9 June 2005 Ms. Helen Mary Wessel Chevron Corporation 91 480 Malakole St. Kapolei, HI 96707 Dear Ms. Wessel:

Section 304( b) of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to annually review and, if appropriate, revise its technology based regulations, called " effluent limitations guidelines" or " effluent guidelines," that limit the discharge of pollutants to waters of the U. S. from various categories of industrial facilities. EPA is currently conducting its 2005 annual review of existing effluent guidelines. EPA will discuss this review and the results in its Preliminary 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan scheduled for publication in the Federal Register in late September or early October of this year.

As part of this annual review, EPA is evaluating data reported to TRI in 2002 by facilities with existing effluent guidelines. In some cases, EPA is contacting facilities to better understand the information in TRI. These contacts are being made on behalf of EPA by Eastern Research Group, Inc. ( ERG), which is under contract with us ( Contract No. 68 C 02 095).

Recently, ERG contacted you about your 2003 TRI reported discharges. We would like to obtain additional information on the basis of these reported discharges. The specific questions are attached. Please send your responses to:

TJ Finseth 14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200 Chantilly, VA 20151 ( 703) 633 1698 Thomas. Finseth@ erg. com Please contact me at ( 202) 566 1035 or matuszko. jan@ epa. gov if you have any questions about this effort.

Sincerely,

Jan Matuszko Chemical Engineer Engineering and Analysis Division Office of Water Environmental Protection Agency Attachment Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds ( PACs) Your company reported to TRI that you released 277 pounds of polycyclic aromatic compounds to surface water ( Pacific Ocean) in 2002. Your company reported that the basis of estimate for this discharge was " measurements".

Could you please explain how the reported discharge was estimated?

In 2002, did your company ever analyze any wastewater for any of the polycyclic aromatic compounds listed below, either an in plant stream, such as catalytic reformer regeneration, or the final discharge to the Pacific Ocean?

If so, were any polycyclic aromatic compounds ever detected? If so, which compounds? How did your company determine the wastewater flow associated with the polycyclic aromatic compound discharges in order to calculate the reported pounds discharged?

What was the reason for the increase in PACs discharge from 2000 to 2001, 20 pounds and 253 pounds, respectively?

Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds PAC Compound CAS Number Benzo( a) anthracene 56 55 3 Benzo( a) phenanthrene ( chrysene) 218 01 9 Benzo( a) pyrene 50 32 8 Benzo( b) fluoranthene 205 99 2 Benzo( j) fluoranthene 205 82 3 Benzo( k) fluoranthene 207 08 9 Benzo( j, k) fluorene ( fluoranthene) 206 44 0 Benzo( r, s, t) pentaphene 189 55 9 Dibenz( a, h) acridine 226 36 8 Dibenz( a, j) acridine 224 42 0 Dibenzo( a, h) anthracene 53 70 3 Dibenzo( a, e) fluoranthene 5385 75 1 Dibenzo( a, e) pyrene 192 65 4 Dibenzo( a, h) pyrene 189 64 0 Dibenzo( a, l) pyrene 191 30 0 7H Dibenzo( e, g) carbazole 194 59 2 7,12 Dimethylbenz( a) anthracene 57 97 6 Indeno( 1,2,3 cd) pyrene 193 39 5 PAC Compound CAS Number 3 Methylcholanthrene 56 49 5 5 Methylchrysene 3697 24 3 1 Nitropyrene 5522 43 0


[Federal Register: December 1, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 230)]
[Notices]
[Page 72139-72141]
[DOCID:fr01de05-62]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52827; File No. SR-PCX-2005-56]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Pacific Exchange, Inc.; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto and Notice
of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to Amendment No. 2
Relating to the Directed Order Process and the Establishment of
Designated Market Makers and Lead Market Makers

November 23, 2005.

I. Introduction

    On April 21, 2005, the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (``PCX'' or
``Exchange''), through its wholly-owned subsidiary PCX Equities, Inc.
(``PCXE''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'' or ``SEC''), 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 modify its rules governing the
Directed Order Process on the Archipelago Exchange (``ArcaEx'').\3\ The
PCX filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on October 4,
2005.\4\ The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for
comment in the Federal Register on October 13, 2005.\5\ The Commission
received no comments from the public in response to the proposed rule
change. The PCX filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change on
November 17, 2005.\6\ This order approves the proposed rule, as amended
by Amendment No. 1; grants accelerated approval to Amendment No. 2; and
solicits comments from interested persons on Amendment No. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See PCXE Rules 7.31 and 7.37.
    \4\ Amendment No. 1 replaced and superseded the original filing
in its entirety.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52566 (October 5,
2005), 70 FR 59791.
    \6\ Amendment No. 1 clarified language in PCXE Rule 7.34(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    The PCX proposed to add two new classifications of Market Makers,
Designated Market Makers (``DMMs'') and Lead Market Makers (``LMMs''),
in connection with ArcaEx's Directed Order Process. Under the proposal,
only DMMs and LMMs would be eligible to receive orders in ArcaEx's
Directed Order Process. DMMs would be required to meet certain
selection criteria and ongoing performance criteria, making them
eligible to participate in the Directed Order Process. LMMs would be
granted exclusive eligibility to receive Directed Orders and would be
held to higher ongoing performance standards than DMMs in listings for
which ArcaEx is the primary market. Such ongoing performance standards
would include (i) percent of time the DMM is quoting at the NBBO; (ii)
percent of executions better than the NBBO; (iii) average displayed
size; (iv) average quoted spread; and (v) in the event the security is
a derivative security, the ability of the DMM to transact in the
underlying markets. LMMs would be held to higher ongoing performance
standards than DMMs. Although the Exchange would have the ability to
apply specific levels to be used in defining the performance standards,
the Exchange would not modify the types of standards to be used without
changing its rules. The Exchange also proposed to amend PCXE Rule 7.22
to provide the Corporation with the ability to limit the number of DMMs
with prior written notice to ETP Holders. Lastly, PCXE Rule 7.25 would
be modified to require LMMs to register as Odd Lot Dealers in the
securities in which they are registered as LMM.
    The PCX also sought to modify its Directed Order process in a
number of ways. First, the Exchange proposed to add a provision that
requires Users \7\ to be given permission by DMMs in order to send a
Directed Order to that DMM. The Exchange also proposed to eliminate the
provision limiting the Directed Order Process to the Core Trading
Session and proposed to eliminate a provision that suspends the
Directed Order Process when a locked or crossed market exists in a
security. In addition, the amendment to the definition would also make
clear that a Directed Fill specifies the size and price of the Directed
Fill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See PCXE Rule 1.1(yy).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposed that marketable Directed Orders would
first attempt to match against the DMM to which the order has been
directed, but that, prior to execution, Directed Orders matched against
DMMs pursuant to their Directed Fill instructions first would be
executed against any displayed order in the Arca Book priced at or
better than the terms of the Directed Fill before executing as a
directed match.\8\ If such matched orders are broken up by orders on
the Arca Book, the remaining portion of the Directed Order would be
posted in the Arca Book. Lastly, the Exchange proposed to delete a
reference in the Directed Order Process rules restricting the price at
which executions can occur within the Directed Order Process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Accordingly, a Directed Order would only execute against a
Directed Fill at a price superior to the Arca best bid or offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange proposed to remove provisions in
PCXE Rule 7.34(d) that limit the availability of the Directed Order
Process during the Opening Session and Late Trading Session.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning Amendment No. 2, including whether Amendment No. 2
is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-PCX-2005-56 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PCX-2005-56. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, 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 inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, Station
Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing
also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of the PCX. All comments received will be posted without change;
the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PCX-
2005-56 and should be submitted on or before December 22, 2005.

IV. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\9\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposal, as amended, is consistent with the provisions of section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ which requires, among other things, that a
national securities exchange's rules be designed to prevent fraud and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and to perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and;
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, the two new classifications of Market Makers,
DMMs and LMMs, would be entitled to receive Directed Orders. In
exchange for this benefit, the Exchange would subject DMMs and LMMs to
certain selection criteria and ongoing performance standards. In
addition, DMMs and LMMs must comply with obligations currently set
forth in the Exchange's rules. In particular, DMMs and LMMs would be
required to maintain continuous two-sided Q Orders in those securities
in which they are eligible to receive Directed Orders and to engage in
a course of dealings to assist in the maintenance of fair and orderly
markets. The Commission believes that providing the benefit of
receiving Directed Orders to DMMs and LMMs while in turn holding DMMs
and LMMs to increased obligations to the market is consistent with the
Act. The Commission notes that the Exchange would hold an LMM to higher
standards than a DMM. The Commission believes that applying a higher
standard to LLMs is appropriate because LMMs would have exclusive
access to participate in the Directed Order Process as a Market Maker
for primary listings.
    The Commission also believes that the amendments to the operation
of the Directed Order Process are consistent with the Act. In this
regard, the Commission notes that if there is an order displayed on the
Arca Book at a price that is at or better than the price of a Directed
Fill, the Directed Order would not execute against the Directed Fill.
Further, the Commission notes that executions in the Directed Order
process may not take place at prices inferior to the NBBO.\11\
Accordingly, in order for a DMM or LMM to receive a Directed Order
execution, the DMM or LMM must improve the best displayed price on the
Arca Book, and such price must be equal to or better than the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See PCXE Rule 7.37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission emphasizes that approval of this proposal does not
affect a broker-dealer's duty of best execution. A broker-dealer has a
legal duty to seek to obtain best execution of customer orders, and any
decision to preference a particular DMM or LMM must be consistent with
this duty.\12\ A broker-dealer's duty of best execution derives from
common law agency principles and fiduciary obligations, and is
incorporated in Self-Regulatory Organization rules and, through
judicial and Commission decisions, the antifraud provisions of the
Federal securities laws.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g, Newton v. Merrill, Lynch Pierce, Fenner & Smith,
Inc., 135 F.3d 266, 269-70, 274 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S.
811 (1998); Certain Market Making Activities on Nasdaq, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 40900 (January 11, 1999) (settled case)
(citing Sinclair v. SEC, 444 F.2d 399 (2d Cir. 1971); Arleen Hughes,
27 SEC 629, 636 (1948), aff'd sub nom. Hughes v. SEC. 174 F.2d 969
(D.C. Cir. 1949)). See also Order Execution Obligations, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 37619A (September 6, 1996), 61 FR 48290
(September 12, 1996) (``Order Handling Rules Release'').
    \13\ Order Handling Rules Release, 61 FR at 48322. See also
Newton, 135 F3.d at 270. Failure to satisfy the duty of best
execution can constitute fraud because a broker-dealer, in agreeing
to execute a customer's order, makes an implied representation that
it will execute it in a manner that maximizes the customer's
economic gain in the transaction. See Newton, 135 F.3d at 273
(``[T]he basis for the duty of best execution is the mutual
understanding that the client is engaging in the trade--and
retaining the services of the broker as his agent--solely for the
purpose of maximizing his own economic benefit, and that the broker
receives her compensation because she assists the client in reaching
that goal.''); Marc N. Geman, Securities Exchange Act Release No.
43963 (February 14, 2001) (citing Newton, but concluding that
respondent fulfilled his duty of best execution). See also Payment
for Order Flow, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34902 (October
27, 1994), 59 FR 55006, 55009 (Nov. 2, 1994) (``Payment for Order
Flow Final Rules''). If the broker-dealer intends not to act in a
manner that maximizes the customer's benefit when he accepts the
order and does not disclose this to the customer, the broker-
dealer's implied representation is false. See Newton, 135 F.3d at
273-274.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The duty of best execution requires broker-dealers to execute
customers' trades at the most favorable terms reasonably available
under the circumstances, i.e., at the best reasonably available
price.\14\ The duty of best execution requires broker-dealers to
periodically assess the quality of competing markets to assure that
order flow is directed to the markets providing the most beneficial
terms for their customer orders.\15\ Broker-dealers

must examine their procedures for seeking to obtain best execution in
light of market and technology changes and modify those practices if
necessary to enable their customers to obtain the best reasonably
available prices.\16\ In doing so, broker-dealers must take into
account price improvement opportunities, and whether different markets
may be more suitable for different types of orders or particular
securities.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Newton, 135 F.3d at 270. Newton also noted certain factors
relevant to best execution--order size, trading characteristics of
the security, speed of execution, clearing costs, and the cost and
difficulty of executing an order in a particular market. Id. at 270
n. 2 (citing Payment for Order Flow, Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 33026 (October 6, 1993), 58 FR 52934, 52937-38 (October 13,
1993) (Proposed Rules)). See In re E.F. Hutton & Co. (``Manning''),
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 25887 (July 6, 1988). See also
Payment for Order Flow Final Rules, 59 FR at 55008-55009.
    \15\ Order Handling Rules Release, 61 FR at 48322-48333 (``In
conducting the requisite evaluation of its internal order handling
procedures, a broker-dealer must regularly and rigorously examine
execution quality likely to be obtained from different markets or
market makers trading a security.''). See also Newton, 135 F.3d at
271; Market 2000: An Examination of Current Equity Market
Developments V-4 (SEC Division of Market Regulation January 1994)
(``Without specific instructions from a customer, however, a broker-
dealer should periodically assess the quality of competing markets
to ensure that its order flow is directed to markets providing the
most advantageous terms for the customer's order.''); Payment for
Order Flow Final Rules, 59 FR at 55009.
    \16\ Order Handling Rules, 61 FR at 48323.
    \17\ Order Handling Rules, 61 FR at 48323. For example, in
connection with orders that are to be executed at a market opening
price. ``[b]roker-dealers are subject to a best execution duty in
executing customer orders at the opening, and should take into
account the alternative methods in determining how to obtain best
execution for their customer orders.'' Disclosure of Order Execution
and Routing Practices, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43590
(November 17, 2000), 65 FR 75414, 75422 (December 1, 2000) (adopting
new Rules 11Ac1-5 and 11Ac1-6 under the Act and noting that
alternative methods offered by some Nasdaq market centers for pre-
open orders included the mid-point of the spread or at the bid or
offer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Commission finds good cause for approving
Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day
after the amendment is published for comment in the Federal Register
pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act.\18\ Amendment No. 2 clarified
that the Exchange proposed to make the Directed Order Process available
during the Opening Session and the Late Trading Session. The Commission
does not believe that Amendment No. 2 materially affects the original
proposed rule change, as amended, or that it presents any novel
regulatory issues. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause to
accelerate approval of Amendment No. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\19\ that the proposed rule change (SR-PCX-2005-56), as amended by
Amendment No. 1, be, and it hereby is, approved, and that Amendment No.
2 is approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-6732 Filed 11-30-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 215 (Thursday, November 5, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70710-70711]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24555]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2008-0331]

Pipeline Safety: Request for Special Permit; Columbia Gas
Transmission, L.L.C.

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is publishing this notice to solicit public comments on
a request for a special permit renewal and the addition of special
permit segments received from the Columbia Gas Transmission, L.L.C.
(TCO). The special permit request is seeking relief from compliance
with certain requirements in the Federal pipeline safety regulations.
At the conclusion of the 30-day comment period, PHMSA will review the
comments received from this notice as part of its evaluation to grant
or deny the special permit request.

DATES: Submit any comments regarding this special permit request by
December 7, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Comments should reference the docket number for this
specific special permit request and may be submitted in the following
ways:
     E-Gov Website: http://www.Regulations.gov. This site
allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice
issued by any agency.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Docket Management System: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: You should identify the docket number for the special
permit request you are commenting on at the beginning of your comments.
If you submit your comments by mail, please submit two (2) copies. To
receive confirmation that PHMSA has received your comments, please
include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit
comments at http://www.Regulations.gov.

    Note:  There is a privacy statement published on http://www.Regulations.gov. Comments, including any personal information
provided, are posted without changes or edits to http://www.Regulations.gov.

    Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business
Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both
customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from
public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this notice contain
commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as
private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this notice, it is important that you clearly designate
the submitted comments as CBI. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Sec.  190.343, you may ask PHMSA to give confidential
treatment to information you give to the agency by taking the following
steps: (1) Mark each page of the original document submission
containing CBI as ``Confidential''; (2) send PHMSA, along with the
original document, a second copy of the original document with the CBI
deleted; and (3) explain why the information you are submitting is CBI.
Unless you are notified otherwise, PHMSA will treat such marked
submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed
in the public docket of this notice. Submissions containing CBI should
be sent to Kay McIver, DOT, PHMSA-PHP-80, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Any commentary PHMSA receives that is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this matter.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    General: Ms. Kay McIver by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Technical: Mr. Steve Nanney by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PHMSA received a special permit request for
the renewal and addition of pipeline segments from TCO seeking a waiver
from the requirements of 49 CFR 192.611(a): Change in class location:
Confirmation or revision of maximum allowable operating pressure. This
special permit is being requested in lieu of pipe replacement or
pressure reduction for 8 special permit segments consisting of 2.76
miles in 4 existing special permit segments and an additional 1.22
miles in 4 new special permit segments on the TCO pipeline system. The
3.98 miles of proposed special permit segments are located in

Putnam and Kanawha Counties, West Virginia. The TCO pipeline class
locations in the special permit segments have changed from a Class 1 to
a Class 3 location. The TCO pipeline special permit segments are 30-
inch diameter pipelines with an existing maximum allowable operating
pressure of either 920 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) or 935 psig.
The special permit segments are comprised of the 30-inch diameter SM80
Pipeline installed in 1955 and the 30-inch diameter SM80 Loop Pipeline
installed between 1967 and 1969.
    The special permit request, proposed special permit with
conditions, and Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the TCO
pipeline are available for review and public comment in Docket No.
PHMSA-2008-0331. We invite interested persons to review and submit
comments on the special permit request and DEA in the docket. Please
include any comments on potential safety and environmental impacts that
may result if the special permit is granted. Comments may include
relevant data.
    Before issuing a decision on the special permit request, PHMSA will
evaluate all comments received on or before the comment closing date.
Comments received after the closing date will be evaluated, if it is
possible to do so without incurring additional expense or delay. PHMSA
will consider each relevant comment it receives in making its decision
to grant or deny this special permit request.

    Issued in Washington, DC under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2020-24555 Filed 11-4-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 33 (Friday, February 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8502-8503]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03468]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0584]

Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee, the
Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee, and the Pediatric
Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of public advisory
committees of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Names of Committees: Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products
Advisory Committee, the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory
Committee, and the Pediatric Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committees: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on September 15, 2016, from
8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and September 16, 2016, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Addresses: FDA is opening a docket for public comment on this
meeting. The docket number is FDA-2016-N-0584. The docket will open for
public comment on February 19, 2016. The docket will close on September
30, 2016. Interested persons may submit either electronic or written
comments regarding this meeting. Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments received will be posted
without change, including any personal information provided. It is only
necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the
docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Comments received on
or before August 31, 2016, will be provided to the committee before the
meeting.
    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building
31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD
20993-0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information
regarding special accommodations due

to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed
at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.
    Contact Person: Stephanie L. Begansky, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:
301-847-8533, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee
Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC
area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications
that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot
always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore,
you should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.
    Agenda: The purpose of this public advisory committee meeting is to
discuss the appropriate development plans for establishing the safety
and efficacy of prescription opioid analgesics for pediatric patients,
including obtaining pharmacokinetic data and the use of extrapolation.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committees.
All electronic and written submissions submitted to the docket (see
ADDRESSES) on or before August 31, 2016, will be provided to the
committees. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 8:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. on September 16, 2016.
Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should
notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general
nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and
addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before
August 23, 2016. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If
the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the
scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify
interested persons regarding their request to speak by August 24, 2016.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Stephanie L. Begansky at least 7 days in advance of the
meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: February 16, 2016.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2016-03468 Filed 2-18-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 113 (Thursday, June 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33756-33757]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13788]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-D-0984]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry
on Specification of the Unique Facility Identifier System for Drug
Establishment Registration

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Fax or email written comments on the collection of information
by July 14, 2014.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0045.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Registration of Producers of Drugs and Listing of Drugs in Commercial
Distribution (OMB Control Number 0910-0045)

    In the Federal Register of September 6, 2013 (78 FR 54899), FDA
announced the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled
``Specification of the Unique Facility Identifier (UFI) System

for Drug Establishment Registration.'' Sections 701 and 702 of the Food
and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) (Pub. L.
112-144) direct the Secretary to specify the UFI system for
registration of domestic and foreign drug establishments. Once the UFI
system is specified, section 510 of the Federal, Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as amended, requires that each initial and
annual drug establishment registration include a UFI (21 U.S.C. 360(b),
(c), and (i)). This draft guidance specifies the UFI system as follows.
At this time, FDA's preferred UFI for a drug establishment is the Data
Universal Numbering System D-U-N-S (DUNS) number, assigned and managed
by Dun and Bradstreet. The DUNS number is available free of charge to
all drug establishments and may be obtained by visiting the Web site
for Dun and Bradstreet. As explained in the guidance, however, if a
company wants to use an alternative UFI for its drug establishment, it
may contact FDA via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    OMB has previously approved existing information collections
associated with the electronic submission of initial and annual
registration of domestic and foreign drug establishments, as described
in part 207 (21 CFR part 207) and the guidance document ``Providing
Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format--Drug Establishment
Registration and Drug Listing'' (the 2009 Guidance) (available at
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM072339.pdf), under
OMB control number 0910-0045. The Food and Drug Administration
Amendments Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-85) required that drug
establishment registration and drug listing information must be
submitted electronically unless a waiver is granted. As part of its
recommendations to facilitate electronic submission of drug
establishment registration information, as required by statute, the
2009 guidance explained that FDA is adopting the use of extensible
markup language files in a standard structured product labeling format
for the electronic submission of drug establishment registration and
drug listing information. The 2009 guidance also explained that the
automated submission process functions most efficiently and effectively
when the information is provided in a standardized format with defined
code sets and codes. In addition, the 2009 guidance requested, among
other things, the electronic submission of a site-specific DUNS number
for each entity as part of the registration information submitted
electronically. In FDA's experience, all firms currently registered
with FDA under section 510 of the FD&C Act and part 207 have submitted
their DUNS number as requested in the 2009 guidance.
    The guidance modifies the currently approved information
collections associated with drug establishment registration, consistent
with subsequent statutory enactment. In July 2012, Congress enacted
FDASIA, sections 701 and 702 of which direct the Secretary to specify
the UFI system for registration of domestic and foreign drug
establishments. Once the UFI system is specified, section 510 of the
FD&C Act, as amended, requires that each initial and annual drug
establishment registration include a UFI. Because drug firms generally
possess, and for those already registered, have previously provided, a
DUNS number for each facility, FDA expects that consistent with the
proposed UFI system, they will submit DUNS numbers as the UFIs for drug
establishments. Although the change in statutory authority described in
this document will alter the legal basis for submission of the DUNS
number, it is not expected to have any other impact on the previously
approved collection of information. FDA expects that the DUNS number
will continue to be submitted by the same respondents, with the same
frequency, as part of the same electronic registration submission
previously approved under the PRA, and the Agency will continue to use
the information for the same purposes, in furtherance of its mission to
protect the public health.
    While FDA anticipates that firms will submit DUNS as UFI, the
guidance also suggests that firms who want to submit an alternative
identifier contact FDA. FDA estimates that no more than one respondent
per year will invoke this option. FDA estimates that it would require
on average 1 hour for a company to contact FDA and identify its
proposed alternative UFI.
    In the Federal Register of September 6, 2013 (78 FR 54899), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. FDA received three comments that did not
pertain to the information collection. Upon review of these comments
FDA does not plan to revise the information collection.

    Dated: June 9, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-13788 Filed 6-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: May 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 94)]
[Notices]
[Page 27868-27869]
[DOCID:fr14my08-110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on May 15, 2008 at
10 a.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Atkins, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.

    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for May 15, 2008
will be:
    Formal orders of investigation;
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an
enforcement nature;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and an
    Adjudicatory matter.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 8, 2008.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-10721 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: September 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 183)]
[Notices]
[Page 54017-54018]
[DOCID:fr21se07-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[IC07-555-001, FERC 555]

Commission Information Collection Activities, Proposed
Collection; Comment Request; Extension

September 6, 2007.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3507 of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) has submitted the information
collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and extension of this information collection requirement.
Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should
address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below.
The Commission did not receive any comments in response to an earlier
Federal Register notice of May 7, 2007

(72 FR 26086-87) and has made this notification in its submission to
OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by October 12,
2007.

ADDRESSES: Address comments on the collection of information to the
Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer.
Comments to OMB should be filed electronically, c/o
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and include the OMB Control No. as a point of

reference. The Desk Officer may be reached by telephone at 202-395-
7345. A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Office of the Executive Director, ED-34,
Attention: Michael Miller, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Comments may be filed either in paper format or electronically. Those
persons filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. For
paper filings an original and 14 copies, of such comments should be
submitted to the Secretary of the Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 and should
refer to Docket No. IC07-555-001.
    Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in
WordPerfect, MS Word, Portable Document Format, or ASCII format. To
file the document, access the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
 and click on ``Make an E-Filing,'' and then follow the

instructions for each screen. First time users will have to establish a
user name and password. The Commission will send an automatic
acknowledgement to the sender's e-mail address upon receipt of
comments. User assistance for electronic filings is available at 202-
502-8258 or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments should not be
submitted to this e-mail address.
    All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the
Internet through FERC's homepage using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For user assistance, contact
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER> or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Miller may be reached by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Description

    The information collection submitted for OMB review contains the
following:
    1. Collection of Information: FERC 555 ``Records Retention
Requirements''.
    2. Sponsor: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    3. Control No.: 1902-0098.
    The Commission is now requesting that OMB approve and extend the
expiration date for an additional three years with no changes to the
existing collection. The records retained by jurisdictional companies
as directed by the Commission are the result of a mandatory
requirement.
    4. Necessity of the Collection of Information: Submission of the
information is necessary for the Commission to carry out its
responsibilities in implementing the statutory provisions of the
sections 301, 304 and 309 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) and sections
8, 10 and 16 of the Natural Gas Act, and section 20 of the Interstate
Commerce Act.
    The regulations for preservation of records establish retention
periods, necessary guidelines and requirements to sustain retention of
applicable records for the regulated public utilities, natural gas and
oil pipeline companies subject to the Commission's jurisdiction. These
records are used by the regulated companies as the basis of their
required rate filings and reports for the Commission. In addition, the
records will be used by the Commission's audit staff during compliance
reviews, by enforcement staff during investigations and for special
analyses as deemed necessary by the Commission. The Commission
implements these records retention requirements in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) under 18 CFR Parts 125, 225 and 356.
    5. Respondent Description: The respondent universe currently
comprises 515 companies (on average) subject to the Commission's
jurisdiction.
    6. Estimated Burden: 1,237,030 total hours, 515 respondents
(average), 1 response per respondent, and 2,402 hours per response
(rounded off and average time).
    7. Estimated Cost Burden to Respondents: 1,237,030 hours/2080 hours
per year x $122,137 per year = $72,638,045. The cost per respondent is
equal to $141,045.

    Statutory Authority: Statutory provisions of sections 8, 10 and
16 of the NGA (15 U.S.C. 717-717w); sections 301, 304 and 309 of the
Federal Power Act; and section 20 of the ICA, 49 U.S.C. 20.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-18650 Filed 9-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 54 (Thursday, March 19, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15837-15841]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05679]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88380; File No. SR-DTC-2020-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Amend the DTC Fee Guide To Add Fees Relating to the Provision of
Status Information for Institutional Transactions to a Matching Utility

March 13, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 6, 2020, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been
prepared by the clearing agency. DTC filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\3\ The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change of DTC is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
The proposed rule change would amend the Guide to the DTC Fee Schedule
(``Fee Guide'') \4\ to add a fee and other charge relating to the
provision of status information (``Status Information'') for
institutional transactions in Eligible Securities (``Institutional
Transactions'') \5\ to an entity providing a matching service \6\
(``Matching Utility''), as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Each capitalized term not otherwise defined herein has its
respective meaning as set forth in the Fee Guide and the Rules, By-
Laws and Organization Certificate of DTC (the ``Rules''), available
at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.aspx.
    \5\ An Institutional Transaction is a securities transaction
between a broker-dealer and its institutional customer (e.g., sell-
side firms, buy-side institutions, and custodians).
    \6\ A ``matching service'' is an electronic service to match
trade information, centrally, between a broker-dealer and its
institutional customer. The matching service intermediary matches
(i.e., reconciles) trade information from the counterparties to an
Institutional Transaction, to generate an affirmed transaction
(``Affirmed Transaction'') which is then used to provide settlement
instructions for the Affirmed Transactions to the central securities
depository, such as DTC, at which the Affirmed Transaction settles.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39829 (April 6, 1998), 63 FR
17943 (April 13, 1998) at 17946 (providing interpretive guidance on
types of entities that may provide a matching service).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to an approved DTC rule change (``Status Information Rule
Change''),\7\ DTC will implement changes to the DTC Settlement Service
Guide \8\ (``Settlement Guide'') to allow DTC to provide Status
Information for an Institutional Transaction to a Matching Utility.
Upon implementation of the Status Information Rule Change, the related
amendment to the Settlement Guide will allow the Matching Utility to
further provide the Status Information to the counterparties to an
Institutional Transaction to facilitate coordination of

the resolution of a processing exception (``Exception'') between the
counterparties. Pursuant to the Status Information Rule Change, the
Status Information Rule Change will become effective upon the filing of
the amendment to the Fee Guide proposed herein, and therefore would
become effective upon the filing of the of proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86589 (August 7,
2019), 84 FR 40107 (August 13, 2018) (SR-DTC-2018-010).
    \8\ Available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/
legal/service-guides/Settlement.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

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

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The proposed rule change would amend the Fee Guide to add a fee and
other charge relating to provision of Status Information for
Institutional Transactions to a Matching Utility, as described below.
    Pursuant to the Status Information Rule Change, DTC will implement
changes to the Settlement Guide to allow DTC to provide Status
Information for an Institutional Transaction to a Matching Utility.
Upon implementation of the Status Information Rule Change, the related
amendment to the Settlement Guide will allow the Matching Utility to
further provide the Status Information to the counterparties to an
Institutional Transaction to facilitate coordination of the resolution
of an Exception between the counterparties. Pursuant to the Status
Information Rule Change, the Status Information Rule Change will become
effective upon the filing of the amendment to the Fee Guide proposed
herein, and therefore would become effective upon the filing of the
proposed rule change.
Background
    DTC may accept Institutional Transactions from a Matching Utility
that is (i) a clearing agency registered pursuant to Section 17A of the
Act,\9\ (ii) an entity that has obtained an exemption from such
registration from the Commission, or (iii) a ``qualified vendor'' for
trade confirmation/affirmation services as defined by the rules of a
self-regulatory organization.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \10\ See Settlement Guide, supra note 8 at 36, available at
http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The submission of an Affirmed Transaction by the Matching Utility
to DTC, on behalf of a Participant, constitutes the duly authorized
instruction of the Participant to DTC to process the Affirmed
Transaction in accordance with the Rules and Procedures.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A transaction submitted to DTC for processing may be subject to a
processing Exception, causing it to recycle in the DTC system or not be
processed because the transaction does not satisfy certain requirements
and/or controls set forth in the Rules and Settlement Guide.\12\ A
Matching Utility that has submitted an Institutional Transaction to DTC
or is otherwise involved with the matching of a transaction, does not
receive Status Information regarding the transaction and is therefore
unable to provide services to facilitate resolution of processing
Exceptions occurring at DTC. Therefore, to resolve an Exception, the
Participants to an Institutional Transaction must (i) access Status
Information directly through the DTC Settlement User Interface and
(ii), as necessary, supply the information to their customers that are
counterparties to the transaction on their books, to facilitate the
coordination of the resolution of the Exception among the
counterparties. Pursuant to the Status Information Rule Change,\13\ DTC
will implement changes to the Settlement Guide to allow DTC to provide
Status Information for an Institutional Transaction to a Matching
Utility. The proposal would allow the Matching Utility to further
provide the Status Information to the counterparties to the
Institutional Transaction to facilitate coordination of the resolution
of Exceptions among counterparties.\14\ The Status Information Rule
Change would provide that DTC may charge a fee (``Status Information
Fee'') to a Matching Utility that receives Status Information as set
forth in the DTC Fee Guide.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Settlement Guide, supra note 8, at 55-62 for addition
information relating to recycling processing of transactions.
    \13\ See supra note 7.
    \14\ DTC has been informed by its Matching Utility affiliate,
ITP Matching (US) LLC (``ITP''), that institutional clients are
expected to realize enhanced efficiencies in terms of time for
resolution of exceptions. This is due to the ability institutional
clients would have through the matching utility to view exceptions
in a central interface rather than having to obtain exception
information separately by each DTC Participant they engage with for
the matching of transactions. The proposed rule change would not
change or have any effect on Participants' ability to continue to
access Status Information directly through the DTC Settlement User
Interface.
    \15\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, pursuant to the Status Information Rule Change, DTC
would develop the mechanism (``Non-Submitting Matching Utility
Interface'') necessary for DTC to directly provide Status Information
to a Matching Utility for each transaction submitted to DTC to which a
customer of the Matching Utility is a party to the transaction and
matched the transaction via the Matching Utility, regardless of whether
or not that Matching Utility submitted the transaction to DTC, subject
to (i) the agreement by the Matching Utility to pay DTC for the
reasonable cost (``Status Information Development Charge'') to cover
the development of the mechanism by DTC and (ii) the Matching Utility
subscribing to receive Status Information, as described above. To the
extent that the transaction is an interoperable transaction submitted
to DTC by another Matching Utility, then to receive Status Information
for the interoperable transaction, the Matching Utility would be
required to submit an indicator to DTC for notifying DTC that a
customer of the Matching Utility is a party to the transaction.
    Any Matching Utility that satisfies requirements set forth in the
Status Information Rule Change may become a subscriber to receive
Status Information. DTC is aware of three Matching Utilities,
specifically Bloomberg STP LLC (``Bloomberg''), ITP and SS&C
Technologies, Inc (``SS&C''), that would be eligible to subscribe to
receive Status Information.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In 2001, the Commission issued an order providing for
exemption from registration as a clearing agency for ITP's
predecessor. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44188 (April
17, 2001), 66 FR 20494 (April 23, 2001) (600-32) (Global Joint
Venture Matching Services--US, LLC; Order Granting Exemption from
Registration as a Clearing Agency). In 2015, the Commission issued
an order providing for exemption from registration as a clearing
agency for both Bloomberg and SS&C. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 76514 (November 24, 2015), 80 FR 75387 (December 1,
2015) (600-33, 600-34) (Bloomberg STP LLC; SS&C Technologies, Inc.;
Order of the Commission Approving Applications for an Exemption from
Registration as a Clearing Agency; Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    Pursuant to the proposed rule change, DTC would amend the Fee Guide
to implement the following fee and other charge, as follows:
    a. To cover the cost of providing a Matching Utility with Status
Information, DTC would amend the Fee

Guide to add the Status Information Fee in the amount of $90,000 per
year. The proposed Status Information Fee is structured to use a flat
annual fee rather than a volume-based fee, because DTC's ongoing
estimated support costs relating to providing Status Information to a
Matching Utility are fixed and are not expected to fluctuate based on
message volume. DTC expects to incur a unique cost of $90,000 annually
for each Matching Utility that subscribes to receive Status Information
and therefore the Status Information Fee would be charged on an annual
basis to each Matching Utility that subscribes to receive Status
Information in accordance with the Status Information Proposal.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ As mentioned above, the proposed Status Information Fee is
structured to use a flat annual fee rather than a volume-based fee,
because DTC's ongoing estimated support costs relating to providing
Status Information to a Matching Utility are fixed and are not
expected to fluctuate based on message volume. The cost assumptions
used by DTC to calculate the Status Information Fee include direct
technology costs to support the provision of Status Information to a
Matching Utility, plus allocated costs based on anticipated indirect
support. The direct technology costs include basic production
support, as well as enhancements and maintenance required as part of
ongoing production support. The allocated indirect costs are
estimated using the actual indirect cost attribution for the
Settlement business within DTC, including costs relating to product
support, risk management, client support, infrastructure support and
other internal support services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. DTC would amend the Fee Guide to add the Status Information
Development Charge. The Status Information Development Charge would be
listed in the Fee Guide as a one-time charge, charged ``At cost'',\18\
and would billed to a Matching Utility in the amount to cover the
reasonable cost to DTC to develop a Non-Submitting Matching Utility
Interface for the Matching Utility that agrees in writing
(``Agreement'') to pay the Status Information Development Charge and
subscribes to receive Status Information, as described above.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ ``At cost'' for this purpose means that the Status
Information Development Charge would equal the total cost for DTC to
establish the interface with respect to a given Matching Utility. In
this regard, the amount of the Status Information Development Charge
charged to a Matching Utility would be calculated based on actual
cost to DTC to establish the interface once the total development
and testing of the interface for the Matching Utility is complete
and the actual cost to DTC is known. DTC estimates the total cost to
DTC to produce the Non-Submitting Matching Utility Interface for the
first subscriber that requests it as approximately $300,000. This
cost estimate is based on estimated costs to DTC related to
applications development, end to end functional testing, user
acceptance testing and performance testing. However, costs to DTC
could vary depending in part on specifications requested by the
Matching Utility and the variability in development expenses over
time. If DTC's calculation of the Status Information Development
Charge for any Matching Utility materially differs in an amount
greater than the estimate of $300,000 stated above, DTC would submit
a proposed rule change that includes a new estimate.
    \19\ The Agreement would include any related terms and
conditions as negotiated between DTC and the Matching Utility and be
accompanied by a statement of work prepared by DTC that outlines
work to be performed by DTC to develop the interface and includes an
estimate of the related costs used by DTC to calculate the Status
Information Development Charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC believes that the cost to DTC to establish access to the Non-
Submitting Matching Utility Interface for a second or subsequent
Matching Utility that subscribes once the interface has been
established may be substantially less than the initial development
cost. Therefore, the Status Information Development Charge charged to a
second or subsequent Matching Utility that requests access to the
interface may be lower than the Status Information Development Charge
charged to the initial Matching Utility that requests the initial
development of the Non-Submitting Matching Utility Interface. This
presumes that DTC would be able to leverage prior work done by it to
establish the interface and depends in part on specifications requested
by a Matching Utility and the variability in development expenses over
time. In this regard, the Status Information Development Charge charged
to a Matching Utility would reflect the actual cost to DTC to provide
that Matching Utility with access to the Non-Submitting Matching
Utility Interface, including, but not limited to, as applicable, taking
into account available cost reductions resulting from DTC's prior
development of the Non-Submitting Matching Utility Interface with
respect to the initial requester and additional development and testing
costs incurred by DTC in order to meet specifications requested by the
Matching Utility.
Implementation Timeframe
    The proposed rule change would become effective upon filing with
the Commission.
2. Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) \20\ of the Act requires that the rules of the
clearing agency be designed, inter alia, to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions. DTC
believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with this
provision because the proposed fees would offset costs incurred by DTC
in providing Status Information to Matching Utilities. As described
above, the Status Information Fee is designed to cover the costs to DTC
for the continued offering of Status Information to a Matching Utility
and the Status Information Development Charge is designed to cover the
costs to DTC for development of the Non-Submitting Matching Utility
Interface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By allowing DTC to cover the costs associated with providing Status
Information to Matching Utilities, the proposed rule change would
facilitate the distribution of information on Exceptions to these
parties. This distribution of Status Information would allow for
enhanced communication among the parties to an Eligible Transaction to
address an Exception so that the Eligible Transaction may be processed.
Therefore, by allowing DTC to cover its costs associated with its
facilitating the distribution of Status Information to a Matching
Utility, and thereby facilitating the ability of a Matching Utility to
provide this information to the applicable parties to an Eligible
Transaction that may address related Exceptions and resolve related
issues so that a transaction may be processed for settlement, DTC
believes that the proposed rule change would promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions consistent
with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(D) \22\ of the Act requires that the rules of the
clearing agency provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its participants. The Status
Information Fee and Status Information Development Charge proposed
herein are not participant fees but rather would be charged to Matching
Utilities. Nonetheless, DTC believes that the proposed rule change
would provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among
Matching Utilities that subscribe to receive Status Information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in Item II.(A) above, the proposed Status Information
Fee is structured to use a flat annual fee rather than a volume-based
fee, because DTC's ongoing estimated support costs relating to
providing Status Information to a Matching Utility are fixed and are
not expected to fluctuate based on message volume. As described in Item
II.(A) 1. above, the cost assumptions used by DTC to calculate the
Status Information Fee include direct technology costs to support the
provision of Status Information to a Matching Utility, plus allocated
costs based on anticipated indirect support. The direct costs are based
on required technology support

for the new service. The allocated indirect costs are estimated using
the actual indirect cost attribution for the Settlement business within
DTC. DTC believes the proposed flat fee would be equitably allocated
because it would require a Matching Utility to pay DTC a fee for the
cost DTC believes would be directly attributable to the Matching
Utility's request to receive Status Information, as described
above.\23\ DTC believes the proposed Status Information Fee is
reasonable because, as described above, it is based the actual direct
and attributed costs DTC expects to incur by providing the information
to a Matching Utility that subscribes to receive it consistent with
Section 17(A)(b)(3)(D) of the Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ If the fee was structured differently, such as by using a
volume-based fee, it is possible that a Matching Utility could be
charged less or more than the actual cost for DTC to provide the
service to that Matching Utility, which DTC believes would not be
equitable, because by DTC establishing the fee using a volume-based
structure, a Matching Utility could end up paying total fees that
are higher or lower than those paid by another Matching Utility for
a product that costs DTC the same amount to provide to the Matching
Utility, regardless of the transaction volume associated with the
Matching Utility.
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    DTC believes that the proposed changes to the Fee Schedule could
impose a burden on competition because it would implement a new fee and
a new charge payable by a Matching Utility that subscribes for a
voluntary service to receive Status Information from DTC, thereby
potentially creating costs to a Matching Utility not previously charged
for a voluntary service not previously provided.
    DTC believes the primary benefit a Matching Utility would realize
from its receipt of Status Information from DTC would be the added
value the Matching Utility could provide in its services to its
customers through the reduction of costs to those customers, as
described below. In this regard, if the Status Information received by
a Matching Utility from DTC was provided by the Matching Utility to its
customers, it would facilitate the ability of customers of the Matching
Utility to efficiently monitor and resolve Exceptions by accessing
Status Information from a centralized point of access as opposed to
through multiple entities. In this regard, DTC does not believe that
any burden on competition imposed by the proposed changes to the Fee
Schedule would be significant in relation to the benefit a Matching
Utility could realize by receiving Status Information from DTC. By
allowing DTC to meet its costs in providing Status Information to a
Matching Utility in a centralized format, as described above, the
proposed rule change would allow DTC to provide Status Information to a
Matching Utility, which would facilitate the Matching Utility's ability
to provide its customers with enhanced value in its services, by
facilitating reductions in costs incurred by the Matching Utility's
customers regarding the monitoring of Exceptions by providing a
centralized point of access to Status Information rather than receiving
information through multiple entities.
    DTC believes that any burden on competition that is created by the
proposed changes to the Fee Schedule would be necessary and appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act,\25\ as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any burden on competition that is created by the proposed rule
changes would be necessary in order to facilitate DTC's ability to
provide Status Information to Matching Utilities, as described above,
which would facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement
of related transactions, as described in Item II.(A) 2. above.
    DTC believes that any burden on competition imposed by the proposed
changes to the Fee Schedule would be appropriate because (i) the Status
Information Fee and Status Information Development Charge relate to the
use by a Matching Utility of a voluntary service of DTC and (ii)(a) the
Status Information Fee would only be billed to a Matching Utility that
subscribes to receive Status Information and (b) the Status Information
Development Charge would only be charged to a Matching Utility that
requests that DTC develop a Non-Submitting Matching Utility Interface
for the Matching Utility and agrees in writing to pay the charge and
subscribes to receive Status Information, as described above.
    DTC does not believe the proposed rule change would unduly
disadvantage one Matching Utility versus another, because if a Matching
Utility does not believe Status Information would provide it, or its
customers, with enough benefit under its own business model, it could
choose not to subscribe and not incur the costs of fees proposed above.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments relating to this proposed rule change have not
been solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any
written comments received by DTC.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \26\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\27\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-DTC-2020-005 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2020-005. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official

business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of DTC and on DTCC's website (http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). All comments received will be posted without
change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact
or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2020-005
and should be submitted on or before April 9, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew J. DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-05679 Filed 3-18-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 205 (Monday, October 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65778-65779]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27369]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2011-0273]

Pipeline Safety: Information Collection Activities

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: On August 1, 2011, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, PHMSA published a notice with request for comments in the
Federal Register (76 FR 45904). The notice concerned several pipeline
safety information collections that PHMSA will be submitting to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for renewal and one information
collection that PHMSA intends to discontinue. PHMSA received no
comments on the notice. PHMSA is now forwarding the information
collection request to OMB and providing an additional 30 days for
comments.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments to OMB on or
before November 23, 2011.

ADDRESS: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, directly to OMB, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Desk Officer for the U.S.
Department of Transportation (PHMSA), 725 17th Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Dow by telephone at 202-366-
1246, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by mail at U.S. Department of
Transportation, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., PHP-30, Washington,
DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations, requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public
and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information
collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies several
information collection requests that PHMSA will be submitting to OMB
for renewal and one collection that PHMSA plans to discontinue. The
following information is provided for each information collection: (1)
Title of the information collection; (2) OMB control number; (3)
Current expiration date; (4) Type of request; (5) Abstract of the
information collection activity; (6) Description of affected public;
(7) Estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and
(8) Frequency of collection. Unless otherwise specified, PHMSA will
request a three-year term of approval for each information collection
activity. PHMSA plans to discontinue the following information
collection:
    Title: Pipeline Safety: Excess Flow Valves--Customer Notification.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0593.
    Current Expiration Date: 1/31/2012 (To be discontinued).
    Abstract: Pipeline operators are no longer required to provide
notifications about excess flow valves to service line customers as
described in 49 CFR 192.383.
    Accordingly, PHMSA has decided to discontinue this collection.
    PHMSA requests comments on the following information collections:
    1. Title: Requirements for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facilities.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0048.
    Current Expiration Date: 1/31/2012.
    Abstract: Operators of liquefied natural gas facilities are
required under 49 CFR Part 193 to maintain records, make reports, and
provide information to PHMSA and state pipeline safety agencies
concerning the operations of their facilities. The information aids
Federal and state pipeline safety inspectors in conducting compliance
inspections and investigating incidents.
    Affected Public: Operators of liquefied natural gas facilities.

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden

    Total Annual Responses: 101.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 12,120.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
    2. Title: Recordkeeping for Natural Gas Pipeline Operators.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0049.
    Current Expiration Date: 1/31/2012.
    Abstract: Operators of gas pipelines are required per 49 CFR Part
192 to maintain records, make reports, and provide information to PHMSA
and state pipeline safety agencies concerning the operations of their
pipelines. The information aids Federal and state pipeline safety
inspectors in conducting compliance inspections and investigating
incidents.
    Affected Public: Operators of natural gas pipeline systems.

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden

    Total Annual Responses: 2,300.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 940,454.
    Frequency of collection: On occasion.
    3. Title: Customer-Owned Service Lines.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0594.
    Current Expiration Date: 1/31/2012.
    Abstract: Operators of gas service lines who do not maintain
certain buried piping on behalf of their customers must provide
notification about maintenance to those customers (49 CFR 192.16). Upon
request, an operator must make documentation of compliance available to
PHMSA or the appropriate state regulatory agency.
    Affected Public: Natural gas pipeline operators.

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden

    Total Annual Responses: 550,000.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 9,167.
    Frequency of collection: On occasion.
    4. Title: Pipeline Safety: Qualification of Pipeline Safety,
Training.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0600.
    Current Expiration Date: 2/29/2012.
    Abstract: Pipeline operators are required to have continuing
programs for qualifying and training personnel performing safety-
sensitive functions on pipelines (49 CFR part 192, Subpart N and 49 CFR
part 195, Subpart G). Operators must maintain records, make reports,
and provide information to PHMSA and state pipeline safety agencies
concerning these programs. The information aids Federal and state
pipeline safety inspectors in conducting compliance inspections and
investigating incidents.
    Affected Public: Pipeline operators.

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden

    Total Annual Responses: 22,300.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 466,667.
    Frequency of collection: On occasion.
    5. Title: Pipeline Safety: Report of Abandoned Underwater
Pipelines.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0601.

    Current Expiration Date: 2/29/2012.
    Abstract: Pipeline operators are required to report certain
information about abandoned underwater pipelines to PHMSA (49 CFR
195.59 and 192.727). The information aids Federal and state pipeline
safety inspectors in conducting compliance inspections and
investigating incidents.
    Affected Public: Operators of underwater pipelines.

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden

    Annual Responses: 10.
    Annual Burden Hours: 60.
    Frequency of collection: On occasion.
    6. Title: Pipeline Safety: Integrity Management in High Consequence
Areas for Operators with more than 500 Miles of Hazardous Liquid
Pipelines.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0604.
    Current Expiration Date: 1/31/2012.
    Abstract: Hazardous liquid operators with pipelines in high
consequence areas (i.e., commercially navigable waterways, high
population areas, other populated areas, and unusually sensitive areas
as defined in 49 CFR 195.450) are subject to certain information
collection requirements relative to the Integrity Management Program
provisions of 49 CFR 195.452. This collection, which applies to
operators of more than 500 miles of hazardous liquid pipelines, is
being merged with the information collection under OMB Control Number
2137-0605 which will now cover all hazardous liquid operators with
pipelines in high consequence areas.
    7. Title: Pipeline Safety: Integrity Management in High Consequence
Areas for Operators of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines. (New Title).
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0605.
    Current Expiration Date: 1/31/2012.
    Abstract: Hazardous liquid operators with pipelines in high
consequence areas (i.e., commercially navigable waterways, high
population areas, other populated areas, and unusually sensitive areas
as defined in 49 CFR 195.450) are subject to certain information
collection requirements relative to the Integrity Management Program
provisions of 49 CFR 195.452.
    Affected Public: All pipeline operators of hazardous liquid
pipelines located in high consequence areas.

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden

    Annual Responses: 203.
    Annual Burden Hours: 325,470.
    Frequency of collection: On occasion.
    Comments are invited on:
    (a) The need for the proposed collection of information for the
proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether
the information will have practical utility;
    (b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 17, 2011.
Linda Daugherty,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Policy and Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011-27369 Filed 10-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register: November 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 223)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 68319-68320]
[DOCID:fr18no08-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1091; Airspace Docket No. 08-AAL-32]

Revision of Jet Routes and Federal Airways; Alaska

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the legal descriptions of eight Federal
Airways and one Jet Route that have the Saldo (AK) Nondirectional
Beacon (NDB), AK, included as part of their route structure. The NDB
name is being changed to the Chinook (AUB) NDB. This action is
necessary since the Saldo NDB is no longer being used as an outer
marker, which requires changing the two-letter designation to a three-
letter designation. No changes are being made to the National Airspace
System routing structure or procedures.

DATES: Effective Dates: 0901 UTC, January 15, 2009. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken McElroy, Airspace and Rules Group,
Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The National Flight Data Center has recently identified the need to
change the Saldo NDB name as it is no longer being used as an outer
marker. It is currently identified with the two-letter identifier
``AK''. The new name will be

Chinook, with the three-letter identifier ``AUB''. There are eight Jet
Routes and Federal Airways attached to this NDB. They are J-606, B-27,
G-8, G-12, R-1, R-99, V-619 and T-230. The Federal Airways are further
delineated as Colored, VOR, and Area Navigation Routes. No changes to
routing or procedures are taking place. Accordingly, since this action
merely involves a change in the legal description of the NDB, and does
not involve a change in dimensions or operating requirements of the
airspace, notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553 (b) are
unnecessary.
    Jet Routes are listed in paragraph 2004, Colored Federal Airways
are listed in paragraph 6009, VOR Federal Airways are listed in
paragraph 6010, and United States Area Navigation Routes are listed in
paragraph 6011 of FAA Order 7400.9S, signed October 3, 2008, and
effective October 31, 2008, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The airways listed in this document will be revised
subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by modifying Jet Route J-606, Federal Airways B-27, G-8, G-12,
R-1, R-99, V-619, and U.S. Area Navigation Route T-230, by changing the
name of the Saldo NDB to Chinook (AUB) NDB.
    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.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under Department of Transportation (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. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air
traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it revises Jet Routes and Federal Airways in Alaska.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9S,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed October 3, 2008, and
effective October 31, 2008, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 2004 Jet Routes.

* * * * *

J-606 [Revised]

    From St. Paul Island, AK, NDB; to INT Cape Newenham, AK, NDB,
131[deg] and Chinook, AK, NDB 262[deg] radials; to Chinook, AK, NDB.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6009 (a) Green Federal airways.

* * * * *

G-8 [Revised]

    From Shemya, AK, NDB, 20 AGL; Mount Moffet, AK, NDB, 20 AGL;
Dutch Harbor, AK, NDB, 20 AGL; INT Dutch Harbor, AK, NDB 041[deg]
and Elfee, AK, NDB 253[deg] bearings, 20 AGL; Elfee, AK, NDB, 20
AGL; Chinook, AK, NDB; INT Chinook, AK, NDB 054[deg] and Kachemak,
AK, NDB 269[deg] bearings; to Kachemak, AK, NDB.
* * * * *

G-12 [Revised]

    From Chinook, AK, NDB, 20 AGL; Port Heiden, AK, NDB, 20 AGL;
Borland, AK, NDB; 20 AGL; to Elfee, AK, NDB.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6009(b) Red Federal airways.

* * * * *

R-1 [Revised]

    From St. Paul Island, AK, NDB, 20 AGL; INT Chinook, AK, NDB
262[deg] and Cape Newenham, AK, NDB 131[deg] bearings; to Chinook,
AK, NDB.
* * * * *

R-99 [Revised]

    From St. Paul Island, AK, NDB, 20 AGL; Dutch Harbor, AK, NDB, 20
AGL; Chinook, AK, NDB, 20 AGL; Iliamna, AK, NDB; INT Iliamna, AK,
NDB 124[deg] and Kachemak, AK, NDB 269[deg] bearings; to Kachemak,
AK, NDB.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6009(d) Blue Federal airways.

* * * * *

B-27 [Revised]

    From Woody Island, AK, NDB, 50 miles 12 AGL, 50 miles 95 MSL, 53
miles 12 AGL; Chinook, AK, NDB, 51 miles 12 AGL, 84 miles 70 MSL, 63
miles 12 AGL; Oscarville, AK, NDB; St. Marys, AK, NDB; Fort Davis,
AK, NDB, 35 miles 12 AGL, 71 miles 55 MSL, 54 miles 12 AGL; to
Hotham, AK, NDB.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6010(b) Alaskan VOR Federal airways.

* * * * *

V-619 [Revised]

    From Port Heiden, AK, NDB/DME; via the INT of Port Heiden, AK,
NDB/DME 044[deg] and Chinook, AK, NDB 200[deg] bearings; Chinook,
AK, NDB; Dillingham, AK, VOR/DME 099[deg] radial/47 DME; to
Dillingham, AK, VOR/DME.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

T-230 [Revised]

SPY..................  NDB/DME..............  (Lat. 57[deg]09'28'' N.,
                                               long. 170[deg]13'51'' W.)
AUB..................  NDB..................  (Lat. 58[deg]44'14'' N.,
                                               long. 156[deg]46'40'' W.)

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 6, 2008.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace and Rules Group.
[FR Doc. E8-26941 Filed 11-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P