[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 110 (Monday, June 9, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32866-32867]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13272]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2013-1033]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain
of the Port Lake Michigan Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in Milwaukee
Harbor, Milwaukee, WI for firework displays at Pier Wisconsin at
specified times from June 15, 2014 until August 9, 2014. This action is
necessary and intended to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters
immediately prior to, during, and immediately after fireworks displays.
During the aforementioned periods, the Coast Guard will enforce
restrictions upon, and control movement of, vessels in the safety zone.
No person or vessel may enter the safety zone while it is being
enforced without permission of the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.929 will be enforced for safety
zone (e)(46) in Sec.  165.929, Table 165.929, from June 15, 2014,
through August 9, 2014, at times specified in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
document, call or email MST1 Joseph McCollum, Prevention Department,
Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The Coast Guard will enforce the Fireworks at Pier Wisconsin safety
zone listed as item (e)(46) in Table 165.929 of 33 CFR 165.929 on the
dates and times specified in this paragraph. Section 165.929 lists many
annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan zone. The Fireworks at Pier Wisconsin safety zone will be
enforced at the following times for the following events:
    (1) Private Party fireworks display on June 15, 2014 from 9:15 p.m.
until 10 p.m.;
    (2) Private Party fireworks display on June 24, 2014 from 9:30 p.m.
until 10:15 p.m.;
    (3) Wedding fireworks display on July 12, 2014 from 9:30 p.m. until
10:15 p.m.;
    (4) Private Party fireworks display on August 9, 2014 from 10:15
p.m. until 11 p.m.;

This safety zone will encompass all waters of Milwaukee Harbor,
including Lakeshore Inlet and the marina at Pier Wisconsin, within the
arc of a circle with a 300-foot radius from the fireworks launch site
on Pier Wisconsin located in approximate position 43[deg]02'10.7'' N,
087[deg]53'37.5'' W (NAD 83). All vessels must obtain permission from
the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene
representative to enter, move within, or exit the safety zone. Vessels
and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone must obey all
lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan,
or his or her on-scene representative.

    This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.929, Safety

Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan zone and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication
in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime
community with advance notification of the enforcement periods via
broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain
of the Port, Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative may
be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

    Dated: May 27, 2014.
M.W. Sibley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2014-13272 Filed 6-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: January 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 7)]
[Notices]
[Page 1206]
[DOCID:fr12ja09-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP09-42-000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

January 6, 2009.
    Take notice that on December 23, 2008, Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company (Tennessee), 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed
in Docket No. CP09-42-000, an application pursuant to sections 157.205
and 157.216 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act
(NGA) as amended, to abandon by sale certain natural gas supply
facilities located in Vermilion Blocks 65, 67, and 76, offshore
Louisiana, to Nexen Petroleum U.S.A. Inc. (Nexen), under Tennessee's
blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-413-000,\1\ all as more
fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission
and open to the public for inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 20 FERC ]62,409 (1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tennessee states that it proposes to abandon in place and by sale
to Nexen a receipt meter, approximately 2.2 miles of 6-inch diameter
pipeline, and 5.2 miles of 4-inch diameter pipeline, located in
Vermilion Blocks 65, 67, and 76, offshore Louisiana. Tennessee also
states that Nexen would continue to operate the facilities following
the closing of the purchase and sales transaction.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to
Jacquelyne M. Rocan, Senior Counsel, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company,
1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, via telephone at (713)
420-4544, or facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER> or Debbie Kalisek, Analyst,
Certificates & Regulatory Compliance via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be
viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number filed to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERC
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or, for
TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments, protests and interventions may
be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
intervenors to file electronically.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-334 Filed 1-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 132 (Friday, July 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39769-39770]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16885]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP15-1089-000]

Rice Energy Marketing LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory
Order

    Take notice that on June 29, 2015, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2014), Rice Energy
Marketing LLC filed a petition for a declaratory order seeking

a declaratory order clarifying that the Order No. 712 exemption from
the buy-sell prohibition applies to supply-side asset management
agreements (AMAs) on the same basis as delivery-side AMAs, all as more
fully explained in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on July 29, 2015.

    Dated: July 1, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-16885 Filed 7-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 3 (Thursday, January 5, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 421-423]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33832]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2011-1132]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Long Island, New York Inland
Waterway From East Rockaway Inlet to Shinnecock Canal, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has temporarily changed the drawbridge
operation regulations that govern the operation of the Smith Point
Bridge, mile 6.1, across Narrow Bay, between Smith Point and Fire
Island, New York. This temporary final rule is necessary to facilitate
the completion of a major bridge rehabilitation project.

DATES: This temporary final rule is effective from January 5, 2012,
through May 25, 2012. The rule has been enforced with actual notice
since December 22, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket, are part of docket USCG-2011-1132 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-1132 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also
available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility
(M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Ms Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District Bridge Branch,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)).
    This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds
that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds
that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest to give prior notice
and opportunity for comment. As is more fully discussed below, the
rehabilitation work has already begun on this bridge under a temporary
deviation published on September 30, 2011, (76 FR 60733) and that work
was unexpectedly delayed. This rule provides a time extension so that
the rehabilitation can be completed in the shortest possible time
frame. Without this rule the work would have to be suspended thereby
delaying the ultimate completion date. Further, as stated in the
temporary deviation this waterway is used primarily by recreational
boaters who can safely pass through the reduced horizontal clearance
caused by this rule, the majority of whom do not operate during the
months when this rule will be in effect.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register for the reasons stated above.

Basis and Purpose

    The Smith Point Bridge across Narrow Bay, mile 6.1, between Smith
Point and Fire Island, New York, has a vertical clearance in the closed
position of 16 feet at mean high water and 18 feet at mean low water.
The drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.799(d).
    The waterway users are predominantly recreational vessels of
various sizes.
    On September 30, 2011, the Coast Guard published a temporary
deviation (76 FR 60733) from the regulations allowing single span
bridge openings from September 26, 2011 through December 21, 2011, in
order to facilitate bridge rehabilitation construction at Smith Point
Bridge. Under the temporary deviation the bridge was allowed to open
only one of the two moveable spans for the passage of vessels from
September 26, 2011, through December 21, 2011.
    The bridge owner, Suffolk County Department of Public Works,
recently advised the Coast Guard that the cleaning and painting
operations delayed the structural steel repairs and requested an
extension of 156 days to complete the rehabilitation project necessary
to allow the bridge to return to its full two span operation. The Coast
Guard expects minimal marine traffic transit through this bridge during
the proposed effective dates of this rule, and all vessels known to use
this waterway can pass through the bridge with a single span opening.
    As a result, the Coast Guard is publishing this temporary final
rule to help facilitate completion of the bridge rehabilitation before
the 2012 boating season begins.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is publishing this temporary final rule, extending
single span openings from December 22, 2011 through May 25, 2012, to
help facilitate completion of bridge rehabilitation repairs. The
rehabilitation repairs must be completed before the bridge can open
both spans for the passage of vessel traffic for the 2012 boating
season.
    The main navigation channel provides 55 feet of horizontal
clearance with unobstructed vertical clearance during a bridge opening.
    During this temporary final rule the main channel will provide 27.5
feet of horizontal clearance with unobstructed vertical clearance
during a bridge opening.
    The Coast Guard believes that this temporary final rule should meet
the reasonable needs of navigation because the vessels that normally
use this bridge are recreational vessels that can safely pass through a
27.5 foot horizontal clearance due to their relative small size. In
addition, most of the above recreational vessels do not operate during
the months when this rule will be in effect.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866. The
Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    The Coast Guard determined that this rule is not a significant
regulatory action for the following reasons. The bridge presently
cannot open two spans for vessel traffic due to the fact that

rehabilitation repairs have not been completed. This action will
facilitate completion of the bridge repairs. Most vessel traffic that
uses this waterway can fit through the bridge with a single span
opening.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
the bridge that cannot transit through a 27.5 foot horizontal
clearance. The bridge presently cannot open two spans for the passage
of vessel traffic because the rehabilitation repairs are not completed.
This action will facilitate completion of the bridge repairs. Most
vessel traffic that uses this waterway can fit through the bridge with
a single span opening.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that this action is one of a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. In Sec. 117.799, paragraph (d) is suspended and paragraph (k) is
added to read as follows:

Sec.  117.799  Long Island, New York Inland Waterway from East Rockaway
Inlet to Shinnecock Canal.

* * * * *
    (k) The draws of the West Bay Bridge, mile 0.0, across Quantuck
Canal, Beach Lane Bridge, mile 1.1, across Quantuck Canal, and the
Quoque Bridge, mile 1.1, across Quoque Canal, shall open on signal from
October 1 through April 30 from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. and from May 1 through
September 30, from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. The draw of the Smith Point
Bridge, mile 6.1, across Narrow Bay, need open only one of the two
movable spans for the passage of vessel traffic from December 22, 2011
through May 25, 2012. The draw shall open on signal from December 22
through April 30 from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. and from May 1 through May 25, 6
a.m. through 10 p.m. At all other times during these periods, the draws
shall open as soon as possible but no more than one hour after a
request to open is received.

    Dated: December 21, 2011.
James B. McPherson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, First Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2011-33832 Filed 1-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 45141]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16390]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-1990-000]

North Star Solar PV LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
North Star Solar PV LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 26, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 6, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-16390 Filed 7-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 182 (Thursday, September 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44229-44232]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20101]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81640; File No. SR-NYSE-2017-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2, To Amend Section
102.01B of the NYSE Listed Company Manual To Provide for the Listing of
Companies That List Without a Prior Exchange Act Registration and That
Are Not Listing in Connection With an Underwritten Initial Public
Offering and Related Changes to Rules 15, 104, and 123D

September 15, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On June 13, 2017, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'' or ``SEC''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange Act'') \2\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder,\3\ a proposed rule change to amend (i) Footnote (E)
to Section 102.01B of the NYSE Listed Company Manual (the ``Manual'')
to modify the provisions relating to the qualification of companies
listing without a prior Exchange Act registration; (ii) Rule 15 to add
a Reference Price for when a security is listed under Footnote (E) to
Section 102.01B; (iii) Rule 104 to specify DMM requirements when a
security is listed under Footnote (E) to Section 102.10B and there has
been no trading in the private market for such security; and (iv) Rule
123D to specify that the Exchange may declare a regulatory halt in a
security that is the subject of an initial listing on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on June 20, 2017.\4\ The Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change on July 28, 2017 which, as noted below, was later
withdrawn. On August 3, 2017, the Commission extended the time period
within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the
proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, to September 18,
2017.\5\ On August 16, 2017, the Exchange withdrew Amendment No. 1 and
filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change, which amended and
replaced the proposed rule change as originally filed.\6\ Amendment No.
2 was published for comment in the Federal Register on August 24,
2017.\7\ The Commission received one comment on the proposal.\8\ This
order institutes proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange
Act to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80933 (June 15,
2017), 82 FR 28200 (June 20, 2017).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81309 (August 3,
2017), 82 FR 37244 (August 9, 2017).
    \6\ See Notice, infra note 7, at n. 8, which describes the
changes proposed in Amendment No. 2 from the original proposal.
Amendment No. 2 replaced the original proposal in its entirety so
the description below describes the proposal, as modified by
Amendment No. 2.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81440 (August 18,
2017), 82 FR 40183 (August 24, 2017) (``Notice'').
    \8\ See Letter from James J. Angel, Associate Professor of
Finance, Georgetown University, to SEC (July 28, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Amended Proposal

1. Listing Standards

    Generally, Section 102 of the Manual sets forth the minimum
numerical standards for domestic companies, or foreign private issuers
that choose to follow the domestic standards, to list equity securities
on the Exchange. Section 102.01B of the Manual requires a listed
company to demonstrate at the time of listing an aggregate market value
of publicly-held shares of either $40 million or $100 million,
depending on the type of listing.\9\ Section 102.01B also states that,
in these cases, the Exchange relies on written representations from the
underwriter, investment banker or other financial advisor, as
applicable, with respect to this valuation.\10\ While Footnote (E) to
Section 102.01B states that the Exchange generally expects to list
companies in connection with a firm commitment underwritten initial
public offering (``IPO''), upon transfer from another market, or
pursuant to a spin-off, Section 102.01B of the Manual also contemplates
that companies that have not previously had their common equity
securities registered under the Exchange Act, but which have sold
common equity securities in a private placement, may wish to list their
common equity securities on the Exchange at the time of effectiveness
of a registration statement \11\ filed solely for the purpose of
allowing existing shareholders to sell their shares.\12\ Specifically,
Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual permits the Exchange, on
a case by case basis, to exercise discretion to list such companies and
provides that the Exchange will determine that such a company has met
the $100 million aggregate market value of publicly-held shares
requirement based on a combination of both (i) an independent third-
party valuation (a ``Valuation'') \13\ of the company and (ii) the most
recent trading price for the company's common stock in a trading system
for unregistered securities operated by a national securities exchange
or a registered broker-dealer (a ``Private Placement Market'').\14\
Under the

current rules, the Exchange will attribute a market value of publicly-
held shares to the company equal to the lesser of (i) the value
calculable based on the Valuation and (ii) the value calculable based
on the most recent trading price in a Private Placement Market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Section 102.01B of the Manual states that a company must
demonstrate ``. . . an aggregate market value of publicly-held
shares of $40 million for companies that list either at the time of
their IPO (C) or as a result of a spin-off or under the Affiliated
Company standard or, for companies that list at the time of their
Initial Firm Commitment Underwritten Public Offering (C), and
$100,000,000 for other companies (D)(E).'' Section 102.01B also
requires a company to have a closing price, or if listing in
connection with an IPO or Initial Firm Commitment Underwritten
Public Offering, a price per share of at least $4.00 at the time of
initial listing.
    \10\ See Section 102.01B, Footnote (C) of the Manual which
states that for companies listing at the time of their IPO or
Initial Firm Commitment Underwritten Public Offering, the Exchange
will rely on a written commitment from the underwriter to represent
the anticipated value of the company's offering. For spin-offs, the
Exchange will rely on a representation from the parent company's
investment banker (or other financial advisor) in order to estimate
the market value based upon the distribution ratio.
    \11\ The reference to a registration statement refers to a
registration statement effective under the Securities Act of 1933
(``Securities Act'').
    \12\ See Section 102.01B, Footnote (E) of the Manual.
    \13\ See Section 102.01B, Footnote (E) of the Manual which sets
forth specific requirements for the Valuation. Among other factors,
any Valuation used for purposes of Footnote (E) must be provided by
an entity that has significant experience and demonstrable
competence in the provision of such valuations.
    \14\ Section 102.01B, Footnote (E) also sets forth specific
factors for relying on a Private Placement Market Price including
that such price must be a consistent with a sustained history of
trading over several months prior to listing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has proposed three changes to Footnote (E) to Section
102.01B of the Manual. First, the Exchange has proposed to amend such
Footnote to explicitly permit the Exchange, on a case by case basis, to
exercise its discretion to list companies whose stock is not previously
registered under the Exchange Act upon effectiveness of only an
Exchange Act registration statement, without any concurrent IPO or
Securities Act registration, provided the company meets all other
listing requirements. The Exchange noted that a company is able to
become an Exchange Act registrant without a concurrent public offering
by filing a Form 10 (or, in the case of a foreign private issuer, a
Form 20-F) with the Commission, and expressed its belief that it is
appropriate to list such companies immediately upon effectiveness of an
Exchange Act registration statement without a concurrent Securities Act
registration statement provided the company meets all other listing
requirements.\15\ In articulating the statutory basis for its proposal,
the Exchange stated that permitting companies to list upon
effectiveness of an Exchange Act registration statement without a
concurrent public offering or Securities Act registration is designed
to protect investors and the public interest because such companies
will be required to meet all of the same quantitative requirements met
by other listing companies.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Notice supra note 7 at 40184.
    \16\ Id. at 40186.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange has proposed to amend Footnote (E) to provide
that, in the absence of any recent trading in a Private Placement
Market, the Exchange will determine that a company has met its market
value of publicly-held shares requirement if the company provides a
recent Valuation evidencing a market value of publicly-held shares of
at least $250 million. In proposing this change, the Exchange expressed
the view that the current requirement of Footnote (E) to rely on recent
Private Placement Market trading in addition to a Valuation may cause
difficulties for certain companies that are otherwise clearly qualified
for listing.\17\ The Exchange stated that some companies that are
clearly large enough to be suitable for listing on the Exchange do not
have their securities traded at all on a Private Placement Market prior
to going public and, in other cases, the Private Placement Market
trading is too limited to provide a reasonable basis for reaching
conclusions about a company's qualification.\18\ In proposing to adopt
a Valuation that must be at least two-and-a-half times the $100 million
requirement of Section 102.01B of the Manual, the Exchange stated that
this amount ``will give a significant degree of comfort that the market
value of the company's shares will meet the [$100 million] standard
upon commencement of trading on the Exchange,'' particularly because
any such valuation ``must be provided by an entity that has significant
experience and demonstrable competence in the provision of such
valuations.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id. at 40184.
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id. In its proposal, the Exchange stated that it believed
that it is unlikely that any Valuation would reach a conclusion that
was incorrect to the degree necessary for a company using this
provision to fail to meet the $100 million requirement upon listing,
in particular because any Valuation used for this purpose must be
provided by an entity that has significant experience and
demonstrable competence in the provision of such valuations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchange proposed to further amend Footnote (E) by
establishing certain criteria that would preclude a valuation agent
from being considered ``independent'' for purposes of Footnote (E),
which the Exchange believes will provide a significant additional
guarantee of the independence of any entity providing such a Valuation.
Specifically, the Exchange proposed that a valuation agent will not be
deemed to be independent if:
     At the time it provides such valuation, the valuation
agent or any affiliated person or persons beneficially own in the
aggregate as of the date of the valuation, more than 5% of the class of
securities to be listed, including any right to receive any such
securities exercisable within 60 days.
     The valuation agent or any affiliated entity has provided
any investment banking services to the listing applicant within the 12
months preceding the date of the valuation.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ For purposes of this provision, ``investment banking
services'' includes, without limitation, acting as an underwriter in
an offering for the issuer; acting as a financial adviser in a
merger or acquisition; providing venture capital, equity lines of
credit, PIPEs (private investment, public equity transactions), or
similar investments; serving as placement agent for the issuer; or
acting as a member of a selling group in a securities underwriting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The valuation agent or any affiliated entity has been
engaged to provide investment banking services to the listing applicant
in connection with the proposed listing or any related financings or
other related transactions.

2. Trading Rules

    The Exchange also proposed to amend Exchange Rules 15, 104 and
123D, governing the opening of trading, to specify procedures for the
opening trade on the day of initial listing of a company that lists
under the proposed amendments to Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the
Manual, and did not have any recent trading in a Private Placement
Market.
    Rule 15(b) provides that a designated market maker (``DMM'') will
publish a pre-opening indication before a security opens if the opening
transaction on the Exchange is anticipated to be at a price that
represents a change of more than the ``Applicable Price Range,'' as
specified in Rule 15(d), from a specified ``Reference Price,'' as
specified in Rule 15(c).\21\ Rule 15(c)(1) specifies the Reference
Price for a security other than an American Depository Receipt, which
would be either (A) the security's last reported sale price on the
Exchange; (B) the security's offering price in the case of an IPO; or
(C) the security's last reported sale price on the securities market
from which the security is being transferred to the Exchange, on the
security's first day of trading on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Rule 15(b) also provides that a DMM will publish a pre-
opening indication before a security opens if a security has not
opened by 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposed to amend Rule 15(c)(1) to add new sub-
paragraph (D) to specify the Reference Price for a security that is
listed under Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual. The
Exchange proposed that if such security has had recent sustained
trading in a Private Placement Market prior to listing the Reference
Price in such scenario would be the most recent transaction price in
that market or, if not, the Reference Price used would be a price
determined by the Exchange in consultation with a financial advisor to
the issuer of such security.
    Rule 104(a)(2) provides that the DMM has a responsibility for
facilitating openings and reopenings for each of the securities in
which the DMM is registered as required under Exchange rules, which
includes supplying liquidity as needed. The Exchange proposed to amend
Rule 104(a)(2) to require the DMM to consult with the issuer's
financial advisor when

facilitating the opening on the first day of trading of a security that
is listing under Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual and that
has not had recent sustained history of trading in a Private Placement
Market prior to listing, in order to effect a fair and orderly opening
of such security.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Exchange stated that this requirement is based in part
on Nasdaq Rule 4120(c)(9), which requires that a new listing on
Nasdaq that is not an IPO have a financial advisor willing to
perform the functions performed by an underwriter in connection with
pricing an IPO on Nasdaq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange stated that it believes that such a financial advisor
would have an understanding of the status of ownership of outstanding
shares in the company and would have been working with the issuer to
identify a market for the securities upon listing.\23\ As a result, it
believes such financial advisor would be able to provide input to the
DMM regarding expectations of where such a new listing should be
priced, based on pre-listing selling and buying interest and other
factors that would not be available to the DMM through other
sources.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Notice supra note 7 at 40185.
    \24\ Id. The Exchange noted that despite the proposed obligation
to consult with the financial advisor, the DMM would remain
responsible for facilitating the opening of trading of such
security, and the opening of such security must take into
consideration the buy and sell orders available on the Exchange's
book. Id. Accordingly, the Exchange stated that just as a DMM is not
bound by an offering price in an IPO, and will open such a security
at a price dictated by the buying and selling interest entered on
the Exchange in that security, a DMM would not be bound by the input
he or she receives from the financial advisor. Id. at 40185-86.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its proposal, the Exchange stated that the proposed amendments
to both Rule 15 and Rule 104 are designed to provide DMMs with
information to assist them in meeting their obligations to open a new
listing under the proposed amended text of Footnote (E) to Section
102.01B of the Manual.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id. at 40186.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further proposed to amend its rules to provide
authority to declare a regulatory halt for a non-IPO new listing. As
proposed, Rule 123D(d) would provide that the Exchange may declare a
regulatory halt in a security that is the subject of an initial pricing
on the Exchange that has not been listed on a national securities
exchange or traded in the over-the-counter market pursuant to FINRA
Form 211 (``OTC market'') immediately prior to the initial pricing.\26\
In addition, proposed Rule 123D(d) would provide that this regulatory
halt would be terminated when the DMM opens the security.\27\ The
Exchange stated its belief that it would be consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest for the Exchange, as a
primary listing exchange, to have the authority to declare a regulatory
halt for a security that is the subject of a non-IPO listing because it
would ensure that a new listing that is not the subject of an IPO could
not be traded before the security opens on the Exchange.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id.
    \27\ The Exchange stated that proposed Rule 123D(d) is based in
part on (i) Nasdaq Rule 4120(c)(9), which provides that the process
for halting and initial pricing of a security that is the subject of
an IPO on Nasdaq is also available for the initial pricing of any
other security that has not been listed on a national securities
exchange or traded in the OTC market immediately prior to the
initial public offering, provided that a broker-dealer serving in
the role of financial advisor to the issuer of the securities being
listed is willing to perform the functions under Rule 4120(c)(7)(B)
that are performed by an underwriter with respect to an initial
public offering and (ii) Nasdaq Rule 4120(c)(8)(A), which provides
that such halt condition shall be terminated when the security is
released for trading on Nasdaq.
    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comment Letter Received

    The Commission received one comment letter on the proposal urging
the Commission to approve the proposal promptly and without further
delay.\29\ The commenter stated the belief that there is no public
interest served in excluding the listing of a large company with many
investors that does not need to raise additional capital through an
IPO.\30\ The commenter further stated that in determining whether a
company is large enough to meet the listing standards, if a company
were to trade at a market capitalization far below the thresholds, it
would harm the Exchange's reputation not the investing public.\31\ The
commenter further discussed concerns about how the NYSE will open the
market for a security under the proposal when there is no reliable
previous price or offering price.\32\ The commenter stated that if NYSE
gets the ``offering price `wrong,' secondary market trading will
quickly find the market price at which supply equals demand within a
few minutes if not a few seconds.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See supra note 8.
    \30\ Id. at 2.
    \31\ Id. at 3.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-NYSE-
2017-30 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act \34\ to determine whether the proposal
should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such proceedings is
appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy issues raised
by the proposal, as discussed below. Institution of disapproval
proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any
conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act, the Commission
is providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis and input concerning the proposed rule change's consistency
with the Exchange Act.\35\ In particular, the Commission is instituting
proceedings to allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule
change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act which requires,
among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that NYSE has proposed to adopt listing
standards that would permit broadly, for the first time, the listing on
the Exchange of a company immediately upon effectiveness of an Exchange
Act registration statement for the purpose of creating a liquid trading
market without any concurrent Securities Act registration. NYSE states
that its proposal to list such companies is designed to protect
investors and the public interest, consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act, because such companies will be required to meet all of the
same quantitative requirements that are met by other listing
applicants.
    The Commission notes, however, that a direct listing of this sort
based only on an Exchange Act registration without prior trading and
Securities Act registration may raise a number of unique
considerations, including with respect to the role of various
distribution participants, the extent and nature of pricing information
available to market participants prior to the commencement of trading,
and the availability of information indicative of the number of shares
that are likely to be made available for sale at the commencement of
trading.

V. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5), or any other provision of the Exchange
Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not
appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would
be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments,
the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for
an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, as amended by the
Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975),
grants the Commission flexibility to determine what type of
proceeding--either oral or notice and opportunity for written
comments--is appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal
by a self-regulatory organization. See Securities Act Amendments of
1975, Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No.
75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by October 12, 2017. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
October 26, 2017. The Commission asks that commenters address the
sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal
which are set forth in the Notice, in addition to any other comments
they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change. In particular,
the Commission seeks comment, including, where relevant, any specific
data, statistics, or studies, on the following:
    1. Would a direct listing based only on an Exchange Act
registration without prior trading and Securities Act registration
present unique considerations, including with respect to the role of
various distribution participants, the extent and nature of pricing
information available to market participants prior to the commencement
of trading, and the availability of information indicative of the
number of shares that are likely to be made available for sale at the
commencement of trading? Would these considerations raise any concerns,
including with respect to promoting just and equitable principles of
trade, removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system, and, in general,
protecting investors and the public interest? If so, please identify
those risks and explain their significance.
    2. To what extent would a direct listing impact the ability of the
DMM to facilitate the opening (or otherwise fulfill its obligations as
a DMM) on the first day of trading of a security listed only with an
Exchange Act registration? To the extent there would be an impact,
please identify it and explain its significance. To what extent would
any such impact be mitigated by the proposed requirement that the DMM
consult with a financial adviser to the issuer in order to effect a
fair and orderly opening of the security?
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-NYSE-2017-30 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 Numbers SR-NYSE-2017-30. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of these filings also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2017-30 and should be
submitted on or before October 12, 2017. Rebuttal comments should be
submitted by October 26, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-20101 Filed 9-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 14 (Friday, January 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 3805]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01248]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0001]

Arthritis Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; 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 on January 19, 2016 (81 FR 2873).
The document announced an ``Arthritis Advisory Committee'' meeting and
contained an incorrect date for individuals requesting oral
presentations, and for FDA notifying individuals regarding their
request to speak at the meeting. This document corrects those errors.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie L. Begansky, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-9001, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2016-00823, appearing on page
2873 in the Federal Register of Tuesday, January 19, 2016, the
following corrections are made:
    1. On page 2873, in the third column, in the ``Procedure''
paragraph, the fourth sentence is corrected to read ``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 January 28, 2016.''
    2. On page 2873, in the third column, in the ``Procedure''
paragraph, the last sentence is corrected to read ``The contact person
will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by
January 29, 2016.''

    Dated: January 19, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-01248 Filed 1-21-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                   REGION IX
                              75 Hawthorne Street
                           San Francisco, CA  94105

                                April 14, 2020

Memorandum

Subject: 	Summary of Tribal Consultation Regarding California's Request for Reclassification of the South Coast Area from Moderate Nonattainment to Serious Nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard

From:   Ashley Graham, Air Planning Office, Air and Radiation Division
      Kate Harper, Grants and Program Integration Office, Air and Radiation Division

To: 	Docket # EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0145

On April 27, 2017, the State of California submitted a request for reclassification of the South Coast area from "Moderate" nonattainment to "Serious" nonattainment for the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Consistent with Executive Order 13175 and the EPA's Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, we offered consultation to the six tribes that have lands within the South Coast 2012 PM2.5 nonattainment area  -  the Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians of the Cahuilla Reservation, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation, the Ramona Band of Cahuilla, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, and the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. Included below is a summary of our outreach to the tribes, and our consultation with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians.

Outreach

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians of the Cahuilla Reservation:
 EPA letter offering consultation sent via US Mail on January 22, 2020 and via email on January 23, 2020. The letter was addressed to Daniel Salgado, Chairman, Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians of the Cahuilla Reservation with cc to Casey Corliss, Environmental Director.
 January 27, 2020. Informal call between Andrea Candelaria and EPA R9 (Ashley Graham and Kate Harper).
 Ms. Candelaria informed EPA that the tribe would have a new environmental director starting on February 19, 2020. She requested that the EPA send the letter to her via email so that she could follow up with the Tribal Council.
 Ashley Graham sent the letter to Ms. Candelaria via email on January 27, 2020.
 February 20, 2020. Ashley Graham sent a follow up email to Ms. Candelaria inquiring if the Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians of the Cahuilla Reservation wanted to consult with EPA regarding the request to reclassify the South Coast 2012 PM2.5 area to Serious nonattainment. No response was received.

  Morongo Band of Mission Indians:
 EPA letter offering consultation sent via US Mail on January 22, 2020 and via email on January 23, 2020. The letter was addressed to Robert Martin, Chairman, Morongo Band of Mission Indians with cc to Dana Morey, Environmental Director.
 January 27, 2020. EPA R9 (Ashley Graham and Kate Harper) left a voicemail for Dana Morey regarding the EPA letter offering consultation.
 Ms. Morey subsequently confirmed with Kate Harper that she had received EPA's letter.
 February 7, 2020. Ms. Morey notified EPA via email that the Morongo Band of Mission Indians wanted to initiate formal consultation on the request to reclassify the South Coast area to Serious nonattainment.
 February 19, 2020. Ms. Morey emailed a list of questions and topics for discussion to the EPA in preparation for the March 12, 2020 consultation.
 March 12, 2020. Formal consultation conducted via teleconference. Morongo was represented by Dana Morey, Environmental Director; Karen Woodard, Realty Administrator; Kimberly Cluff, In-House General Counsel; Pamela Atcitty, Environmental Specialist II, Tribal Air Program; and Jessica Southard, Environmental Administrative Assistant. EPA Region 9 was represented by Amy Zimpfer, Assistant Director, Air and Radiation Division; Anita Lee and Ashley Graham, Air Planning Office; Jeanhee Hong, Office of Regional Counsel; Kate Harper, Grants and Program Integration Office; and Sheila Tsai, Air Permitting Office.
 March 24, 2020. Ashley Graham emailed information requested by Ms. Morey during the March 12, 2020 call.
 April 3, 2020. Ms. Morey notified the EPA via email that the Tribe had no further questions or concerns and requested that we close formal consultation.

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation
 EPA letter offering consultation sent via US Mail on January 22, 2020 and via email on January 23, 2020. The letter was addressed to Mark Macarro, Chairman, Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation with cc to Kelcey Stricker, Environmental Director.
 January 27, 2020. EPA R9 (Ashley Graham and Kate Harper) left a voicemail for Kelcey Stricker regarding the EPA letter offering consultation.
 January 29, 2020. Ms. Stricker requested via email that the EPA resend the letter via email. EPA resent the letter and Ms. Stricker confirmed receipt via email.
 February 13, 2020. Ms. Stricker notified EPA via email that the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation wanted to initiate staff-level consultation on the request to reclassify the South Coast area to Serious nonattainment.
 March 12, 2020. Staff-level consultation conducted via teleconference. Pechanga was represented by Kelcey Stricker, Environmental Director; and Michele Fahley, Deputy General Counsel. EPA Region 9 was represented by Amy Zimpfer, Assistant Director, Air and Radiation Division; Anita Lee and Ashley Graham, Air Planning Office; Jeanhee Hong, Office of Regional Counsel; Kate Harper, Grants and Program Integration Office; and Sheila Tsai, Air Permitting Office.
 April 7, 2020. Ashley Graham emailed Kelcey Stricker and Michele Fahley to see if the Tribe had any additional questions. No response was received.

Ramona Band of Cahuilla
 EPA letter offering consultation sent via US Mail on January 22, 2020 and via email on January 23, 2020. The letter was addressed to Joseph Hamilton, Chairman, Ramona Band of Cahuilla with cc to Nicolette Jonkhoff, Environmental Director.
 January 27, 2020. Informal call between John Gomez and EPA R9 (Ashley Graham and Kate Harper).
 Mr. Gomez informed EPA that he is currently the environmental director and requested that the EPA send the letter to him via email. He requested that the EPA resend the letter to him via email so that he could follow up with the Tribal Council.
 Ashley Graham sent the letter to Mr. Gomez via email on January 27, 2020 and he confirmed receipt via email.
 February 20, 2020. Ashley Graham sent a follow up email to Mr. Gomez inquiring if the Ramona Band of Cahuilla wanted to consult with EPA regarding the request to reclassify the South Coast 2012 PM2.5 area to Serious nonattainment. No response was received.

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
 EPA letter offering consultation sent via US Mail on January 22, 2020 and via email on January 23, 2020. The letter was addressed to Lynn Valbuena, Chairperson, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians with cc to Clifford Batten, Environmental Manager.
 January 27, 2020. Informal call between Clifford Batten and EPA R9 (Ashley Graham and Kate Harper).
 February 20, 2020. Ashley Graham sent a follow up email to Mr. Batten inquiring if the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians wanted to consult with EPA regarding the request to reclassify the South Coast 2012 PM2.5 area to Serious nonattainment. No response was received.

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
 EPA letter offering consultation sent via US Mail on January 22, 2020 and via email on January 23, 2020. The letter was addressed to Scott Cozart, Chairman, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians with cc to Steven Estrada, Environmental Manager.
 January 27, 2020. Informal call between Steven Estrada and EPA R9 (Ashley Graham and Kate Harper).
 Mr. Estrada requested that the EPA resend the letter to him via email.
 Ashley Graham sent the letter to Mr. Estrada via email on January 27, 2020.
 February 20, 2020. Ashley Graham sent a follow up email to Mr. Estrada inquiring if the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians wanted to consult with EPA regarding the request to reclassify the South Coast 2012 PM2.5 area to Serious nonattainment. No response was received.

Summary of March 12, 2020 Consultation Call with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians

 EPA: We consider the call to be formal consultation per the email from Dana Morey on February 7, 2020. Ms. Morey confirmed that the call would initiate formal consultation.
 EPA described the process for evaluating the State's submittal and for taking action, noting that after the proposal publishes in the Federal Register, there will be a 30-day public comment period, after which EPA will consider comments and publish a final action.
 EPA and the Tribe discussed the following questions and discussion topics provided by the tribe via email in advance of the call:
 Morongo: Please provide a brief overview of the NAAQS classification/reclassification process and any other background information you feel may be helpful for Tribal Leadership
            EPA shared PowerPoint slides with Morongo prior to the call to provide this overview. EPA walked through the slides with the Tribe on the call. The slides included an overview of the PM2.5 designations for the South Coast and Morongo, the Clean Air Act requirements for PM2.5 Moderate nonattainment areas, California's request to reclassify the South Coast area to Serious, implications for tribes, and next steps.
 Morongo: The Tribe is not responsible for elevated PM2.5 levels on the reservation. Sources of PM2.5 affecting the Tribe are under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). How will this reclassification impact public health on the reservation?

            EPA: Reclassifying the area would give the area additional time to attain the standard, would require SCAQMD to submit a new plan, and would establish some additional requirements (e.g., more stringent control requirements (best available control measures, BACM)).

            SCAQMD will continue to adopt and implement new control measures to reduce emissions and improve air quality. EPA will continue to monitor their progress and if they fail to make reasonable further progress, they may be required to implement contingency measures.

 Morongo: Can we request to become our own air planning region for the PM2.5 Annual Primary Standard? What will this process look like?

            EPA: Tribes may be designated as their own area separate from state lands if they have air quality data that meets regulatory requirements.
      Requirements
 Regulatory data
 A request from the Tribe to be split off from the area, along with a 5-factor analysis making the case for being its own area. (The five factor analysis would include the same factors as used for designations, 1) AQ data, 2) Emissions data, 3) Meteorology, 4) Geography/Topography, 5) Jurisdictional Boundaries).

 Morongo: How will this impact future development projects on the reservation? Will SCAQMD develop more stringent PM2.5 significance thresholds for analyzing local and regional impacts in CEQA and NEPA analysis?

            EPA: We can't speak to whether the District would modify the CEQA significance thresholds but there is no federal requirement to do so.

            The general conformity de minimis thresholds will not change. Because the area is already Serious for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the change in classification from Moderate to Serious for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS does not change the de minimis threshold for the South Coast area for PM2.5.

 Morongo: How will this affect future permitting actions on the Reservation?

      EPA: This action will not affect future permitting actions on the Reservation.

            Reclassification would not change the "major source" threshold for the nonattainment new source review permitting program or the Title V operating permit program in the South Coast area because the area is already a "Serious" nonattainment area for the 2006 PM2.5 standard, and as such is already subject to the 70 ton per year major source threshold for Serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas.

            The minor NSR threshold also would not change because it is tied to designation status (attainment vs. nonattainment) rather than classification (Moderate vs. Serious) and the area will remain nonattainment.

 Morongo: What actions will be taken if SCAQMD does not meet the 2025 deadline?

            EPA: If EPA approves the reclassification to Serious and the Serious area plan, and the SCAQMD fails to meet the December 31, 2025 attainment deadline, the EPA would be required to make a finding of failure to attain. A finding of failure to attain would
 Trigger contingency measures to reduce emissions, and
 Require SCAQMD to submit a new attainment plan (including a 5% plan) showing how they will reduce concentrations by at least 5% per year until they reach attainment.

            Due to measures associated with SCAQMD's ozone control strategy, they anticipate that they will be able to attain before 2025.

 Morongo: How will this action affect our Treatment in a Similar Manner as a State process and plans to establish our own air quality control regions and to develop tribal implementation plans?

            EPA: This action will have no impact on your TAS process, plans to establish your own air quality control region(s), or plans to develop a TIP.

 Morongo: How will this affect our request to transition from information monitoring to regulatory monitoring for PM2.5?

            EPA: This action will have no effect on your request to transition to regulatory monitoring.

 At the end of the March 12, 2020 call, Ms. Morey thanked EPA for its time and efforts to address their concerns. Ms. Morey said she would take the information back to the Tribal Council and follow up via email regarding any further consultation.

Summary of Consultation Call with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation

 EPA: We consider the call to not be formal consultation per the email from Kelcey Stricker on February 13, 2020 requesting staff-level consultation. Ms. Stricker confirmed that the call would not initiate formal consultation.
 EPA described the process for evaluating the State's submittal and for taking action, noting that after the proposal publishes in the Federal Register, there will be a 30-day public comment period, after which EPA will consider comments and publish a final action.
 EPA shared PowerPoint slides with Pechanga prior to the call and walked through the slides with the Tribe on the call. The slides included an overview of the PM2.5 designations for the South Coast and Pechanga, the Clean Air Act requirements for PM2.5 Moderate nonattainment areas, California's request to reclassify the South Coast area to Serious, implications for tribes, and next steps.
 Pechanga: The main body of the Reservation is designated separately as its own area?
EPA: Yes, the main body of the reservation is designated attainment/unclassifiable as its own area, consistent with the Tribe's recommendation during the designations process. The EPA notified the Tribe about this action because the Tribe acquired land (i.e., the "Meadowbrook parcel") within the South Coast 2012 PM2.5 nonattainment area boundary after designations. Similar to the 2015 ozone nonattainment boundary for South Coast, the Meadowbrook parcel is included in the South Coast area for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
 Pechanga: The 70 tons per year major source threshold will not change?
      EPA: That is correct. Reclassification would not change the "major source" threshold for the nonattainment new source review permitting program or the Title V operating permit program in the South Coast area because the area is already a "Serious" nonattainment area for the 2006 PM2.5 standard, and as such is already subject to the 70 ton per year major source threshold for Serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas.

 At the end of the March 12, 2020 call, Ms. Stricker said that the Tribe's initial questions had been answered. Ms. Stricker said that the Tribe may have some follow up questions and if so, she would email them in the following week or so. EPA didn't hear from the tribe with follow up questions as of April 14, 2020.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70974-70975]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28428]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 206(4)-6, OMB Control No. 3235-0571, SEC File No. 270-513.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collections of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these
existing collections of information to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    The title for the collection of information is ``Rule 206(4)-6''
under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-1 et seq.)
(``Advisers Act'') and the collection has been approved under OMB
Control No. 3235-0571. The Commission adopted rule 206(4)-6 (17 CFR
275.206(4)-6), the proxy voting rule, to address an investment
adviser's fiduciary obligation to clients who have given the adviser
authority to vote their securities. Under the rule, an investment
adviser that exercises voting authority over client securities is
required to: (i) Adopt and implement policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed to ensure that the adviser votes securities in the
best interest of clients, including procedures to address any material
conflict that may arise between the interest of the adviser and the
client; (ii) disclose to clients how they may obtain information on how
the adviser has voted with respect to their securities; and (iii)
describe to clients the adviser's proxy voting policies and procedures
and, on request, furnish a copy of the policies and procedures to the
requesting client. The rule is designed to assure that advisers that
vote proxies for their clients vote those proxies in their clients'
best interest and provide

clients with information about how their proxies were voted.
    Rule 206(4)-6 contains ``collection of information'' requirements
within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The respondents are
investment advisers registered with the Commission that vote proxies
with respect to clients' securities. Advisory clients of these
investment advisers use the information required by the rule to assess
investment advisers' proxy voting policies and procedures and to
monitor the advisers' performance of their proxy voting activities. The
information also is used by the Commission staff in its examination and
oversight program. Without the information collected under the rules,
advisory clients would not have information they need to assess the
adviser's services and monitor the adviser's handling of their
accounts, and the Commission would be less efficient and effective in
its programs.
    The estimated number of investment advisers subject to the
collection of information requirements under the rule is 9,650. It is
estimated that each of these advisers is required to spend on average
10 hours annually documenting its proxy voting procedures under the
requirements of the rule, for a total burden of 96,500 hours. We
further estimate that on average, approximately 139 clients of each
adviser would request copies of the underlying policies and procedures.
We estimate that it would take these advisers 0.1 hours per client to
deliver copies of the policies and procedures, for a total burden of
134,135 hours. Accordingly, we estimate that rule 206(4)-6 results in
an annual aggregate burden of collection for SEC-registered investment
advisers of a total of 230,635 hours.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burdens
of the collections of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burdens of the collections of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a
valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: November 21, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-28428 Filed 11-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 207)]
[Notices]
[Page 55544-55545]
[DOCID:fr28oc09-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-4-000]

Gulfstream Natural Gas System, LLC; Notice of Application

October 20, 2009.
    On October 9, 2009, Gulfstream Natural Gas System, LLC
(Gulfstream), pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, as
amended, and section 157 Subpart A of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's (Commission) regulations, filed to amend its certificate.
Gulfstream seeks authorization to install and operate an additional
20,500 horsepower of compression at its existing compressor Station
420, in Manatee County, Florida as more fully explained in its
application. The Phase V Expansion Project would cost about $50.8
million. Gulfstream asks that all authorizations

requested be issued on or before May 1, 2010.
    Questions concerning this application may be directed to Lisa A.
Moore, General Manager, Rates and Certificates, Gulfstream Natural Gas
System, LLC at 5400 Westheimer Court, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, TX 77251-
1642, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mailing
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 10, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-25868 Filed 10-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 14, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 49)]
[Notices]
[Page 11871-11872]
[DOCID:fr14mr07-50]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0955-FRL-8119-1]

Rodenticides; Proposed Risk Mitigation Decision; Extension of
Comment Period

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY:  EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register of January 17,
2007, concerning the availability of the Proposed Risk Mitigation
Decision for nine rodenticides. The nine rodenticides covered by the
Proposed Risk Mitigation Decision are brodifacoum, bromadiolone,
difethialone, chlorophacinone, diphacinone, warfarin, zinc phosphide,
bromethalin, and cholecalciferol. This document is extending the
comment period for 60 days, from March 19, 2007, to May 18, 2007.

DATES:  Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2006-0955, must be received on or before May 18, 2007.

ADDRESSES:  Follow the detailed instructions as provided under
ADDRESSES in the Federal Register document of January 17, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Kelly Sherman, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Laura Parsons, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    The Agency included in the notice a list of those who may be
potentially affected by this action. If you have questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. 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:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
     ii. 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.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
     iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
     viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    To submit comments, or access the official public docket, please
follow the detailed instructions as provided in SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION of the January 17, 2007, Federal Register document. If you
have questions, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

II. What Action is EPA Taking?

    This document extends the public comment period established in the
Federal Register of January 17, 2007 (72 FR 1992) (FRL-8104-7). In that
document, EPA announced the availability of the availability of the
Proposed Risk Mitigation Decision for nine rodenticides. The nine
rodenticides covered by the Proposed

Risk Mitigation Decision are brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difethialone,
chlorophacinone, diphacinone, warfarin, zinc phosphide, bromethalin,
and cholecalciferol. EPA is hereby extending the comment period, which
was set to end on March 19, 2007, to May 18, 2007.

III. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

     Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA, as amended, directs that, after
submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, the
Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active
ingredient are eligible for reregistration. Further provisions are made
to allow a public comment period. However, the Administrator may extend
the comment period, if additional time for comment is requested. In
this case, several stakeholders have requested additional time to
develop comments due to the complexity of the issues raised by the
proposed mitigation decision. In addition, the Rodenticide Registrants
Task Force (RRTF) has requested additional time to develop comments
using information recently placed in the docket and provided to the
RRTF.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and Pests.

    Dated: March 2, 2007.
 Debra Edwards,
 Director, Special Review and Reregistration, Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs]
[FR Doc. E7-4648 Filed 3-13-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S