[Federal Register: February 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 36)]
[Notices]
[Page 8384-8385]
[DOCID:fr24fe10-112]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0006]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request, 1660-NEW; FEMA Preparedness Grants: State Homeland
Security Program (SHSP) Tribal

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; 60-day notice and request for comments; new information
collection; OMB No. 1660-NEW; FEMA Form 089-22, SHSP-Tribal Investment
Justification Template.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on a proposed new information collection. In accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this Notice seeks comments
concerning the State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) Tribal.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 26, 2010.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov under
docket ID FEMA-2010-0006. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Office of Chief Counsel,
Regulation and Policy Team, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street, SW., Room 835,
Washington, DC 20472-3100.
    (3) Facsimile. Submit comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) E-mail. Submit comments to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include docket
ID FEMA-2010-0006 in the subject line.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via a link in the footer of http://
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacey Street, Program Analyst, Grant
Programs Directorate,<PHONE_NUMBER> for additional information. You may
contact the Office of Records Management for copies of the proposed
collection of information at facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA's State Homeland Security Program
(SHSP) Tribal is authorized by Sections 2004 and 2005 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, as amended by Section 101, Title I of the
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Public
Law 110-53 (6 U.S.C. 605 and 606). SHSP provides supplemental funding
to eligible tribes to help strengthen the Nation against risks
associated with potential terrorist attacks. SHSP support building and
sustaining capabilities at the State and Local levels through planning,
equipment, training, and exercise activities, and help states to
implement the strategic goals and objectives included in the State
Homeland Security Strategies. This law empowers FEMA Administrator to
make grant awards directly to eligible tribes and requires the
Administrator to accept appropriate application data submitted by
eligible tribes similar to the SHSP application requirements of States,
such as:
    [cir] The purpose for which the State seeks grant funds and the
reasons why the State needs the grant to meet its target capabilities;
    [cir] A description of how the State plans to allocate the grant
funds to local governments and Indian tribes;
    [cir] A budget showing how the State intends to expend the grant
funds; and
    [cir] A directly eligible tribe must provide a copy of its
application to each State within which any part of the tribe is located
for review before the tribe submits such application to the Department.

Collection of Information

    Title: FEMA Preparedness Grants: State Homeland Security Program
(SHSP) Tribal.
    Type of Information Collection: New information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-NEW.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 089-22, SHSP-Tribal Investment
Justification Template.
    Abstract: The SHSP-Tribal provides supplemental funding to directly
eligible tribes to help strengthen the nation against risks associated
with potential terrorist attacks. This program provides funds to build
capabilities at the State & local levels and implement goals and
objectives included in state homeland security strategies.
    Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 12,007 hours.

                                                 Table A.12--Estimated Annualized Burden Hours and Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            No. of                 Avg. burden     Total
                                                               No. of     responses    Total no.       per         annual    Avg. hourly   Total annual
         Type of respondent          Form name/form number  respondents      per           of        response    burden (in   wage rate*    respondent
                                                                          respondent   responses    (in hours)     hours)                      cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 State, Local or Tribal Government.   SHSP--Tribal                   40            1           40          300       12,000       $37.80     $453,600.00
                                      Investment
                                      Justification
                                      Template, FEMA Form
                                      089-22.
 State, Local or Tribal Government.  Copy of Application             40            1           40        0.167            7       $37.80         $264.60
                                      provided to State                                             (10 mins.)
                                      prior to submission/
                                      No Form.
    Total..........................  .....................           80  ...........  ...........  ...........       12,007  ...........     $453,864.60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Cost: There is no annual reporting recordkeeping cost
associated with this collection.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Larry Gray,
Director, Office of Records Management, Office of Management, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2010-3598 Filed 2-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-78-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 183 (Monday, September 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 56614]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22567]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Gepco, Ltd.; Order of Suspension of Trading

September 18, 2014
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') that there is a lack of accurate information
concerning, and potentially manipulative transactions in, the
securities of Gepco, Ltd. (``Gepco''). Gepco is a Nevada corporation
with its principal place of business located in Santee, California. Its
stock is quoted on OTC Link, operated by OTC Markets Group Inc., under
the ticker: GEPC. The Commission is of the opinion that the public
interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of
trading in the securities of Gepco.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on
September 18, 2014, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on October 1, 2014.

    By the Commission.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-22567 Filed 9-18-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		8/5/14

TO:		Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	Ray Saracino, EPA

SUBJECT:	July 30, 2014, Meeting Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      EPA participated in a meeting organized by UC Berkeley on July 30, 2014.  EPA provided a brief overview of the Clean Power Plan proposal for Existing Power Plants. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.        ATTENDEES

A specific list of attendees is not available.  Approximately 30 people from local governments were present.  Amy Zimpfer presented on behalf of EPA.

Attachment


[Federal Register: January 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 6)]
[Notices]
[Page 906-908]
[DOCID:fr09ja09-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0657]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Recommendations for the Early Food Safety Evaluation
of New Non-Pesticidal Proteins Produced by New Plant Varieties Intended
for Food Use

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on

the information collection provisions of the guidance document entitled
``Recommendations for the Early Food Safety Evaluation of New Non-
Pesticidal Proteins Produced by New Plant Varieties Intended for Food
Use.''

DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of
information by March 10, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of Information
Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Recommendations for the Early Food Safety Evaluation of New Non-
Pesticidal Proteins Produced by New Plant Varieties Intended for Food
Use (OMB Control Number 0910-0583--Extension)

    Since May 29, 1992, when FDA issued a policy statement on foods
derived from new plant varieties, FDA has encouraged developers of new
plant varieties, including those varieties that are developed through
biotechnology, to consult with FDA early in the development process to
discuss possible scientific and regulatory issues that might arise (57
FR 22984). The guidance entitled ``Recommendations for the Early Food
Safety Evaluation of New Non-Pesticidal Proteins Produced by New Plant
Varieties Intended for Food Use'' continues to foster early
communication by encouraging developers to submit to FDA their
evaluation of the food safety of their new protein. Such communication
helps to ensure that any potential food safety issues regarding a new
protein in a new plant variety are resolved early in development, prior
to any possible inadvertent introduction into the food supply of
material from that plant variety.
    FDA believes that any food safety concern related to such material
entering the food supply would be limited to the potential that a new
protein in food from the plant variety could cause an allergic reaction
in susceptible individuals or could be a toxin. The guidance describes
the procedures for early food safety evaluation of new proteins in new
plant varieties, including bioengineered food plants, and the
procedures for communicating with FDA about the safety evaluation.
    The respondents to this collection of information are developers of
new plant varieties intended for food use.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      No. of         Annual Frequency       Total Annual        Hours per
                   Respondents         per Response          Responses           Response         Total Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First four                     20                     1                 20                  4                 80
 data
 components
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two other data                 20                     1                 20                 16                320
 components
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                                                                400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    FDA estimates the annual total hour burden for this collection of
information to be 400 hours. This estimate is based on early food
safety evaluations submitted in the past 3 years. FDA's estimate of the
time that it would take a respondent to prepare the data components of
the early food safety evaluation submission is based on the agency's
experience with similar submissions.
    Completing an early food safety evaluation for a new protein from a
new plant variety is a one-time burden (one evaluation per new
protein). Based on its experience over the past 3 years, FDA estimates
that approximately 20 developers will choose to complete an early food
safety evaluation for their new plant protein. Many developers of novel
plants may choose not to submit an evaluation because the field testing
of a plant containing a new protein is conducted in such a way (e.g.,
on such a small scale, or in such isolated conditions, etc.) that
cross-pollination with traditional crops or commingling of plant
material is not likely to be an issue. Also, other developers may have
previously communicated with FDA about the food safety of a new plant
protein, for example, when the same protein was expressed in a
different crop.
    The early food safety evaluation for new proteins includes six main
data components. Four of these data components are easily and quickly
obtainable, having to do with the identity and source of the protein.
FDA estimates that completing these data components will take about 4
hours per

evaluation. In table 1 of this document, row 1 shows that for 20
evaluations, the total burden for these 4 data components is 80 hours.
    Two data components ask for original data to be generated. One data
component consists of a bioinformatics analysis which can be performed
using publicly available databases. The other data component involves
``wet'' lab work to assess the new protein's stability and the
resistance of the protein to enzymatic degradation using appropriate in
vitro assays (protein digestibility study). The paperwork burden of
these two data components consists of the time it takes the company to
assemble the information on these two data components to submit to FDA.
We estimate that these two data components will take 16 hours to
complete (8 hours for each component). In table 1 of this document, row
2 shows that for 20 evaluations, the total burden for these two data
components is 320 hours.
    Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets
Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management
System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management
system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA only
through FDMS at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: December 30, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E9-213 Filed 1-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 247 (Thursday, December 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70983-70984]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27772]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0946]

Application for Recertification of Prince William Sound Regional
Citizens' Advisory Council

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the availability of, and seeks
comments on, the recertification of the Prince William Sound Regional
Citizen's Advisory Council (PWSRCAC) for March 2, 2020 through February
28, 2021. Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), the Coast Guard
may certify the PWSRCAC on an annual basis. This advisory group
monitors the activities of terminal facilities and crude oil tankers
under the Prince William Sound program established by the statute. The
Coast Guard may certify an alternative voluntary advisory group in lieu
of the PWSRCAC. The current certification for the PWSRCAC will expire
March 1, 2020.

DATES: Public comments on PWSRCAC's recertification application must
reach the Seventeenth Coast Guard District on or before February 10,
2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2019-0946 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
recertification, call or email LT Ian McPhillips, Seventeenth Coast
Guard District (dpi); telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, contact the U. S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, Regulations and Administrative Law office, telephone
(202) 372-3862.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking,

indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the
docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

II. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

III. Public Meeting

    The Coast Guard does not plan to hold a public meeting. But you may
submit a request for one on or before February 10, 2020 using the
method specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a
public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid
the process of thoroughly considering the application for
recertification, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a
later notice in the Federal Register.

IV. Background and Purpose

    The Coast Guard published guidelines on December 31, 1992 (57 FR
62600), to assist groups seeking recertification under the Oil Terminal
and Oil Tanker Environmental Oversight and Monitoring Act of 1990 (33
U.S.C. 2732) (the Act). The Coast Guard issued a policy statement on
July 7, 1993 (58 FR 36504), to clarify the factors that the Coast Guard
would be considering in making its determination as to whether advisory
groups should be certified in accordance with the Act, and the
procedures which the Coast Guard would follow in meeting its
certification responsibilities under the Act. Most recently, on
September 16, 2002 (67 FR 58440), the Coast Guard changed its policy on
recertification procedures for regional citizen's advisory council by
requiring applicants to provide comprehensive information every three
years. For the two years in between, applicants only submit information
describing substantive changes to the information provided at the last
triennial recertification. This is the year in this triennial cycle
that PWSRCAC must provide comprehensive information.
    The Coast Guard is accepting comments concerning the
recertification of PWSRCAC. At the conclusion of the comment period on
February 10, 2020, the Coast Guard will review all application
materials and comments received and will take one of the following
actions:
    (a) Recertify the advisory group under 33 U.S.C. 2732(o);
    (b) Issue a conditional recertification for a period of 90 days,
with a statement of any discrepancies, which must be corrected to
qualify for recertification for the remainder of the year; or
    (c) Deny recertification of the advisory group if the Coast Guard
finds that the group is not broadly representative of the interests and
communities in the area or is not adequately fostering the goals and
purposes of 33 U.S.C. 2732.
    The Coast Guard will notify PWSRCAC by letter of the action taken
on its application. A notice will be published in the Federal Register
to advise the public of the Coast Guard's determination.

    Dated: December 18, 2019.
Melissa L. Rivera,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2019-27772 Filed 12-23-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on February 6, 2002

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-98-3376

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of      American Airlines, Inc.   ,    filed   1/16/02  to:

XX  Renew for two years exemption under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between the coterminal points New York, New York; and Chicago, Illinois;
and the terminal point Warsaw, Poland.  American intends to operate this
service pursuant to a code-share arrangement with Polski Linie Lotnicze
LOT S.A.  American will place its designator code on LOT’s nonstop
flights between New York and Chicago, on the one hand, and Warsaw, on
the other.

Applicant rep:    Carl B. Nelson, Jr.<PHONE_NUMBER>      DOT Analyst:
Sylvia Moore<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken:    February 6, 2002, through
  February 6, 2004

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX  The exemption authority granted is consistent with the aviation
agreement between the United States and Poland.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  XX Holder’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

	   XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

	   XX  Statement of authorization for American/LOT code-share
operations dated

                         December 10, 1998, and conditions therein

________________________________________________________________________
____________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the exemption authority was consistent with the
public interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a
“major regulatory action” under the Energy, Policy and Conservation
Act of 1975.  To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the
referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

(See Reverse Side)

2

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within ten (10) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

APPENDIX

U.S. CARRIER

Standard Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of operations authorized by the attached notice, the
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with the applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration Regulations, including all FAA requirements concerning
security; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 19, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9489-9493]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03178]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88176; File No. SR-CBOE-2020-007]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
the Fee Schedule Regarding the Automated Improvement Mechanism (AIM)
and Solicitation Auction Mechanism (SAM)

February 12, 2020.
    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 January 30, 2020, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe Options'') 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
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (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 its fees schedule in connection with
the fees related to orders and auction responses executed in the
Automated Improvement Mechanism (``AIM'') and Solicitation Auction
Mechanism (``SAM'') Auctions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on
December 2, 2019 (SR-CBOE-2019-112). On January 30, 2020, the
Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 options venues to which market participants
may direct their order flow.

Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has
more than 19% of the market share.\4\ Thus, in such a low-concentrated
and highly competitive market, no single options exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of option order flow. The
Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow, or discontinue use of certain categories of products,
in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain
the Exchange's transaction fees, and market participants can readily
trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other
venues to be more favorable. In response to the competitive
environment, the Exchange offers specific rates and credits in its fees
schedule, like that of other options exchanges' fees schedules, which
the Exchange believes provide incentive to Trading Permit Holders
(``TPHs'') to increase order flow of certain qualifying orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market Volume Summary
(January 30, 2020), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AIM and SAM include functionality in which a Trading Permit Holder
(``TPH'') (an ``Initiating TPH'') may electronically submit for
execution an order it represents as agent on behalf of a customer,\5\
broker dealer, or any other person or entity (``Agency Order'') against
any other order it represents as agent, as well as against principal
interest in AIM only, (an ``Initiating Order'') provided it submits the
Agency Order for electronic execution into the AIM or SAM Auctions.\6\
The Exchange may designate any class of options traded on Cboe Options
as eligible for AIM or SAM. The Exchange notes that all Users, other
than the Initiating TPH, may submit responses to an Auction (``AIM
Responses'').\7\ AIM and SAM Auctions take into account AIM Responses
to the applicable Auction as well as contra interest resting on the
Cboe Options Book at the conclusion of the Auction (``unrelated
orders''), regardless of whether such unrelated orders were already
present on the Book when the Agency Order was received by the Exchange
or were received after the Exchange commenced the applicable Auction.
If contracts remain from one or more unrelated orders at the time the
Auction ends, they are considered for participation in the AIM or SAM
order allocation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``customer'' means a Public Customer or a broker-
dealer. The term ``Public Customer'' means a person that is not a
broker-dealer. See Rule 1.1.
    \6\ See Rule 5.37 (AIM); Rule 5.39 (SAM); Rule 5.38 (Complex
AIM); Rule 5.40 (Complex SAM); Rule 5.73 (FLEX AIM); and Rule 5.74
(FLEX SAM).
    \7\ For purposes of this filing and the proposed fee, the term
``AIM Response'' will include responses submitted to AIM and SAM
Auctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it recently updated its rules in connection
with the AIM and SAM Auctions to permit all Users to respond to such
Auctions; AIM responses were previously restricted to Market-Makers
with an appointment in the applicable class and TPHs representing
orders at the top of the Book, and SAM responses were previously
available to all TPHs, except responses could not be submitted for the
account of an away market-maker.\8\ Because AIM Responses were limited
to certain market participants, the Exchange did not impose separate
fees on Auction responders (as it did for the Auction Agency and Contra
orders). As a result, the Exchange now proposes to adopt fee codes for
certain AIM Responses (the ``AIM Response'' fee as proposed in the fees
schedule, which is consistent with other AIM-specific headings and fee
codes in the fees schedule that also encompass orders in SAM).
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add: (1) Fee code ``NB'', which
would be appended to non-Customer, non-Market-Maker AIM Responses in
penny classes and assessed a fee of $0.50 per contract; and (2) and fee
code ``NC'', which would be appended to Non-Customer, Non-Market-Maker
AIM Responses in non-penny classes and assessed a fee of $1.05. Non-
Customer, non-Market-Maker orders include: Clearing Trading Permit
Holder (``F'' Capacity Code); non-Trading Permit Holder Affiliate
(``L'' Capacity Code); Broker-Dealer (``B'' Capacity Code); Non-Trading
Permit Holder Market-Maker (``N'' Capacity Code); Join Back-Office
(``J'' Capacity Code); and Professional (``U'' Capacity Code) orders.
The Exchange also proposes to add footnote 20, which clarifies that the
AIM Responder fee applies to AIM Responses of the aforementioned
capacities in all products, except Sector Indexes \9\ and Underlying
Symbol List A,\10\ executed in AIM, SAM, FLEX AIM, and FLEX SAM
Auctions. The Exchange notes that the same FLEX AIM and FLEX SAM
responses will be assessed the same fee, which is consistent with the
structure of the Exchange's current fees for AIM Agency/Primary and AIM
Contra orders, which apply uniformly to qualifying orders in AIM, SAM,
FLEX AIM, and FLEX SAM.\11\ The Exchange further notes that excluding
orders in Sector Indexes and Underlying Symbol List A from the proposed
AIM Response fee is also consistent with the same exclusions under the
structure of the Exchange's fees for AIM Agency/Primary and AIM Contra
orders.\12\ These specific sets of proprietary products are also
commonly excluded from a variety of fee programs, qualification
calculations and transaction fees, including the Volume Incentive
Program (``VIP''), the Marketing Fee, and the Clearing Trading Permit
Holder Fee Cap (``Fee Cap'').\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87072 (September 24,
2019), 84 FR 51673 (September 30, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-045); and
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87192 (October 1, 2019), 84 FR
53525 (October 7, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-063).
    \9\ See Cboe Exchange, Inc. Fees Schedule, footnote 47.
    \10\ See Cboe Exchange, Inc. Fees Schedule, footnote 34.
    \11\ See Cboe Exchange, Inc. Fees Schedule, footnotes 18 and 19.
    \12\ Also like the structure of the Exchange's fees for AIM
Agency/Primary and AIM Contra orders, the applicable standard
transaction fees will continue to apply to AIM Response orders in
Sector Indexes and Underlying Symbol List A. The Exchange notes this
in proposed footnote 20.
    \13\ See Cboe Exchange, Inc. Fees Schedule, ``Volume Incentive
Program'' table and footnote 36, ``Marketing Fee'' table, and
``Clearing Trading Permit Holder Fee Cap'' table and footnote 11,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, in light of the proposed fee, the Exchange also
proposes to exclude non-Customer, non-Market-Maker AIM Responses from
the Complex Surcharge, described in footnote 35. The Complex Surcharge
is assessed per contract per side for non-customer complex order
executions that remove liquidity from the Complex Order Book (``COB'')
and auction responses in the Complex Order Auction (``COA'') and AIM in
all classes except Sector Indexes and Underlying Symbol List A.
    The Exchange also proposes to adopt Break-Up Credits, applicable to
Customer Agency orders when traded against a qualifying AIM response
(yielding fee code NB or NC, as proposed). Specifically, the Exchange
proposes a Break-Up Credit of $0.25 per contract with respect to a
Customer Agency order in a Penny Pilot Class and a Break-Up Credit of
$0.60 per contract with respect to a Customer Agency order in a Non-
Penny Pilot Class.
    The proposed AIM Responder fees for non-Customer, non-Market-Maker
AIM Responses, which covers the market participants recently permitted
to respond to Auctions, are designed as an additional incentive for
Market-Makers to increase their responses to AIM and SAM Auctions.
Prior to opening up the Auctions to all market participants, Market-
Makers were naturally

incentivized to respond to Auctions as they were the exclusive (or
among the exclusive) market participants permitted to submit responses.
Therefore, the Exchange believes the proposed AIM Responder fees for
non-Customer, non-Market-Maker responses will encourage Market-Makers
to continue to respond to Auctions and compete to provide price
improvement in a competitive auction process, thus contributing to a
deeper, more liquid auction process with additional execution
opportunities which benefits all market participants. Likewise, the
Exchange believes the proposed Break-Up Credits will encourage Customer
order flow to Auctions. Increased Customer order flow benefits all
market participants because it continues to attract liquidity to the
Exchange by providing more trading opportunities. This attracts Market-
Makers and other liquidity providers, thus, facilitating price
improvement in the auction process, signaling additional corresponding
increase in order flow from other market participants, and, as a
result, contributing towards a robust, well-balanced market ecosystem.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6 of the Act,\14\ in general, and furthers the
requirements of Section 6(b)(4),\15\ in particular, as it is designed
to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. As stated above, the
Exchange operates in a highly-competitive market in which market
participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they
deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to
be insufficient. The proposed fee changes reflect a competitive pricing
structure designed to incentivize market participants to direct their
order flow to the Exchange's price improvement Auctions, which the
Exchange believes would enhance market quality to the benefit of all
TPHs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposed adoption of fees for non-
Customer, non-Market-Maker responses and Break-Up Credits for Customer
Agency orders is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act in that the
proposal is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
Also, as noted above, the Exchange operates in highly competitive
market. The Exchange is only one of several options venues to which
market participants may direct their order flow, and it represents a
small percentage of the overall market. The Exchange believes that the
proposed fees are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory in that competing options exchanges,\16\ including the
Exchange's affiliated options exchanges,\17\ offer substantially the
same fees and credits in connection with similar price improvement
auctions, as the Exchange now proposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See MIAX Options Fee Schedule, Section 1(a)(v), ``MIAX
Price Improvement Mechanism (``PRIME'') Fees, which assesses a fee
of $0.50 (Penny Classes) and $0.99 (non-Penny Classes) for PRIME
responses, and offers a break-up credit of $0.25 (Penny Classes) and
$0.60 (non-Penny Classes) for PRIME Agency orders; see also NYSE
American Options Fee Schedule, Section I(G), ``CUBE Auction Fees and
Credits'', which assesses a fee of $0.50 (Penny Classes) and $0.99
(non-Penny Classes) for CUBE (its Customer Best Execution Auction)
responses, and offers a break-up credit of $0.25 (Penny Classes) and
$0.60 (non-Penny Classes) for PRIME Agency orders, and an Initiating
Participant Credit (akin to an Agency Order) of $0.30 (Penny Pilot)
and $0.70 (non-Penny Pilot).
    \17\ See EDGX Options Exchange Fee Schedule, ``Fee Codes and
Associated Fees'', fee code BD is appended to AIM Responder Penny
Pilot orders and is assessed a fee of $0.50 per share, and fee code
BE is appended to AIM Responder Non-Penny Pilot orders and is
assessed a fee of $1.05 per share; and ``AIM Break-Up Credits'',
which offers a credit of $0.25 for AIM Agency Orders in Penny Pilot
securities and $0.60 for such orders in non-Penny Pilot securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to assess a fee for
non-Customer, non-Market-Maker AIM Responses because it is reasonably
designed to incentivize Market-Makers to continue to respond, and
potentially increase their responses, to AIM and SAM Auctions in light
of the recent opening of the Auctions to other market participants not
previously permitted to respond to such Auctions. The Exchange believes
that encouraging increased Market-Maker order flow will increase
liquidity and Auction execution and price improvement opportunities to
the benefit of all participants. Deepening the Exchange's liquidity
pool and offering additional opportunities enables all investors to
enjoy cost savings, supporting the quality of price discovery,
promoting market transparency and improving investor protection. The
Exchange believes excluding non-Customer, non-Market-Maker AIM Reponses
from the Complex Surcharge is reasonable as such market participants
will not be assessed the extra surcharge. The Exchange also notes that
auction responses in COA and AIM are currently capped at $0.50 per
contract for non-customer complex orders in Penny classes (which
includes the applicable transaction fee, Complex Surcharge and
Marketing Fee (if applicable)).\18\ As such, given the proposed fee for
AIM Responses is $0.50 per contract, the Complex Surcharge would, in
effect, not be assessed for non-customer, non-Market-Maker complex
orders in Penny classes. The Exchange also notes that other types of
orders are currently excluded from the Complex Surcharge.\19\
Similarly, the Exchange believes that applying a Break-Up Credit to
Customer Agency orders is a reasonable means to encourage Customer
order flow to Exchange Auctions. As stated, increased Customer order
flow provides continued liquidity to the Exchange, in that it provides
additional transaction opportunities which attract Market-Makers and
other liquidity providers (by means of both unrelated orders and
responses in connection with the Auctions), thus facilitating price
improvement and signals an increase in additional order flow from other
market participants. In turn, these increases benefit all market
participants by contributing towards a robust and well-balanced market
ecosystem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Footnote 35.
    \19\ See e.g. Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Footnote 35. Stock-
option orders are currently excluded from the Complex Surcharge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed fees in connection
with AIM Responses and Customer Agency orders does not represent a
significant departure from the fees and credits rebates currently
offered under the fees schedule for these market participants. For
example, under the existing fees schedule orders with F and L Capacity
Codes are assessed a fee of $0.43 per contract in Penny Classes and
$0.70 per contract in non-Penny Classes, while orders with B, N, U, or
J Capacity Codes are assessed a fee of $0.47 per contract in Penny
Classes and $0.75 per contract in non-Penny Classes. Additionally,
under the existing ``Volume Incentive Program'', Customer orders may
receive credits ranging from $0.09 to $0.24 per contract executed in
AIM.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed fees are equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed fee for AIM Responses
will apply equally to all non-Customer, non-Market-Maker responses,
i.e. all such TPHs will be assessed the same amount. Similarly, the
exclusion of AIM Responses from the Complex Surcharge is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory as it applies equally to all non-Customer,
non-Market-Maker responses.

    The Exchange also believes that continuing to not assess a fee
applicable to Market-Maker responses other than the applicable standard
transaction fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
Market-Makers are already subject to certain other transaction fees not
otherwise applicable to other market participants. In particular, in
addition to Market-Maker-specific standard transaction fees,\20\
Market-Makers are also currently assessed a marketing fee of $0.25 in
Penny Pilot classes and $0.70 in all other classes on certain
transactions resulting from customer orders,\21\ including qualifying
orders submitted as AIM Responses. Further, Market-Makers, unlike other
market participants, take on a number of obligations, including quoting
obligations that other market participants do not have, as well as
added market making and regulatory requirements, which normally do not
apply to other market participants. For example, Market-Makers have
obligations to maintain continuous markets, engage in a course of
dealings reasonably calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a
fair and orderly market, and to not make bids or offers or enter into
transactions that are inconsistent with a course of dealing.
Additionally, the Exchange notes that Market-Makers (with an
appointment in the applicable class) may not submit solicited orders
into an AIM Auction; \22\ this restriction does not apply to Firm
orders. As stated, the Exchange also recognizes that Market-Makers are
the primary liquidity providers in the options markets, and
particularly, during AIM auctions. Thus, the Exchange believes Market-
Makers provide the most accurate prices reflective of the true state of
the market and are primarily responsible for encouraging more
aggressive quoting and superior price improvement during an AIM
Auction. As a result, the Exchange believes it is important to continue
to incent Market-Makers to actively participate in such auctions by
means of continuing to assess no fee other than the current applicable
standard transaction fees for Market-Maker AIM Response orders.
Increased Market-Maker liquidity also increases trading opportunities
and signals to other participants to increase their order flow, which
benefits all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, ``SPX Liquidity Provider
Sliding Scale'' table; ``Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale'' table;
and ``Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale Adjustment Table''.
    \21\ That is, Market-Maker orders that execute against customer
orders.
    \22\ This is also true for SAM Auctions. See Rule 5.39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, the Exchange believes that providing a Break-Up Credit
for Customer Agency orders is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the proposed Break-Up Credit will apply equally to all Customer
Agency orders that execute in an Auction against qualifying responses.
The Exchange notes that while Customer Agency orders will receive the
Break-Up Credit, as opposed to other Agency orders, the Exchange
believes that this application of the credit is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because, as stated above, Customer order flow
enhances liquidity on the Exchange, in turn providing more trading
opportunities and attracting other market participants, thus,
facilitating tighter spreads, increased order flow and trading
opportunities to the benefit of all market participants. Moreover, the
options industry has a long history of providing preferential pricing
to Customers, and the Exchange's current fees schedule currently does
so in many places, as do the fees structures of multiple other
exchanges.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See MIAX Options Fee Schedule, Section 1(a)(v), ``MIAX
Price Improvement Mechanism (``PRIME'') Fees, and NYSE American
Options Fee Schedule, Section I(G), ``CUBE Auction Fees and
Credits'', each of which assesses a lower transaction fee for
customer orders than that of other market participants for
executions in their respective auctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intramarket or intermarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Rather, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change would encourage the submission of additional liquidity to price
improvement auctions of a public exchange, thereby promoting market
depth, price discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution
and price improvement opportunities for all TPHs. As a result, the
Exchange believes that the proposed change furthers the Commission's
goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders,
which promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all
types of orders, large and small.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 70 FR 37495,
37498-99 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the
proposed changes will apply uniformly to all non-Customer, non-Market-
Maker responses and to all Customer Agency orders, respectively. As
described above, different market participants have different
circumstances, such as the fact that Market-Makers have marketing fees
(which apply to qualifying transactions in AIM auctions) and other
Market-Maker-specific transaction fees, as well as quoting obligations
and restrictions within an AIM Auction that other market participants
do not have. Market-Makers have also recently lost their exclusive
Auction response incentive. Additionally, the Exchange notes the fact
that preferential pricing to Customers is a long-standing options
industry practice. The proposed fee changes serve to enhance Market-
Maker and Customer order flow to the Exchange's Auctions, which, as a
result, facilitates increased liquidity and execution opportunities to
the benefit of all market participants. In addition to this, the
Exchange notes that it currently assesses similar fees for certain non-
Customer, non-Market-Maker orders and similar credits for certain
Customer orders.
    The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed fees will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the Act because, as noted above,
competing options exchanges,\25\ including the Exchange's affiliated
options exchange,\26\ currently have substantially similar fees in
place in connection with similar price improvement auctions.
Additionally, and as previously discussed, the Exchange operates in a
highly competitive market. TPHs have numerous alternative venues that
they may participate on and direct their order flow, including 15 other
options exchanges, many of which offer substantially similar price
improvement auctions. Based on publicly available information, no
single options exchange has more than 19% of the market share.\27\
Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the
execution of option order flow. Indeed, participants can readily choose
to send their orders to other exchange, and, additionally off-exchange
venues, if they deem fee levels at those other venues to be more
favorable. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in

determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets.
Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the
importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and,
also, recognized that current regulation of the market system ``has
been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its
broader forms that are most important to investors and listed
companies.'' \28\ The fact that this market is competitive has also
long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .''.\29\ Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its
proposed fee change imposes any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See supra note 13.
    \26\ See supra note 14.
    \27\ See supra note 3.
    \28\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \29\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \30\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \31\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \31\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-2020-007 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-2020-007. 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-CBOE-2020-007 and should be submitted on
or before March 11, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-03178 Filed 2-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 96 (Friday, May 17, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 22489]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10236]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AC19-122-000]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on May 9, 2019, Pacific Gas and Electric Company
filed a request for approval to determine its allowance for funds used
during construction rate in a manner that excludes certain liability
provisions required by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles that do
not have an impact on cash available to fund construction.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 29, 2019.

    Dated: May 13, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-10236 Filed 5-16-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 203)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 54462-54463]
[DOCID:fr22oc09-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. RM09-24-000; Order No. 727]

Interest Rates for Refunds

Issued October 15, 2009.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission is revising its regulations governing the
interest rates used in calculating refunds. Because the Federal Reserve
no longer publishes Statistical Release G. 13, which was previously
referenced in the Commission's regulations, and Statistical Release G.
13 has been superseded by Statistical Release H. 15, this Final Rule
revises the Commission's regulations to now reference the Federal
Reserve's Statistical Release H. 15.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective October 22, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rachel Spiker (Technical Information), Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-
8801<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Moon Athwal (Legal Information), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Suedeen G. Kelly,
Marc Spitzer, and Philip D. Moeller.

I. Discussion

    1. The Commission is revising its regulations governing the
interest rates used in calculating refunds to reflect a change in the
Federal Reserve's publications. Currently, the regulations reference
the Federal Reserve's Statistical Release G. 13 for the calculation of
the average prime rate for each calendar quarter used in determining
refunds.\1\ The Federal Reserve no longer publishes Statistical Release
G. 13, and Statistical Release G. 13 has been superseded by Statistical
Release H. 15.\2\ Accordingly, this Final Rule revises the Commission's
regulations to now refer to the Federal Reserve's Statistical Release
H. 15. The methods for calculating refunds or for determining the
applicable interest rates are not being altered in any way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 35.19a(a)(2)(iii)(A)(2009).
    \2\ Federal Reserve, Discontinuance of the G.13 (Sept. 4, 2001),
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g13/g13note.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Information Collection Statement

    2. The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulations require
that OMB approve certain information collection requirements imposed by
agency rule.\3\ This Final Rule does not contain information collection
requirements and is not subject to OMB approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 5 CFR part 1320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Environmental Analysis

    3. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the quality of the human
environment.\4\ Issuance of this Final Rule does not represent a major
federal action having a significant adverse effect on the quality of
the human environment under the Commission's regulations implementing
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Part 380 of the
Commission's regulations lists exemptions to the requirement to draft
an Environmental Analysis or Environmental Impact Statement. Included
is an exemption for

procedural, ministerial or internal administrative actions and
management.\5\ This rulemaking is exempt under that provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs.
] 30,783 (1987).
    \5\ 18 CFR 380.4(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    4. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \6\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This final rule makes a ministerial correction to the regulations,
correcting the reference to a Federal Reserve Statistical Release. The
Commission certifies that it will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. An analysis under the
RFA is not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 5 U.S.C. 601-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Document Availability

    5. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, 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 Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    6. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
    7. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
VI. Effective Date

    8. These regulations are effective October 22, 2009. In accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Commission finds that good cause exists to
make this Final Rule effective immediately. It corrects an out-of-date
reference in the Commission's regulations to reflect a change in the
Federal Reserve's Statistical Releases. It will not significantly and
adversely affect persons appearing before the Commission. There is
therefore no reason to make this rule effective at a later time.
    9. The Commission is issuing this rule as a Final Rule without a
period for public comment. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), notice and comment
procedures are unnecessary where a rulemaking concerns only agency
procedure and practice, or where the agency finds that notice and
comment are unnecessary.\7\ The Commission finds that notice and
comment are unnecessary because the Commission is merely correcting a
reference to a no longer published Federal Reserve Statistical Release.
No new burden or regulatory requirement is imposed on regulated
entities or the general public. Instead, this Final Rule merely updates
an out-of-date reference in the Commission's regulations to reflect a
change in the Federal Reserve's Statistical Releases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ We similarly find that this rule does not substantially
affect the rights or obligations of parties to Commission
proceedings, since it merely corrects a reference to a no longer
published Federal Reserve Statistical Release, and otherwise does
not change the methods for calculating refunds or for determining
the applicable interest rates. See 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 35

    Electric power rates, Electric utilities, Reporting requirements.

By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends part 35,
Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 35--FILING OF RATE SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS

0
1. The authority citation for part 35 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42
U.S.C. 7101-7352.

Sec.  35.19  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  35.19a, paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(A) is amended to remove the
phrase ``Statistical Release G. 13'' and to add the phrase
``Statistical Release H. 15'' in its place.

[FR Doc. E9-25253 Filed 10-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 11617]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4619]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Jetronic Industries, Inc. (n/k/a New Bastion Development, Inc.),
JMAR Technologies, Inc., Kolorfusion International, Inc.
Legalopinion.com (n/k/a Drayton Richdale Corp.), Lifestream
Technologies, Inc., Lions Petroleum, Inc., (n/k/a China Hongxing
Agritech, Inc.), Luna Technologies International, Inc., Litewave Corp.,
MDI, Inc., and MobilePro Corp.; Order of Suspension of Trading

DATE: February 23, 2012.

    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Jetronic Industries, Inc. (n/k/a New Bastion Development, Inc.) because
it has filed only two periodic reports since the period ended January
31, 2000.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
JMAR Technologies, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended September 30, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Kolorfusion International, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since September 30, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Legalopinion.com (n/k/a Drayton Richdale Corp.) because it has not
filed any periodic reports from the period ended December 31, 2000
through the period ended December 31, 2008, or from the period ended
June 30, 2009 through the period ended September 30, 2010.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Lifestream Technologies, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended March 31, 2006.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Lions Petroleum, Inc. (n/k/a China Hongxing Agritech, Inc.) because it
has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended December 31,
2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Luna Technologies International, Inc. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2006.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Litewave Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended September 30, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
MDI, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended September 30, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
MobilePro Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended March 31, 2009.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST
on February 23, 2012, through 11:59 p.m. EST on March 7, 2012.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-4619 Filed 2-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42549-42551]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16974]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2009-0042]

Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Form; Extension of the Office
of Management and Budget's Approval of Information Collection
(Paperwork) Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements contained in the proposed Conflict
of Interest (COI) and Disclosure Form which will be used to determine
whether or not a conflict of interest exists for a potential peer
review panel member.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
September 16, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer

than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2009-0042, U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal
business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number (OSHA-2009-0042) for the Information Collection Request
(ICR). All comments, including any personal information you provide,
are placed in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information
on submitting comments see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the
section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download from the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609,
200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires OSHA to obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    OSHA conducts peer reviews to review a draft product for quality by
specialists in the field who were not involved in producing the draft.
The selection of participants in a peer review is based on expertise,
with due consideration of independence. The Office of Management and
Budget published the ``Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer
Review'' on December 15, 2004. The Bulletin states ``. . . the agency
must address reviewers' potential conflicts of interest (including
those stemming from ties to regulated businesses and other
stakeholders) and independence from the agency.'' The Bulletin requires
agencies to adopt or adapt the committee selection policies employed by
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) when selecting peer reviewers
who are not government employees. To fulfill this requirement, OSHA has
developed a Conflict of Interest (COI) and Disclosure Form, based on
NAS' Conflict of Interest Disclosure form. This form will be used to
determine whether or not a conflict exists for a potential peer review
panel member.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA proposes to extend OMB's approval of the COI form, retaining
OSHA's current burden hour estimate of 27 hours. The Agency will
summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will
include this summary in its request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: OSHA's Conflict of Interest (COI) and Disclosure Form.
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0255.
    Affected Public: Individuals and households.
    Number of Respondents: 36.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Total Responses: 36.
    Average Time per Response: OSHA estimates it will take 30 minutes
(.5 hour) to complete the COI short form, and one (1) hour to complete
the COI long form.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 27.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2009-0042). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>). Comments
and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA

cautions commenters about submitting personal information such as
Social Security numbers and dates of birth. Although all submissions
are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information
(e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or
download through this Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted
material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket
Office. Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to
submit comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's
``User Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information
about materials not available through the Web site and for assistance
in using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012
(77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on July 9, 2013.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2013-16974 Filed 7-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Supplemental Material Document Title: 1625-0017, Various International Agreement Safety Certificates and Documents 10 Pages