[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 221 (Monday, November 17, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68366-68370]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27168]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0592]
RIN 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Area, Lake Michigan; Chicago Harbor Lock,
Chicago, IL to Calumet Harbor, Chicago, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a Regulated Navigation Area
(RNA) for the waters of Lake Michigan within 5 nautical miles from
shore from the Chicago Harbor Lock, Chicago, Illinois to Calumet
Harbor, Chicago, Illinois. This RNA is intended to allow barges to
transit on an alternate route on a portion of Lake Michigan due to the
temporary closure of the Thomas J. O'Brien Lock on RM 326.5 on the
Calumet River. This RNA is necessary to ensure vessel safety and
facilitate commerce.

DATES: This rule is effective from November 17, 2014 until March 31,
2015. This rule has been enforced with

actual notice from November 1, 2014 until November 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2014-0592. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 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
temporary rule, contact or email MST1 John Ng, U.S. Coast Guard Marine
Safety Unit Chicago, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone 1-800-647-5527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
RNA Regulated Navigation Area
TFR Temporary Final Rule

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On September 4, 2014, the Coast Guard published an NPRM in the
Federal Register entitled ``Regulated Navigation Area; Lake Michigan,
Chicago Harbor Lock, Chicago, IL to Calumet Harbor, Chicago, IL'' (79
FR 52591). We received two comments in response to the NRPM. Those
comments are addressed below. No public meeting was requested, and none
was held.
    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. On June 4, 2014, the Coast Guard,
industry stakeholders, and the Army Corps of Engineers discussed the
closure of the Thomas J. O'Brien Lock and alternatives for affected
barge traffic. The need for an RNA arose out of these discussions, and
the Coast Guard began the rulemaking process for a temporary RNA.
However, there was insufficient time for both notice and comment and
delaying the effective date of the rule. Waiting 30 days after
publication to make the rule effective would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest because it would not allow the RNA to
be enforced starting after November 1, 2014, when it is needed to
ensure vessel safety and facilitate commerce.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish RNAs and limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6,
and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    Between November 3, 2014, and March 6, 2015, the United States Army
Corps of Engineers anticipates closing the Thomas J. O'Brien Lock for
two 47-day periods in order to perform maintenance on the lock. The
Thomas J. O'Brien Lock closures present a significant challenge to the
barge industry and an alternate route is necessary in order to sustain
commerce. Further, safe operating requirements for this temporary
alternate route are necessary to ensure safety of transiting barge
traffic.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    We received two comments in response to the NPRM. The first comment
indicated that the environmental analysis for the proposed rule lacked
information about the environmental impact of barge traffic. This
comment recommends the inclusion of relevant studies, if any, on the
impact of barge traffic on the environment in the proposed rule's
environmental analysis.
    We have made no change to the final rule in light of this comment.
The environmental checklist and categorical exclusion, included in the
docket, address the environmental analysis of this rule. In short, we
determined after a thorough review, that the application of U.S. Coast
Guard categorical exclusion 34(g) is appropriate in this case. Having
made this determination, no further environmental analysis and
documentation is required. However, as we note later on, we welcome any
comments or information that may lead to discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.
    A second comment voiced support for the temporary RNA as a
practical solution for commercial traffic during the closure of the
Thomas J. O'Brien Lock. We made no change to the final rule in light of
this comment.
    Further, we have made editorial changes to the regulatory text of
the rule for clarification. As to the first change, we've inserted the
phrase ``within the effective period'' under paragraph 2(b) of the
regulatory text. This phrase explains that any change in the
enforcement period for which we give notice will occur within the
effective period of the rule (November 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015). We
further deleted the phrase ``In accordance with 46 CFR 45.171'' and
added the word ``same'' under paragraph 2(c)(1) to clarify that only
certain provisions of 46 CFR 45.171 are adopted for purposes of this
rule; these provisions include the ``same'' requirements for voyages
between Burns Harbor, Indiana and Calumet Harbor, Chicago, Illinois as
reflected in Table 45.171.

D. Discussion of the Final Rule

    This RNA is necessary to facilitate commerce and establish safe
operating requirements for this temporary alternate route. Thus, this
rule establishes an RNA on the waters of Lake Michigan, between Chicago
Harbor Lock, Chicago, Illinois and Calumet Harbor, Chicago, Illinois,
within 5 nautical miles from shore.
    This RNA will be effective and enforced from November 1, 2014,
through March 31, 2015. The effective period for this RNA is broader
than the anticipated closure dates of the Thomas J. O'Brien Lock and
Dam to account for unexpected changes in schedule. In the event of a
change in the enforcement dates and times, the Ninth District Commander
will provide notice to the public by issuing a Notice of Enforcement
for publication in the Federal Register, and announcing a Broadcast
Notice to Mariners.
    Inspected and uninspected river barges transiting this RNA need to
operate in accordance with temporary 33 CFR 165.T09-0592 described
below:

Uninspected Dry Cargo Barges

    Unmanned dry cargo river barges transiting between Chicago Harbor
Lock, Chicago, Illinois and Calumet Harbor, Chicago, Illinois must meet
the same requirements for voyages between Burns Harbor, Indiana and
Calumet Harbor, Chicago, Illinois outlined in Table 45.171 of 46 CFR
45.171, as follows:
     Load line requirement: Conditionally exempted from load
line assignment.
     Where to register/apply: Exempted barges must be
registered with the USCG Marine Safety Unit Chicago, 555A Plainfield
Road, Willowbrook, IL 60527; Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Eligible barges are dry cargo river barges, built and
maintained in accordance with ABS River Rules, Length-to-depth ratio is
less than 22, and all weathertight and watertight

closures are in proper working condition. There is no age limitation.
     Barges freeboard must be at least 24 inches (610 mm). On
open hopper barges, the coaming height + freeboard must be at least 54
inches (1,372 mm).
     Tow limitations: Barges must be unmanned. Barges must
transit within 5 nautical miles from shore. There is no limit on the
number of barges in tow.
     Cargo limitations: Dry cargoes only. Liquid cargoes, even
in drums or tank containers, are prohibited. No hazardous materials.
HazMats are defined in 46 CFR part 148 and 49 CFR chapter 1, subchapter
C.
     Weather limitations: Voyages will be conducted in ``Fair
weather'' only. If worse conditions arise during the transit, the
voyage must be discontinued and tow must proceed to shelter.
     Pre-departure preparations: Required; as specified in 46
CFR 45.191.
     Tow requirements:
    [cir] Power: sufficient to handle tow.
    [cir] Communication system: Recommended; 46 CFR 45.195(a).
    [cir] Cutting gear: Recommended; 46 CFR 45.195(b).
    [cir] Operational plan: Recommended; 46 CFR 45.197.

Coast Guard Inspected River Barges

    Unmanned inspected river barges operating between Chicago Harbor
Lock, Chicago, Illinois and Calumet Harbor, Chicago, Illinois must meet
the following requirements:
     Markings: Great Lakes diamond without seasonal marks.
     Stability: Applicable 46 CFR subchapter S requirements.
     Strength: ABS Rules for Rivers and Intracoastal Waterways.
Tank barges over 300 feet in length must have loading information per
46 CFR 31.10-32.
     Freeboard: Dry cargo and tank barges are to comply with
the freeboard requirements of 46 CFR Part 45. Dry cargo barges will not
be assessed penalties for hatch coaming or hatch cover deficiencies.
     Load Line Certificate: Great Lakes certificate with the
following notation: ``This certificate is valid only for unmanned fair
weather voyages between Calumet Harbor, Chicago, Illinois and Burns
Harbor, Indiana.''
     Operating restrictions: Voyages will be conducted in
``Fair weather'' only. If worse conditions arise during the transit,
the voyage must be discontinued and tow must proceed to shelter. Barges
must transit within 5 nautical miles of shore.

E. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action
because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy,
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues. The RNA is intended to facilitate commerce and
will not restrict navigation because it will allow barges to transit an
additional route without making any changes to the current barge
requirements. Overall, we expect the economic impact of this rule to be
minimal and that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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 regulated navigation area will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities because it is intended
to facilitate commerce and will not restrict navigation because it will
allow barges to transit an additional route without making any changes
to the current barge requirements. 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.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Heidi Bragalone,
Waterways Management Branch, Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Chicago,
Willowbrook, IL at<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Coast Guard will not retaliate
against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States 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 determined that this rule does not have
implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the For Further
Information Contact section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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 does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. 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.

12. Energy Effects

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the establishment of a regulated
navigation area and, therefore it is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this
determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0592 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0592  Regulated Navigation Area, Lake Michigan; Chicago
Harbor Lock, Chicago, IL to Calumet Harbor, Chicago, IL.

    (a) Location. All waters of Lake Michigan, between Chicago Harbor
Lock, Chicago, Illinois, to Calumet Harbor, Chicago, Illinois,
extending within 5 nautical miles from shore.
    (b) Effective period and enforcement. The regulated navigation area
described in paragraph (a) of this section will be effective from
November 1, 2014, through March 31, 2015. This section is expected to
be enforced from November 1, 2014, through March 31, 2015, but the
enforcement dates and times for this regulated navigation area are
subject to change. In the event of a change within the effective
period, the Ninth District Commander will provide notice to the public
by issuing a Notice of Enforcement for publication in the Federal
Register, and announcing a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Unmanned dry cargo river barges transiting
between Chicago Harbor Lock, Chicago, Illinois and Calumet Harbor,
Chicago, Illinois must meet the same requirements for voyages between
Burns Harbor, Indiana and Calumet Harbor, Chicago, Illinois, outlined
in Table 45.171 of 46 CFR 45.171, as follows:
    (i) Load line requirement: Conditionally exempted from load line
assignment.
    (ii) Where to register/apply: Exempted barges must be registered
with the USCG Marine Safety Unit, 555A Plainfield Road, Willowbrook, IL
60527; Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (iii) Eligible barges are dry cargo river barges, built and
maintained in accordance with ABS River Rules, Length-to-depth ratio is
less than 22, and all weathertight and watertight closures are in
proper working condition. There is no age limitation.
    (iv) Barges freeboard must be at least 24 inches (610mm). On open
hopper barges, the coaming height + freeboard must be at least 54
inches (1,372 mm).
    (v) Tow limitations: Barges must be unmanned. Barges must transit
within 5 nautical miles from shore. There is no limit on the number of
barges in tow.
    (vi) Cargo limitations: Dry cargoes only. Liquid cargoes, even in
drums or tank containers, are prohibited. No hazardous materials.
Hazardous materials are defined in 46 CFR part 148 and 49 CFR chapter
1, subchapter C.
    (vii) Weather limitations: Voyages will be conducted in ``Fair
weather'' only. If worse conditions arise during the transit, the
voyage must be discontinued and tow must proceed to shelter.
    (viii) Pre-departure preparations: Required; as specified in 46 CFR
45.191.
    (ix) Tow requirements:
    (A) Power: Sufficient to handle tow.
    (B) Communication system: Recommended; 46 CFR 45.195(a).
    (C) Cutting gear: Recommended; 46 CFR 45.195(b).
    (D) Operational plan: Recommended; 46 CFR 45.197.
    (2) Unmanned inspected river barges operating between Chicago
Harbor Lock, Chicago, Illinois and Calumet Harbor, Chicago, Illinois
must meet the following requirements:
    (i) Markings: Great Lakes diamond without seasonal marks.
    (ii) Stability: Applicable 46 CFR subchapter S requirements.
    (iii) Strength: ABS Rules for Rivers and Intracoastal Waterways.
Tank barges over 300 feet in length must have loading information per
46 CFR 31.10-32.
    (iv) Freeboard: Dry cargo and tank barges are to comply with the
freeboard requirements of 46 CFR part 45. Dry cargo barges will not be
assessed penalties for hatch coaming or hatch cover deficiencies.
    (v) Load Line Certificate: Great Lakes certificate with the
following notation: ``This certificate is valid only for unmanned fair
weather voyages between Calumet Harbor, Chicago, Illinois and Burns
Harbor, Indiana.''
    (vi) Operating restrictions: Voyages will be conducted in ``Fair
weather'' only. If worse conditions arise during the transit, the
voyage must be discontinued and tow must proceed to shelter. Barges
must transit within 5 nautical miles from shore.

    Dated: October 30, 2014.
F.M. Midgette,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2014-27168 Filed 11-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 92 (Monday, May 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 27961]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11281]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 5991-003]

Gordon Foster and Seneca Falls School, Deep Creek Energy LLC;
Notice of Transfer of Exemption

    1. By letter filed March 20, 2013, Mr. Brian Gogarty, Deep Creek
Energy LLC informed the Commission that the exemption from licensing
for the Deep Creek Project, FERC No. 5991, originally issued October 1,
1982,\1\ has been transferred to Deep Creek Energy LLC. The project is
located on Deep Creek in Stevens County, Washington. The transfer of an
exemption does not require Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 21 FERC ] 62,002, Order Granting Exemption From Licensing of
a Small Hydroelectric Project of 5 MW or Less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Mr. Brian Gogarty, Deep Creek Energy LLC, located at 806 B
Gillette Road, Colville, WA 99114 is now the exemptee of the Deep Creek
Project, FERC No. 5991.

    Dated: May 6, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-11281 Filed 5-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 206 (Friday, October 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 63621]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25320]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD14-14-000]

Price Formation in Energy and Ancillary Services, Markets
Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations, and Independent System
Operators: Notice of Workshop

    As announced in the Notice issued on June 19, 2014, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) directed its staff to convene
workshops as necessary to commence a discussion with industry on
existing market rules and operational practices affecting price
formation issues in energy and ancillary services markets operated by
Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) and Independent System
Operators (ISOs). The June 19 Notice listed four areas of interest:
uplift payments, offer price mitigation and offer price caps, scarcity
and shortage pricing, and operator actions that affect prices. The
first workshop, held on September 8, 2014, addressed uplift payments
and the second workshop, scheduled for October 28, 2014, will address
offer price mitigation and offer price caps and scarcity and shortage
pricing. The third workshop will address technical, operational, and
market issues related to operator actions in energy and ancillary
services markets operated by RTOs and ISOs, and will be held on
Tuesday, December 9, 2014 from 8:45 a.m. to 5 p.m. in the Commission
Meeting Room at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Commission members may participate in
the workshop.
    The workshop will be open for the public to attend. Advance
registration is not required, but is encouraged. Attendees may register
at the following Web page: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/12-09-14-form.asp.
    Those wishing to participate in the program for this event should
nominate themselves through the online registration form no later than
October 29, 2014 at the following Web page: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/12-09-14-speaker-form.asp. At this Web page, please
provide an abstract (1,500 character limit) of the issue(s) you propose
to address. Due to time constraints, we may not be able to accommodate
all those interested in speaking.
    Further details and a formal agenda will be issued prior to the
workshop.
    Information on this event will be posted on the Calendar of Events
on the Commission's Web site, www.ferc.gov, prior to the event. The
workshop will also be Webcast and transcribed. Anyone with Internet
access who desires to listen to this event can do so by navigating to
the Calendar of Events at www.ferc.gov and locating this event in the
Calendar. The event will contain a link to the Webcast. The Capitol
Connection provides technical support for Webcasts and offers the
option of listening to the meeting via phone-bridge for a fee. If you
have any questions, visit www.CapitolConnection.org or call 703-993-
3100.
    Commission workshops are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For further information on this workshop, please contact:

Logistical Information

    Sarah McKinley, Office of External Affairs, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202) 502-8368<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Technical Information

    Emma Nicholson, Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: October 10, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-25320 Filed 10-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


 ? Need to return call by / at/ between and . Signature: Project No.: 0<IP_ADDRESS> DISTRIBUTION Page __ 1_ of _ 1_

Project Name: 304( m) OCPSF Detailed Study TELEPHONE CALL RECORD Outgoing Call Date: 11/ 17/ 03 Time: 2 p. m.

Company Name: Honeywell Birmingham Birmingham, AL Company Number: 805 783 0118 Contact Name: Ellie Ku Codding Phone No.: 703 633 1673 Name: Ben Waits Eastern Research Group, Inc.

GENERAL SUBJECT : PACs at Tar Sites TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN I called Mr. Waits to discuss the PACs reported in the 2000 TRI. The signal was busy ( again on 11/ 20, and again on 11/ 24).


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 102 (Thursday, May 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30514-30517]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12832]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75026; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-048]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Exchange Rules Related to Order Tickets

May 21, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 11, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the

proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange seeks to amend its rules related to order tickets. The
text of the proposed rule change is provided below.

(additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *

Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated Rules

* * * * *

Rule 6.53. Certain Types of Orders Defined

* * * * *

. . . Interpretations and Policies:

    .01 No change.
    .02 Complex orders of twelve (12) legs or less (one leg of which
may be for an underlying security or security future, as applicable)
must be entered on a single order ticket at time of systemization. If
permitted by the Exchange (which the Exchange will announce by
Regulatory Circular), complex orders of more than twelve (12) legs (one
leg of which may be for an underlying security or security future, as
applicable) may be split across multiple order tickets if the Trading
Permit Holder representing the complex order [includes twelve (12) legs
on one of the order tickets] uses the fewest order tickets necessary to
systematize the order and identifies for the Exchange the order tickets
that are part of the same complex order (in a form and manner
prescribed by the Exchange).
* * * * *

Rule 24.20. SPX Combo Orders

* * * * *

. . . Interpretations and Policies:

    .01 An SPX Combo Order for twelve (12) legs or less must be entered
on a single order ticket at time of systemization. If permitted by the
Exchange (which the Exchange will announce by Regulatory Circular), an
SPX Combo Order for more than twelve (12) legs may be represented or
executed as a single SPX Combo Order in accordance with this Rule 24.20
if it is split across multiple order tickets and the Trading Permit
Holder representing the SPX Combo Order [includes twelve (12) legs on
one of the order tickets] uses the fewest order tickets necessary to
systematize the order and identifies for the Exchange the order tickets
that are part of the same SPX Combo Order (in a manner and form
prescribed by the Exchange).
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the order ticket requirements
applicable to complex orders in open outcry pursuant to Rule 6.53, as
well as SPX Combo Orders \5\ pursuant to Rule 24.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ An ``SPX Combo Order'' consists of an order to purchase or
sell one or more SPX option series and the offsetting number of SPX
combinations defined by the delta, where an ``SPX combination'' is a
purchase (sale) of an SPX call and sale (purchase) of an SPX put
having the same expiration date and strike price and a ``delta'' is
the positive (negative) number of SPX combinations that must be sold
(bought) to establish a market neutral hedge with one or more SPX
option series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    On February 26, 2015, rule change filing SR-CBOE-2015-011 was
approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'').\6\ As amended by SR-CBOE-2015-011, Rule 6.53 requires
complex orders of twelve (12) legs or less (one leg of which may be for
an underlying security or security future, as applicable) to be entered
on a single order ticket at time of systemization. Rule 6.53, as
amended, also states that if permitted by the Exchange (which the
Exchange will announce by Regulatory Circular), complex orders of more
than twelve (12) legs (one leg of which may be for an underlying
security or security future, as applicable) may be split across
multiple order tickets, if the Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'')
representing the complex order includes twelve (12) legs on one of the
order tickets and identifies for the Exchange the order tickets that
are part of the same complex order (in a form and manner prescribed by
the Exchange).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-74389 (February 26,
2015), 80 FR 11717 (March 4, 2015) (``Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 24.20, as amended, also requires that an SPX Combo Order for
twelve (12) legs or less be entered on a single order ticket at time of
systemization. An SPX Combo Order that contains more than twelve (12)
legs may be represented and executed as a single SPX Combo Order in
accordance with Rule 24.20 if it is split across multiple order tickets
and the TPH representing the SPX Combo Order includes twelve (12) legs
on one of the order tickets and identifies for the Exchange the order
tickets that are part of the same SPX Combo Order (in a manner and form
prescribed by the Exchange).
    As noted above, SR-CBOE-2015-011 specifically provided that if an
open outcry complex order or an SPX Combo Order with more than twelve
legs is split across multiple order tickets, one of the order tickets
must contain twelve legs. For example, a thirteen leg order could not
have seven legs on one ticket and six legs on another ticket; rather,
one ticket must have twelve legs and the other ticket must have one
leg. However, prior to the Commission's approval of SR-CBOE-2015-011,
the Exchange held an informational session for Floor Broker Trading
Permit Holders regarding the requirement to use a single order ticket
to enter complex orders and SPX Combo Orders of twelve legs or
fewer.\7\ At the informational session, Floor Broker TPHs indicated
that for a 13 leg order in SPX (where the rule requires 12 legs to be
on 1 order ticket and the 13th leg to be on a

separate order ticket), the 13th leg would not be able to execute in
complex order increments (pennies) because CBOE's Hybrid System (the
``System'') would block the trade.\8\ In effect, the System would treat
the 13th leg as a simple order that is ineligible to execute in penny
increments.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See CBOE Information Circular IC15-012 (February 24, 2015).
    \8\ For certain options, SPX options included, single leg orders
may not be executed in $0.01 increments, but individual legs of
complex orders may be executed in $0.01 increments. See Rule 6.42.
    \9\ The Exchange notes that the System would treat any
standalone leg of a complex order in the same manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, for complex orders with over twelve legs and an equal
number of put legs versus call legs, Floor Broker TPHs expressed the
desire to place the put legs on one order ticket and the call legs on a
separate order ticket. The Floor Broker TPHs indicated that splitting
an order across multiple order tickets in this manner is a more
efficient and simpler way to price the entire complex order.
Proposal
    In an effort to address the above concerns and maintain an
effective audit trail, the Exchange is seeking to amend Rules 6.53.02
and 24.20.1 by removing the requirement that for orders with over 12
legs TPHs must include 12 legs on one of the order tickets. As
proposed, Rule 6.53.02 will provide:
     Complex orders of twelve (12) legs or less (one leg of
which may be for an underlying security or security future, as
applicable) must be entered on a single order ticket at time of
systemization. If permitted by the Exchange (which the Exchange will
announce by Regulatory Circular), complex orders of more than twelve
(12) legs (one leg of which may be for an underlying security or
security future, as applicable) may be split across multiple order
tickets if the Trading Permit Holder representing the complex order
uses the fewest order tickets necessary to systematize the order and
identifies for the Exchange the order tickets that are part of the same
complex order (in a form and manner prescribed by the Exchange).

Proposed Rule 24.20.01 will similarly provide:

    An SPX Combo Order for twelve (12) legs or less must be entered on
a single order ticket at time of systemization. If permitted by the
Exchange (which the Exchange will announce by Regulatory Circular), an
SPX Combo Order for more than twelve (12) legs may be represented or
executed as a single SPX Combo Order in accordance with this Rule 24.20
if it is split across multiple order tickets and the Trading Permit
Holder representing the SPX Combo Order uses the fewest order tickets
necessary to systematize the order and identifies for the Exchange the
order tickets that are part of the same SPX Combo Order (in a manner
and form prescribed by the Exchange).

As noted in the rule text, the Exchange will announce via Regulatory
Circular whether an open outcry complex order or SPX Combo Order may
have more than 12 legs.\10\ In addition, for orders with more than 12
legs, the Exchange will not prescribe the number of legs that must be
on each order ticket, except that TPHs must use the fewest number of
tickets necessary to systematize the order.\11\ This will allow TPHs to
split orders with more than 12 legs across multiple order tickets in
any manner they choose, provided they use the fewest number of order
tickets. For example, a 13 legged order could be split across two order
tickets with 6 legs on one order ticket and 7 legs on another ticket
but the order could not be split across three order tickets because the
fewest number of order tickets required for an order with 13 to 24 legs
is two.\12\ The only restriction, as provided in the rule text, is that
for orders greater than 12 legs TPHs must use the fewest number of
order tickets necessary to systematize the order. Without the proposed
restriction there would be no limit on the number of order tickets a
TPH could use to systematize an order, which could burden the manual
process by which the CBOE Regulatory Division reviews these large
orders. For example, without the restriction, an order with 13 legs
could potentially be split across 13 different order tickets, which
would require the Regulatory Division to manually review 13 different
order tickets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As noted in SR-CBOE-2015-011, current Exchange system
limitations prevent a multi-part order with more than 12 legs from
being entered on a single order ticket for representation and
execution in open outcry as a complex order or SPX Combo Order.
    \11\ The Exchange notes that the requirement to use the fewest
order tickets necessary to systematize an order is not meant to
allow the Exchange the flexibility to increase the number of legs
that must be on a single order ticket; rather, the Exchange will
submit a rule filing to amend Rules 6.53.02 and 24.20.01 if the
Exchange seeks to modify the number of legs required to be on a
single order ticket.
    \12\ The fewest number of order tickets necessary to systematize
an order is based on the current Exchange system limitation, which
caps the number of legs that can be on a single order ticket at 12
legs. Thus, orders with 12-24 legs would be required to be on no
more than two order tickets, orders with 25-36 legs would be
required to be on no more than three order tickets, and so forth. As
previously noted, the Exchange will submit a rule filing to amend
Rules 6.53.02 and 24.20.01 if the Exchange seeks to modify the
number of legs required to be on a single order ticket.

    The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed
rule change, as well as the specific order ticket requirements to be
set by the Exchange in accordance with this proposed rule, in a
Regulatory Circular to be published within 90 days of the effective
date of this filing. The implementation date of this filing will be
within 180 days of the effective date of this filing.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\13\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \14\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the

proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \15\
requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will
allow the Exchange to maintain an enhanced audit trail with respect to
open outcry complex order processing and SPX Combo Orders, which helps
to protect investors and the public interest because an enhanced audit
trail promotes transparency and aids in surveillance, as well as,
provides the Exchange the ability to better enforce compliance by the
Exchange's TPHs (and persons associated with its TPHs) with the Act,
the rules and regulations thereunder and the rules of the Exchange,
thereby protecting investors. Additionally, the Exchange believes
allowing TPHs to split orders across multiple order tickets as proposed
would allow TPHs to more quickly and efficiently systematize and
execute open outcry complex orders and SPX Combo Orders, which helps to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market. Finally, the proposal to require TPHs to use the fewest number
of order tickets to systematize an order will prevent TPHs from
utilizing five order tickets, for example, when two would suffice,
which aids in surveillance and provides the Exchange the ability to
better enforce compliance by TPHs.

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket or
intermarket competition because the order ticket requirements will be
applicable to all TPHs executing complex orders in open outcry and SPX
Combo Orders.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \16\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \17\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2015-048 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-048. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the 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-CBOE-2015-048 and should be
submitted on or before June 12, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-12832 Filed 5-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 28, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59906-59908]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24517]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0849; FRL-8889-1]

Fluazifop-P-butyl; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes and increases tolerances for
residues of fluazifop-P-butyl in or on cotton, gin byproducts; cotton,
refined oil; and cotton, undelinted seed. Syngenta Crop Protection
requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective September 28, 2011. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 28, 2011,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0849. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn V. Montague, Registration
Division (7505P), 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?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0849 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
November 28, 2011. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0849, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of December 15, 2010 (75 FR 78240) (FRL-
8853-1), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
0F7768) by Syngenta Crop Protection, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC
27419. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.411 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide, fluazifop-P-
butyl, butyl(R)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-
pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoate, and the free and conjugated forms of
the resolved isomer of fluazifop, (R)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-
pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acid, expressed as fluazifop, in or on
cotton, undelinted seed at 0.9 ppm; and cotton, gin byproducts at 0.8
ppm. That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by
Syngenta Crop Protection, the registrant, which is available in the
docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in
response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition EPA has made
changes to the requested tolerances. First, EPA is raising the proposed
cotton, gin byproducts tolerance from 0.8 ppm to 1.5 ppm; second,
raising the established cotton, refined oil tolerance from 0.2 ppm to
1.3 ppm; and finally,

raising the proposed cotton, undelinted seed tolerance from 0.9 ppm to
1.0 ppm. EPA also retains the current tolerance expression for
fluazifop-P-butyl that was established in 40 CFR 180.411 paragraph (a)
in the Federal Register of February 2, 2011 (76 FR 5696) (FRL-8861-1).
The reason for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. * *
*''
    In the Federal Register of February 2, 2011 EPA issued a final rule
establishing a tolerance for residues of fluazifop-P-butyl in or on
banana; beet, sugar; citrus, fruit, group 10; grape and potato. EPA has
determined that establishing revised tolerances for cotton commodities
will not significantly change the risk assessments the Agency relied on
to support the February 2, 2011, tolerance action, as explained in this
unit.
    Cotton commodities (undelinted seed, gin byproducts, meal, and
hulls) may be used as roughage or protein concentrate feedstuffs in the
diets of livestock. When the Agency conducted the risk assessment in
support of the February 2, 2011 tolerance action, it considered
secondary residues of fluazifop-P-butyl in livestock commodities from
consumption of fluazifop-P-butyl treated feed. In calculating livestock
dietary burdens for fluazifop-P-butyl, EPA assumed that 100% of feed
items consumed by livestock are treated with fluazifop-P-butyl. EPA
also assumed residues were present in the roughage and protein
concentrate components of livestock diets at the tolerance level for
soybean feedstuffs of 2.5 parts per million (ppm) which is greater than
the tolerances being established for cotton feedstuffs. Therefore, the
Agency has determined that the establishment of a tolerance on the feed
commodity cotton, gin byproducts at 1.5 ppm and raising the cotton,
undelinted seed tolerance from 0.1 ppm to 1.0 ppm will not increase
residues of fluazifop-P-butyl in livestock feed commodities above those
calculated in the previous risk assessment conducted for the February
2, 2011 tolerance action.
    The only human food item affected by this action is cotton, refined
oil. This commodity was included in the most recent acute and chronic
dietary exposure assessment for the February 2, 2011 tolerance action
at the level of 0.2 ppm using the food consumption data from the USDA
1994-1996 and 1998 Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals
(CSFII). EPA conducted additional calculations using the increased
level of 1.3 ppm for cotton, refined oil to determine if any increase
in dietary exposure results. For both acute and chronic analyses,
identical results were obtained to three significant figures. EPA
typically reports dietary exposures as a percentage of the population
adjusted dose (PAD) to just two significant figures. Therefore, EPA
concludes that no significant increase in human dietary exposure
resulting from the establishment of the revised cotton tolerances.
    Based on these considerations, EPA has determined that establishing
the tolerance for fluazifop-P-butyl in cotton, gin byproducts at 1.5
ppm, raising the established cotton, refined oil from 0.2 ppm to 1.3
ppm and raising the cotton, undelinted seed tolerance from 0.1 ppm to
1.0 ppm will not affect the estimated livestock dietary burden and will
not change the estimated aggregate risks resulting from use of
fluazifop-P-butyl, as discussed in the February 2, 2011 Federal
Register. Refer to the Federal Register document, available at http://www.regulations.gov, for a detailed discussion of the aggregate risk
assessment and determination of safety.
    Therefore, based on this information and the findings in the final
rule published in the Federal Register of February 2, 2011, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to fluazifop-P-butyl residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (High Performance Liquid
Chromatography/Ultra-Violet Spectrometry (HPLC/UV)) is available to
enforce the tolerance expression. The method is available in Pesticide
Analytical Methods (PAM), Volume II or may be requested from: Chief,
Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes
Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for fluazifop-P-butyl.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    EPA has revised the proposed tolerances levels. Based on the
submitted cotton undelinted seed and gin byproducts data, EPA
calculated that the cotton, gin byproducts tolerance should be 1.5 ppm;
cotton, refined oil tolerance should be 1.3 ppm, and cotton, undelinted
seed tolerance should be 1.0 ppm.
    Also, EPA is retaining the current tolerance expression for
fluazifop-P-butyl. The current tolerance expression makes clear that
the tolerances cover residues of the herbicide fluazifop-P-butyl,
including its metabolites and degradates, but that compliance with the
tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only the sum of
fluazifop-P-butyl, butyl(R)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-
pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoate, and the free and conjugated forms of
the resolved isomer of fluazifop, (R)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-
pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acid, calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of fluazifop, in or on the commodity.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of fluazifop-P-
butyl, butyl(R)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-
pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoate, and the free and conjugated forms of
the resolved isomer of fluazifop, (R)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-
pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acid, expressed as fluazifop, in or on
cotton, gin byproducts; cotton, refined oil; and cotton, undelinted
seed at 1.5 ppm, 1.3 ppm and 1.0 ppm, respectively.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). This action does not involve
any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of
voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law
104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 15, 2011.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 180.411, paragraph (a), the table is amended by:
0
i. Revising the entries for ``cotton, refined oil'' and ``cotton,
undelinted seed''; and
0
ii. Adding the entry for ``cotton, gin byproducts'' to the table in
paragraph (a)
0
iii. The amendments read as follows:

Sec.  180.411  Fluazifop-P-butyl; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Cotton, gin byproducts.....................................          1.5
Cotton, refined oil........................................          1.3
Cotton, undelinted seed....................................          1.0

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-24517 Filed 9-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61418-61420]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21982]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95978; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2022-035]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a
Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the VanEck Bitcoin
Trust Under BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4), Commodity-Based Trust Shares

October 4, 2022.
    On June 24, 2022, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
list and trade shares (``Shares'') of the VanEck Bitcoin Trust
(``Trust'') under BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4), Commodity-Based Trust Shares.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on July 13, 2022.\3\ The Commission has received no comments
on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95218 (July 7,
2022), 87 FR 41755 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 24, 2022, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the
Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to

determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.\5\ This order
institutes proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95596, 87 FR 53038
(Aug. 30, 2022). The Commission designated October 11, 2022, as the
date by which it should approve, disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Summary of the Proposal

    As described in more detail in the Notice,\7\ the Exchange proposes
to list and trade the Shares of the Trust under BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4),
which governs the listing and trading of Commodity-Based Trust Shares
on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The investment objective of the Trust would be for the Shares to
reflect the performance of the MVIS[supreg] CryptoCompare Bitcoin
Benchmark Rate (``Benchmark''), less the expenses of the Trust's
operations.\8\ The Benchmark will be used to calculate the Trust's net
asset value (``NAV''). The Benchmark is designed to be a price for
bitcoin in USD, and there is no component other than bitcoin in the
Benchmark. The current platform composition of the Benchmark is
Bitstamp, Coinbase, Gemini, itBit, and Kraken. In calculating the
Benchmark, the methodology captures trade prices and sizes from
platforms and examines twenty three-minute periods leading up to 4:00
p.m. E.T. It then calculates an equal-weighted average of the volume-
weighted median price of these twenty three-minute periods, removing
the highest and lowest contributed prices.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Notice, supra note 3, 87 FR at 41765. VanEck Digital
Assets, LLC is the sponsor of the Trust, and Delaware Trust Company
is the trustee. The State Street Bank and Trust Company will be the
administrator (``Administrator'') and transfer agent. Van Eck
Securities Corporation will be the marketing agent in connection
with the creation and redemption of Shares. Van Eck Securities
Corporation provides assistance in the marketing of the Shares. See
id. at 41764. A third-party regulated custodian (``Custodian'') will
be responsible for custody of the Trust's bitcoin. See id. at 41755.
    \9\ See id. at 41765.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each Share will represent a fractional undivided beneficial
interest in the Trust's net assets. The Trust's assets will consist of
bitcoin held by the Custodian on behalf of the Trust. The Trust
generally does not intend to hold cash or cash equivalents. However,
there may be situations where the Trust will unexpectedly hold cash on
a temporary basis.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See id. at 41764.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Administrator will determine the NAV and NAV per Share of the
Trust on each day that the Exchange is open for regular trading, as
promptly as practical after 4:00 p.m. E.T. The NAV of the Trust is the
aggregate value of the Trust's assets less its estimated accrued but
unpaid liabilities (which include accrued expenses). In determining the
Trust's NAV, the Administrator values the bitcoin held by the Trust
based on the price set by the Benchmark as of 4:00 p.m. E.T.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See id. at 41766.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Trust will provide information regarding the Trust's bitcoin
holdings, as well as an Intraday Indicative Value (``IIV'') per Share
updated every 15 seconds, as calculated by the Exchange or a third-
party financial data provider during the Exchange's Regular Trading
Hours (9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. E.T.). The IIV will be calculated by
using the prior day's closing NAV per Share as a base and updating that
value during Regular Trading Hours to reflect changes in the value of
the Trust's bitcoin holdings during the trading day.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See id. at 41765.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Trust sells or redeems its Shares, it will do so in ``in-
kind'' transactions in blocks of 50,000 Shares at the Trust's NAV.
Authorized participants will deliver, or facilitate the delivery of,
bitcoin to the Trust's account with the Custodian in exchange for
Shares when they purchase Shares, and the Trust, through the Custodian,
will deliver bitcoin to such authorized participants when they redeem
Shares with the Trust.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See id. at 41764-65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-
CboeBZX-2022-035 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \14\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of proceedings is
appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy issues raised
by the proposed rule change, as discussed below. Institution of
proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any
conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as
described below, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons
to provide comments on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\15\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
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 prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices'' and ``to protect investors and the
public interest.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,\17\ in addition to any other comments they may wish to
submit about the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission
seeks comment on the following questions and asks commenters to submit
data where appropriate to support their views:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. What are commenters' views on whether the proposed Trust and
Shares would be susceptible to manipulation? What are commenters' views
generally on whether the Exchange's proposal is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices? What are commenters'
views generally with respect to the liquidity and transparency of the
bitcoin markets, the bitcoin markets' susceptibility to manipulation,
and thus the suitability of bitcoin as an underlying asset for an
exchange-traded product?
    2. Based on data and analysis provided and the academic research
cited by the Exchange,\18\ do commenters agree with the Exchange that
the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (``CME'') on which bitcoin futures
contracts trade (``CME Bitcoin Futures'') represents a regulated market
of significant size related to spot bitcoin? \19\ What are commenters'
views on whether there is a reasonable likelihood that a person
attempting to manipulate the Shares would also have to trade on the CME
to manipulate the Shares? Do commenters agree with the Exchange's
assertion that the combination of (a) the in-kind creation and
redemption process; (b) CME Bitcoin Futures leading price discovery;
(c) the overall size of the bitcoin market; and (d) the ability for
market participants to buy or sell large amounts of bitcoin without
significant market impact, helps to prevent the Shares from becoming
the predominant force on pricing in either the spot bitcoin or CME
Bitcoin Futures markets? \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See id. at 41761-62, 41763 n.51.
    \19\ See id. at 41763.
    \20\ See id. at 41764.

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

    3. The Exchange states that bitcoin is resistant to price
manipulation and that other means to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices exist to justify dispensing with the
requirement to enter into a comprehensive surveillance-sharing
agreement with a regulated market of significant size related to spot
bitcoin.\21\ Do commenters believe the Exchange has shown that the
bitcoin market is resistant to price manipulation or that other means
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices exist to
justify dispensing with the relevant surveillance-sharing agreement?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See id. at 41763 n.54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Procedure: Request for Written 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 Act, and
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.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Section 19(b)(2) of the 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 November 1, 2022. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
November 15, 2022.
    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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeBZX-2022-035 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2022-035. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2022-035 and should be submitted
by November 1, 2022. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by November
15, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-21982 Filed 10-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 92 (Thursday, May 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29152-29153]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10201]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CD22-6-000]

City of Hood River, Oregon; Notice of Preliminary Determination
of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and
Motions To Intervene

    On May 5, 2022, the City of Hood River, Oregon, filed a notice of
intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant
to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA). The proposed Dee Bridge
Hydroelectric Station Project would have an installed capacity of 175
kilowatts (kW), and would be located along an existing 24-inch pipeline
at the applicant's Dee Bridge Pressure Reducing Station in Dee, Hood
River County, Oregon.
    Applicant Contact: Andrew Benjamin, NLine Energy, Inc., 403 Portway
Avenue, Suite 300, Hood River, OR 97031,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    FERC Contact: Christopher Chaney,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed
project would consist of: (1) One 175

kW turbine/generator unit; (2) 12 or 18-inch-diameter intake and
discharge pipes; and (3) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project
would have an estimated annual generation of approximately 650
megawatt-hours.
    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined
or deemed to meet all the criteria shown in the table below.

                          Table 1--Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Satisfies  (Y/
           Statutory provision                                  Description                             N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPA 30(a)(3)(A)..........................  The conduit the facility uses is a tunnel, canal,                  Y
                                            pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, or similar
                                            manmade water conveyance that is operated for the
                                            distribution of water for agricultural, municipal,
                                            or industrial consumption and not primarily for the
                                            generation of electricity.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i).......................  The facility is constructed, operated, or maintained               Y
                                            for the generation of electric power and uses for
                                            such generation only the hydroelectric potential of
                                            a non-federally owned conduit.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii)......................  The facility has an installed capacity that does not               Y
                                            exceed 40 megawatts.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii).....................  On or before August 9, 2013, the facility is not                   Y
                                            licensed, or exempted from the licensing
                                            requirements of Part I of the FPA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preliminary Determination: The proposed Dee Bridge Hydroelectric
Station Project will not alter the primary purpose of the conduit,
which is to transport potable water for municipal use. Therefore, based
upon the above criteria, Commission staff preliminarily determines that
the proposal satisfies the requirements for a qualifying conduit
hydropower facility, which is not required to be licensed or exempted
from licensing.
    Comments and Motions to Intervene: Deadline for filing comments
contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 30
days from the issuance date of this notice.
    Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the
issuance date of this notice.
    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the ``COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR
A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' as
applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the
project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3)
state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and
(4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through
385.2005 of the Commission's regulations.\1\ All comments contesting
Commission staff's preliminary determination that the facility meets
the qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may send a
paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be
addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852. A copy of all other filings in reference
to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all
persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Locations of Notice of Intent: The Commission provides all
interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of
this document via the internet through the Commission's website at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number
(i.e., CD22-6) in the docket number field to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. Copies of the notice of
intent can be obtained directly from the applicant. For assistance,
call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected]. For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 6, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-10201 Filed 5-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 6)]
[Notices]
[Page 1436-1437]
[DOCID:fr11ja10-97]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61283; File No. SR-BX-2009-082]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Facilitate
Annual Membership Billing Conducted by BX Using the FINRA CRD System

January 4, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 14, 2009, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BX'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by BX. BX has designated the proposed rule
change as one that is concerned solely with the administration of the
self-regulatory organization pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(3) under the
Act,\3\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    BX submits this proposed rule change to facilitate annual
membership billing conducted by the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority (``FINRA'') on behalf of BX.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    BX is proposing to allow FINRA to deduct an annual $3,000
membership fee from Boston Options Exchange Group, LLC (``BOX'')
participants' CRD accounts and promptly refund the charge back to the
same participants' accounts. Pursuant to a regulatory services
agreement, FINRA is providing BX with certain regulatory services,
including the collection of annual membership fees from BX members
pursuant to BX Rule 7001(a). BOX participants are not subject to the BX
annual membership fee. Due to a limitation with FINRA's systems, FINRA
is unable to differentiate between BX members and BOX participants. As
a consequence, FINRA must deduct the BX fee from both member and
participant accounts. BX is proposing to promptly refund the charge to
BOX participants after collection by FINRA. Specifically, after receipt
of the lump sum payment from FINRA representing the collection of funds
from both member and participant accounts, BX will provide to FINRA the
BOX participant funds together with a list of each participant to which
FINRA must remit pro-rata payment. BOX has provided its participants
with notice of the impending charge and rebate.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general and with
Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The proposed change will
facilitate FINRA's operation of the CRD system, while ensuring that BOX
participants are not improperly charged a fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    BX does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(3) thereunder,\7\ the Exchange has designated this proposal as one
that is concerned solely with the administration of the self-regulatory
organization, which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-BX-2009-082 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BX-2009-082. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of BX. 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 No. SR-BX-2009-082 and should be
submitted on or before February 1, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-195 Filed 1-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P