[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38247-38251]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16271]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75313; File No. SR-BATS-2015-46]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc.

June 26, 2015.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 19, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or changing
a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under
section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. 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)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend its fee schedule applicable
to its equity options platform to: (i) Establish fees for the Multicast
PITCH market data feed; and (ii) add definitions for terms that apply
to market data fees.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule applicable to its
equity options platform to: (i) Establish fees for the Multicast PITCH
market data feed; and (ii) add definitions for terms that apply to
market data fees.

Definitions Applicable to Market Data Fees

    The Exchange proposes to include in its fee schedule the following
defined terms that relate to the Exchange's

market data fees. The proposed definitions are designed to provide
greater transparency with regard to how the Exchange assesses fees for
market data.
    First, the Exchange proposes to define a ``Distributor'' as ``any
entity that receives an Exchange Market Data product directly from the
Exchange or indirectly through another entity and then distributes it
internally or externally to a third party.'' \5\ In turn, an Internal
Distributor and External Distributor will be separately defined. An
Internal Distributor will be defined as a ``Distributor that receives
the Exchange Market Data product and then distributes that data to one
or more Users within the Distributor's own entity.'' \6\ An External
Distributor will be defined as a ``Distributor that receives the
Exchange Market Data product and then distributes that data to a third
party or one or more Users outside the Distributor's own entity.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The proposed definition of ``Distributor'' is based on the
definition of Distributor in fee schedules of the BATS Exchange,
Inc. (``BATS Equities''), the BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (``BYX''), the
EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX''), and the EDGA Exchange, Inc.
(``EDGA'' together with BATS Equities, BYX, and EDGX, the ``BATS
Exchanges''). See the BATS Equities fee schedule available at http://batstrading.com/support/fee_schedule/bzx/, BYX fee schedule
available at http://batstrading.com/support/fee_schedule/byx/, EDGX
fee schedule available at http://batstrading.com/support/fee_schedule/edgx/, and EDGA fee schedule available at http://batstrading.com/support/fee_schedule/edga/ (collectively, the ``BATS
Exchange Fee Schedules'').
    \6\ The proposed definition of ``Internal Distributor'' is
similar to the definition of Internal Distributor in fee schedules
of the BATS Exchanges. Id.
    \7\ The proposed definition of ``External Distributor'' is
similar to the definition of External Distributor in fee schedules
of the BATS Exchanges. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Secondly, the Exchange proposes to add a definition of ``User'' to
its fee schedule. A User will be defined as a ``natural person, a
proprietorship, corporation, partnership, or entity, or device
(computer or other automated service), that is entitled to receive
Exchange data.'' For purposes of its market data fees, the Exchange
will distinguish between ``Non-Professional Users'' and ``Professional
Users.'' Specifically, a Non-Professional User will be defined as ``a
natural person who is not: (i) Registered or qualified in any capacity
with the Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, any
state securities agency, any securities exchange or association; any
commodities or futures contract market or association; (ii) engaged as
an ``investment adviser'' as that term is defined in section 202(a)(11)
of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (whether or not registered or
qualified under that Act); or (iii) employed by a bank or other
organization exempt from registration under federal or state securities
laws to perform functions that will require registration or
qualification if such functions were performed for an organization not
so exempt.'' \8\ A Professional User will be defined as ``any User
other than a Non-Professional User.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The proposed definition of ``Professional User'' is similar
to the definition of Professional User in fee schedules of the BATS
Exchanges. Id.
    \9\ The proposed definition of ``Non-Professional User'' is
similar to the definition of Professional User in fee schedules of
the BATS Exchanges. See BATS Exchange Fee Schedules, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Multicast PITCH Fees

    Multicast PITCH is a market data feed that includes depth of book
quotations and execution information based on options orders traded on
the Exchange.\10\ Currently, the Exchange does not charge any fees for
receipt of Multicast PITCH. The Exchange now proposes to amend its fee
schedule to incorporate fees related to Multicast PITCH. These fees
include the following, each of which are described in detail below: (i)
A Distribution Fee; (ii) Usage Fees for both Professional and Non-
Professional Users; and (iii) an Enterprise Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Exchange Rule 21.15(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Distribution Fee. As proposed, each Distributor that receives
Multicast PITCH shall pay a fee of $1,500 per month. The proposed
Distribution Fee would apply equally to both Internal Distributors and
External Distributors.
    User Fees. The Exchange proposes to charge those who receive
Multicast PITCH from either an Internal or External Distributor
different fees for both their Professional Users and Non-Professional
Users. The Exchange will assess a monthly fee for Professional Users of
$30.00 per User. Non-Professional Users will be assessed a monthly fee
of $1.00 per User.
    Both Internal and External Distributors would be required to count
every Professional User and Non-Professional User to which they provide
Multicast PITCH, the requirements for which are similar to that
currently in place for the BATS One Feed.\11\ Thus, the Distributor's
count will include every person and device that accesses the data
regardless of the purpose for which the individual or device uses the
data. Distributors must report all Professional and Non-Professional
Users in accordance with the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74285 (February
18, 2015), 80 FR 9828 (February 24, 2015) (SR-BATS-2015-11); 74283
(February 18, 2015), 80 FR 9809 (February 24, 2015) (SR-EDGA-2015-
09); 74282 (February 17, 2015), 80 FR 9487 (February 23, 2015) (SR-
EDGX-2015-09); and 74284 (February 18, 2015), 80 FR 9792 (February
24, 2015) (SR-BYX-2015-09) (``Initial BATS One Feed Fee Filings'').
The only difference is that the counting requirements proposed
herein would require the counting of Users receiving Multicast PITCH
through both internal and external distribution. Because Usage Fees
are solely charged to recipient firms who's Users receive the BATS
One Feed from an External Distributor and not through internal
distribution, the BATS One Feed counting requirements only require
the counting of Users by Distributors that disseminate the BATS One
Feed externally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     In connection with a Distributor's distribution of
Multicast PITCH, the Distributor should count as one User each unique
User that the Distributor has entitled to have access to Multicast
PITCH. However, where a device is dedicated specifically to a single
individual, the Distributor should count only the individual and need
not count the device.
     The Distributor should identify and report each unique
User. If a User uses the same unique method to gain access to Multicast
PITCH, the Distributor should count that as one User. However, if a
unique User uses multiple methods to gain access to Multicast PITCH
(e.g., a single User has multiple passwords and user identifications),
the Distributor should report all of those methods as an individual
User.
     Distributors should report each unique individual person
who receives access through multiple devices as one User so long as
each device is dedicated specifically to that individual.
     If a Distributor entitles one or more individuals to use
the same device, the Distributor should include only the individuals,
and not the device, in the count.
    Enterprise Fee. The Exchange also proposes to establish a $3,500
per month Enterprise Fee that will permit a recipient firm who receives
Multicast PITCH from a Distributor to receive the data for an unlimited
number of Professional and Non-Professional Users. For example, if a
recipient firm had 500 Professional Users who each receive Multicast
PITCH at $30.00 per month, then that recipient firm will pay $15,000
per month in Professional Users fees. Under the proposed Enterprise
Fee, the recipient firm will pay a flat fee of $3,500 per month for an
unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional Users for
Multicast PITCH. A recipient firm must pay a separate Enterprise Fee
for each Distributor that controls display of Multicast PITCH if it
wishes such User to be covered by an Enterprise Fee rather than by per
User fees. A recipient firm that pays the Enterprise Fee will not have
to report its

number of Users on a monthly basis. However, every six months, a
recipient firm must provide the Exchange with a count of the total
number of natural person users of each product, including both
Professional and Non-Professional Users.

Implementation Date

    The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its fee
schedule on July 1, 2015.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of section 6 of the Act,\12\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(4),\13\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and other recipients of
Exchange data. The Exchange believes that the proposed rates are
equitable and non-discriminatory in that they apply uniformly to all
recipients of Exchange data. The Exchange believes the proposed fees
are competitive with those charged by other venues and, therefore,
reasonable and equitably allocated to recipients. Lastly, the Exchange
also believes that the proposed fees are reasonable and non-
discriminatory because they will apply uniformly to all recipients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with section 11(A) of the Act \14\ in that it supports (i)
fair competition among brokers and dealers, among exchange markets, and
between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets and
(ii) the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information
with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities.
Furthermore, the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 603 of
Regulation NMS,\15\ which provides that any national securities
exchange that distributes information with respect to quotations for or
transactions in an NMS stock do so on terms that are not unreasonably
discriminatory. In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted
self-regulatory organizations and broker-dealers increased authority
and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It
was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data
available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for
the provision of market data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \15\ See 17 CFR 242.603.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed fees would not permit unfair
discrimination because all of the Exchange's customers and market data
vendors will be subject to the proposed fees on an equivalent basis.
Multicast PITCH is distributed and purchased on a voluntary basis, in
that neither the Exchange nor market data distributors are required by
any rule or regulation to make this data available. Accordingly,
Distributors and Users can discontinue use at any time and for any
reason, including due to an assessment of the reasonableness of fees
charged. Firms have a wide variety of alternative market data products
from which to choose, such as similar proprietary data products offered
by other exchanges and consolidated data. Moreover, the Exchange is not
required to make any proprietary data products available or to offer
any specific pricing alternatives to any customers.
    In addition, the fees that are the subject of this rule filing are
constrained by competition. As explained below in the Exchange's
Statement on Burden on Competition, the existence of alternatives to
Multicast PITCH further ensures that the Exchange cannot set
unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when
vendors and subscribers can elect such alternatives. That is, the
Exchange competes with other exchanges (and their affiliates) that
provide similar market data products. If another exchange (or its
affiliate) were to charge less to consolidate and distribute its
similar product than the Exchange charges to consolidate and distribute
Multicast PITCH, prospective Users likely would not subscribe to, or
would cease subscribing to, the Multicast PITCH.
    The Exchange notes that the Commission is not required to undertake
a cost-of-service or rate-making approach. The Exchange believes that,
even if it were possible as a matter of economic theory, cost-based
pricing for non-core market data would be so complicated that it could
not be done practically.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange believes that cost-based pricing would be
impractical because it would create enormous administrative burdens
for all parties, including the Commission, to cost-regulate a large
number of participants and standardize and analyze extraordinary
amounts of information, accounts, and reports. In addition, it is
impossible to regulate market data prices in isolation from prices
charged by markets for other services that are joint products. Cost-
based rate regulation would also lead to litigation and may distort
incentives, including those to minimize costs and to innovate,
leading to further waste. Under cost-based pricing, the Commission
would be burdened with determining a fair rate of return, and the
industry could experience frequent rate increases based on
escalating expense levels. Even in industries historically subject
to utility regulation, cost-based ratemaking has been discredited.
As such, the Exchange believes that cost-based ratemaking would be
inappropriate for proprietary market data and inconsistent with
Congress's direction that the Commission use its authority to foster
the development of the national market system, and that market
forces will continue to provide appropriate pricing discipline. See
Appendix C to NYSE's comments to the Commission's 2000 Concept
Release on the Regulation of Market Information Fees and Revenues,
which can be found on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/s72899/buck1.htm. See also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 73816 (December 11, 2014), 79 FR 75200
(December 17, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-64) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Establish an
Access Fee for the NYSE Best Quote and Trades Data Feed, Operative
December 1, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    User Fees. The Exchange believes that implementing the Professional
and Non-Professional User fees for Multicast PITCH is equitable and
reasonable because it will result in greater availability to
Professional and Non-Professional Users. Moreover, introducing a modest
Non-Professional User fee for Multicast PITCH is reasonable because it
provides an additional method for retail investors to access Multicast
PITCH data by providing the same data that is available to Professional
Users. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because they will be charged uniformly to
recipient firms and Users. The fee structure of differentiated
Professional and Non-Professional fees is utilized for by the Exchange
for the BATS One Feed and has long been used by other exchanges for
their proprietary data products, and by the Nasdaq UTP and the CTA and
CQ Plans in order to reduce the price of data to retail investors and
make it more broadly available.\17\ Offering Multicast PITCH to Non-
Professional Users with the same data available to Professional Users
results in greater equity among data recipients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See the Initial BATS One Feed Fee Filings, supra note 12.
See also, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 20002, File No.
S7-433 (July 22, 1983) (establishing nonprofessional fees for CTA
data); Nasdaq Rules 7023(b), 7047.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed fees are reasonable when compared to
similar fees for comparable products offered by the NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca''). Specifically, NYSE Arca offers NYSE ArcaBook for Arca
Options--Depth of Book, which includes depth of book information for
options traded on NYSE Arca, for a monthly fee of $50.00 per
professional subscriber and $1.00 per

non-professional subscriber.\18\ The Exchange's proposed per User Fees
for Multicast PITCH is less than or equal to the NYSE Arca's fees for
NYSE ArcaBook for Arca Options--Depth of Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See NYSE Market Data Pricing dated May 2015 available at
http://www.nyxdata.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Enterprise Fee. The proposed Enterprise Fee for Multicast PITCH is
equitable and reasonable as the fees proposed are less than the
enterprise fees currently charged for NYSE ArcaBook for Arca Options--
Depth of Book. NYSE Arca provides a fee cap $5,000 per month for NYSE
ArcaBook for Arca Options--Depth of Book for non-professional user
only,\19\ while the Exchange is proposing a monthly Enterprise Fee of
$3,500 per month for both Professional and Non-Professional Users. In
addition, the Enterprise Fee proposed by the Exchange could result in a
fee reduction for recipient firms with a large number of Professional
and Non-Professional Users. If a recipient firm has a smaller number of
Professional Users of the Multicast PITCH, then it may continue using
the per User structure and benefit from the per User Fee reductions. By
reducing prices for recipient firms with a large number of Professional
and Non-Professional Users, the Exchange believes that more firms may
choose to receive and to distribute the Multicast PITCH, thereby
expanding the distribution of this market data for the benefit of
investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that the proposed Enterprise Fee is
reasonable because it will simplify reporting for certain recipients
that have large numbers of Professional and Non-Professional Users.
Firms that pay the proposed Enterprise Fee will not have to report the
number of Users on a monthly basis as they currently do, but rather
will only have to count natural person users every six months, which is
a significant reduction in administrative burden. Finally, the Exchange
believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to
establish an Enterprise Fee because it reduces the Exchange's costs and
the Distributor's administrative burdens in tracking and auditing large
numbers of Users.
    Distributor Fee. The Exchange believes that the proposed
Distributor Fees are also reasonable, equitably allocated, and not
unreasonably discriminatory. The fees for Members and non-Members are
uniform except with respect to reasonable distinctions between internal
and external distribution.\20\ The Exchange believes that the
Distributor Fees for Multicast PITCH are reasonable and fair in light
of alternatives offered by other market centers. For example, NYSE Arca
charges an internal distribution fee of $3,000 per month and an
external distribution fee of $2,000 per month for NYSE ArcaBook for
Arca Options--Depth of Book,\21\ while the Exchange is proposing a
monthly Distribution Fee of $1,500 per month for both Internal and
External Distribution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The Exchange notes that distinctions based on external
versus internal distribution have been previously filed with the
Commission by Nasdaq, Nasdaq OMX BX, and Nasdaq OMX PSX. See BATS
Exchange Fee Schedules, supra note 6. See also Nasdaq Rule 019(b);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62876 (September 9, 2010), 75 FR
56624 (September 16, 2010) (SR-PHLX-2010-120); Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 62907 (September 14, 2010), 75 FR 57314 (September
20, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-110); Securities Exchange Act Release No.
63442 (December 6, 2010), 75 FR 77029 (December 10, 2010) (SR-BX-
2010-081).
    \21\ See NYSE Market Data Pricing dated May 2015 available at
http://www.nyxdata.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definitions Applicable to Market Data Fees

    The Exchange believes that the proposed definitions are consistent
with section 6(b) of the Act,\22\ in general, and section 6(b)(4) of
the Act,\23\ in particular, in that it provides for an equitable
allocation of reasonable fees among recipients of the data and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination among customers, brokers, or
dealers. The Exchange believes that the proposed definitions are
reasonable because they are designed to provide greater transparency
with regard to how the Exchange assesses fees for market data. The
Exchange believes that recipients of Exchange data would benefit from
clear guidance in its fee schedule that describes the manner in which
the Exchange would assess fees. These definitions are intended to make
the fee schedule clearer and less confusing for investors, thereby
removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, protecting
investors and the public interest. Lastly, the proposed definitions are
based on existing definitions in fee schedules of the BATS
Exchanges.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \24\ See BATS Exchange Fee Schedules, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

Multicast PITCH Fees

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The
Exchange's ability to price Multicast PITCH is constrained by: (i)
Competition among exchanges, other trading platforms, and Trade
Reporting Facilities (``TRF'') that compete with each other in a
variety of dimensions; (ii) the existence of inexpensive real-time
consolidated data and market-specific data and free delayed data; and
(iii) the inherent contestability of the market for proprietary data.
    The Exchange and its market data products are subject to
significant competitive forces and the proposed fees represent
responses to that competition. To start, the Exchange competes
intensely for order flow. It competes with the other national
securities exchanges that currently trade equities, with electronic
communication networks, with quotes posted in FINRA's Alternative
Display Facility, with alternative trading systems, and with securities
firms that primarily trade as principal with their customer order flow.
    In addition, Multicast PITCH competes with a number of alternative
products. For instance, Multicast PITCH does not provide a complete
picture of all trading activity in a security. Rather, the other
national securities exchanges, the Options Price Reporting Authority
    (``OPRA''), the several TRFs, and Electronic Communication Networks
(``ECN'') that produce proprietary data all produce trades and trade
reports. Each is currently permitted to produce similar data products,
and many currently do, including the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC
(``Nasdaq'') and the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE'').
    In sum, the availability of a variety of alternative sources of
information imposes significant competitive pressures on Exchange data
products and the Exchange's compelling need to attract order flow
imposes significant competitive pressure on the Exchange to act
equitably, fairly, and reasonably in setting the proposed data product
fees. The proposed data product fees are, in part, responses to that
pressure. The

Exchange believes that the proposed fees would reflect an equitable
allocation of its overall costs to users of its facilities.
    In addition, when establishing the proposed fees, the Exchange
considered the competitiveness of the market for proprietary data and
all of the implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that
it has considered all relevant factors and has not considered
irrelevant factors in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not
unreasonably discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees
among all Users. The existence of alternatives to Multicast PITCH,
including existing similar feeds by other exchanges, consolidated data,
and proprietary data from other sources, ensures that the Exchange
cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably
discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect these
alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary data
product if its cost to purchase is not justified by the returns any
particular vendor or subscriber would achieve through the purchase.

Definitions Applicable to Market Data Fees

    The proposed definitions applicable to market data fees will not
result in any burden on competition. The proposed definitions are not
designed to amend any fee, nor alter the manner in which it assesses
fees. The Exchange believes that recipients of Exchange data would
benefit from clear guidance in its fee schedule that describes the
manner in which the Exchange would assess fees for market data. These
definitions are intended to make the Fee Schedule clearer and less
confusing for investors and are not designed to have a competitive
impact.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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 \25\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\26\ 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. If
the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved
or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BATS-2015-46 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2015-46. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2015-46 and should be
submitted on or before July 23, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-16271 Filed 7-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 160 (Friday, August 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49854-49856]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20227]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement for the Oregon Portion of
the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (Portland to Eugene)

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this notice to advise the public that FRA and
the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) will jointly prepare a
Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to study potential
infrastructure investments along the Oregon portion of the Pacific
Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC). The objective of the Tier 1 EIS is to
evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives and select a rail corridor
as well as making decisions regarding the level of intercity passenger
rail service provided in the corridor, including variations in train
frequency, trip time, and on-time performance. Alternatives under
consideration will include taking no action (No-Build Alternative), as
well as multiple build alternatives between Eugene-Springfield and the
Columbia River in Portland. The build alternatives may include
infrastructure improvements to the existing rail corridor, the
development of a new rail corridor, or a combination of both. FRA is
also issuing this notice to solicit public and agency input in the
development of the scope of the EIS and to advise the public that
outreach activities conducted by FRA and ODOT will be considered in the
preparation of the EIS.

DATES: Written comments on the scope of the Tier 1 EIS for the Oregon
Passenger Rail Project should be provided to ODOT by October 31, 2012.
Public scoping meetings are scheduled from September 6, 2012 through
September 19, 2012 at the times and locations identified in the
Addresses section below.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope of this study should be sent
to Michael Holthoff, Environmental Project Manager, Major Projects
Branch, Oregon Department of Transportation, 3210 Del Webb Avenue NE.,
Suite 110, Salem, OR 97301, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments may also be provided
orally or in writing at the public scoping meetings scheduled at the
following locations:
     Salem at ODOT ``T'' Building, Gail Achterman Conference
Room, 355 Capitol Street NE., Salem, OR 97301 on September 6, 2012 from
5 p.m. through 7 p.m.
     Oregon City at Clackamas Community College--Gregory Forum
Room A, 19600 Molalla Avenue, Oregon City, OR 97045 on September 11,
2012 from 5 p.m. through 7 p.m.
     Albany at Albany Public Library, 2450 14th Avenue SE.,
Albany, OR 97322 on September 12, 2012 from 5 p.m. through 7 p.m.
     Lake Oswego at Phoenix Inn, 14905 SW. Bangy Road, Lake
Oswego, OR 97035 on September 13, 2012 from 5 p.m. through 7 p.m.
     Portland at Metro Council Chambers, 600 NE. Grand Avenue,
Portland, OR 97232 on September 18, 2012 from 5 p.m. through 7 p.m.
     Eugene at Atrium Building Lobby, 99 W. 10th Avenue,
Eugene, Oregon 97401 on September 19, 2012 from 5 p.m. through 7 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Cox, Assistant Manager, Major
Projects Branch, Oregon Department of Transportation, 3210 Del Webb
Avenue NE., Suite 110, Salem, OR 97301, (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>); or
Ms. Colleen Vaughn, Office of Railroad Policy and Development, Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., MS-20/W38-
221, Washington, DC 20590, (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The federally designated PNWRC has been the
subject of high-speed passenger rail planning and implementation
strategies for more than 30 years. The 466-mile corridor serves the
most densely populated regions of British Columbia (B.C.), Washington,
and Oregon, linking Vancouver, B.C., Seattle, WA, and Portland and
Eugene, OR, with growing intermediate communities, including the
capital cities of Olympia, WA and Salem, OR. Oregon and Washington have
planned, studied, and coordinated

State-sponsored passenger service on the PNWRC since 1994.
    Project Background: Oregon initiated a daily passenger rail round
trip between Portland and Eugene in 1994. Since that time, Oregon has
invested over $77 million in capital improvements including railroad
infrastructure, stations, and rolling stock. A second State-sponsored
daily round trip was added in 2000, resulting in ridership growth of
139% between 2000 and 2008.
    Current intercity passenger rail service in Oregon includes two
Amtrak Cascades train roundtrips per day. Additionally, Amtrak sponsors
one daily roundtrip of the Coast Starlight between Los Angeles and
Seattle and one daily roundtrip of the Empire Builder between Portland
and Chicago. The Cascades station stops include Eugene, Albany, Salem,
Oregon City and Portland and continue north to Vancouver, BC. The Coast
Starlight stops in Klamath Falls, Chemult, Eugene, Albany, Salem and
Portland. The only stop for the Empire Builder in Oregon is in
Portland.
    Over the next 25 years, the population of the Willamette Valley is
expected to grow by approximately 35% with the population anticipated
to reach 3.6 million by the year 2035. During the same period, freight
volume in the state is expected to grow by approximately 60%. These
increases will result in transportation demand that exceeds the
available freight and passenger rail capacity in the Willamette Valley.
A comprehensive approach to identifying the appropriate rail
infrastructure is needed to provide additional passenger and freight
rail capacity and to attain the principal service objectives of more
reliable passenger trains, more frequent trains, and shortened travel
times between Portland and Eugene (a distance of approximately 125
miles).
    Environmental Review Process: FRA and ODOT will use a tiered
process, as provided for in 40 CFR 1508.28, in the completion of the
environmental review of the Project. ``Tiering'' is a staged
environmental review process applied to environmental reviews for
complex projects. The Tier 1 EIS will address broad corridor-level
issues and alternatives. Subsequent phases or tiers will analyze, at a
greater level of detail, narrower site-specific proposals based on the
decisions made in Tier 1. The Tier 1 EIS and any subsequent
environmental documents will be developed in accordance with Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR part 1500 et seq.)
implementing NEPA, and FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental
Impacts (64 FR 28545; May 26, 1999).
    Tier 1: The Tier 1 assessment will result in an EIS with the
appropriate level of detail for corridor-level decisions and will
address broad overall issues of concern, including but not limited to:
     Confirm the purpose and need for the proposed action.
     Confirm the study area appropriate to assess reasonable
alternatives.
     Identify a comprehensive set of goals and objectives for
the corridor in conjunction with Project stakeholders. These goals and
objectives will be crafted to allow comprehensive evaluation of all
aspects of the Project necessary to achieve the goals, including train
operations, vehicles, and infrastructure.
     Identify the range of reasonable alternatives to be
considered, consistent with the current and planned use of the corridor
and the existing services within and adjacent to the study area, as
well as considering a no action/no build alternative.
     Develop alternative evaluation criteria to identify
alternatives that meet the purpose and need of the proposed action and
those that do not.
     Identify the general alignment(s) of the reasonable build
alternatives.
     Identify general right-of-way requirements for the
reasonable build alternatives.
     Identify, at a corridor planning level, the infrastructure
and equipment investment requirements for the reasonable build
alternatives.
     Include the consideration of the No-Build Alternative
which will be studied as the baseline for comparison with the build
alternatives. The No-Build Alternative represents other transportation
modes such as auto, air travel, intercity bus, and existing rail and
the physical characteristics and capacities as they exist at the time
of the Tier 1 EIS, with planned and funded improvements that will be in
place at the time the Project becomes operational.
     Evaluate and describe, at a corridor planning level, the
potential environmental consequences (benefits and impacts to the built
and natural environment) associated with the reasonable alternative
alignments and proposed changes in passenger rail train frequency,
speed, and on-time performance.
     Establish the timing and sequencing of independent actions
to maintain a state of good repair and to implement the proposed
action.
     Identify a preferred alternative for corridor route
alignment.
     Address subsequent component actions for Tier 2 NEPA
documentation as described below.
    Tier 2: The second tier assessment(s) will address component
projects to be implemented within the general corridor identified in
the Tier 1 EIS, and will incorporate by reference the data and
evaluations included in the Tier 1 EIS. Subsequent evaluations will
concentrate on the issues specific to the component of the selected
alternative identified in the Tier 1 EIS, identify the Project
alternatives that meet the purpose and need for each component project,
and analyze the specific environmental consequences and measures
necessary to mitigate environmental impacts at a site-specific level of
detail.
    Scoping and Public Involvement: FRA encourages broad participation
in the EIS process during scoping and subsequent review of the
resulting environmental documents. Comments and suggestions are invited
from all interested agencies and the public at large to ensure the full
range of issues related to the proposed action and all reasonable
alternatives are addressed and all significant issues are identified.
In particular, FRA is interested in determining whether there are areas
of environmental concern where there might be the potential for
significant impacts identifiable at a corridor level. Letters
describing the proposed Project and soliciting comments were sent to
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and appropriate
railroads. Public agencies with jurisdiction are requested to advise
the FRA and ODOT of the applicable permit and environmental review
requirements of each agency, and the scope and content of the
environmental information that is germane to the agency's statutory
responsibilities in connection with the proposed improvements.
    An iterative public involvement/information program will support
the process. The program will involve advisory group meetings,
newsletters, a Project Web site, public open houses, stakeholder group
meetings, and other methods to solicit and incorporate public input
throughout the Tier 1 EIS process. To ensure that the full range of
issues relating to the proposed action is addressed, comments and
suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments and
questions concerning the proposed action should be directed to ODOT or
to the FRA at the addresses provided above. Additional information can
be obtained by visiting the Project Web site at
www.oregonpassengerrail.org org or sending an email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    The buildings used for the scoping meetings are accessible to
persons with disabilities. Any individual who requires special
assistance, such as a sign language interpreter, to participate in the
meetings should contact Jyll Smith at Oregon Department of
Transportation, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, five days prior to the
meeting.

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 13, 2012.
Corey Hill,
Director, Rail Project Development and Delivery.
[FR Doc. 2012-20227 Filed 8-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: August 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 153)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 40117-40121]
[DOCID:fr11au09-30]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Parts 742 and 774

[Docket No. 080721866-8871-01]
RIN 0694-AE42

Revisions to the Commerce Control List To Update and Clarify
Crime Control License Requirements

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would update and clarify export and
reexport license requirements on striking weapons, restraint devices,
shotguns and parts, optical sighting devices, and electric shock
devices. It would also add equipment designed for executions to the
Commerce Control List. This proposed rule would make no changes to the
longstanding policy of denial of applications to export or reexport
specially designed implements of torture. The proposed rule would
provide additional illustrative examples of such items and would adopt
a definition of torture used in a U.S. statute that implements the
United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment. BIS is publishing this rule as part
of an ongoing review of crime control license requirements and policy.

DATES: Comments concerning this rule must be received by BIS no later
than September 25, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this rule may be submitted to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (follow the
instructions for submitting comments), by e-mail directly to BIS at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(refer to regulatory identification number
0694-AE42 in the subject line), or on paper to Regulatory Policy
Division, Office of Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security,
Room H2705, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Refer to Regulatory Identification
Number (RIN) 0694-AE42 in all comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chantal Lakatos, Office of Non-
proliferation and Treaty Compliance, Bureau of Industry and Security,
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) impose
license requirements for certain exports from the United States and
reexports from other countries for, among other reasons, ``crime
control.'' The crime control license requirements are intended for the
``support of U.S. foreign policy to promote human rights throughout the
world'' (15 CFR 742.7(a)). This rule is part of an effort by BIS to
review and, where appropriate, revise the crime control license
requirements in the Export Administration Regulations. In connection
with this effort, BIS published a notice of inquiry seeking public
comments on whether the scope of items and destinations that are
subject to crime control license requirements should be changed (73 FR
14769, March 19, 2008). After reviewing the public comments on that
notice and conducting its own policy deliberations, BIS plans to
proceed with this review in stages.
    In the first stage, BIS is publishing this proposed rule, which
addresses relatively simple extensions, modifications or removals of
items currently on the Commerce Control List or additions to that list
of items that have a clearly identified crime control or law
enforcement nexus.
    In one or more subsequent stages, BIS intends to address more
complex Commerce Control List matters such as whether, and, if so, the
extent to which biometric measuring devices, integrated data systems,
simulators, and communications equipment should be listed on the
Commerce Control List; the degree to which software and technology
related to commodities on the Commerce Control List should be listed
and how such software and technology should be described; and general
policy issues such as whether the range of destinations to which crime
control license requirements apply should be modified.

Summary of the Changes Proposed

    Revisions to Sec.  742.7--Crime control. This proposed rule would
change the section heading to read ``Crime control and detection'' to
reflect the contents of the section. It also would revise paragraph (a)
to set forth a license requirement to all destinations for a proposed
new ECCN 0A981 that would apply to equipment designed for the execution
of human beings. Finally, this rule would revise paragraph (d) to state
that in maintaining these controls, the United States considers
international norms and the practices of other countries that control
exports to promote the observance of human rights; however, the
controls are not based on the decisions of any multilateral export
control regime and may differ from controls imposed by other countries.
This proposed rule would remove language from paragraph (d) that could
be read as erroneously implying that the United States is the only
country that imposes export controls on crime control and detection
items.
    Revisions to Sec.  742.11--Specially designed implements of
torture. This proposed rule would revise the heading to match the
revised language that this rule applies to ECCN 0A983, i.e. ``Specially
designed implements of torture, including thumbscrews, thumbcuffs,
fingercuffs, spiked batons, shock sleeves and parts and accessories,
n.e.s.'' This proposed rule also would revise paragraph (d) to state
that in maintaining these controls, the United States considers
international norms and the practices of other countries that control
exports to promote the observance of human rights; however, the
controls are not based on the decisions of any multilateral export
control regime and may differ from controls imposed by other countries.
This proposed rule would remove language from paragraph (d) that could
be read as erroneously implying that the United States is the only
country that imposes export controls on specially designed implements
of torture. This proposed rule would make no changes to the policy of
denial of applications to export items subject to Sec.  742.11 or to
the prohibition (stated in Sec.  740.2(a)(10) of

the EAR) on use of license exceptions to export commodities subject to
Sec.  742.11 of the EAR.
    Revisions to ECCN 0A978--Saps. The items covered by this ECCN would
be expanded from ``saps'' to ``law enforcement striking weapons.''
Saps, police batons, side handle batons, tonfas, sjamboks and whips
would be listed as examples of law enforcement striking weapons. BIS
believes that this change would provide consistent license requirements
for several items that have substantially similar crime control
functions.
    Creation of ECCN 0A981--Equipment for the Execution of Human
Beings. This rule would create a new ECCN 0A981 that would apply to
equipment designed for the execution of human beings. Such equipment
would require a license to all destinations. BIS is proposing adding
this ECCN because equipment designed for the execution of human beings
has a clear nexus to crime control and an obvious potential use in
repressing human rights.
    Revisions to ECCN 0A982--Restraint Devices. Several changes would
be made to this ECCN to (a) make clear that it applies to law
enforcement restraint devices, rather than safety or medical equipment,
(b) update the illustrative list of commodities to which this ECCN
applies, and (c) cross reference other ECCNs that apply to similar
devices. These changes are intended to focus the ECCN on items of crime
control significance and to reduce the possibility of
misinterpretations.
     The rule would add the phrase ``Law enforcement'' to the
heading.
     The rule would add ``multipoint restraint devices
including restraint chairs'' to the illustrative list of restraint
devices because use of these devices has increased in recent years and
because they have potential for use in human rights abuse.
     The rule would also revise the related controls paragraph
of this ECCN to note (a) that finger cuffs and shock sleeves are
classified under ECCN 0A983--Specially designed implements of torture,
(b) that law enforcement restraint devices that administer an electric
shock are controlled under ECCN 0A985, and (c) that electronic devices
that monitor and report a person's location to enforce restrictions on
movement for law enforcement or penal reasons are controlled under ECCN
3A981.
     This rule would add a note stating that this ECCN does not
apply to medical devices that are equipped to restrain patient movement
during medical procedures, devices that confine memory-impaired
patients to appropriate medical facilities, or safety equipment such as
safety belts or child automobile safety seats.
    BIS believes that the proposed revised language would clarify the
scope of ECCN 0A982 and is not a substantive change.
    Revisions to ECCN 0A983--Specially Designed Implements of Torture.
This rule would make no changes to the Export Administration
Regulations' stated policies of denial of license applications for the
export or reexport of specially designed implements of torture and
prohibition of use of any license exception to export or reexport
specially designed implements of torture.
    The heading of ECCN 0A983 would be revised to add the word
``including'' immediately following the phrase ``specially designed
implements of torture'' to make clear that the items listed are
examples of specially designed implements of torture rather than an
exclusive list of such implements. The heading would also be revised to
add fingercuffs, spiked batons and shock sleeves to the ECCN as
additional examples of specially designed implements of torture. A new
note would state that ``torture'' in this ECCN has the same meaning as
set forth in 18 U.S.C. 2340(1), which is the definition employed by the
United States criminal statute that implements the United Nations
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment. BIS believes that these changes would more
clearly distinguish specially designed implements of torture from crime
control and detection items.
    Revisions to ECCN 0A984--Shotguns. This rule would remove the
phrase ``parts n.e.s.'' and add the following specific parts for the
shotguns controlled by this ECCN: barrels of 18 inches (45.72 cm) or
longer but not longer than 24 inches (60.96 cm), receivers, breech
mechanisms, complete trigger mechanisms, and magazines or magazine
extension tubes. The parts are subject to CC column 1 license
requirements. BIS believes that the purposes of the control can be met
by retaining the license requirement on the shotguns themselves and on
the critical parts set forth in this rule. BIS believes that continuing
to require licenses for other parts would pose a burden on legitimate
trade in shotgun repair parts that is not needed to achieve the purpose
of these controls or of the controls related to the Inter-American
Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in
Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials.
    Revisions to ECCN 0A985--Discharge Type Arms. ECCN 0A985 applies to
discharge type arms and to some electroshock devices that are not
discharge type arms. To provide greater clarity and to include a
representative description of devices currently available, this
proposed rule would add the phrase ``devices to administer electric
shock'' to the heading and would add stun cuffs and shock shields to
the illustrative list of items classified under this ECCN. This rule
would also add references to the ``Related Controls'' paragraph
informing readers that shock sleeves are controlled by ECCN 0A983 and
that electronic devices that monitor and report a person's location to
enforce restrictions on movement for law enforcement or penal reasons
are controlled under ECCN 3A981.
    Revisions to ECCN 0A987--Optical Sighting Devices for Firearms.
This rule would replace the general description in the heading of ECCN
0A987 with a list of items controlled. With this change, the ECCN would
clearly state that it applies to specific sighting devices, their
associated optical elements, and adjustment mechanisms.
    Revisions to ECCN 0E984--Technology for shotguns. This rule would
modify ECCN 0E984 to apply CC Column 1 as a reason for control of
technology for the development and production of all shotguns and
shotgun shells controlled by ECCN 0A984. Currently, ECCN 0E984 applies
reasons for control that are parallel to the reasons for control in
ECCN 0A984, i.e., CC Column 1, 2, or 3 is applied depending on whether
the barrel length exceeds 24 inches and whether the end-user is a law
enforcement agency. BIS is proposing the change described in this
paragraph because it believes that the technology for the development
and production of shotguns is substantially the same for all shotguns
with barrel length exceeding 18 inches and does not vary based on the
end user of the shotgun.
    Revisions to ECCN 3A981--Polygraphs and other electronic devices.
This proposed rule would add a cross reference to the restraint devices
controlled by ECCN 0A982. This proposed rule would also add a note
expressly stating that the electronic monitoring restraint devices in
ECCN 3A981 are devices that monitor or report the location of confined
persons for law enforcement or penal reasons. The note would exclude
devices used to confine memory impaired patients to appropriate medical
facilities. BIS views these proposed changes in wording as
clarifications rather than substantive changes.

Request for Comments

    BIS is seeking public comments on this rule and will consider all
comments received on or before September 25, 2009 in developing any
final rule. Comments received after that date will be considered if
feasible, but their consideration cannot be assured. All public
comments on this rule must be in writing (including electronic postings
on regulations.gov or e-mail) and will be a matter of public record,
available for public inspection and copying.

Rulemaking Requirements

    1. This rule is a significant rule for purposes of Executive Order
12866.
    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is
required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to
comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA),
unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This rule involves a
collection of information that has been approved by OMB under control
number 0694-0088, which carries a burden hour estimate of 58 minutes to
prepare and submit form BIS-748P. Miscellaneous and recordkeeping
activities account for 12 minutes per submission. BIS believes that the
changes proposed will increase the number of submissions subject to
this collection by approximately 1,200 annually. Send comments
regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect of these
collections of information, including suggestions for reducing the
burden, to Jasmeet Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>; and to the
Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department
of Commerce, Room 2705, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
as this term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
    4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for
public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable
because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function
of the United States (see 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). Further, no other law
requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for
public comment be given for this rule. Because a notice of proposed
rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be
given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the
analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et. seq.) are not applicable. However, to obtain the benefit of a
variety of viewpoints, BIS is issuing this rule as a proposed rule with
a request for comments.

List of Subjects

15 CFR Part 742

    Exports, Terrorism.

15 CFR Part 774

    Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, BIS proposes to amend the Export Administration
Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) as follows:

PART 742--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 742 is revised to read as
follows:

    Authority:  50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq; Pub. L. 106-508; 50
U.S.C. 1701 et seq; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p.
783; Notice of July 23, 2008, 73 FR 43603 (July 25, 2008).

    2. In Sec.  742.7, revise the heading, redesignate existing
paragraph (a)(5) as paragraph (a)(6), add a new paragraph (a)(5) and
revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  742.7  Crime control and detection.

    (a) * * *
    (5) Items designed for the execution of human beings as identified
in ECCN 0A981 require a license to all destinations including Canada.
* * * * *
    (d) U.S. controls. In maintaining its controls on crime control and
detection items, the United States considers international norms
regarding human rights and the practices of other countries that
control exports to promote the observance of human rights. However,
these controls are not based on the decisions of any multinational
export control regime and may differ from controls imposed by other
countries.
    3. In Sec.  742.11, revise the heading and paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

Sec.  742.11  Specially designed implements of torture, including
thumbscrews, thumbcuffs, fingercuffs, spiked batons, shock sleeves, and
parts and accessories, n.e.s.

* * * * *
    (d) U.S. controls. In maintaining its controls on specially
designed instruments of torture the United States considers
international norms regarding human rights and the practices of other
countries that control exports to promote the observance of human
rights. However, these controls are not based on the decisions of any
multinational export control regime and may differ from controls
imposed by other countries.

PART 774--[AMENDED]

    4. The authority citation for part 774 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 7430(e); 22 U.S.C. 287c, 22 U.S.C. 3201 et
seq., 22 U.S.C. 6004; 30 U.S.C. 185(s), 185(u); 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 42
U.S.C. 6212; 43 U.S.C. 1354; 46 U.S.C. app. 466c; 50 U.S.C. app. 5;
22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3
CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp.,
p. 783; Notice of July 23, 2008, 73 FR 43603 (July 25, 2008).

    5. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774, Category 0, revise the heading
of Export Control Classification (ECCN) 0A978 to read as follows:

0A978 Law enforcement striking weapons, including saps, police batons,
side handle batons, tonfas, sjamboks, and whips.

* * * * *
    6. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774, Category 0, add a new ECCN
0A981 immediately following ECCN 0A980 and immediately preceding ECCN
0A982 to read as follows:

0A981 Equipment designed for the execution of human beings (See list of
items controlled).

License Requirements

    Reason for Control: CC.
    Control(s): CC applies to entire entry. A license is required
for all destinations regardless of end-use. Accordingly, a column
specific to this control does not appear on the Commerce Country
Chart. (See Sec.  742.7 of the EAR for additional information.)

License Exceptions

    LVS: N/A.
    GBS: N/A.
    CIV: N/A.

List of Items Controlled

    Unit: $ value.
    Related Controls: N/A.
    Related Definitions: N/A.
    Items: a. Gallows and guillotines.
    b. Electric chairs for the purpose of executing human beings.
    c. Air tight vaults designed for the execution of human beings
by the administration of a lethal gas or substance.
    d. Automatic drug injection systems designed for the execution
of human beings by administration of a lethal substance.

    7. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774, Category 0, ECCN 0A982, revise
the

heading, revise the ``Related Controls'' paragraph in the ``List of
Items Controlled'' section and add a note at the end of ECCN 0A982 to
read as follows:

0A982 Law enforcement restraint devices, including leg irons, shackles,
and handcuffs; straight jackets; multipoint restraint devices such as
restraint chairs; and parts and accessories, n.e.s.

License Requirements

* * * * *

List of Items Controlled

    Unit: $ * * *
    Related Controls: Thumbcuffs, fingercuffs and shock sleeves are
classified under ECCN 0A983, specially designed implements of
torture. Other law enforcement restraint devices that administer an
electric shock are controlled under ECCN 0A985. Restraint devices
that electronically monitor or report the location of confined
persons for law enforcement or penal reasons are controlled under
ECCN 3A981.
* * * * *
    Note to ECCN 0A982. This ECCN applies to restraint devices used
in law enforcement activities. It does not apply to medical devices
that are equipped to restrain patient movement during medical
procedures. It does not apply to devices that confine memory
impaired patients to appropriate medical facilities. It does not
apply to safety equipment such as safety belts or child automobile
safety seats.

    8. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774, Category 0, ECCN 0A983, revise
the heading, and add a note at the end of ECCN 0A983 to read as
follows:

0A983 Specially designed implements of torture, including thumbscrews,
thumbcuffs, fingercuffs, spiked batons, shock sleeves, and parts and
accessories, n.e.s.

* * * * *
    Note to ECCN 0A983. In this ECCN, ``torture'' has the meaning
set forth in Section 2340(1) of Title 18, United States Code.

    9. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774, Category 0, ECCN 0A984, revise
the heading and the license requirements section of ECCN 0A984 to read
as follows:

0A984 Shotguns with barrel length 18 inches (45.72 cm) or over;
receivers; barrels of 18 inches (45.72 cm) or longer but not longer
than 24 inches (60.96 cm); complete trigger mechanisms; magazines and
magazine extension tubes; complete breech mechanisms; buckshot shotgun
shells; except equipment used exclusively to treat or tranquilize
animals, and except arms designed solely for signal, flare, or saluting
use.

License Requirements

    Reason for Control: CC, FC, UN.

               Control(s)                         Country Chart

FC applies to entire entry.............  FC Column 1.
CC applies to shotguns with a barrel     CC Column 1.
 length greater than or equal to 18 in.
 (45.72 cm), but less than 24 in.
 (60.96 cm), shotgun parts controlled
 by this entry, and buckshot shotgun
 shells controlled by this entry,
 regardless of end-user.
CC applies to shotguns with a barrel     CC Column 2.
 length greater than or equal to 24 in.
 (60.96 cm), regardless of end-user.
CC applies to shotguns with a barrel     CC Column 3.
 length greater than or equal to 24 in.
 (60.96 cm) if for sale or resale to
 police or law enforcement.
UN applies to entire entry.............  Iraq, North Korea, and Rwanda.

* * * * *
    10. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774, Category 0, ECCN 0A985, revise
the heading and the ``Related Controls'' paragraph of the ``List of
Items Controlled'' section to read as follows:

0A985 Discharge type arms and devices to administer electric shock, for
example, stun guns, shock batons, stun cuffs, shock shields, electric
cattle prods, immobilization guns and projectiles; except equipment
used exclusively to treat or tranquilize animals, and except arms
designed solely for signal, flare, or saluting use; and parts, n.e.s.

* * * * *

List of Items Controlled

    Unit: * * *
    Related Controls: Shock sleeves are controlled by ECCN 0A983.
Electronic devices that monitor and report a person's location to
enforce restrictions on movement for law enforcement or penal
reasons are controlled under ECCN 3A981.
* * * * *
    11. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774, Category 0, ECCN 0A987, revise
the heading and the ``Items'' paragraph of the ``List of Items
Controlled'' section to read as follows:

0A987 Optical sighting devices for firearms (including shotguns
controlled by 0A984); and parts (See list of items controlled).

* * * * *

List of Items Controlled

    Unit: * * *
    Related Controls: * * *
    Related Definitions: * * *
    Items: a. Telescopic sights.
    b. Holographic sights.
    c. Reflex or ``red dot'' sights.
    d. Reticle sights.
    e. Other sighting devices that contain optical elements.
    f. Laser pointing devices designed for use on firearms.
    g. Lenses, other optical elements and adjustment mechanisms for
articles in paragraphs a, b, c, d or e.

    12. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774, Category 0, ECCN 0E984, revise
the license requirements section of ECCN 0E984 to read as follows:

0E984 ``Technology'' for the ``development'' or ``production'' of
shotguns controlled by 0A984 and buckshot shotgun shells.

License Requirements

    Reason for Control: CC, UN.

               Control(s)                         Country Chart

CC applies to ``technology'' for         CC Column 1.
 shotguns with a barrel length over 18
 in. (45.72 cm), and for shotgun shells
 controlled by ECCN 0A984.

    13. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774, Category 3 add a note to the
end of ECCN 3A981 to read as follows:

3A981 Polygraphs (except biomedical recorders designed for use in
medical facilities for monitoring biological and neurophysical
responses); fingerprint analyzers, cameras and equipment, n.e.s.;
automated fingerprint and identification retrieval systems, n.e.s.;
psychological stress analysis equipment; electronic monitoring
restraint devices; and specially designed parts and accessories, n.e.s.

* * * * *

List of Items Controlled

    Unit: * * *
    Related Controls: See ECCN 0A982 for other types of restraint
devices.
    Related Definitions: * * *
    Items: * * *
    Note to ECCN 3A981. In this ECCN, electronic monitoring
restraint devices are devices used to record or report the location
of confined persons for law enforcement or penal reasons. The term
does not include devices that confine memory impaired patients to
appropriate medical facilities.

    Dated: August 5, 2009.
Matthew S. Borman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-19099 Filed 8-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55476-55478]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17427]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0039]

Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc.: Application for Expansion of
Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the application of Intertek
Testing Services NA, Inc., for expansion of the scope of recognition as
a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the
agency's preliminary finding to grant the application.

DATES: Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this
notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on
or before August 30, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted as follows:
    Electronically: You may submit comments, including attachments,
electronically at: http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    OSHA will place comments, including personal information, in the
public docket, which will be available online. Therefore, OSHA cautions
interested parties about submitting personal information such as Social
Security numbers and birthdates.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency's name and
the docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0039). All
comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting information they do not want made available to the public,
or submitting materials that contain personal information (either about
themselves or others), such as Social Security numbers and birthdates.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Documents in the docket
(including this Federal Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through the
website.

All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for
inspection through the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket
Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>) for assistance in
locating docket submissions.
    Extension of comment period: Submit requests for an extension of
the comment period on or before August 30, 2023 to the Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of
Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW, Room N-3653, Washington, DC 20210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].
    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, phone:
(202) 693-2110 or email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of the Application for Expansion

    OSHA is providing notice that Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc.
(ITSNA), is applying for an expansion of current recognition as a NRTL.
ITSNA requests the addition of 23 test sites to its NRTL scope of
recognition.
    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within the
scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the
type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the
applicable test standard and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have
the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-
certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope.
Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority;
however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the
NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and
certification.
    The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial
recognition, as well as for an expansion or renewal of recognition,
following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix
requires that the agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides the preliminary finding. In the second notice,
the agency provides the final decision on the application. These
notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of
that scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page for each NRTL,
including ITSNA, which details that NRTL's scope of recognition. These
pages are available from the OSHA website at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    ITSNA currently has 13 facilities (sites) recognized by OSHA for
product testing and certification, with the headquarters located at:
Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc., 545 East Algonquin Road, Suite F,
Arlington Heights, Illinois 60005. A complete list of ITSNA's scope of
recognition is available at https://www.osha.gov/nationally-recognized-testing-laboratory-program/itsna.

II. General Background on the Application

    ITSNA submitted an application, dated December 18, 2020 (OSHA-2007-
0039-0047), requesting the conversion of 23 existing Satellite
Notification Acceptance Program (SNAP) sites to recognized sites under
the NRTL Policy for Transitioning to Satellite Notification and
Acceptance Program Termination (SNAP Transition Policy) published in
the Federal Register on November 24, 2020 (85 FR 75042), as amended by
a June 22, 2022 Memorandum from James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, to Regional
Administrators and Executive Staff, titled ``Second Revision to the
Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) Policy for
Transitioning to Satellite Notification and Acceptance Program (SNAP)
Termination.''
    Table 1, below, lists the 23 sites that ITSNA's application
requested for inclusion in the NRTL's expanded scope of recognition:

                 Table 1--List of Test Sites To Be Included in ITSNA's NRTL Scope of Recognition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             ITSNA site name                                Address                             Country
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus................................  1717 Arlingate Lane, Columbus, Ohio 43228,  North America.
                                           United States.
Detroit.................................  45000 Helm Street--Suite 150, Plymouth      North America.
                                           Township, Michigan 48170, United States.
Grand Rapids............................  4700 Broadmoor SE--Suite 200, Kentwood,     North America.
                                           Michigan 49512, United States.
Edmonton................................  14920 135 Ave., Edmonton, Alberta T5V 1R9,  North America.
                                           Canada.
Montreal................................  1829 32nd Avenue, Lachine, Quebec H8T 3J1,  North America.
                                           Canada.
Toronto.................................  6225 Kenway Drive, Mississauga, Ontario     North America.
                                           L5T 2L3, Canada.
Mexico City.............................  Poniente 134 No. 660, Col. Industrial       North America.
                                           Vallejo, Mexico City, Azcapotzalco 02300,
                                           Mexico.
Kaufbeuren..............................  Innovapark 20, Kaufbeuren, 87600, Germany.  Europe.
Leatherhead.............................  Cleeve Road, Leatherhead, Surrey KT22 7SA,  Europe.
                                           United Kingdom.
Milton Keynes...........................  Davy Avenue, Knowlhill, Milton Keynes,      Europe.
                                           Buckinghamshire MK5 8NL, United Kingdom.
Udine...................................  Via Principe di Udine 114, Campoformido,    Europe.
                                           Udine 33030, Italy.
Guangzhou...............................  Building E, Guangdong Software Science      Asia.
                                           Park, No. 7-2, Caipin Road, Science City--
                                           GETDD, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510663, China.
Hangzhou................................  4th Floor, Building 4#, No. 22, 22nd        Asia.
                                           Street, Qiantang District Hangzhou,
                                           310018, China.
Shanghai Fengxian.......................  Plant 5, No. 6958 Daye Road, Fengxian       Asia.
                                           District, Shanghai, 201405, China.
Shanghai Qinzhou........................  No. 86, 1198 Qinzhou Road North, Shanghai,  Asia.
                                           200233, China.
Shenzhen................................  2F, Building B, No. 308 Wuhe Avenue,        Asia.
                                           Zhangkengjing Community, GuanHu
                                           Subdistrict, LongHua District, Shenzhen,
                                           Guangdong 518067, China.

Shunde (Foshan).........................  Guangzhou Branch Shunde Testing Site, Room  Asia.
                                           604, Block 5, Tianfulai International
                                           Industrial Park (the fifth phase), No. 3
                                           Changfu West Road, Ronggui Town, Shunde
                                           District, Foshan City, Guangdong
                                           Province, China.
Mumbai..................................  ``F Wing'' Tex Centre, Chandivali Farm      Asia.
                                           Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai,
                                           Maharashtra--400072, India.
New Delhi...............................  E-20 & E26 Block B1, Mohan Cooperative      Asia.
                                           Industrial Area, Mathura Road, New Delhi,
                                           110044, India.
Tokyo...................................  Yasuda Shibaura No. 2 Bldg. 4F, 3-2-12,     Asia.
                                           Kaigan, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan 108-0022.
Seoul...................................  3, Gongdan-ro 160beon-gil, Intertek         Asia.
                                           Building, Gunpo-si, Gyeonggi-do 15845,
                                           South Korea.
Bangkok.................................  1285/5 Prachachuen Road, Wong Sawang,       Asia.
                                           Bangsue, Bangkok 10800, Thailand.
Taipei..................................  5F, No. 423, Ruiguang Road, Neihu           Asia.
                                           District, Taipei, 114690, Taiwan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA has preliminarily determined that it is appropriate to review
this application under the SNAP Transition Policy. ITSNA's application
was timely submitted under that policy, and OSHA preliminarily finds
that the SNAP sites in ITSNA's application met all other preconditions
of eligibility for conversion to recognized sites under the policy (See
SNAP Termination Policy, part III 1.a-g, 85 FR at 75047). OSHA also
preliminarily decided that it was not necessary to conduct on-site
reviews in connection with ITSNA's expansion application, based on
historical assessment records and supporting documentation submitted by
ITSNA. Moreover, OSHA staff performed assessments of several ITSNA
facilities included in the SNAP conversion application from June 2020
to November 2022, and, while assessors found some nonconformances with
the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7, ITSNA addressed these issues
sufficiently. OSHA staff has preliminarily determined that OSHA should
grant the application and grant recognition to the 23 sites requested
in the application.

III. Preliminary Finding on the Application

    ITSNA submitted an acceptable application for expansion of its
scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file and
pertinent documentation indicates that ITSNA can meet the requirements
prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding its recognition to include
the addition of the 23 additional test sites for NRTL testing and
certification. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim
or temporary approval of ITSNA's application.
    OSHA seeks public comment on this preliminary determination.

IV. Public Participation

    OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether ITSNA meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of recognition as a NRTL.
Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits.
    Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in
writing, stating the reasons for the request by the due date for
comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester
justifies a longer time period. OSHA may deny a request for an
extension if it is not adequately justified.
    To review copies of the exhibit identified in this notice, as well
as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor. These materials also are generally available online at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. OSHA-2007-0039 (for further
information, see the ``Docket'' heading in the section of this notice
titled ADDRESSES).
    OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a
timely manner. After addressing the issues raised by these comments,
staff will make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary of Labor
for Occupational Safety and Health on whether to grant ITSNA's
application for expansion of the scope of recognition. The Assistant
Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application. In
making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other
proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
    OSHA will publish a public notice of the final decision in the
Federal Register.

IV. Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the
agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2),
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393; Sept. 18, 2020),
and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on August 9, 2023.
James S. Frederick,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2023-17427 Filed 8-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 212 (Tuesday, November 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 67820]
[FR Doc No: C1-2015-27221]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76205; File No. SR-BATS- 2015-90]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 11.25, Retail Order Attribution Program

October 21, 2015.

Correction

    In notice document 2015-27221, appearing on pages 65828-65830 in
the issue of Tuesday, October 27, 2015, make the following correction:
    On page 65830, in the second column, in the eighth line from the
bottom, ``November 16, 2015'' should read ``November 17, 2015''.

[FR Doc. C1-2015-27221 Filed 11-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register: October 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 210)]
[Notices]
[Page 61631-61632]
[DOCID:fr31oc07-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

October 24, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
    Docket Numbers: RP96-200-180.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Co.
    Description: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Co. submits a
negotiated rate agreement with Eagle Energy Partners I, LP as Appendix
A.
    Filed Date: 10/19/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071019-0014.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 31, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-24-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company.
    Description: El Paso Natural Gas Company submits its Second Revised
Sheet 29.01 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1-A.
    Filed Date: 10/16/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071017-0105.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 29, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-25-000.
    Applicants: SOUTHERN LNG, INC.
    Description: Southern LNG, Inc submits its Second Revised Sheet 1
et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 10/18/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071019-0044.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 30, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-26-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America
    Description: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America's petition for
temporary waiver of certain provisions of FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth
revised Volume 1 and request for expedited action.
    Filed Date: 10/19/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071023-0007.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday 26, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-28-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.
    Description: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation submits
Second Revised Sheet 430 et al to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume
1, to become effective 11/22/07.
    Filed Date: 10/23/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071024-0026.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 5, 2007.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Acting Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-21413 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P