[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 29, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34141-34142]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13938]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464; FRL-10024-27-OAR]

Air Quality Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS: Responses
to Petitions for Reconsideration and Administrative Stay of the
Designations for Portions of Freestone and Anderson Counties, Rusk and
Panola Counties, and Titus County in Texas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notification of actions denying petitions for reconsideration
and administrative stay.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice
that it has responded to petitions for reconsideration and/or
administrative stay of a final action under the Clean Air Act (CAA)
published in the Federal Register on December 13, 2016, titled, ``Air
Quality Designations for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Supplement to Round 2
for Four Areas in Texas: Freestone and Anderson Counties, Milam County,
Rusk and Panola Counties, and Titus County.'' The EPA has denied these
petitions in letters to the petitioners for the reasons that the EPA
explains in those documents.

DATES: The Administrator signed the associated notification letters on
June 10, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Corey Mocka, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air
Quality Policy Division, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code C539-04,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The EPA is providing notice that it has responded to petitions for
reconsideration and/or administrative stay of a final action under the
CAA published in the Federal Register on December 13, 2016, titled,
``Air Quality Designations for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Supplement to Round 2
for Four Areas in Texas: Freestone and Anderson Counties, Milam County,
Rusk and Panola Counties, and Titus County'' (81 FR 89870). On February
13, 2017, Vistra Energy submitted a petition requesting that the EPA
reconsider and stay the effective date of the EPA's nonattainment
designations for portions of Freestone and Anderson Counties, Rusk and
Panola Counties, and Titus County. Vistra Energy later supplemented
this petition on December 19, 2017. On March 15, 2017, the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) submitted a request for
administrative stay of the effective date for the EPA's final
designations for these areas in Texas. The TCEQ also submitted a
petition for reconsideration of the nonattainment designations on
December 11, 2017. The EPA has denied these petitions in letters to the
petitioners for the reasons that the EPA explains in those documents.

II. Where can I get copies of this document and other related
information?

    This Federal Register document, the petitions for reconsideration
and administrative stay, and the response letters to the petitioners
are available in the docket that the EPA established for the
rulemaking, under Docket ID NO. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464.
    All documents in the docket are listed in the index at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information may
not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
    Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our
staff, the EPA is temporarily suspending the Docket Center and Reading
Room for public visitors to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19.
Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For further information and
updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us online at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets. The EPA continues to carefully and
continuously monitor information from the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, local area health departments, and our federal partners
so we can respond rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.
    In addition, the EPA has established a website for SO2
designations rulemakings at: https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations. This Federal Register notice, the petitions for
reconsideration and administrative stay, and the response letters
denying the petitions are also available on this website along with
other information.

III. Judicial Review

    Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA governs judicial review of final
actions by the EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for
review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit: (i) When the agency action consists of ``nationally
applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the
Administrator,'' or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally
applicable, if ``such action is based on a determination of nationwide
scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds
and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.'' For
locally or regionally applicable final actions, the CAA reserves to the
EPA complete discretion whether to invoke the exception in (ii).

Judicial challenges to the EPA's denials of petitions for
reconsideration of CAA actions belong in the same venue as any
challenge to the action that such petitions request the agency to
reconsider.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cf. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Thomas, 838 F.2d
1224, 1249 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (the clause in CAA section 307(b)
governing ``nationally applicable regulations'' provides
jurisdiction over both the direct challenge to the regulations and
the petition for reconsideration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The D.C. Circuit is the only appropriate venue for both challenges
to the final action titled, ``Air Quality Designations for the 2010
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Primary National Ambient Air Quality
Standard--Supplement to Round 2 for Four Areas in Texas: Freestone and
Anderson Counties, Milam County, Rusk and Panola Counties, and Titus
County,'' 81 FR 89870 (December 13, 2016) (``Round 2 Supplement'') and
challenges to these actions denying administrative petitions on the
Round 2 Supplement. The EPA made a finding in the Round 2 Supplement,
that the Round 2 Supplement is based on a determination of ``nationwide
scope or effect'' within the meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1). See 81
FR at 89874-75. That action is currently being challenged in the Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; however, the EPA maintains that the
proper venue for that action is the D.C. Circuit.\2\ Thus, judicial
challenges to the actions noticed here, denying administrative
petitions for reconsideration and/or stay of the Round 2 Supplement,
also belong in the D.C. Circuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The EPA intends to maintain this position in merits briefing
in the 5th Circuit, as the 5th Circuit's venue decision denied the
EPA's motion to dismiss or transfer the case to the D.C. Circuit
without prejudice to reconsideration of the issue by the merits
panel. Texas v. EPA, 706 Fed. Appx. 159, 161, 165 (5th Cir. 2017)
(``EPA's motion therefore is denied without prejudice to
reconsideration by the merits panel . . . merits briefing will
provide greater clarity on what determinations lie at the [Round 2]
Supplement's core, by, for example, illuminating that the key
determinations in the rule are determinations that specific
methodologies are appropriate or preferable for assessing sulfur
dioxide levels nationwide, as opposed to fact-specific assessments
of sulfur dioxide levels in the four Texas regions. In that case,
the merits panel should not be constrained from revisiting the
issue.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent a court finds these actions denying the
administrative petitions on the Round 2 Supplement to be locally or
regionally applicable, the Administrator is exercising the complete
discretion afforded to him under the CAA to make and publish a finding
that each of these actions are based on a determination of ``nationwide
scope or effect'' within the meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1).\3\ Both
the Round 2 Supplement and these final actions noticed here are
finalized pursuant to a common, uniform nationwide analytical method
and interpretation of CAA section 107(d). In denying the petitions for
reconsideration and administrative stay of the Round 2 Supplement,
these final actions apply the same common, uniform nationwide
analytical method and interpretation of CAA section 107(d) that the EPA
applied across the country in designations for the SO2
Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), including the
EPA's nationwide approach to and technical evaluation of air quality
modeling and monitoring data within the EPA's interpretation of
statutory terms under section 107(d)(1) of the CAA.\4\ These final
actions are based on this same common core of determinations regarding
the nationwide analytical method and interpretation of CAA section
107(d), determinations that specific methodologies are appropriate or
preferable for assessing sulfur dioxide levels nationwide.\5\ More
specifically, these final actions are based on a determination by the
EPA to evaluate areas nationwide using a common five-factor analysis in
determining whether areas are in violation of or contributing to an
area in violation of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS at the time of the
designations final action. The actions denying the petitions for
reconsideration explained, for example, that the EPA's designations and
the denials for reconsideration are based on the EPA's determination to
consider and assess the technical representativeness of all available
information regarding then-current air quality at the time of
designations (e.g., to consider third party modeling submitted to the
EPA of the then-most recent years of air quality and then-currently
available monitoring information, and not to consider projections or
intended monitoring of future years' emissions, for SO2
designations under the CAA). For these reasons, the Administrator is
exercising the complete discretion afforded to him by the CAA and
hereby finds that each of these final actions is based on a
determination of nationwide scope or effect for purposes of CAA section
307(b)(1) and is hereby publishing those findings in the Federal
Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In deciding whether to invoke the exception by making and
publishing a finding that this final action is based on a
determination of nationwide scope or effect, the Administrator has
also taken into account a number of policy considerations, including
his judgment balancing the benefit of obtaining the D.C. Circuit's
authoritative centralized review versus allowing development of the
issue in other contexts and the best use of agency resources.
    \4\ In the report on the 1977 Amendments that revised section
307(b)(1) of the CAA, Congress noted that the Administrator's
determination that the ``nationwide scope or effect'' exception
applies would be appropriate for any action that has a scope or
effect beyond a single judicial circuit. See H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at
323, 324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03.
    \5\ See, supra, n.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under CAA section 307(b), any petition for review of these actions
denying the petitions for reconsideration and/or stay must be filed in
the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60
days from the date this notice is published in the Federal Register.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of these
final actions does not affect the finality of the actions for the
purposes of judicial review, nor does it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review must be filed, and shall not postpone the
effectiveness of such actions.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-13938 Filed 6-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 225 (Monday, November 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 72961]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29757]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. TS15-2-000]

The City of Independence, Missouri; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on August 19, 2015, pursuant to 18 CFR 35.28(e)(2)
and 358.1(d) and Rules 101(e) and 207 of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure,\1\ the City
of Independence, Missouri filed a petition requesting that the
Commission waive reciprocity-based standards of conduct and Open Access
Same-Time Information System (OASIS) requirements that might otherwise
apply under Order Nos. 889 \2\ and 717.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.101(e), 385.207.
    \2\ Open Access Same-Time Information System (formerly Real-Time
Information Networks) and Standards of Conduct, Order No. 889, 61 FR
21,737 (May 10, 1996), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,035 (1996),
clarified, 76 FERC ] 61,009 (1996), modified, Order No. 889-A, 62 FR
12,484 (Mar. 14, 1997), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,049 (1997), reh'g
denied, Order No. 889-B, 62 FR 64,715 (Dec. 9, 1997), 81 FERC ]
61,253 (1997), aff'd in part and remanded in part sub nom.
Transmission Access Policy Study Grp. v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667 (D.C.
Cir. 2000), aff'd sub nom. New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1 (2002).
    \3\ Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No.
717, 73 FR 63,796 (Oct. 27, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,280
(2008), on reh'g, Order No. 717-A, 74 FR 54,463 (Oct. 22, 2009),
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,297 (2009), clarified, Order No. 717-B, 74
FR 60,153 (Nov. 20, 2009), 129 FERC ] 61,123 (2009), on reh'g, Order
No. 717-C, 75 FR 20,909 (Apr. 22, 2010), 131 FERC ] 61,045 (2010),
on reh'g and clarification, Order No. 717-D, 76 FR 20,838 (Apr. 14,
2011), 135 FERC ] 61,017 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 8, 2015.

    Dated: November 17, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-29757 Filed 11-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Minutes for December 5, 2006 Meeting Concerning EPA’s Rulemaking on
n-Propyl Bromide

Attendees:

Amy Flynn, Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

Nancy Beck, OMB

Amanda Lee, OMB

Art Fraas, OMB

Kevin Bromberg, Small Business Administration

Margaret Sheppard, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Rich Morford, Enviro Tech International

Bill Thomas, Enviro Tech International

Geraldine Edens, McKenna Long &Aldridge, representing Enviro Tech
International

Fred Anderson, McKenna Long &Aldridge, representing Enviro Tech
International

Marc Stelljes, SLR International

Will Pickrell, Albermarle Corporation

Nancy O’Malley, Albermarle Corporation

	Mr. Fraas began the meeting by explaining that it is a meeting under
Executive Order 12866.  The rule is now on OMB’s website.  The sign-in
sheet and any materials submitted during the meeting will go on OMB’s
website.

	Fred Anderson gave an overview of the issues to be discussed:  the
legality and scientific issues associated with EPA’s rule on n-propyl
bromide, and particularly the exposure limit.  He said that EPA’s
proposed value of 25 ppm from 2003 acts as a de facto regulatory
standard; industry has adjusted.

	The representatives from Enviro Tech and Albemarle brought a number of
issues concerning EPA’s review of n-propyl bromide:

The lengthy process and lack of certainty about a final decision

The lack of new scientific data that would result in a new decision
coming out of risk assessment

The length and detail of EPA’s review for nPB, compared to that for
other chemicals under the SNAP program

Reports of cases of overexposure from use of nPB-based adhesives should
not be considered representative of the current situation

	Dr. Stelljes discussed a draft document obtained under the Freedom of
Information Act from EPA, a derivation of an acceptable exposure limit .
 Drs. Stelljes and O’Malley disagreed with certain aspects of the
analysis, particularly how it dealt with different female reproductive
effects (length of estrous cycle and lack of estrous cycling).  Dr.
Stelljes compared the results to those in an analysis performed by
Toxicological Excellence in Risk Assessment (TERA).  Drs. Stelljes and
O’Malley thought that sperm and liver effects were stronger endpoints
than the female reproductive effects in the draft exposure limit
derivation.  Dr. Stelljes said there was no new science justifying an
AEL based on the female reproductive effects.

	Mr. Pickrell and Mr. Morford expressed concern that if EPA were to
repropose a rule with an exposure limit lower than 25 ppm, it would hurt
their industry.  Mr. Morford also expressed concern about equity in
EPA’s review of nPB compared to other solvents.

	Both Albemarle and Enviro Tech do not sell nPB in adhesives.  However,
although Enviro Tech does not sell nPB in adhesives, Mr. Morford said
that his company would not want to restrict the use of nPB in that end
use, because competitors might tell customers that nPB has been banned.
He suggested that another option involving use conditions, such as
limits or ventilation requirements, might be appropriate.  Mr. Morford
believes that the case reports of workers being overexposed were due to
“bad actors.”  Finally, Mr. Morford emphasized the need to reach a
final decision.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 245 (Friday, December 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70265-70266]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27464]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2019-0004-N-23]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

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

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its
implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below. Before submitting this ICR
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is
soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities
identified below.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
February 18, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the ICR activities by mail to:
Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of
Information Technology, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Commenters requesting FRA to
acknowledge receipt of their respective comments must include a self-
addressed stamped postcard stating, ``Comments on OMB Control Number
2130-0593,'' and should also include the title of the ICR.
Alternatively, comments may be faxed to Ms. Toone at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Please refer to the assigned OMB control number in any correspondence
submitted. FRA will summarize comments received in response to this
notice in a subsequent notice and include them in its information
collection submission to OMB for approval.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Office of Information Technology, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
(telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
provide 60-days' notice to the public to allow comment on information
collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
See 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. Specifically,
FRA invites interested parties to comment on the following ICR
regarding: (1) Whether the information collection activities are
necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether
the activities will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's
estimates of the burden of the information collection activities,
including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to
determine the estimates; (3) ways for FRA to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (4) ways
for FRA to minimize the burden of information collection activities on
the public, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5
CFR 1320.8(d)(1).
    FRA believes that soliciting public comment may reduce the
administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of
information that Federal regulations mandate. In summary, FRA reasons
that comments received will advance three objectives: (1) Reduce
reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection requirements in
a ``user-friendly'' format to improve the use of such information; and
(3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce
information requested. See 44 U.S.C. 3501.
    The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback
on Agency Service.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0593.
    Abstract: This collection of information is necessary to enable FRA
to garner customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely
manner, consistent with its commitment to improving service delivery.
The information collected from FRA's customers and stakeholders will
help ensure users have an effective, efficient, and satisfying
experience with FRA's programs. This feedback will provide insights
into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations,
provide an early indicator of issues with service, and focus attention
on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might
improve delivery of products or services. This collection will allow
ongoing, collaborative, and

actionable communications between FRA and its customers and
stakeholders. It also allows feedback to contribute directly to the
improvement of program management.
    Improving FRA's programs requires ongoing assessment of service
delivery, meaning a systematic review of the operation of a program
compared to a set of explicit or implicit standards as a means of
contributing to the continuous improvement of the program. FRA will
collect, analyze, and interpret information gathered through this
generic clearance to identify strengths and weaknesses of current
services and make improvements in service delivery based on feedback.
The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: timeliness,
appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of
service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. FRA
will assess responses to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain
the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is
not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on FRA's
services will be unavailable.
    FRA will only submit a collection for approval under this generic
clearance under the following conditions:
     The information gathered is only used internally for
general service improvement and program management purposes and is not
intended for public release;
     The information gathered is not used to substantially
inform significant policy decisions;
     The information gathered will yield qualitative
information; FRA will not design the collection or expect it to yield
statistically reliable results or use it as though the results are
generalizable to the population of study;
     Participation in the collection is voluntary;
     The collection is low-burden for respondents (based on
considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or
burden-hours per respondent) and is low-cost for both the respondents
and the Federal Government;
     The collection is non-controversial and does not raise
issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
     The collection is directed to the solicitation of opinions
from respondents who have experience with the OMB program or may have
experience with the OMB program soon after receiving the collection;
and
     With the exception of information needed to provide
remuneration for participants of focus groups and cognitive laboratory
studies, personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to
the extent necessary and is not retained by FRA.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a current information
collection.
    Affected Public: Individuals and Households, Businesses and
Organizations, State, Local or Tribal Governments.
    Frequency of Submission: Once per request.
    Reporting Burden:

                                        Estimated Annual Reporting Burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average time
       Type of collection           Respondent        Total annual responses       per responses   Total annual
                                     universe                                        (minutes)     burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Surveys, comment cards,                   350  Annual, periodically..........              10              59
 interviews, focus groups, and
 web-based technologies for
 Customer Service Satisfaction
 and Delivery for the Office of
 the Administrator.
2. Surveys, comment cards,                   350  Annual, periodically..........              10              59
 interviews, focus groups, and
 web-based technologies for
 Customer Service Satisfaction
 and Delivery for the Office of
 Railroad Safety, Safety
 Assurance and Compliance.
3. Surveys, comment cards,                   350  Annual, periodically..........              10              59
 interviews, focus groups, and
 web-based technologies for
 Customer Service Satisfaction
 and Delivery for the Office of
 Railroad Safety, Passenger Rail.
4. Surveys, comment cards,                   350  Annual, periodically..........              10              59
 interviews, focus groups, and
 web-based technologies for
 Customer Service Satisfaction
 and Delivery for the Office of
 Railroad Safety, Safety
 Analysis.
5. Surveys, comment cards,                   350  Annual, periodically..........              10              59
 interviews, focus groups, and
 web-based technologies for
 Customer Service Satisfaction
 and Delivery for the Office of
 Railroad Policy and
 Development, Research and
 Development and Passenger and
 Freight Programs.
6. Surveys, comment cards,                   350  Annual, periodically..........              10              59
 interviews, focus groups, and
 web-based technologies for
 Customer Service Satisfaction
 and Delivery for the Office of
 Financial Management and
 Administration.
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
    Annual Total (estimated)....           2,100  ..............................  ..............             354
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 2,100.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 354.
    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi),
FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor,
and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Brett A. Jortland,
Acting Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2019-27464 Filed 12-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 116 (Monday, June 17, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27959-27960]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12719]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-1036]

Safety Zones, Recurring Marine Events in Captain of the Port Long
Island Sound Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce ten safety zones in the Sector
Long Island Sound area of responsibility on the date and time listed in
the table below. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of
life on navigable waterways during the events. During the enforcement
periods, no person or vessel may enter the safety zones without
permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector Long Island Sound
or designated representative.

DATES: The regulation in 33 CFR 165.151, Table 1, will be enforced
during the dates and times listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
of enforcement, call or email Chief Petty Officer Katherine Linnick,
Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Long Island
Sound; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety
zones listed in 33 CFR 165.151, Table 1, on the following dates and
times:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.7 South Hampton Fresh Air Home          Date: July 5, 2019.
 Fireworks.
                                          Rain Date: July 6,
                                          2019.
                                          Time: 8:30 p.m. to
                                          10:30 p.m.
                                          Location: Waters of
                                          Shinnecock Bay, Southampton,
                                          NY in approximate position,
                                          40[deg]51'48'' N,
                                          072[deg]26'30'' W (NAD 83).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.8 Westport Police Athletic League       Date: July 3, 2019.
 Fireworks.
                                          Rain Date: July 5,
                                          2019.
                                          Time: 8:00 p.m. to
                                          10:00 p.m.
                                          Location: Waters off
                                          Compo Beach, Westport, CT in
                                          approximate position,
                                          41[deg]06'15'' N,
                                          073[deg]20'57'' W (NAD 83).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.19 Jones Beach State Park Fireworks..   Date: July 4, 2019.
                                          Time: 9:00 p.m. to
                                          10:00 p.m.

                                          Location: Waters off
                                          Jones Beach State Park,
                                          Wantagh, NY in approximate
                                          position 40[deg]34'56.676'' N,
                                          073[deg]30'31.186'' W (NAD
                                          83).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.27 City of Long Beach Fireworks......   Date: July 5, 2019.
                                          Rain Date: July 6-7,
                                          2019.
                                          Time: 9:00 p.m. to
                                          10:00 p.m.
                                          Location: Waters off
                                          Riverside Blvd., City of Long
                                          Beach, NY in approximate
                                          position 40[deg]34'38.77'' N,
                                          073[deg]39'41.32'' W (NAD 83).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.31 Clam Shell Foundation Fireworks...   Date: July 13, 2019.
                                          Rain Date: July 14,
                                          2019.
                                          Time: 9:00 p.m. to
                                          10:00 p.m.
                                          Location: Waters of
                                          Three Mile Harbor, East
                                          Hampton, NY in approximate
                                          position 41[deg]1'15.49'' N,
                                          072[deg]11'27.50'' W (NAD 83).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.33 Groton Long Point Yacht Club         Date: July 20, 2019.
 Fireworks.
                                          Rain Date: July 21,
                                          2019.
                                          Time: 9:00 p.m. to
                                          10:00 p.m.
                                          Location: Waters of
                                          Long Island Sound, Groton, CT
                                          in approximate position
                                          41[deg]18'05'' N,
                                          072[deg]02'08'' W (NAD 83).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.34 Devon Yacht Club Fireworks........   Date: July 6, 2019.
                                          Rain Date: July 7,
                                          2019.
                                          Time: 9:00 p.m. to
                                          10:00 p.m.
                                          Location: Waters of
                                          Napeague Bay, in Block Island
                                          Sound off Amagansett, NY in
                                          approximate position
                                          40[deg]59'41.40'' N,
                                          072[deg]06'08.70'' W (NAD 83).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.40 Rowayton Fireworks................   Date: July 4, 2019.
                                          Rain Date: July 5,
                                          2019.
                                          Time: 9:00 p.m. to
                                          10:00 p.m.
                                          Location: Waters of
                                          Long Island Sound south of
                                          Bayley Beach Park, Rowayton,
                                          CT in approximate position
                                          41[deg]03'11'' N,
                                          073[deg]26'41'' W (NAD 83).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.4 Town of Babylon Fireworks..........   Date: August 17, 2019.
                                          Rain Date: August 18,
                                          2019.
                                          Time: 9:00 p.m. to
                                          10:00 p.m.
                                          Location: Waters off
                                          of Cedar Beach Town Park,
                                          Babylon, NY in approximate
                                          position 40[deg]37'53'' N,
                                          073[deg]20'12'' W (NAD 83).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.151, the events listed above are
established as safety zones. During the enforcement period, persons and
vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, mooring,
or anchoring within these safety zones unless they receive permission
from the COTP or designated representative.
    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165
and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community
with advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local
Notice to Mariners or marine information broadcasts. If the COTP
determines that these safety zones need not be enforced for the full
duration stated in this notice of enforcement, a Broadcast Notice to
Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated
area.

    Dated: May 7, 2019.
K.B. Reed,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Long Island Sound.
[FR Doc. 2019-12719 Filed 6-14-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 13857]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05879]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, March
17, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Piwowar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Adjudicatory matters;
    Opinion; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Dated: March 10, 2016.
Lynn M. Powalski,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-05879 Filed 3-11-16; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 177)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 55728-55730]
[DOCID:fr14se10-22]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 799

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0555; FRL-8428-8]
RIN 2070-AB79 and RIN 2070-AC76

Withdrawal of Proposed Rules; Discontinuing Rulemaking Efforts
Listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
Actions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rules; withdrawals.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is withdrawing two proposed rules for which the Agency no
longer intends to issue a final rule. This document identifies the
proposed rules and explains the Agency's decision not to pursue a final
rulemaking at this time. This withdrawal of these proposed rules does
not preclude the Agency from initiating the same or similar rulemaking
at a future date. It does, however, close out the entry for these
proposed rules in the EPA Semi-Annual Regulatory Agenda, published as
part of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
Actions (Unified Agenda). Should the Agency decide at some future date
to initiate the same or similar rulemaking, it will add an appropriate
new entry to the EPA Semi-Annual Regulatory Agenda to reflect the
initiation of the action.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0555. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the docket index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available in the
electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available
in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room
is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202) 566-0280. Docket visitors are required

to show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and
sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-
ray machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC
badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned
upon departure.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Robert Jones, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8161; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
particular interest to those persons who follow proposed rules issued
under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Since others may also be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities potentially interested.

II. Why is EPA Issuing this Withdrawal Document?

    This document serves two purposes:
    1. It announces to the public that EPA is withdrawing certain
proposed rules for which the Agency no longer intends to issue a final
rule .
    2. It officially terminates the ongoing rulemaking activities,
which allows the Agency to close out the individual rulemaking entries
for these actions that appear in the Agency's Semi-Annual Regulatory
Agenda.
    All agencies publish Semi-Annual Regulatory Agendas describing
regulatory actions they are developing or have recently completed.
These Semi-Annual Regulatory Agendas are published in the Federal
Register, usually during the spring and fall of each year, as part of
the Unified Agenda. The Agency publishes the EPA Semi-Annual Regulatory
Agenda to update the public about: Regulations and major policies
currently under development, reviews of existing regulations and major
policies, and rules and major policies completed or canceled since the
last Semi-Annual Regulatory Agenda. (See http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/
search/regagenda.html.)
    We believe our actions will be more cost-effective and protective
if our development process includes stakeholders working with us to
identify the most practical and effective solutions to problems and we
stress this point most strongly in all of our training programs for
rule and policy developers. The Semi-Annual Regulatory Agenda is often
used as a tool to solicit interest and participation from stakeholders.
As such, EPA believes that the public is best served by a Semi-Annual
Regulatory Agenda that reflects active rulemaking efforts. The
withdrawal of these inactive rulemaking efforts will streamline the
Semi-Annual Regulatory Agenda and allow the public to better identify
and focus on those rulemaking activities that are active.
    For the individual reasons described in this document, the Agency
has decided not to complete these actions at this time. By withdrawing
the proposed rules, the Agency is eliminating the pending nature of
that regulatory action. Should the Agency determine to pursue anything
in these areas in the future, it will issue a new proposed rule and
create a new entry in the Agency's Semi-Annual Regulatory Agenda.

III. Which Rulemakings are Being Withdrawn?

    The following two proposed rules are being withdrawn. The titles
match that used in the Semi-Annual Regulatory Agenda, and the ``RIN''
refers to the regulatory identifier number assigned to the rulemaking
effort in the Semi-Annual Regulatory Agenda.

A. The Proposed Test Rule for Certain Chemicals on the ATSDR/EPA CERCLA
Priority List of Hazardous Substances (RIN 2070-AB79)

    1. What was proposed? In the Federal Register issue of October 20,
2006 (71 FR 61926) (FRL-8081-3), EPA published the ``Proposed Test Rule
for Certain Chemicals on the ATSDR/EPA CERCLA Priority List of
Hazardous Substances'' for the consideration of testing for four
chemicals (chloroethane, hydrogen cyanide, methylene chloride, and
sodium cyanide). The chemicals are listed on the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)/EPA priority list of hazardous
substances which is compiled under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
    2. Why is it being withdrawn? In the proposal for this test rule,
EPA explained that the reason EPA proposed to use its authority under
section 4 of TSCA was to support ATSDR's Substance Specific Applied
Research Program, a program for collecting data and other information
needed for developing health assessments pursuant to CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
9601 et seq. ATSDR had referred the chemicals subject to the proposed
rule to EPA under authority of section 104(i) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
9604(i). Since then, ATSDR has informed EPA that it no longer needs EPA
to finalize this proposed rule. Therefore, OPPT is withdrawing this
proposed test rule and removing it from the EPA Semi-Annual Regulatory
Agenda.
    3. Where can I get more information about this action? EPA
established a docket for this action under docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2002-0073, which is available at regulations.gov. See ADDRESSES
for more detailed information about this docket.

B. The Proposed Test Rule for Hazardous Air Pollutants (RIN 2070-AC76)

    1. What was proposed? In the Federal Register issue of June 26,
1996 (61 FR 33177) (FRL-4869-1), EPA published the ``Proposed Test Rule
for Hazardous Air Pollutants'' (HAPs). This document proposed using
EPA's authority under section 4 of TSCA for testing 21 chemicals that
are listed as hazardous air pollutants under section 112 of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) and solicited proposals for enforceable consent
agreements.
    2. Why is it being withdrawn? EPA's Office of Air and Radiation
(OAR), along with EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD),
referred the chemicals subject to this proposed rule to OPPT for
obtaining certain health effects data to assess the risk remaining
after the imposition of technology-based emissions standards required
by CAA section 112(d), 42 U.S.C. 7412(d). OPPT explained that the
reason it proposed to use EPA's authority under section 4 of TSCA was
to support OAR and ORD in meeting EPA's statutory obligation under CAA
section 112(f), 42 U.S.C. 7412(f). After the proposal was issued in
1996, OAR and ORD informed OPPT that they no longer support the need
for a final rule. Additionally, OPPT has determined that the record
does not address scientific information developed since the original
proposal was issued in 1996. Therefore OPPT is withdrawing this
proposed test rule and removing it from the EPA Semi-Annual Regulatory
Agenda.
    3. Where can I get more information about this action? EPA
established a docket for this action under docket control number OPPTS-
42187, which is available at regulations.gov. See ADDRESSES for more
detailed information about this docket.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 799

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Health,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 8, 2010.
Stephen A. Owens,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2010-22862 Filed 9-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


Attachment 2  Revised PM2.5 Recommendations 9/ 1/ 2004 Walker County  Unclassifiable Floyd Co. Athens  Unclassifiable Atlanta Augusta  Unclassifiable Macon  Unclassifiable


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73354-73359]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28874]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73736; File No. SR-ISE-2014-24]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the Opening
Process

December 4, 2014.
    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 November 19, 2014, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which items have been prepared by
the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules in order to modify the
manner in which the Exchange's trading system opens trading at the
beginning of the day and after trading halts and to codify certain
existing functionality within the trading system regarding opening and
reopening of options classes traded on the Exchange. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
www.ise.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 self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries,
set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects
of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend ISE rules in
order to modify the manner in which the Exchange's trading system opens
trading at the beginning of the day and after trading halts and to
codify certain existing functionality within the trading system
regarding opening and reopening of option classes traded on the
Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 701 to
modify the opening process by providing away market protection at the
open and making system changes to limit instances where an options
class goes into an imbalance state which prevents the Exchange from
determining the opening price in a timely manner for that options
class. The Exchange also

proposes to amend parts of Rule 701 to more clearly describe the manner
in which the trading system functions with regards to the rotation
process for regular orders.
    Currently, for each class of options that has been approved for
trading, the opening rotation is conducted by the Primary Market Maker
(``PMM'') appointed to such class of options. The Exchange may direct
that one or more trading rotations be employed on any business day to
aid in producing a fair and orderly market. For each rotation so
employed, except as the Exchange may direct, rotations are conducted in
the order and manner the PMM determines to be appropriate under the
circumstances. The PMM has the authority to determine the rotation
order and manner and may also employ multiple trading rotations
simultaneously.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ISE Rule 701(a)(1)-(4). The Exchange proposes to delete
amend [sic] certain parts of Rule 701 and add language to the
current rule to describe in greater detail how the PMM initiates the
rotation process, and in the absence of a PMM, how the trading
system initiates the rotation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Trading rotations are employed at the opening of the Exchange each
business day and during the reopening of the market after a trading
halt. The opening rotation in each class of options is held promptly
following the opening of the market for the underlying security.\4\ The
opening rotation for options contracts in an underlying security is
delayed until the market for such underlying security has opened unless
the Exchange determines that the interests of a fair and orderly market
are best served by opening trading in the options contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The ``market for the underlying security'' is either the
primary listing market, the primary volume market (defined as the
market with the most liquidity in that underlying security for the
previous two calendar months), or the first market to open the
underlying security, as determined by the Exchange on an issue-by-
issue basis. See ISE Rule 701(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the rotation process can be initiated in one of two
ways. A PMM can initiate the rotation process by either sending a
rotation request through the trading system or by selecting an auto-
open setting in the trading system for each class in which it serves as
a PMM.
    Once the security underlying an options class has opened, the
trading system checks to see whether the PMM assigned to that options
class has selected to auto-open the options class. If the PMM has not
selected to auto-open the options class, the trading system waits for
the PMM to send a rotation request to start the rotation process. The
PMM can initiate the rotation process by submitting a quote. To
initiate the rotation process, a PMM quote must be present. If the PMM
quote is not present, the rotation process for that class will not
start.
    There may be instances where the PMM is unable to initiate the
rotation process because, for instance, the PMM is experiencing
technical difficulties in sending the rotation request to the Exchange,
or the PMM has not set the auto-open setting or because the PMM has not
submitted any quotes for an options class. In such instances, the
Exchange will initiate the rotation process by using the rapid opening
mechanism within a configurable time period \5\ after the underlying
security has opened. In order for the Exchange to use the rapid opening
mechanism in instances where the Primary Market Maker has not initiated
the rotation process, the following conditions must be met: (i) At
least one market maker quote must be present; (ii) if there are more
than one market maker quotes present, the best quoted market maker bid
must not be greater than a configurable number of ticks than the best
quoted market maker offer; \6\ (iii) if a class is traded on an another
exchange, at least one other exchange must have opened that class and a
NBBO has been published; and (iv) the best quoted market maker bid and
best quoted market maker offer must not cross the NBBO by a certain
margin. The margin is calculated as a percentage of the mid-point of
the NBBO with up to a maximum and a minimum range.\7\ In the event any
of the conditions described above are not met, the trading system will
repeat the process after a configurable time period until all the
conditions are met \8\ thus allowing the Exchange to use the rapid
opening mechanism to initiate the opening rotation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The time period is currently set to five seconds. Members
are advised when there is a change to this configurable time period
through the issuance of information circular.
    \6\ The number of ticks is currently set to five. Members are
advised when there is a change to the number of ticks through the
issuance of information circular.
    \7\ The margin is currently calculated as 10% of mid-point of
the NBBO with up to a maximum of $5.00 and a minimum of $0.10.
    \8\ This process is currently repeated every two seconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After a rotation process has been performed and the option class
cannot be opened due to an imbalance condition, an imbalance broadcast
is sent to members. The PMM can then re-initiate the rotation process
again. If the PMM does not re-initiate the rotation process within a
configurable time period,\9\ the Exchange will re-initiate the rotation
process as described above. The rotation process will repeat until the
class is opened. The Exchange may delay the commencement of the opening
rotation in any class of options in the interests of a fair and orderly
market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The time period is currently set to one second.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The trading system currently uses quotes provided by the PMM for
the series in question to set a range within which to open the options
series (``Boundary Prices''). The Boundary Prices ensure the opening
price is close to the reasonable price range for the options class. If
the PMM for an options class is not present on the bid or the offer for
that options class then the best quote from the Competitive Market
Makers (``CMMs'') for that options class is used.
    To determine the opening price, the accumulated quantity for each
price level is calculated for the buy and sell sides. Only quotes,
market orders and displayed quantities of limit orders are used to
calculate the accumulated quantity. The opening price is calculated as
the price level where a maximum quantity can be traded. If there is no
overlap between buy and sell prices the opening price cannot be
calculated and the options class is opened without a trade. If there
are only market orders on both sides of the quote, an opening price
cannot be calculated and the options class goes into an imbalance
state, in which case, the options class does not open until the
imbalance condition is resolved, as described above. If the calculated
opening price is outside the Boundary Prices, the options class goes
into an imbalance state and the options class again does not open until
the imbalance condition is resolved. If the calculated opening price is
at or inside the Boundary Prices then that price is the opening price.
    Once the opening price for an options class has been determined,
order and quotes on the order book in that options class are matched to
trade in the following order: (1) Market orders trade first, and can
match with other market orders, quotes and limit orders. As noted
above, if market orders on either or both sides cannot be traded
entirely the options class goes into an imbalance state; (2) bid quotes
and bid limit orders priced higher than the opening price and ask
quotes and ask limit orders priced lower than the opening price trade
next; (3) Priority Customer \10\

orders with a limit price equal to the opening price trade next in time
priority; and (4) any remaining quantity of quotes and limit orders at
the opening price trade pro rata. Only the displayed quantity of orders
and quotes participate in the opening process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Pursuant to ISE Rules 100(a)(37A) and 100(a)(37B), a
Priority Customer Order is an order for the account of a person or
entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii)
does not place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on
average during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are a number of issues with the current opening which has
resulted in fewer pre-open orders being sent to ISE by order flow
providers. First, while trading through a better away price on the open
is permitted under the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed
Market Plan (the ``Linkage Plan'') and ISE Rules,\11\ several other
exchanges provide away market price protection at the opening \12\
resulting in order flow being sent to those exchanges and not to ISE
due to the lack of such price protection on ISE. Second, the opening of
options series can be delayed by imbalances that prevent ISE from
determining an opening price in a timely manner. Such delays exacerbate
the problem of not providing price protection at the opening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See ISE Rule 1901(b).
    \12\ See NASDAQ OMX PHLX (``PHLX'') Rule 1017(l); Chicago Board
Options Exchange (``CBOE'') Rule 6.2B, Interpretation .03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange therefore proposes to modify the opening process by
providing away market price protection at the opening by including the
away best bid and offer (``ABBO'') when calculating the Boundary
Prices. The Exchange also proposes to modify the opening process by
moving from a single price opening, which will reduce the imbalance
conditions that the opening process currently faces.
    As is the case today, the PMM or the Exchange will continue to
initiate a rotation in an options class. Once the PMM or the Exchange
initiates a rotation, the trading system will automatically process
quotes and orders in each series. When there is no executable interest
in a particular series, i.e., there are no quotes or orders that lock
or cross each other, the trading system will open that series by
disseminating the Exchange's best bid and offer among quotes and
orders. Any Public Customer Orders \13\ that would lock or cross a bid
or offer from another exchange are not included in the Exchange's
disseminated best bid and offer and are simultaneously processed in
accordance with Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 1901.\14\ If there
are any Non-Customer Orders \15\ that would lock or cross a bid or an
offer from another exchange by more than two ticks, such orders are
canceled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Pursuant to ISE Rules 100(a)(38) and 100(a)(39), a Public
Customer means a person or entity that is not a broker or dealer in
securities and a Public Customer Order means an order for the
account of a Public Customer.
    \14\ Under the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed
Market Plan, the Exchange cannot execute orders at a price that is
inferior to the NBBO, nor can the Exchange place an order on its
book that would cause the ISE best bid or offer to lock or cross
another exchange's quote. In compliance with this requirement, Non-
Customer Orders and Public Customer Orders are exposed to all ISE
Members for up to one second to give them an opportunity to execute
orders at the NBBO price or better before orders are rejected (in
the case of Non-Customer Orders) or routed out to other exchanges
(in the case of Public Customer Orders). See Supplementary Material
.02 to Rule 1901.
    \15\ Pursuant to ISE Rules 100(a)(27) and (28), a Non-Customer
means a person or entity that is a broker or dealer in securities
and a Non-Customer Order means an order for the account of a Non-
Customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If there are non-customer orders that would lock or cross a bid or
offer from another exchange by two ticks or less they will be included
in the Exchange's disseminated best bid and offer. Any quotes that
would lock or cross a bid or an offer from another exchange, will also
be included in the Exchange's disseminated best bid and offer.
    The proposed opening process is an iterative process. In the first
iteration, the trading system attempts to derive the opening price to
be at or better than the ISE market maker quotes and ABBO prices. When
there is executable interest, i.e., there are quotes or orders on the
Exchange that lock or cross each other, the trading system will first
calculate the Boundary Prices. As is the case today, the trading system
will use quotes provided by the PMM for the series in question to set
the Boundary Prices. If the PMM is not present on either side of the
market then the best quotes from the CMMs are used on the corresponding
side. ISE Market Maker quotes therefore are the PMM's best bid and
offer, or in the absence of a PMM quote, best bid and offer of CMMs. If
there are no PMM or CMM quotes on the bid side, the lowest minimum
trading increment for the option class is used on the bid side. If
there are no PMM or CMM quotes on the offer side, the options class
will not open because in the absence of an offer there is no limit as
to the price at which an opening trade can occur. If the options class
is open on another exchange, the Boundary Prices are determined to be
the higher of the ISE Market Maker's bid in that options class and the
national best bid, and the lower of the ISE Market Maker's offer in
that options class and the national best offer.
    Once the trading system has determined the Boundary Prices, it then
determines the price at which the maximum number of contracts can trade
at or within the Boundary Prices (the ``execution price''). Once the
trading system determines the execution price, orders and quotes are
processed as follows. At the execution price, market orders will be
given priority before limit orders and quotes, and limit orders and
quotes will be given priority by price. For limit orders and quotes
with the same price, priority will be accorded first to Priority
Customer Orders over Professional Orders \16\ and quotes. Priority
Customer Orders with the same limit price will be executed in random
\17\ order while Professional Orders and quotes with the same limit
price will be executed pro-rata based on size. If the Boundary Prices
are calculated using the national best bid and/or offer, any remaining
Public Customer Orders after this iteration that would lock or cross a
bid or offer from another exchange are processed in accordance with
Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 1901. Any remaining Non-Customer
Orders that would lock or cross a bid or offer from another exchange
may trade outside the Boundary Prices by up to two trading increments
as further described under the third iteration below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Pursuant to ISE Rule 100(a)(37C), a Professional Order is
an order that is for the account of a person or entity that is not a
Priority Customer.
    \17\ Priority Customer orders with the same limit price in the
regular order book are currently executed in time priority during
the opening. The Exchange believes executing these orders on a
random basis is a fairer approach because the current time priority
is dependent on when such orders are communicated to the Exchange by
a Priority Customer's broker before the market, not the time the
Priority Customer expressed interest in doing the trade. Executing
these orders in random will provide Priority Customer orders an
equal opportunity to participate at the open.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 1

    Suppose the following market in option class A:

Away Market BBO: 10 @1.00 x 10 @1.05
ISE PMM Quote: 10 @1.01 x 10 @1.04
ISE CMM Quote: 10 @0.90 x 50 @1.03

    Suppose further the following buy and sell orders in option class
A:

Priority Customer 1: Buy 10 @1.00
Non-Customer 1: Buy 10 @0.99
Non-Customer 2: Buy 5 @0.95
Priority Customer 2: Sell 50 @0.96
Non-Customer 3: Sell 50 @0.95
Non-Customer 4: Sell 50 @0.95

    In example 1 above, since the ISE PMM quote is better than the away
market quote, the Boundary Prices are calculated using the ISE PMM
quote, or 1.01 x 1.04. The highest bid at ISE is 1.01 and lowest offer
is 0.95. To keep the trade within the Boundary Prices,

the opening trade would be executed at 1.01 as follows:
     ISE PMM buys 10 contracts
     Non-Customer 3 and Non-Customer 4 sell 5 contracts each
using the pro-rata allocation method.
    If after the first iteration there remain unexecuted orders and
quotes that lock or cross each other, the trading system will initiate
a second iteration. In the second iteration, the trading system uses
either the ISE market maker quotes or the ABBO prices,\18\ whichever
was not used in the first iteration. For example, if the ISE market
maker quotes were used in the first iteration, the second iteration
will use ABBO prices, and vice versa. If there were no ABBO prices for
consideration for the first iteration, then this second iteration does
not occur and the trading system will initiate the third iteration as
described below. The second iteration only occurs if there are both ISE
market maker quotes and ABBO prices available in the first iteration to
determine the opening price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The ABBO prices considered in the first iteration are also
used during the second iteration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The trading system then determines the price at which the maximum
number of contracts can trade at or within the widened Boundary Prices.
Once the trading system determines the execution price following the
second iteration, orders and quotes are processed as follows. At the
execution price following the second iteration, market orders are given
priority before limit orders and quotes, and limit orders and quotes
are given priority by price. For limit orders and quotes with the same
price, priority is accorded first to Priority Customer Orders over
Professional Orders and quotes. Priority Customer Orders with the same
limit price are executed in random order while Professional Orders and
quotes with the same limit price are executed pro-rata based on size.
If the Boundary Prices in the second iteration are calculated using the
national best bid and/or offer, any remaining Public Customer Orders
after this iteration that would lock or cross a bid or offer from
another exchange are processed in accordance with Supplementary
Material .02 to Rule 1901. Any remaining Non-Customer Orders that would
lock or cross a bid or offer from another exchange may trade outside
the Boundary Prices by up to two trading increments as further
described under the third iteration below.
    In example 1 above, the following orders and quotes remain on the
ISE order book following the first iteration:

ISE PMM Quote: 0 @0.00 x 10 @1.04
ISE CMM Quote: 10 @0.90 x 50 @1.03
Priority Customer 1: Buy 10 @1.00
Non-Customer 1: Buy 10 @0.99
Non-Customer 2: Buy 5 @0.95
Priority Customer 2: Sell 50 @0.96
Non-Customer 3: Sell 45 @0.95
Non-Customer 4: Sell 45 @0.95

    Since in the first iteration the Boundary Prices were calculated
using the ISE PMM Quotes, the second iteration will use away market
prices that were not used in the first iteration and the Boundary
Prices are calculated to be 1.00 x 1.05. The highest bid at ISE is now
1.00 and lowest offer is 0.95. To keep the trade within the Boundary
Prices, the second opening trade will be executed at 1.00 as follows:
     Priority Customer 1 buys 10 contracts
     Non-Customer 3 and Non-Customer 4 sell 5 contracts each
using the pro-rata allocation method
     Priority Customer 2 is exposed to all ISE Members to give
them an opportunity to execute the order at the NBBO price and is
routed out if not completely executed on ISE.
    If after the second iteration there remain unexecuted orders and
quotes that lock or cross each other, the trading system will initiate
a third iteration. In the third iteration, the Boundary Prices, i.e.,
the prices used in the second iteration, and in the case where the
second iteration does not occur, the prices used in the first
iteration, are widened by two trading increments. The trading system
then determines the price at which the maximum number of contracts can
trade at or within the widened Boundary Prices. Once the trading system
determines the execution price following the third iteration, orders
and quotes are processed as follows. At the execution price following
the third iteration, market orders are given priority before limit
orders and quotes, and limit orders and quotes are given priority by
price. For limit orders and quotes with the same price, priority is
accorded first to Priority Customer Orders over Professional Orders and
quotes. Priority Customer Orders with the same limit price are executed
in random order while Professional Orders and quotes with the same
limit price are executed pro-rata based on size. Thereafter, any
unexecuted Priority Customer Orders that lock or cross the Boundary
Prices are handled by the PMM \19\ and any unexecuted Professional
Orders and Non-Customer Orders that lock or cross the Boundary Prices
are canceled. While Professional Orders and Non-Customer Orders are
canceled in these circumstances, the Exchange seeks to provide a higher
level of service for Priority Customer orders by having them handled by
the PMM, which has an affirmative obligation to provide liquidity and
price continuity. The Exchange believes that providing this service for
Priority Customer orders is appropriate and consistent with feedback
from members that enter Priority Customer orders on the Exchange, who
prefer that Priority Customer orders not be canceled in these
circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The PMM has the obligation under existing Exchange rules to
engage in dealings for his own account when, among other things,
there is a temporary disparity between the supply of and demand for
a particular options contract, and to act with due diligence in
handling orders. See ISE Rule 803(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In example 1 above, the following orders and quotes remain on the
ISE order book following the second iteration:

ISE PMM Quote: 0 @0.00 x 10 @1.04
ISE CMM Quote: 10 @.90 x 50 @1.03
Non-Customer 1: Buy 10 @0.99
Non-Customer 2: Buy 5 @.95
Non-Customer 3: Sell 40 @.95
Non-Customer 4: Sell 40 @.95

    In the third iteration, the Boundary Prices are widened by two
trading increments and are calculated to be 0.98 x 1.07 (best bid of
1.00 widened by two trading increments x best offer of 1.05 widened by
two trading increments). The highest bid at ISE is now 0.99 and lowest
offer remains at 0.95. To keep the trade within the Boundary Prices,
the third opening trade will be executed at 0.98 as follows:
     Non-Customer 1 buys 10 contracts
     Non-Customer 3 and Non-Customer 4 sell 5 contracts each
using the pro-rata allocation method.
    Since the remaining quantity of Non-Customer 3 and Non-Customer 4
orders are priced more than two trading increments away from the
Boundary Prices, these orders are cancelled.
    If after the third iteration there remain unexecuted orders and
quotes that lock or cross each other, the trading system will initiate
a fourth and final iteration. In the fourth iteration, the trading
system does not calculate new Boundary Prices. The trading system will
simply trade any remaining interest. Thereafter, the trading system
opens the options series by disseminating the Exchange's best bid and
offer derived from the remaining orders and quotes.
    Continuing with example 1 above, following the third iteration, the
following orders and quotes remain on the ISE order book:

ISE PMM Quote: 0 @0.00 x 10 @1.04
ISE CMM Quote: 10 @0.90 x 50 @1.03
Non-Customer 2: Buy 5 @0.95

    Since there are no marketable orders or quotes left on the ISE
order book, the trading system opens the class and disseminates the
Exchange's best bid and offer as 5 @0.95 x 50 @1.03.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and
the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national
securities exchange, and, in particular with the requirements of
Section 6(b) of the Act.\20\ Specifically, the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\21\ because it is designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The Exchange believes that the proposed opening
process for options listed on the Exchange will help ensure that ISE
opens trading in options contracts in a fair and orderly manner and in
a greater number of options classes. Specifically, the proposed rule
change will provide away market protection at the opening which the
Exchange believes will encourage market participants to direct their
pre-opening order flow to the Exchange and therefore foster greater
competition at the open for the benefit of all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act because it will also facilitate the price formation process by
taking into account away market prices when calculating the Boundary
Prices which the Exchange believes will limit instances of an options
class going into an imbalance state and therefore not opening for
trading on the Exchange in a timely fashion. Additionally, the proposal
to move away from a single opening price will permit the Exchange to
execute a greater number of contracts at the open and therefore remove
impediments to a free and open market and foster competition at the
open.
    The proposed rule change to codify the rapid opening mechanism into
the Exchange's rules will benefit investors and promotes an open market
by adding detail to the rules regarding how the trading system
facilitates the opening of option classes on the Exchange.
    The Exchange's proposal to permit the execution of Priority
Customer orders with the same limit price in the regular order book on
a random basis is a fairer approach because the current time priority
is dependent on when such orders are communicated to the Exchange, not
the time the order originator expressed an interest in doing the trade.
The Exchange believes that in the interest of promoting just and
equitable principles of trade, it is appropriate to execute such orders
on a random basis to ensure that all orders are afforded the same
opportunity for execution. For example, suppose order 1 originating
from a retail customer was sent at 11 p.m. to its broker who is a
member of the Exchange (member 1) and order 2, also originating from a
retail customer, was sent at 8 a.m. the following day to its broker who
too is a member of the Exchange (member 2). If member 2 initiates its
connection to the Exchange before member 1 does and therefore sends its
retail customer order before member 1 sends its retail customer order,
member 2's retail customer order will have time priority over member
1's retail customer order even though member 1's customer had expressed
an interest in trading earlier than member 2's customer. The Exchange
believes it is in the public interest to execute these orders in random
as means to provide them an equal opportunity to participate at the
open.
    As a participant exchange of the Linkage Plan, the Exchange has
adopted rules implementing various requirements specified in the
Linkage Plan. The Linkage Plan provides a set of rules and procedures
designed to avoid trade-throughs and locked markets. Specifically,
Section 5(a)--Order Protection--of the Linkage Plan requires that each
participant exchange establish written policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed to prevent trade-throughs and to conduct
surveillance to ascertain the effectiveness of such policies and
procedures. Section 5(b) provides a number of exceptions to the order
protection requirements. Section 5(b)(ii), in particular, permits
trade-throughs to happen during a trading rotation.
    The Exchange notes that each iteration of the proposed iterative
process complies with Section 5(a) of the Linkage Plan, or qualifies as
an exception under Section 5(b)(ii) of the Linkage Plan. For the
purposes of the Linkage Plan, each iteration is a trading rotation to
determine Boundary Prices at which the most amount of contracts can be
traded.
    The Exchange represents that the first iteration complies with the
order protection requirements of the Linkage Plan if it utilizes ISE
PMM quotes to determine the Boundary Prices because the ISE PMM quotes
are better than any away market quotes and therefore would not trade-
through better prices at away markets. The first iteration also
complies with the order protection requirements of the Linkage Plan if
it utilizes away market quotes to determine the Boundary Prices in that
any Public Customer orders that remain after this iteration that would
lock or cross a bid or offer from another exchange would be processed
in accordance with the requirements of the Linkage Plan, as provided in
Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 1901.
    If the first iteration utilized ISE PMM quotes then the second
iteration would utilize away market quotes. If there were no away
market quotes for consideration for the first iteration then the second
iteration would not occur. The Exchange represents that the second
iteration complies with the order protection requirements of the
Linkage Plan if it utilizes away market quotes to determine the
Boundary Prices in that any Public Customer orders that remain after
this iteration that would lock or cross a bid or offer from another
exchange would be processed in accordance with the requirements of the
Linkage Plan, as provided in Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 1901.
If the first iteration utilized the away market quotes then the second
iteration would utilize ISE PMM quotes. To the extent the second
iteration results in any trade-throughs, the Exchange represents that
such trade-throughs are permissible under Section 5(b)(ii) of the
Linkage Plan, the Trading Rotation exception, which permits a
participant exchange to trade through a Protected Quotation
disseminated by an Eligible Exchange during a trading rotation.
    In the third iteration, the Boundary Prices are widened by two
trading increments to determine the price at which the maximum number
of contracts can trade at or within the widened Boundary Prices. To the
extent the third iteration results in any trade-throughs, the Exchange
represents that such trade-throughs are permissible under Section
5(b)(ii) of the Linkage Plan. Section 5(b)(ii) of the Linkage Plan, the
Trading Rotation exception, permits a participant exchange to trade
through a Protected Quotation disseminated by an Eligible Exchange
during a trading rotation.
    In the fourth and final iteration, the Boundary Prices are not
calculated and any remaining interest is traded. To the extent the
fourth iteration results in any trade-throughs, the Exchange represents
that such trade-throughs are permissible

under Section 5(b)(ii) of the Linkage Plan. Section 5(b)(ii) of the
Linkage Plan, the Trading Rotation exception, permits a participant
exchange to trade through a Protected Quotation disseminated by an
Eligible Exchange during a trading rotation.
    The proposed iterative opening process will provide market makers
and other market participants greater opportunity to participate at the
open and provide option classes with an increased chance to determine
an opening price which removes impediments to a free and open market
and benefits all market participants.

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

    The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange's inability
to provide away market protection limits competition in that other
exchanges currently provide such protection and therefore are able to
attract pre-opening order flow. Thus, approval of the proposed rule
change will promote intermarket competition because it will allow the
Exchange to, among other things, provide away market price protection
at the open and thus, compete with other exchanges for order flow that
market participants do not currently send to the ISE. The Exchange does
not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intramarket competition. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change
will encourage ISE Members to send their pre-open order flow to the
Exchange rather to a competing exchange and will therefore increase
competition at the open.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the publication date of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

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 Exchange 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 No. SR-ISE-2014-24 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2014-24. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the ISE. 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-ISE-2014-24 and should be
submitted by December 31, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-28874 Filed 12-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 213)]
[Notices]
[Page 64690]
[DOCID:fr03no06-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-301-147]

ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate Filing Amendment

October 26, 2006.
    Take notice that on October 24, 2006, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR)
tendered for filing and approval an amendment to an existing negotiated
rate service arrangement, which provided solely for the increase in
Maximum Daily Quantity for the primary route.
    ANR requests that the Commission accept and approve the subject
amendment filing to be effective November 1, 2006.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-18527 Filed 11-2-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P