[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 19, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49033-49036]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19420]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

48 CFR Parts 1509, 1527, and 1552

[EPA-HQ-OARM-2013-0224; FRL-9915-19-OARM]

Acquisition Regulation; Incorporation of Class Deviation to
Notification of Conflicts of Interest Regarding Personnel and Project
Employee Confidentiality Agreement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to amend
the EPA Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR) to incorporate a class deviation
to clause 1552.209-73, Notification of Conflicts of Interest Regarding
Personnel, and 1552.227-76, Project Employee Confidentiality Agreement,
and their respective prescriptions, to include Alternate 1 for the
subcontract flow-down requirements for other than Superfund work. The
class deviation to the two clauses was executed to address the
increased use of these conflict of interest (COI) clauses in non-
Superfund contracts to better protect the Agency from COI. The
Superfund flow-down language in the basic clauses does not apply or
relate to non-Superfund contracts and would likely be confusing if the
Superfund specific language was not deleted. The proposed rule also
provides for minor administrative edits.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 18, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OARM-2013-0224, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: EPA-HQ-OARM-2013-0224, OEI Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460. Please include a total of three (3) copies.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center-Attention OEI Docket, EPA
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-
2013-0224. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket, and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment, and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties, and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the Office of Environmental
Information (OEI) Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number

for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the EPA Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. This Docket Facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Humphries, Policy, Training,
and Oversight Division, Office of Acquisition Management (3802R),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI, and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives,
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

    EPA is updating the EPAAR to incorporate a class deviation that was
executed to add subcontract flow-down requirements for other than
Superfund work to the two clauses: 1552.209-73 and 1552.227-76. The
Agency's COI clauses are generally written to address COI for the
Superfund programs. These two clauses are increasingly included in non-
Superfund contracts to better protect the Agency from COI. The
Superfund specific flow-down language in the respective clauses do not
generally apply or relate to non-Superfund contracts and would likely
be confusing if it was not deleted. To address this, the proposed rule
includes an Alternate 1 that provides subcontract flow-down
requirements for other than Superfund work, as well as minor
administrative edits.

III. Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule includes the following content changes: (1) Adds
prescriptive language to 1509.507-2(b) for an Alternate 1 under clause
1552.209-73 that replaces paragraph (d) for other than Superfund work.
(2) For clause 1552.209-73, Alternate 1 is added for other than
superfund work under paragraph (d) that addresses subcontract flow-down
requirements. (3) Under 1527.409, prescriptive language is added for an
Alternate 1 for clause 1552.227-76 that replaces paragraph (d) for
other than Superfund work. (4) Under Clause 1552.227-76, Alternate 1 is
added for other than Superfund work for paragraph (d) that addresses
subcontract flow-down requirements. (5) The proposed rule also provides
minor administrative edits.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
therefore, not subject to review under the EO.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
No information is collected under this action.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute; unless the agency certifies that the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impact of today's final rule on small
entities, ``small entity'' is defined as: (1) A small business that
meets the definition of a small business found in the Small Business
Act and codified at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action
revises a current EPAAR provision and does not impose requirements
involving capital investment, implementing procedures, or record
keeping. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on small
entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, Local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector.
    This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of the Title II of the UMRA) for State, Local, and Tribal
governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable duty
on any State, Local or Tribal governments or the private sector. Thus,
the rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State
and Local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.''
    This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government as
specified in Executive Order 13132.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This rule does not have
tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically
significant as defined under Executive Order 12886, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that may have a proportionate
effect on children. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by
Executive Order 12866, and because it does not involve decisions on
environmental health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution of Use'' (66 FR 28335, May 22, 2001), because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) of NTTA, Public Law 104-113,
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This proposed rulemaking does not involve human health or
environmental effects.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1509, 1527, and 1552

    Government procurement.

    Dated: August 6, 2014.
John R. Bashista,
Director, Office of Acquisition Management.

    Therefore, 48 CFR Chapter 15 is proposed to be amended as set forth
below:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 301; Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended,
40 U.S.C. 486(c); and 41 U.S.C. 418b.

PART 1509--CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 1509 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C.
486(c).

0
2. Section 1509.507-2 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) and
in paragraph (c) introductory text by removing the term ``simplified
acquisition procedures'' and adding in its place ``simplified
acquisitions''.
    The revisions read as follows:

1509.507-2   Contract clause.

    (a) The Contracting Officer shall include the clause at 1552.209-
71, in all Superfund contracts in excess of the simplified acquisition
threshold and, as appropriate, in simplified acquisitions for Superfund
work. Contracts for other than Superfund work shall include Alternate I
in this clause in lieu of paragraph (e).
    (b) The Contracting Officer shall include the clause at 1552.209-
73, in all solicitations and contracts for Superfund work in excess of
the simplified acquisition threshold and, as appropriate, in simplified
acquisitions for Superfund work. Contracts for other than Superfund
work shall include Alternate I in this clause in lieu of paragraph (d).
* * * * *

PART 1527--PATENTS, DATA, AND COPYRIGHTS

0
3. The authority citation for part 1527 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C.
486(c).

0
4. Revise section 1527.409 to read as follows:

1527.409   Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

    The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause in 1552.227-76 in
all Superfund solicitations and contracts in excess of the simplified
acquisition threshold and, as appropriate, in simplified acquisitions
for Superfund work. The clause may be used in other contracts if
considered necessary by the Contracting Officer. Contracts for other
than Superfund work shall include Alternate I in this clause in lieu of
paragraph (d).

PART 1552--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

0
5. The authority citation for part 1552 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 301; Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended,
40 U.S.C. 486(c); and 41 U.S.C. 418b.

0
6. 1552.209-73 is amended by removing the term ``Project Officer'' in
paragraphs (b) and (c) and adding in its place ``Contracting Officer's
Representative'' and adding Alternate I.
    The addition reads as follows:

1552.209-73   Notification of conflicts of interest regarding
personnel.

* * * * *
    Alternate I. Contracts for other than Superfund work shall include
Alternate I in this clause in lieu of paragraph (d).
    (d) The Contractor agrees to insert in each subcontract or
consultant agreement placed hereunder provisions which shall conform
substantially to the language of this clause, including this paragraph
(d), unless otherwise authorized by the Contracting Officer.

0
7. 1552.227-76 is amended by adding Alternate I to read as follows:

1552.227-76   Project employee confidentiality agreement.

* * * * *
    Alternate I. Contracts for other than Superfund work shall include
Alternate I in this clause in lieu of paragraph (d).
    (d) The Contractor agrees to insert in each subcontract or
consultant agreement placed hereunder provisions which shall conform
substantially to the language of this clause, including this paragraph
(d), unless otherwise authorized by the Contracting Officer.

[FR Doc. 2014-19420 Filed 8-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


1 C:\ dmautop\ temp\ dwcgi 28573 1077658276 375345000. wpd MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Eddinger, EPA/ ESD FROM: Roy Oommen, ERG/ MOR DATE: November 18, 2003 SUBJECT: Summary of June 6, 2003 Site Visit to Craven County Wood Energy, L. P.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) conducted a site visit to the Craven County Wood Energy, L. P. located in New Bern, North Carolina to assess types of fuels burned in the on site boiler. The EPA was represented by Jim Eddinger and the EPA contractor. Craven County Wood Energy was represented by Wade Bennett ( plant manager), Ray Bonner ( operations manager), Jim Wellborn ( fuel procurement)

Mr. Eddinger provided background information on the boiler MACT standard. Craven County Wood Energy representatives then provided the following information:

° The facility obtains biofuel from approximately 150 160 suppliers, but the list is constantly changing.

° The primary types of biofuel burned include bark from pulp and paper mills, sawdust from sawmills, chips that are by products of logging operations, and clean waste wood recovered from landfills.

° No treated wood is allowed to be burned. They are not permitted to burn dirty wood.

° Biofuel is limited based on size and cleanliness.

° Fuel is tested weekly to for fuel analysis parameters ( Btu, moisture, ash)

° The boiler has a capacity of 50 MW.

° The boiler has a 3 cell ESP and cyclones to control PM.

A tour was then led through the facility, including visits to the woodyard and on site boiler.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 63 (Monday, April 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 19673]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7765]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0001]

Pediatric Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Pediatric Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on May 7, 2012, from 8 a.m.
to 5:30 p.m. and May 8, 2012, from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
    Location: Hilton Rockville Executive Meeting Center, 1750 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Walter Ellenberg, Office of Pediatric Therapeutics,
Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, rm. 5154, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-
0885, or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-
443-0572 in the Washington, DC area), and follow the prompts to the
desired center or product area. Please call the Information Line for
up-to-date information on this meeting. A notice in the Federal
Register about last minute modifications that impact a previously
announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly
enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the
Agency's Web site and call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/
phone line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the
meeting.
    Agenda: On May 7, 2012, the Pediatric Advisory Committee will meet
to discuss pediatric-focused safety reviews, as mandated by the Best
Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the Pediatric Research Equity Act,
for Differin Lotion (adapalene), Dulera Inhalation Aerosol (mometasone
furoate and formotorol fumarate), MultiHance Injection (gadobenate
dimeglumine), Nasonex (mometasone furoate monohydrate), Natazia
(estradiol valerate and estradiol valerate/dienogest), Omnaris Nasal
Spray (ciclesonide), Protonix (pantoprazole), Tamiflu (oseltamivir
phosphate), Taxotere (docetaxel) and Viread (tenofovir disoproxil
fumarate). The committee will also receive an Informational Update on
FDA's KidNet pilot study.
    On May 8, 2012, the Pediatric Advisory Committee will meet
regarding the pediatric-focused safety reviews, as mandated by the
Pediatric Research Equity Act, for Gardasil Human Papillomavirus
Quadrivalent (Types 6, 11, 16, 18) Vaccine, Recombinant, Isopto Carpine
(pilocarpine hydrochloride), Menveo Meningococcal (Group A,C,Y, and W-
135) Oligosaccharide Diphtheria CRM197 Conjugate Vaccine, Zylet
(loteprednol etabonate and tobramycin) and Zymaxid (gatifloxacin).
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
April 30, 2012. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 11:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. on May 7, 2012. Those
individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should
notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general
nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and
addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before
April 20, 2012. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If
the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the
scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify
interested persons regarding their request to speak by April 23, 2012.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Walter Ellenberg at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: March 23, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-7765 Filed 3-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 16, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81464-81466]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27637]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R01-OW-2020-0216; FRL-10018-55-Region 1]

Availability of Final Modifications to NPDES General Permits for
Stormwater Discharges From Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
in Massachusetts and New Hampshire

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability of final permit modifications.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing a
notice of

availability (NOA) of final limited modifications to the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permits for
discharges of stormwater from small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems (MS4s) in Massachusetts and New Hampshire under the Clean Water
Act (CWA). The final modifications represent the results of mediation
supervised by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit Mediation Program between EPA and petitioners the National
Association of Homebuilders (NAHB), the Home Builders and Remodelers
Association of Massachusetts, Inc. (HBRAMA), the New Hampshire Home
Builders Association (NHHBA), the Center for Regulatory Reasonableness
(CRR), the Massachusetts Coalition for Water Resources Stewardship
(MCWRS), the Town of Franklin, Massachusetts, (Franklin), the City of
Lowell, Massachusetts (Lowell), the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF),
and the Charles River Watershed Association (CRWA). In April 2020, EPA
and the petitioners entered into settlement agreements that included
commitments for EPA to propose certain modifications to the 2016
Massachusetts Small MS4 General Permit and the 2017 New Hampshire Small
MS4 General Permit, and then to take final action on each proposal.

DATES: These final permit modifications are effective 30 days after
signature. In accordance with 40 CFR part 23, this permit shall be
considered issued for the purpose of judicial review at 1:00 p.m.
Eastern daylight time on December 30, 2020. Under section 509(b) of the
Clean Water Act, judicial review of these general permit modifications
can be requested by filing a petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals within 120 days after the permit modifications are
considered issued. Under section 509(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act,
these permit modifications may not be challenged later in civil or
criminal proceedings to enforce these requirements. In addition, these
permit modifications may not be challenged in other agency proceedings.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OW-2020-0216. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 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 electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Newton Tedder, Water Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, MC 06-
4, Boston, MA 02109; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Final Permit Modifications

A. Background on Litigation and Settlement Agreements

    On April 4, 2016, EPA issued a final NPDES general permit for
discharges of stormwater from small MS4s in Massachusetts (the MA MS4
Permit) under CWA section 402(p). 33 U.S.C. 1342(p). On July 18, 2016,
CRR filed a petition for review of the permit in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. CLF, CRWA, MCWRS, Franklin, NAHB, HBRAMA,
and the City of Lowell also filed petitions for review of the permit,
all of which were consolidated with CRR's petition in the D.C. Circuit.
Center for Regulatory Reasonableness, et al. v. EPA, No. 16-1246 (D.C.
Cir.) (2016 Massachusetts Small MS4 General Permit consolidated cases).
On January 18, 2017, EPA issued a final NPDES general permit for
discharges of stormwater from small MS4s in New Hampshire (the NH MS4
Permit). On February 1, 2017, CLF filed a petition for review of the
permit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. CRR, NAHB,
and NHHBA later filed petitions for review in the D.C. Circuit. The
First Circuit then transferred the CLF petition to the D.C. Circuit,
where the D.C. Circuit consolidated it with the CRR, NAHB, and NHHBA
petitions. Center for Regulatory Reasonableness et al. v. EPA,
Conservation Law Foundation, Intervenor No. 17-1060 (D.C. Cir.) (2017
New Hampshire Small MS4 General Permit consolidated cases). The parties
to both cases entered mediation in 2017, and the D.C. Circuit held the
cases in abeyance. On December 27, 2019, EPA published three proposed
settlement agreements in the Federal Register for a 30-day public
comment period. See ``Proposed Settlement Agreements, Clean Water Act
Claims,'' 84 FR 71407 (Dec. 27, 2019). EPA's planned proposed permit
modifications to the Massachusetts and New Hampshire permits and
statements of basis describing those proposed modifications were
attached as Exhibits A and B to the Massachusetts and New Hampshire
proposed settlement agreements. EPA and the petitioners executed the
Massachusetts and New Hampshire settlement agreements on April 15,
2020. The first two settlement agreements describe the modifications
that EPA proposed to the MA MS4 Permit and NH MS4 Permit.
    Pursuant to the settlement agreements, the proposed permit
modifications reflected the substantive agreements that parties reached
during mediation. In the settlement agreements, the petitioners agreed
not to submit adverse public comments on the Draft Permit
Modifications, except that the Petitioners reserved their rights to
submit any form of comment on EPA's proposed modification to Part
2.3.6.a of the NH MS4 permit and on the definitions of ``new
development'' and ``redevelopment'' in NH MS4 permit Appendix A. The
agreements specified that EPA would take final action on each proposed
modification within nine months of posting the NOA of the Draft Permit
Modifications on its website and in the Federal Register (that is, by
January 23, 2021); that petitioners would then dismiss their current
petitions for review with prejudice; and that petitioners agreed not to
challenge EPA's respective final actions if they modify the permits in
a manner substantially similar to the proposed modifications (with one
exception, discussed in the New Hampshire settlement agreement). The
third settlement agreement commits Lowell, Massachusetts, to
voluntarily dismiss its petition without prejudice and commits EPA to
process Lowell's individual permit application and then to take final
action on Lowell's individual permit application. Today's notice
includes the final MA MS4 and NH MS4 permit modifications. Lowell filed
a joint stipulation to voluntarily dismiss its petition on July 15,
2020. EPA will propose an individual permit for Lowell in a separate
action.

B. Final Permit Modifications

    EPA published the proposed permit modifications on April 23, 2020.
See 85 FR 22735 (Apr. 23, 2020). The public comment period for these
proposals closed on June 8, 2020. EPA received 21 public comments. EPA
reopened, reexamined, and accepted comments on only the parts of the MA
MS4 and NH MS4 permits that the proposed modifications specified. In
the MA MS4 permit, the following permit parts were the only parts open
for modification and comment: Parts 2.0; 2.1; 2.1.1; 2.1.2.a; 2.2.;
2.2.2; 2.3.3; 2.3.5; 2.3.6; 2.3.7.a; 2.3.7.b; 4.1; 4.4; Appendix F part
A.I; Appendix F part A.II; Appendix F

Attachments 2 and 3; and Appendix H. In the NH MS4 permit, the
following permit parts were the only parts open for modification and
comment: 2.0; 2.1; 2.1.1; 2.1.2.a; 2.2.; 2.2.2 (paragraphs 2 and 3);
<IP_ADDRESS>; 2.3.5; <IP_ADDRESS>; 2.3.6.a; <IP_ADDRESS>.b.iii; 3.1.3; 4.1.4; <IP_ADDRESS>;
Appendix A; Appendix F part III and Attachment 3; and Appendix H. The
modifications provide either enhanced clarity regarding permit terms or
greater flexibility in permit implementation. EPA prepared Statements
of Basis that fully explained the proposed modifications. See
www.regulations.gov Docket document EPA-R01-OW-2020-0216-0002,
``Statement of Basis for Massachusetts Small MS4 General Permit 2020
Modifications,'' and document EPA-R01-OW-2020-0216-0005, ``Statement of
Basis for New Hampshire Small MS4 General Permit 2020 Modifications.''
EPA has considered all significant public comments on the permit
sections that were open for proposed modification. The docket also
contains a Memorandum to the Record discussing the potential impacts of
the permit modifications and the Response to Comments documents for the
Massachusetts and New Hampshire permits. Based on public comments, EPA
plans to finalize the permits as proposed, except for the following
changes:
Massachusetts Small MS4 General Permit
     EPA updated the typographical error in Appendix F, Table
F-6. Grafton and Shrewsbury have the same required percent reduction of
49% for phosphorus from urban stormwater sources for Flint Pond and
Lake Quinsigamond.
     EPA updated the permit language to clarify that Part 6.5
is not applicable to the MA Department of Conservation and Recreation,
which has its own phosphorus reduction requirements, as indicated in
Appendix F Part A.I of the permit.
New Hampshire Small MS4 General Permit
     The proposed modifications to Part 2.3.6 (post-
construction stormwater minimum control measures) attempted to rely on
the Southeast Watershed Alliance (SWA) model ordinances, a successful
local program as described in the Statement of Basis, but erred in
requiring some pieces of the SWA Model Ordinance to be adopted by SWA
communities and others to be adopted by non-SWA communities. In
response to comments noting confusion as to which requirements applied
to which communities, EPA has updated the language in Part 2.3.6 to
remove the different requirements for those communities in and out of
the SWA. Consistent with the option in the 2017 NH MS4 Permit, the
final permit modification requires that all New Hampshire permittees--
those in the SWA and those outside the SWA--adopt a regulatory
mechanism that is at least as stringent as SWA Model Standards Section
4 Element C and Element D in their entirety.
    EPA has emailed notifications of the Final Permit Modifications to
regulated parties, parties to this mediation, and other interested
parties on EPA Region 1's NPDES permit mailing list. The official
public docket for this action, EPA-R01-OW-2020-0216, contains copies of
the final permits, response to comments documents, a memorandum
describing economic impacts of the modifications, and other supporting
material. An electronic version of the public docket is available
through www.regulations.gov. These documents are also posted on EPA
Region 1's website at https://www.epa.gov/npdes-permits/npdes-stormwater-permit-program-new-england#smallms4program. The official
public docket is available for public viewing at U.S. EPA Region 1,
John W. McCormack Building, 5 Post Office Square, Boston, MA 02109.
Please contact the persons listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Administrative Requirements

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the
docket.

Consideration of Other Federal or State Laws

    EPA's docket provides information on compliance with applicable
laws and anticipated impacts on small entities in a memorandum to the
record, in the proposed permits' statements of basis/fact sheets, and
the final permits' response to comments documents. Massachusetts and
New Hampshire provided water quality certifications to EPA for this
action pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341.
In accordance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), EPA has also
obtained concurrence from the New England regional offices of the
National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
that this action is not likely to adversely affect any listed
threatened or endangered species. The Massachusetts and New Hampshire
Coastal Zone Management offices have also provided EPA with Coastal
Zone Management Act (CZMA) consistency determinations for this action.

    Authority: This action is being taken under the Clean Water Act,
33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

    Dated: December 10, 2020.
Dennis Deziel,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2020-27637 Filed 12-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58450-58452]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23763]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0014]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt ten individuals from
the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate
commerce. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions enable

these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without
meeting the vision requirement in one eye.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on October 8, 2019. The
exemptions expire on October 8, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2019-0014 and choose the document to review. If you do
not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of
the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On September 6, 2019, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt
of applications from ten individuals requesting an exemption from
vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and requested comments from
the public (84 FR 47050). The public comment period ended on October 7,
2019, and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level
that would be achieved by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(10).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at
least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual
acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with
corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen)
in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at
least 70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability
to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red,
green, and amber.

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on medical reports about the applicants' vision, as well as their
driving records and experience driving with the vision deficiency. The
qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant
were stated and discussed in detail in the September 6, 2019, Federal
Register notice (84 FR 47050) and will not be repeated here.
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The ten
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including amblyopia, aphakia, chorioretinal scar, complete
loss of vision, enucleated left eye, optic atrophy, prosthesis, retinal
detachment, and retinal scar. In most cases, their eye conditions did
not develop recently. Four of the applicants were either born with
their vision impairments or have had them since childhood. The six
individuals that developed their vision conditions as adults have had
them for a range of 5 to 36 years. Although each applicant has one eye
that does not meet the vision requirement in Sec.  391.41(b)(10), each
has at least 20/40 corrected vision in the other eye, and, in a
doctor's opinion, has sufficient vision to perform all the tasks
necessary to operate a CMV.
    Doctors' opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of a
valid license to operate a CMV. By meeting State licensing
requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a
CMV with their limited vision in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. We
believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and history
provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive safely
in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate operations,
involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate system and
on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover, driving in
congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian and
vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster reaction
to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because distances
between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual capacity and
driver response just as intensely as interstate driving conditions.
    The applicants in this notice have driven CMVs with their limited
vision in careers ranging for 4 to 45 years. In the past three years,
no drivers were involved in crashes, and no drivers were convicted of
moving violations in CMVs. All the applicants achieved a record of
safety while driving with their vision impairment that demonstrates the
likelihood that they have adapted their driving skills to accommodate
their condition. As the applicants' ample driving histories with their
vision deficiencies are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA
concludes their ability to drive safely can be projected into the
future.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the vision requirement in Sec.  391.41(b)(10) is likely
to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1)
Each driver must be physically examined every year (a) by an
ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the standard in Sec.  391.41(b)(10) and
(b) by a

certified medical examiner (ME) who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under Sec.  391.41; (2) each driver must
provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the
ME at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) each driver
must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer
for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in
his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The
driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for
presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement
official.

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the ten exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement, Sec.
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above:

Alex T. Balk (AZ)
Brian K. Egbert (MO)
Joseph M. Morgan (FL)
Chris J. Orphan, Jr. (SC)
Wayne E. Page (NC)
Joaquin A. Sandoval (OR)
Donald J. Thoel (MI)
Harold W. Via (VA)
Milton D. Voepel (MO)
Andrew L. Walker (MN)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each exemption
will be valid for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked
earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following
occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of
the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of
safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation
of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives
of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).

    Issued on: October 24, 2019.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-23763 Filed 10-30-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Page 1 of 2 Memorandum From: Carey A. Johnston, P. E. USEPA/ OW/ OST ph: ( 202) 566 1014 johnston. carey@ epa. gov To: Public Record for the Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/ 2005 DCN 01126, Section 3.23 EPA Docket Number OW 2003 0074 ( www. epa. gov/ edockets/)

Date: August 6, 2004 Re: Management of De icing Activities at Toronto Lester B. Pearson International Airport The following text describes some of the management of de icing activities at the Toronto Lester B. Pearson International Airport. It was copied from the Toronto Board of Health April 8, 2002, meeting notes.

Management of De icing Activities at Toronto Lester B. Pearson International Airport. Medical Officer of Health http:// www. city. toronto. on. ca/ legdocs/ 2002/ agendas/ committees/ hl/ hl020408/ agenda. pdf ( March 21, 2002)

Reporting on the collection, treatment, monitoring and reporting procedures that are in place at the Toronto Lester B. Pearson International Airport on discharge management of de icing fluids to mitigate health and environmental effects; advising that there are no financial implications resulting from the adoption of this report; and recommending that the Board of Health:

( 1) request the Greater Toronto Airports Authority ( GTAA) to: ( a) continue to monitor discharges from the airport for ethylene glycol, including at locations along the property boundary; and ( b) continue to enhance and fine tune their de icing fluid and stormwater management program at Toronto Lester B. Pearson International Airport;

( 2) request the Federal Ministers of the Environment and Transport to: ( a) work with the GTAA and other Canadian Airport Authorities to encourage manufacturers to replace tolyltriazole in the aircraft de icing and anti icing formulations with less toxic additives; and ( b) work with the GTAA and other Canadian Airport Authorities to investigate the level and total loading of tolytriazole in the effluents of Canadian airports. Should there be concerns identified, the Federal Minister of the Environment must develop a suitable effluent guideline for tolyltriazole discharge to the natural waterways, and assess the Page 2 of 2 treatability of tolytriazole and its potential impact on the treatment of spent de icing and anti icing fluids;

( 3) request that the GTAA consult with Works and Emergency Services on the safe discharge of tolyltriazole into the municipal sanitary sewer system if concerns are identified. In this case, the GTAA should include tolyltriazole in its monitoring program prior to discharge of spent de icing waste to the sanitary sewer system and the environment;

( 4) request the Ontario Minister of the Environment and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to continue to make random site visits to ensure all the environmental management procedures for de icing are followed;

( 5) forward this report to the GTAA, Works Committee, the Federal Ministers of the Environment and Transport, the Ontario Minister of the Environment, and the Medical Officer of Health of the Regional Municipality of Peel for their information and appropriate action; and ( 6) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 43139]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17933]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0411]

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. et al.; Withdrawal of Approval of 70 New
Drug Applications and 97 Abbreviated New Drug Applications; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice
that appeared in the Federal Register of June 8, 2011. The document
announced the withdrawal of approval of 70 new drug applications (NDAs)
and 97 abbreviated new drug applications from multiple applicants,
effective July 8, 2011. The document contained the incorrect applicant
information for NDA 018380. The correct applicant for NDA 018380 is
Hospira, Inc. This document corrects that error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Florine Purdie, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6248, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-3601.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of Wednesday, June
8, 2011 (76 FR 33310), appearing on page 33310 in FR Doc. 2011-14164,
the following correction is made:
    On page 33311, in table 1, in the ``Applicant'' column for NDA
018380, correct the entry ``Do.'' to read ``Hospira, Inc., 275 North
Field Dr., Bldg. H2, Lake Forest, IL 60045-5046.''

    Dated: August 14, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-17933 Filed 8-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 25 (Thursday, February 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 7177]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02483]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12704-007]

Maine Tidal Power; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted For Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On December 2, 2013, Maine Tidal Power filed an application for a
successive preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal
Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Half Moon
Cove Tidal Power Project (Half Moon Cove Project) to be located in
Cobscook and Passamaquoddy Bay, near the cities of Eastport and Perry,
Washington County, Maine. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if
issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license
application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not
authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities
or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the
owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new
1,200-foot-long tidal wall with a crest elevation of approximately 27
feet above mean sea level (msl); (2) a new 60-foot-wide, 20-foot-high
filling and empting gate; (3) the 850-acre Half Moon Cove with a
surface elevation of 13.0 feet above msl; (4) a new 60-foot-wide, 125-
foot-long gated powerhouse with four turbine generating units with a
total capacity of 21.5 megawatts; (5) a new 34.5 kilovolt, 7.1-mile-
long transmission line extending from the project powerhouse to an
existing substation owned by Bangor Hydroelectric Company located in
the town of Pembroke, ME (the point of interconnection with the
distribution grid); and (6) appurtenant facilities. The estimated
annual generation of the Half Moon Cove Project would be 30,000
megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Normand Laberge, Maine Tidal Power, 46 Place
Cove Road, Trescott, Maine 04652; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Tom Dean; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-12704-007.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-12704) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: January 30, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-02483 Filed 2-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 242 (Friday, December 16, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78180-78181]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32209]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1313; Airspace Docket No. 11-AWP-17]

Proposed Modification of Class E Airspace; Douglas, AZ

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify Class E airspace at Bisbee
Douglas International Airport, Douglas, AZ. Decommissioning of the
Cochise Very High Frequency Omni-Directional Radio Range Tactical Air
Navigational Aid (VORTAC) has made this action necessary for the safety
and management of aircraft operations at the airport. This action would
also adjust the geographic coordinates of the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-
1313; Airspace Docket No. 11-AWP-17, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA 2011-1313 and Airspace Docket No. 11-AWP-17) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2011-1313 and Airspace Docket No. 11-AWP-17''. The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E surface airspace and
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at
Douglas, AZ. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate
aircraft using VHF Omni-Directional Radio Range/Distance Measuring
Equipment VOR/DME Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument
approach procedures at the Bisbee Douglas International Airport,
Douglas, AZ. Decommissioning of the Cochise VORTAC has made this action
necessary and would enhance the safety and management of aircraft
operations at airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport would
also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and
6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011, and
effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will
be published subsequently in this Order.
    The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a

routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air
navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when promulgated, would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would modify controlled airspace at Bisbee Douglas International
Airport, Douglas, AZ.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

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

    1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace designated as surface areas.
* * * * *

AWP AZ E2 Douglas, AZ [Modified]

Bisbee Douglas International Airport, AZ
    (Lat. 31[deg]28'08'' N., long. 109[deg]36'14'' W.)

    Within a 4.3-mile radius of Bisbee Douglas International Airport
and within 1.8 miles each side of the Bisbee Douglas International
Airport 332[deg] bearing, extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 7
miles northwest of the airport. This Class E airspace area is
effective during the specific dates and times established in advance
by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter
be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet
or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *

AWP AZ E5 Douglas, AZ [Modified]

Bisbee Douglas International Airport, AZ
    (Lat. 31[deg]28'08'' N., long. 109[deg]36'14'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within 3.9 miles northeast and 8.3 miles southwest of the Bisbee
Douglas International Airport 333[deg] bearing extending from the
airport to 16.1 miles northwest. That airspace extending upward from
1,200 feet above the surface within a 7.8-mile radius of the Bisbee
Douglas International Airport and within a 20-mile radius of the
Bisbee Douglas International Airport extending clockwise from the
288[deg] bearing to the 076[deg] bearing of the airport and within
4.3 miles east and 7.4 miles west of the Bisbee Douglas
International Airport 347[deg] bearing extending from the airport to
34.5 miles north.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on December 8, 2011.
Lori Andriesen,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2011-32209 Filed 12-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 149 (Friday, August 6, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43279-43283]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16789]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92545; File No. SR-PEARL-2021-35]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 2616, Priority of Orders

August 2, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 20, 2021, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX Pearl'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The 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 is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 2616,
Priority of Orders, to provide that an order will receive a new
timestamp when its position is modified via a Cancel/Replace message
during a Short Sale Period.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Exchange Rule 2614(g)(3)(A) defines a Short Sale Period as
the time when ``a short sale price test restriction under Rule 201
of Regulation SHO'' is in effect. 17 CFR 242.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/pearl at MIAX
Pearl's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference
Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant 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 Exchange Rule
2616, Priority of Orders, to provide that an order will receive a new
timestamp when its position is modified via a Cancel/Replace message
during a Short Sale Period. The proposed rule change applies to orders
in equity securities traded on the Exchange's equity trading platform
(referred to herein as ``MIAX Pearl Equities'').
    Exchange Rule 2614(e)(3) provides that only the price, sell long,
sell short, or short exempt indicator, Max Floor of an order with a
Reserve Quantity,\4\ and size terms of the order may be changed by a
Cancel/Replace Message. If a User desires to change any other terms of
an existing order the existing order must be

cancelled and a new order must be entered. An order receives a new
timestamp when that order receives a new price, its size is increased,
or is cancelled in full and replaced by a new order. In addition, an
order also receives a new timestamp when it is repriced pursuant to
Exchange Rule 2614(g).\5\ For example, an order may be repriced
pursuant to the Exchange's Display Price Sliding Process if it would be
displayed at a price that would lock or cross the Protected Best Bid or
Offer (``PBBO'') of an away Trading Center.\6\ In such case, that order
would receive a new timestamp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange Rule 2614(c)(8).
    \5\ See, e.g., Exchange Rule 2614(g) (``Repricing Processes to
Comply with Regulatory Requirements'').
    \6\ See Exchange Rule 2614(g)(1) (``Display Price Sliding
Process'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exchange Rule 2616(a)(5) currently provides that in the event an
order has been cancelled or replaced in accordance with Exchange Rule
2614(e), such order only retains its timestamp if such modification
involves a decrease in the size of the order, a change to the Max Floor
of an order with a Reserve Quantity, or a change in position from (A)
sell to sell short; (B) sell to sell short exempt; (C) sell short to
sell; (D) sell short to sell short exempt; (E) sell short exempt to
sell; and (F) sell short exempt to sell short. Any other modification
to an order, including an increase in the size of the order and/or
price change, will result in such order losing time priority as
compared to other orders in the MIAX Pearl Equities Book \7\ and the
timestamp for such order being revised to reflect the time of the
modification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Exchange Rule 1901 defines the term ``MIAX Pearl Equities
Book'' as ``the electronic book of orders in equity securities
maintained by the System.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to provide that an order will also
receive a new timestamp in one additional scenario where the order may
not receive a new price. As proposed, an order would also receive a new
timestamp when its position is changed via a Cancel/Replace message
during a Short Sale Period. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
amend Exchange Rule 2616(a)(5) to provide that a change in position via
a Cancel/Replace message from (A) sell to sell short; (B) sell to sell
short exempt; (C) sell short to sell; (D) sell short to sell short
exempt; (E) sell short exempt to sell; and (F) sell short exempt to
sell short during a Short Sale Period will result in a change to the
order's timestamp. Such modification to an order during a Short Sale
Period will result in such order losing time priority as compared to
other orders in the MIAX Pearl Equities Book and the timestamp for such
order being revised to reflect the time of the modification. The
Exchange does not propose to change an order's timestamp where a
position change is made via a Cancel/Replace message when a Short Sale
Period is not in effect.
    The need for proposed rule change became apparent as a result of
technology changes related to the Exchange's recent implementation of
the Reserve Quantity and Minimum Execution Quantity \8\ order
instructions.\9\ As a result of the above technology changes and to
ensure the ongoing resiliency of the System,\10\ the reevaluation of an
order for execution as a result of a change to the order's position via
a Cancel/Replace message during a Short Sale Period will result in that
order receiving a new timestamp, including where the order's price
remains unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Exchange Rule 2614(c)(7).
    \9\ See MIAX Pearl Equities--Reminder: Announces Further
Expansion of its Equity Trading Platform with the Launch of the
Minimum Execution Quantity and Reserve Quantity Order Instructions;
Both Available July 1st 2021, available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/alerts/2021/06/15/miax-pearl-equities-reminder-announces-further-expansion-its-equity-trading (June 15, 2021).
    \10\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that an order will always receive a new
timestamp where the order is re-priced, including where that order is
re-priced pursuant to the Exchange's Short Sale Price Sliding Process
due to a change in position via a Cancel/Replace message.\11\ However,
pursuant to the proposed rule change, a position change via a Cancel/
Replace message during a Short Sale Period would now always result in
the order receiving a new timestamp, regardless of whether the re-
evaluation of the order results in the order being re-priced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Exchange Rule 2614(g)(3) for a description of the
Exchange's Short Sale Price Sliding Process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change reflects a necessary technology change
that would ensure continued System resiliency and stability. The
Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is designed to address a
discrete and potentially limited scenario that a Short Sale Period must
be in effect when the position change is made via a Cancel/Replace
message. If a Short Sale Period is not in effect, an order would retain
its timestamp when its position is changed via a Cancel/Replace
message. The proposed rule change is no different than where an order
may receive a new timestamp when it is not re-priced, such as when an
order's size is increased via a Cancel/Replace message or an order is
cancelled in full and replaced with a new order. In both of these
cases, the order would be provided a new timestamp and experience a
loss in priority. The same would be true under the proposed rule change
where an order would receive a new timestamp where its position is
changed via a Cancel/Replace message during a Short Sale Period.
* * * * *
    Lastly, the Exchange proposes to make two clarifying changes to
Exchange Rules 2614(e)(3) and 2616(a)(5). First, the Exchange proposes
to add the word ``Cancel'' before the word ``Replace'' in Exchange Rule
2614(e)(3). This change is to use consistent terminology when referring
to Cancel/Replace messages in the Exchange's rules. Second, the
Exchange proposes to clarify within Exchange Rule 2616(a)(5) that an
order is being modified by the Cancel/Replace message. In part,
Exchange Rule 2616(a)(5) states that ``[i]n the event an order has been
cancelled or replaced in accordance with Exchange Rule 2614(e) above, .
. .''. The Exchange proposes to replace the phrase ``cancelled or
replaced'' in Exchange Rule 2616(a)(5) with ``modified via a Cancel/
Replace message.'' Doing so would clarify within Exchange Rule
2616(a)(5) that the order is being modified, rather than cancelled and
replaced with a new order. Neither of the above changes amend the
meaning or operation of either rule. They are simply intended to
clarify each rule and to ensure the use of consistent terminology
across the Exchange's rulebook.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\13\ in particular, because it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change promotes just and equitable principles of
trade because it is similar to other cases today where an order may
lose priority when a modification is made via a Cancel/Replace message.
For example,

increasing the size of an order will result in such order losing time
priority as compared to other orders in the MIAX Pearl Equities Book
and the timestamp for such order being revised to reflect the time of
the modification.\14\ The System also re-evaluates the order for
execution when an Equity Member \15\ increases the size of an order via
a Cancel/Replace message. The same is true for a position change made
pursuant to Exchange Rule 2614(e) during a Short Sale Period. For
example, should an order's position be changed from long to short
during a Short Sale Period, that order would become subject to the
price restrictions of Regulation SHO \16\ and the System would evaluate
whether the order may be executed or re-priced pursuant to the
Exchange's Short Sale Price Sliding Process.\17\ Under the proposed
rule change, this evaluation would result in the order receiving a new
timestamp and loss in priority, even when that order is not re-priced.
While the price of the order may not change, the position change during
a Short Sale Period impacts whether the order is subject to the price
restrictions of Regulation SHO and may or may not become eligible for
execution. Therefore, like size change via a Cancel/Replace message may
change the execution status of the order, the Exchange believes
treating a position change made via a Cancel/Replace message in the
same manner and updating the order's timestamp is reasonable and
consistent with the Act because it also reflects a change in the
execution status of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Exchange Rule 2616(a)(5).
    \15\ The term ``Equity Member'' is a Member authorized by the
Exchange to transact business on MIAX Pearl Equities. See Exchange
Rule 1901.
    \16\ 17 CFR 242.201(1)(i) [sic].
    \17\ Exchange Rule 2614(g)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, as stated above, Exchange Rule 2614(e)(3) provides that
only the price, sell long, sell short, or short exempt indicator, Max
Floor of an order with a Reserve Quantity, and size terms of the order
may be changed by a Cancel/Replace Message. If a User desires to change
any other terms of an existing order the existing order must be
cancelled and a new order must be entered. This includes, for example,
changes to the minimum quantity condition of an order with a Minimum
Execution Quantity instruction.\18\ In such case, the existing order
must be cancelled and new order entered with the revised minimum
execution quantity. Like a position change during a Short Sale Period,
the new order would be provided a new timestamp and re-evaluated for
execution based on the revised minimum execution quantity. Therefore,
the proposed rule change promotes just and equitable principles of
trade because it is similar to existing exchange functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Exchange Rule 2614(c)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change promotes just and equitable principles of
trade because it is consistent with the other exchanges' treatment of
position changes and their impact on the order's priority. For example,
Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'') Rule 11.190(d)(4) does not allow for a
position change via a Cancel/Replace message and requires that if a
``[u]ser desires to modify an invalid field on an order, the existing
order must be canceled and a new order must be entered.'' \19\
Therefore, on IEX, a market participant must enter a new order where it
seeks to change that order's position at all times, not just during a
Short Sale Period. This is broader than the Exchange's proposal which
is limited to position changes during a Short Sale Period. On IEX, the
new order would receive a new timestamp, resulting in a priority loss.
In addition, The Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC (``Nasdaq'') Rule 4756(a)(3)
provides that an order will be cancelled if the order's position is
``redesignated as short during a Short Sale Period and the order is not
priced at a Permitted Price or higher under Nasdaq Rule 4763(e).'' This
would require the replacement of the original order with a new order
and a new timestamp, resulting in a priority loss.\20\ Therefore, the
Exchange's proposal is not novel and is similar to functionality
provided for on other exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See IEX Rule 11.190(d)(4) (stating that ``Symbol, side,
execution instruction, order type, and TIF are considered invalid
fields. If a User attempts modify an invalid field by submitting a
Replace Message, the order amendment will be rejected by the
Exchange. If a User desires to modify an invalid field on an order,
the existing order must be canceled and a new order must be
entered'').
    \20\ See Nasdaq Rule 4756(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unlike where an order retains its timestamp when a modification
involves a decrease in the size of the order or a change to the Max
Floor of an order with a Reserve Quantity, a change in the order's
position during a Short Sale Period triggers compliance with additional
regulatory requirements. In such case, the Exchange must assess whether
the order is priced or may be executed in accordance with Regulation
SHO. For example, an order whose position is changed from long to short
during a Short Sale Period may not be priced at or above the national
best bid and may either need to be repriced pursuant to the Exchange's
Short Sale Price Sliding Process or cancelled based on the Equity
Member's instructions. Conversely, an order whose position is changed
from short to long during a Short Sale Period would no longer be
subject to the price restrictions of Regulation SHO and may now be
eligible for execution or routing to an away market. An order marked
short is not subject to the price restrictions of Regulation SHO when a
Short Sale Period is not in effect. Therefore, allowing the order to
retain its timestamp when a Short Sale Period is not in effect
continues to promote just and equitable principles of trade because the
execution status of the order remains unchanged.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ This is also consistent with other exchanges' rules. See,
e.g., Members Exchange, Inc. Rule 11.9(a)(4) and Cboe EDGX Exchange,
Inc. Rule 11.9(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding the above, the proposed rule change also protects
investors and the public interest because it does not change anything
with regard to compliance with Regulation SHO, including Regulation
SHO's order marking requirements and Equity Member's compliance with
its applicable exceptions. Today, an Equity Member has the ability to
modify their order's position via a Cancel/Replace message. The
proposal does not change that. Today, Equity Members are required to
mark their orders properly both upon entry and when modifying that
order's position later via a Cancel/Replace message. This proposed rule
change does not alter Equity Members obligations to continue to ensure
that their orders are marked in accordance with the requirements of
Regulation SHO and Exchange Rule 2623 \22\ at all times, including when
changing the order's position via a Cancel/Replace message when a Short
Sale Period is or is not in effect. As they are required to do today,
Equity Members must also continue to ensure that their order complies
with any applicable exemption from Regulation SHO that they seek to
avail themselves of, not only at the time of entry, but also at the
time they change the order's position

via a Cancel/Replace message.\23\ Again, nothing in this proposal
alters a Member's obligations under Regulation SHO. The Exchange notes
that the proposed rule change removes impediments to and perfects the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
because it is designed to address a discrete and potentially limited
scenario of a Short Sale Period being in effect when the a position
change is made via a Cancel/Replace message. If a Short Sale Period is
not in effect, an order would retain its timestamp when its position is
changed via a Cancel/Replace message. This proposed rule change is
narrowly focused to address only where an order would lose priority
where its position is changed via a Cancel/Replace message during a
Short Sale Period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Exchange Rule 26123 [sic] provides that ``[a]ll short sale
orders shall be identified as ``short'' or ``short exempt'' when
entered into the System. If marked ``short exempt,'' the Exchange
shall execute, display and/or route a short sale order marked
``short exempt'' without regard to any short sale price test
restriction in effect during a Short Sale Period, as defined in
Exchange Rule 2614(g)(3)(A). The Exchange relies on the marking of
an order as ``short exempt'' when handling such order, and thus, it
is the entering Member's responsibility, not the Exchange's
responsibility, to comply with the requirements of Regulation SHO
relating to marking of orders as ``short exempt.'' Exchange Rule
2603 also requires that Equity Members input accurate information
into the System.
    \23\ The Exchange will continue to surveil for compliance with
Exchange Rules 2623 and 2603 as well as Regulation SHO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would also remove impediments to and
promote just and equitable principles of trade because it reflects a
necessary technology change that would ensure continued System
resiliency and stability. As a national securities exchange, the
Exchange is subject to Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity
(``Reg. SCI'').\24\ Reg. SCI Rule 1001(a) requires that the Exchange
establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to ensure (among other things) that its Reg. SCI
systems have levels of capacity adequate to maintain the Exchange's
operational capability and promote the maintenance of fair and orderly
markets.\25\ The proposed rule change is necessary to ensure the
ongoing resiliency of the Exchange's infrastructure and underling
technology to ensure the Exchange continues to satisfy its requirements
under Reg. SCI. The Exchange takes pride in the reliability and
availability of its System. The proposed rule change is necessary due
to technological complexity and to continue to ensure the System
operates consistent with the Exchange's rules and in accordance with
the Exchange's obligations under Reg. SCI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 242.1000-1007.
    \25\ 17 CFR 242.1001(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the proposed clarifying changes to Exchange Rules
2614(e)(3) and 2616(a)(5) removes impediments to and perfect a free and
open market system because they simply clarify each rule and ensure the
use of consistent terminology across the Exchange's rulebook. Neither
of these changes amend the meaning or operation of either rule.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not being proposed for competitive reasons. As discussed above, the
need for the proposed rule change became apparent when making
technology changes related to the Exchange's upcoming implementation of
the Reserve Quantity and Minimum Execution Quantity order
instructions.\26\ Further, this proposed rule change to cause an order
to lose priority when the order's position is changed during a Short
Sale Period via a Cancel/Replace message is no different than where an
Equity Member seek to change the position of their order by cancelling
that order and re-submitting a new order. In each case, the order will
receive a new timestamp at the time the position was changed via a
cancel or replace message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Adjusting the order's timestamp due to a position change via a
Cancel/Replace message during a Short Sale Period does not impose any
burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the Act. Equity Members may take into consideration
that their order may experience a loss in priority when they change
their order's position during a Short Sale Period when determining
where to send their order for execution. Equity Members are free to
consider this change as part of their overall experience on the
Exchange, including the quality of executions and other functionality
offerings, which are part of their order routing decisions.
    Lastly, adjusting the order's timestamp due to a position change
via a Cancel/Replace message during a Short Sale Period does not also
impose any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the Act because it is similar to
functionality on other exchanges.\27\ Also, like above for intra-market
competition, Equity Members may take into consideration that their
order may experience a loss in priority when they change their order's
position during a Short Sale Period when determining where to send
their order for execution. Equity Members who make position changes
during a Short Sale Period may consider the potential that their order
may lose priority and may choose to price their orders more
aggressively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See supra notes 19 and 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register, or 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 the 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 Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-PEARL-2021-35 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PEARL-2021-35. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the

public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do
not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
PEARL-2021-35, and should be submitted on or before August 27, 2021.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-16789 Filed 8-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P