Wind Farm LLC, Blue Canyon
Windpower VI LLC, Blue Canyon Windpower V LLC, Blue Canyon Windpower II
LLC, Blue Canyon Windpower LLC, Blackstone Wind Farm II LLC, Blackstone
Wind Farm, LLC, Arlington Wind Power Project LLC, Arkwright Summit Wind
Farm LLC, Arbuckle Mountain Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Arbuckle Mountain Wind
Farm LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 5/2/22.
    Accession Number: 20220502-5400.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1432-001.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment 1--Time Zone Modifications
to be effective 5/23/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/5/22.
    Accession Number: 20220505-5124.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1554-000.
    Applicants: Ford County Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Supplement to April 4, 2022 Ford County Wind Farm LLC
tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 5/4/22.
    Accession Number: 20220504-5159.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1797-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3718 Frontier Windpower II
GIA Cancellation to be effective 4/20/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/5/22.
    Accession Number: 20220505-5060.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1798-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original NSA, Service
Agreement No. 6456; Queue No. AE1-196 to be effective 4/5/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/5/22.
    Accession Number: 20220505-5132.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1799-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original NSA, SA No. 6435;
Queue No. AD2-009 to be effective 4/7/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/5/22.
    Accession Number: 20220505-5142.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1800-000.
    Applicants: Red Lake Falls Community Hybrid LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Reactive Power Compensation
Filing to be effective 7/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/5/22.
    Accession Number: 20220505-5158.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/22.

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

    Docket Numbers: FC22-2-000.
    Applicants: BillerudKorsn[auml]s Sweden AB,BillerudKorsn[auml]s
Skog & Industri AB.
    Description: Self-Certification of Foreign Utility Company Status
of BillerudKorsn[auml]s Sweden AB, et. al.
    Filed Date: 5/2/22.
    Accession Number: 20220502-5401.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/22.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by 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 5, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-10102 Filed 5-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 210)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 64194-64195]
[DOCID:fr29oc08-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 30634; Amdt. No. 3293]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports.
These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or
revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National
Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective October 29, 2008. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of October 29, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
    For Examination--
    1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located;
    3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur
Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169; or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_
federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    Availability_All SIAPs are available online free of charge. Visit
nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from:
    1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry J. Hodges, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Programs Division,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the
appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data
Center (FDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated
by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and
Sec.  97.20 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
    The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a
special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register
expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory
text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts
printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and
specifies the types of SIAP and the corresponding effective dates. This
amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure
and the amendment number.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and
timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only
specific changes contained for each SIAP as modified by FDC/P-NOTAMs.
    The SIAPs, as modified by FDC P-NOTAM, and contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to
SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions
existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule
have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency
action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published
aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all
these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30
days.

    Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs
and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure
before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the
public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for
making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

Conclusion

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under DOT
Regulatory Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC on October 17, 2008.
James J. Ballough,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code
of Federal regulations, Part 97, 14 CFR part 97, is amended by amending
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the
dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Sec. Sec.  97.23, 97.25, 97.27, 97.29, 97.31, 97.33, and
97.35  [Amended]

    By amending: Sec.  97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec.  97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec.
97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; Sec.  97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, ISMLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec.  97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec.  97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec.  97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, Identified as follows:

* * * Effective Upon Publication

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        FDC date               State                 City                   Airport           FDC No.                        Subject
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/02/08...............  MN                 ST PAUL...............  LAKE ELMO.............       8/2097  NDB RWY 4, AMDT 4
10/02/08...............  MN                 ST PAUL...............  LAKE ELMO.............       8/2098  RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, ORIG
10/07/08...............  AK                 SELAWIK...............  SELAWIK...............       8/2872  RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 22, ORIG
10/07/08...............  AK                 SELAWIK...............  SELAWIK...............       8/2873  RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 22, ORIG
10/07/08...............  AK                 SELAWIK...............  SELAWIK...............       8/2874  RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, ORIG
10/08/08...............  CA                 CHINO.................  CHINO.................       8/3055  RNAV (GPS) RWY 26R, ORIG-B
10/10/08...............  MT                 POLSON................  POLSON................       8/3509  RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, ORIG
10/10/08...............  MT                 POLSON................  POLSON................       8/3511  RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, ORIG-B
10/10/08...............  SC                 GREENWOOD.............  GREENWOOD COUNTY......       8/3529  VOR OR GPS RWY 9, AMDT 13
10/14/08...............  NM                 FARMINGTON............  FOUR CORNERS RGNL.....       8/3805  ILS OR LOC RWY 25, AMDT 7B
10/14/08...............  CA                 CHICO.................  CHICO MUNI............       8/3925  GPS RWY 13L, ORIG-A
10/14/08...............  CA                 CHICO.................  CHICO MUNI............       8/3926  GPS RWY 31R, ORIG-B
10/15/08...............  KY                 FRANKFORT.............  CAPITAL CITY..........       8/4014  RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, AMDT 1
10/15/08...............  KY                 FRANKFORT.............  CAPITAL CITY..........       8/4015  LOC RWY 24, AMDT 2
08/20/08...............  MD                 SALISBURY.............  SALISBURY-OCEAN CITY         8/4188  ILS RWY 32, AMDT 6A
                                                                     WICO- MICO REGIONAL.
10/15/08...............  CO                 GUNNISON..............  GUNNISON-CRESTED BUTTE       8/4212  GPS B, ORIG
                                                                     REGIONAL.
10/15/08...............  CO                 GUNNISON..............  GUNNISON-CRESTED BUTTE       8/4213  VOR OR GPS A, AMDT 3B
                                                                     REGIONAL.
08/23/08...............  MN                 INTERNATIONAL FALLS...  FALLS INTL............       8/4805  ILS OR LOC RWY 31, AMDT 9
08/23/08...............  MN                 INTERNATIONAL FALLS...  FALLS INTL............       8/4806  COPTER ILS OR LOC RWY 31, AMDT 1
08/25/08...............  NV                 LOVELOCK..............  DERBY FIELD...........       8/4808  TAKEOFF MINS AND (OBSTACLE) DP, ORIG
09/12/08...............  CQ                 PAGO PAGO.............  PAGO PAGO INTL........       8/6779  ILS/DME RWY 5, AMDT 13B
09/12/08...............  AQ                 PAGO PAGO/AMERICAN      PAGO PAGO INTL........       8/6801  VOR/DME OR TACAN-B, AMDT 5A
                                             SOMOA.
09/12/08...............  CQ                 PAGO PAGO.............  PAGO PAGO INTL........       8/6803  NDB-C, AMDT 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E8-25512 Filed 10-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 4798]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01836]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Olie, Inc. and Hi Score Corp.; Order of Suspension of Trading

January 27, 2014.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Olie, Inc. and Hi Score Corp. There are questions regarding the
accuracy of publicly available information about both companies'
assets, acquisitions, business activities, control persons, securities
offerings, and financing arrangements. Olie, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Vancouver, Canada.
Olie, Inc.'s common stock is quoted on OTC Link operated by OTC Markets
Group Inc. (``OTC Link'') under the ticker symbol OLIE. Hi Score Corp.
is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in
Sunrise, Florida. Hi Score Corp.'s common stock is quoted on OTC Link
under the ticker symbol HSCO.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST
on January 27, 2014, through 11:59 p.m. EST on February 7, 2014.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-01836 Filed 1-27-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 31 (Thursday, February 18, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10011]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03350]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 31 / Thursday, February 18, 2021 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Parts 740 and 742

[Docket No.<PHONE_NUMBER>]
RIN 0694-XC072

Burma: Implementation of Sanctions

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Notification.

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

SUMMARY: In response to the coup perpetrated by the Burmese military
wresting control of the democratically-elected government of Burma, the
United States Government is reviewing all available actions to hold the
perpetrators of the coup responsible. The Department of Commerce's
Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is taking immediate action to
limit exports and reexports of sensitive goods to Burma's military and
security services. Effective immediately, BIS is adopting a more
restrictive license application review policy of presumption of denial
of items requiring a license for export and reexport to Burma's
Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Home Affairs, armed forces, and
security services. BIS is also suspending the use of certain license
exceptions that would otherwise generally be available to Burma as a
result of its current Country Group placement in the Export
Administration Regulations (EAR).

DATES: Effective February 17, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracy Patts, Foreign Policy Division,
Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance, Bureau of Industry
and Security, Department of Commerce. Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 1, 2021, the Burmese military
perpetrated a coup wresting control of the democratically-elected
government of Burma, including by detaining State Counselor Aung San
Suu Kyi, President Win Myint, and other leaders of the ruling party.
The United States Government strongly condemns any efforts to alter the
outcome of Burma's recent elections and is committed to supporting the
people in Burma who have worked tirelessly in their quest for democracy
and peace. These actions are in direct opposition to the will of the
Burmese people who have made their voices heard through
internationally-sanctioned elections.
    The United States Government is reviewing all available actions to
hold perpetrators of the coup responsible, and the Department of
Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is hereby taking
immediate action to limit exports and reexports of sensitive items to
Burma's military and security services under the Export Administration
Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730 through 774 (EAR). Currently,
transactions requiring a license for export or reexport to Burma are
generally subject to case-by-case licensing review consistent with the
licensing policies set forth in part 742 and other applicable parts of
the EAR. Effective immediately, BIS will apply a presumption of denial
for items subject to the EAR requiring a license for export or reexport
when destined to Burma's Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Home Affairs,
armed forces, and security services. BIS is also suspending the use of
certain license exceptions that would otherwise be available to Burma
as a result of its current Country Group placement in the EAR.
    A license exception is an authorization contained in part 740 of
the EAR that allows exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) under
stated conditions of items subject to the EAR that would otherwise
require a license. Availability of license exceptions is largely based
on Country Group placement (see Supplement No. 1 to part 740). Section
740.2 (Restrictions on all License Exceptions) provides general
information on restrictions on all license exceptions.
    Burma is currently in Country Group B, which allows certain license
exceptions not available for exports and reexports to destinations in
more restrictive EAR Country Groups. In this notice, as described in
more detail below, BIS suspends the availability of certain license
exceptions that would otherwise generally be available as a consequence
of Burma's Country Group B placement for exports and reexports to
Burma, and transfers (in-country) within Burma, of items subject to the
EAR.
    BIS is taking this action pursuant to Sec.  740.2(b) of the EAR (15
CFR 740.2(b)), which provides that all license exceptions are subject
to revision, suspension, or revocation, in whole or in part, without
notice. The following license exceptions are suspended for exports or
reexports to Burma, or transfers (in-country) within Burma, either in
whole or in part, as specified below:
     Shipments of Limited Value (LVS) (Sec.  740.3).
     Shipments to Group B Countries (GBS) (Sec.  740.4).
     Technology and Software under Restriction (TSR) (Sec.
740.6).
     Computers (APP) (Sec.  740.7).

Matthew S. Borman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2021-03350 Filed 2-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 74 (Monday, April 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22612-22613]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08887]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-1127]

AbbVie Inc. et al; Withdrawal of Approval of Indications Related
to the Coadministration With Statins in Applications for Niacin
Extended-Release Tablets and Fenofibric Acid Delayed-Release Capsules

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is
withdrawing approval of the indications related to the coadministration
with a statin for niacin extended-release (ER) tablets and fenofibric
acid delayed-release (DR) capsules. Affected applications include one
new drug application (NDA) and seven abbreviated new drug applications
(ANDAs) for niacin ER tablets, and one NDA and three ANDAs for
fenofibric acid DR capsules. The holders of these applications have
requested that FDA withdraw approval of the indications and have waived
their opportunities for a hearing.

DATES: The effective date is April 18, 2016.

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents, go to
http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in
brackets in the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and
follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management
(HFA-305), 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay Sitlani, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6282, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-5202.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Applications for Niacin ER Tablets

    FDA first approved NDA 020381 for Niaspan (niacin extended-release)
tablets for several indications on July 28, 1997. On March 26, 2009,
FDA approved a revised indication that read as follows:
     Niaspan in combination with simvastatin or lovastatin is
indicated for the treatment of primary hyperlipidemia (heterozygous
familial and nonfamilial) and mixed dyslipidemia (Fredrickson Types IIa
and IIb) when treatment with Niaspan, simvastatin, or lovastatin
monotherapy is considered inadequate.
    In addition, the following Limitation of Use was added to the
Indications and Usage section of the labeling:
     No incremental benefit of Niaspan coadministered with
simvastatin or lovastatin on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality
over and above that demonstrated for niacin, simvastatin, or lovastatin
monotherapy has been established. Niaspan has not been studied in
Fredrickson Type I and III dyslipidemias.
    This indication was revised between March 26, 2009, and April 27,
2015, at which time it was removed from the approved labeling. The
Limitation of Use currently reads:
     Addition of Niaspan did not reduce cardiovascular
morbidity or mortality among patients treated with simvastatin in a
large, randomized controlled trial (AIM-HIGH).
    There are seven approved ANDAs that cited Niaspan as the reference
listed drug (RLD) and that are approved for the same indications as
Niaspan (see table 1).

                                        Table 1--Affected Niacin Products
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Application No.                        Drug                          Application holder
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NDA 020381............................  Niaspan (niacin extended-   AbbVie.
                                         release) tablets.
ANDA 076250...........................  Niacin extended-release     Barr.
                                         tablets.
ANDA 076378...........................  Niacin extended-release     Barr.
                                         tablets.
ANDA 090446...........................  Niacin extended-release     Lupin Ltd.
                                         tablets.
ANDA 090860...........................  Niacin extended-release     Lupin Ltd.
                                         tablets.
ANDA 090892...........................  Niacin extended-release     Lupin Ltd.
                                         tablets.
ANDA 200484...........................  Niacin extended-release     Sun Pharma Global.
                                         tablets.
ANDA 201273...........................  Niacin extended-release     Sun Pharma Global.
                                         tablets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Applications for Fenofibric Acid DR Capsules

    FDA approved NDA 022224 for Trilipix (fenofibric acid) DR capsules
on December 15, 2008, for several indications, including the following:
     Trilipix is indicated as an adjunct to diet in combination
with a statin to reduce TG and increase HDL-C in patients with mixed
dyslipidemia and CHD (coronary heart disease) or a CHD risk equivalent
who are on optimal statin therapy to achieve their LDL-C goal.
    CHD risk equivalents comprise:
    [cir] Other clinical forms of atherosclerotic disease (peripheral
arterial disease, abdominal aortic aneurysm, and symptomatic carotid
artery disease);
    [cir] Diabetes; and
    [cir] Multiple risk factors that confer a 10-year risk for CHD >20
percent.
    The following Limitation of Use was included in the Indications and
Usage section of the labeling:
     No incremental benefit of Trilipix on cardiovascular
morbidity and mortality over and above that demonstrated for statin
monotherapy has been established.
    Both this indication and the Limitation of Use were removed from
the labeling on April 27, 2015.
    There are three approved ANDAs that cited Trilipix as the RLD and
that are approved for the same indications as Trilipix (see table 2).

                                   Table 2--Affected Fenofibric Acid Products
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Application No.                        Drug                          Application holder
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NDA 022224............................  Trilipix (fenofibric acid)  AbbVie.
                                         delayed-release capsules.
ANDA 201573...........................  Fenofibric acid delayed-    Anchen Pharmaceuticals.
                                         release capsules.
ANDA 200750...........................  Fenofibric acid delayed-    Lupin Ltd.
                                         release capsules.
ANDA 200913...........................  Fenofibric acid delayed-    Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
                                         release capsules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Withdrawal Under Section 505(e) of the FD&C Act

    Based on the collective evidence from several large cardiovascular
outcome trials (Refs. 1-3), the Agency has concluded that the totality
of the scientific evidence no longer supports the conclusion that a
drug-induced reduction in triglyceride levels and/or increase in HDL-
cholesterol levels in statin-treated patients results in a reduction in
the risk of cardiovascular events. Consistent with this conclusion, FDA
has determined that the benefits of niacin ER tablets and fenofibric
acid DR capsules for coadministration with statins no longer outweigh
the risks, and the approvals for this indication should be withdrawn.
    FDA requested that the application holders voluntarily discontinue
marketing of niacin ER tablets and fenofibric acid DR capsules for
these indications. The NDA and ANDA holders identified above have
requested in writing that FDA withdraw approval of these indications
and waived their opportunity for a hearing.
    Therefore, under section 505(e) of the FD&C Act and under authority
delegated to the Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, the approvals of the
indications related to coadministration with statins for the
applications listed in tables 1 and 2 are withdrawn. Introduction or
delivery for introduction of these products with these indications in
interstate commerce without an approved application is illegal and
subject to regulatory action (see sections 505(a) and 301(d) of the
FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355(a) and 331(d)).

III. References

    The following references are on display in the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA 305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and are available for viewing by
interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday;
they are also available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov.
FDA has verified the Web site addresses, as of the date this document
publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change
over time.

    1. The ACCORD Study Group, ``Effects of Combination Lipid
Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus,'' New England Journal of
Medicine, vol. 362, pp. 1563-1574, 2010 (http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1001282).
    2. The AIM-HIGH Investigators, ``Niacin in Patients with Low HDL
Cholesterol Levels Receiving Intensive Statin Therapy,'' New England
Journal of Medicine, vol. 365, pp. 2255-2267, 2011 (http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1107579).
    3. The HPS2-THRIVE Collaborative Group, ``Effects of Extended-
Release Niacin with Laropiprant in High-Risk Patients,'' New England
Journal of Medicine, vol. 371(3), pp. 203-212, 2014 (http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1300955).

    Dated: April 13, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-08887 Filed 4-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45323-45325]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16479]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78238; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Order Instituting
Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed
Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend Rule 955NY(c) by
Revising the Clearing Member Requirement for Entering an Order Into the
Electronic Order Capture System

July 7, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On March 22, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE MKT'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
amend Rule 955NY(c) to change the timing for recording the name of the
Clearing Member \3\ in the Electronic Order Capture system (``EOC'').
On March 29, 2016,\4\ the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change. The Commission published the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, for comment in the Federal
Register on April 11, 2016.\5\ The Commission received no comments on
the proposed rule change. On May 25, 2016 the Commission extended the
time period within which to approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change to
July 10, 2016.\6\ The Commission did not receive any comments on the
proposed rule change. This order institutes proceedings under section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \7\ to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1
thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Rule 900.2NY defines ``Clearing Member'' as an Exchange ATP
Holder which has been admitted to membership in the Options Clearing
Corporation pursuant to the provisions of the Rules of the Options
Clearing Corporation.
    \4\ The Commission notes that the amendment date of March 30,
2016 in the SR-NYSEMKT-2016-13 Notice is incorrect and the proper
date is March 29, 2016.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-77518 (April 5,
2016), 81 FR 21415 (``Notice''). Amendment No. 1 was included in the
Notice and provided the clarification that the CMTA Information and
the name of the clearing ATP Holder would be entered into the EOC
``as the events occur and/or during trade reporting procedures which
may occur after the representation and execution of the order.''
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-77910 (May 25,
2016), 81 FR 35098 (June 1, 2016).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal, as Modified by Amendment No. 1

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 955NY(c) by revising the timing
for an ATP holder to record the name of the Clearing Member in the
EOC.\8\ In 2000, the Commission issued an order, which required the
Exchange, in coordination with other exchanges, to ``design and
implement a consolidated options audit trail system (`COATS'),'' that
would ``enable the options exchanges to reconstruct markets promptly,
effectively surveil them and enforce order handling, firm quote, trade
reporting and other rules.'' \9\ The Commission Order requires the
Exchange to incorporate into the audit trail all non-electronic orders
``such that the audit trail provides an accurate, time-sequenced record
of electronic and other orders, quotations and transactions on such
respondent exchange, beginning with the receipt of an order by such
respondent exchange and further documenting the life of the order
through the process of execution, partial execution, or cancellation of
that order, which audit trail shall be readily retrievable in the
common computer format.'' \10\ To comply with the Commission Order, the
Exchange developed the EOC system for ATP holders.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Notice, supra note 5, 81 FR at 21415.
    \9\ See Section IV.B.e.(v) of the Commission's Order Instituting
Public Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to sections 19(h)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings and Imposing
Remedial Sanctions (``Commission Order''), Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 43268 (September 11, 2000) and Administrative Proceeding
File No. 3-10282.
    \10\ See id.
    \11\ See Notice, supra note 5, 81 FR at 21415.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EOC is the Exchange's floor-based electronic audit trail and
order tracking system that provides an accurate time-sequenced record
of all orders and transactions represented on the Exchange's trading
floor.\12\ Rule 955NY(c) sets forth the EOC entry requirements and
requires every ATP holder that receives an order for execution on the
Exchange to ``immediately, prior to representation in the trading
crowd, record the details of the order (including any modification of
the terms of the order or cancellation of the order) into the EOC,
unless such order has been entered into the Exchange's other electronic
order processing facilities.'' \13\ The pre-trade EOC requirements
under current Rule 955NY(c)(1) include ``the name of the clearing ATP
Holder.'' \14\ Rule 955NY(c)(1) further states that ``[t]he remaining
elements prescribed in Rule 956NY and any additional information with
respect to the order shall be recorded as the events occur and/or
during trade reporting procedures which may occur after the
representation and execution of the order.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See id.; see also Rule 955NY(c).
    \13\ See Rule 955NY(c).
    \14\ See Rule 955NY(c)(1)(vii).
    \15\ See Rule 955NY(c)(1); see also Rule 956NY(a) (Record of
Orders) (requiring that ATP Holders maintain a record of each order
that includes that the following data elements: (1) CMTA Information
and the name of the clearing ATP Holder; (2) options symbol,
expiration month, exercise price and type of options; (3) side of
the market and order type; (4) quantity of options; (5) limit or
stop price or special conditions; (6) opening or closing
transaction; (7) time in force; (8) account origin code; and (9)
whether the order was solicited or unsolicited).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 955NY(c)(1) to allow an ATP
Holder to record the name of the Clearing Member in the EOC ``as the
events occur and/or during trade reporting procedures'' rather than
prior to representation of the order in the trading crowd.\16\ The
Exchange states that because the identity of the firm through which
each trade will clear is not always initially provided when an order is
presented, Floor Brokers waiting to receive this information and enter
it into the EOC are delayed in representing and executing an order.\17\
The Exchange represents that the proposal would amend only the timing
for the recording of the Clearing Member in the EOC while still
maintaining the requirement to record the Clearing Member in the EOC
for audit trail purposes.\18\ According to the Exchange, Floor Brokers
would continue to be required to maintain proper order records, as part
of each trade record, including the identity of the clearing ATP
Holder, and would continue to be required to give up the responsible
Clearing Member on each trade as part of each trade record.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Notice, supra note 5, 81 FR at 21415-16.
    \17\ See id. at 21416.
    \18\ See id.
    \19\ See Notice, supra note 5, 81 FR at 21416; see also Rule
956NY(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-
NYSEMKT-2016-13 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to section

19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \20\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues raised by the proposed rule change, as discussed below.
Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has
reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved.
Rather, as described in greater detail below, the Commission seeks and
encourages interested persons to provide additional comment on the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act also
provides that proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a
proposed rule change must be concluded within 180 days of the date
of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule change.
See id. The time for conclusion of the proceedings may be extended
for up to 60 days if the Commission finds good cause for such
extension and publishes its reasons for so finding. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings because the proposal raises
important issues that warrant further public comment and Commission
consideration. Specifically, the Commission is instituting proceedings
to allow for additional analysis of, and input from commenters with
respect to, the proposed rule change's consistency with section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\21\ which requires that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed, among other things, to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Exchange's current rules, a floor broker must record the
name of the Clearing Member in the EOC prior to representing an order
on the floor. As discussed above,\22\ the Exchange developed the EOC
and created the pre-trade Clearing Member requirement in response to
the Commission Order. The Exchange justifies the proposed elimination
of the pre-trade clearing requirement by stating that ``Floor Brokers
have told the Exchange that the identity of the firm through which each
trade will clear is not always initially provided when an order is
presented and that waiting to receive this information and enter it
into EOC can delay the representation and execution of an order. In
today's trading environment of rapidly moving markets and the need to
execute an order and hedge a trade in real or near real time, even a
slight delay can prove to be detrimental to the handling of an order.''
\23\ The Exchange further states that the ``proposed change to
eliminate the Give Up Requirement prior to execution of each trade
would not impair the Exchange's ability to comply with the [Commission]
Order. Specifically, the EOC would still provide an accurate, time-
sequenced record beginning with the receipt of an order and document
the life of the order through the process of execution, partial
execution, or cancellation. Entry of information pursuant to the Give
Up Requirement would occur after the order had been represented and
executed in the Trading Crowd. Thus, only the timing of the disclosure
of such information would be affected by this proposal.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra note 9.
    \23\ See Notice, supra note 5, 81 FR at 21416.
    \24\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange, however, does not explain why the identity of the
Clearing Member may not be provided when an order is presented to a
Floor Broker, how frequently this occurs, or why it is burdensome to
identify the Clearing Member in advance. As a result, the Exchange does
not appear to offer a credible justification for proposing to incur the
risk of delaying the recording of this important information into the
EOC. The Commission accordingly believes the proposal, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, raises questions as to whether it consistent with the
requirements of section 6(b)(5) of the Act, including whether the
proposal is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.

IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data and arguments with respect to the
concerns identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission invites
the written views of interested persons concerning whether the
proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with sections
6(b)(5) \25\ or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and
regulations thereunder. Although there does not appear to be any issue
relevant to approval or disapproval which would be facilitated by an
oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will
consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\26\ any request for an
opportunity to make an oral presentation.\27\ Interested persons are
invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether
the proposal should be approved or disapproved by August 3, 2016. Any
person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission
must file that rebuttal by August 17, 2016. In light of the concerns
raised by the proposed rule change, as discussed above, the Commission
invites additional comment on the proposed rule change as the
Commission continues its analysis of the proposed rule change's
consistency with sections 6(b)(5) and 6(b)(8),\28\ or any other
provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. The
Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and merit of
the Exchange's statements in support of the proposed rule change, in
addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \27\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants to
the Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--
either oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is
appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-
regulatory organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975,
Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75,
94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5), (b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-13. 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 such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-13, and should be
submitted by August 3, 2016. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by
August 17, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-16479 Filed 7-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P