[Federal Register: March 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 48)]
[Notices]
[Page 11405-11406]
[DOCID:fr13mr07-84]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension:
    Rule 3a-4, SEC File No. 270-401, OMB Control No. 3235-0459.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350l-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 3a-4 (17 CFR 270.3a-4) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a) (``Investment Company Act'' or ``Act'') provides a
nonexclusive safe harbor from the definition of investment company
under the Act for certain investment advisory programs. These programs,
which include ``wrap fee'' and ``mutual fund wrap'' programs, generally
are designed to provide professional portfolio management services to
clients who are investing less than the minimum usually required by
portfolio managers but more than the minimum account size of most
mutual funds. Under wrap fee and similar programs, a client's account
is typically managed on a discretionary basis according to pre-selected
investment objectives. Clients with similar investment objectives often
receive the same investment advice and may hold the same or
substantially the same securities in their accounts. Some of these
investment advisory programs may meet the definition of investment
company under the Act because of the similarity of account management.
    In 1997, the Commission adopted rule 3a-4, which clarifies that
programs organized and operated in a manner consistent with the
conditions of rule 3a-4 are not required to register under the
Investment Company Act or comply with the Act's requirements.\1\ These
programs differ from investment companies because, among other things,
they provide individualized investment advice to the client. The rule's
provisions have the effect of ensuring that clients in a program
relying on the rule receive advice tailored to the client's needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Status of Investment Advisory Programs Under the Investment
Company Act of 1940, Investment Company Act Release No. 22579 (Mar.
24, 1997) (62 FR 15098 (Mar. 31, 1997)) (``Adopting Release''). In
addition, there are no registration requirements under section 5 of
the Securities Act of 1933 for these programs. See 17 CFR 270.3a-4,
introductory note.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 3a-4 provides that each client's account must be managed on
the basis of the client's financial situation and investment objectives
and consistent with any reasonable restrictions the client imposes on
managing the account. When an account is opened, the sponsor \2\ (or
its designee) must obtain information from each client regarding the
client's financial situation and investment objectives, and must allow
the client an opportunity to impose reasonable restrictions on managing
the account.\3\ In addition, the sponsor (or its designee) annually
must contact the client to determine whether the client's financial
situation or investment objectives have changed and whether the client
wishes to impose any reasonable restrictions on the management of the
account or reasonably modify existing restrictions. The sponsor (or its
designee) also must notify the client quarterly, in writing, to contact
the sponsor (or the designee) regarding changes to the client's
financial situation, investment objectives, or restrictions on the
account's management.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For purposes of rule 3a-4, the term ``sponsor'' refers to
any person who receives compensation for sponsoring, organizing or
administering the program, or for selecting, or providing advice to
clients regarding the selection of, persons responsible for managing
the client's account in the program.
    \3\ Clients specifically must be allowed to designate securities
that should not be purchased for the account or that should be sold
if held in the account. The rule does not require that a client be
able to require particular securities be purchased for the account.
    \4\ The sponsor also must provide a means by which clients can
contact the sponsor (or its designee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The program must provide each client with a quarterly statement
describing all activity in the client's account during the previous
quarter. The sponsor and personnel of the client's account manager who
know about the client's account and its management must be reasonably
available to consult with the client. Each client also must retain
certain indicia of ownership of all securities and funds in the
account.
    Rule 3a-4 is intended primarily to provide guidance regarding the
status of investment advisory programs under the Investment Company
Act. The rule is not intended to create a presumption about a program
that is not operated according to the rule's guidelines.
    The requirement that the sponsor (or its designee) obtain
information about the client's financial situation and investment
objectives when the account is opened is designed to ensure that the
investment adviser has sufficient information regarding the client's
unique needs and goals to enable the portfolio manager to provide
individualized investment advice. The sponsor is required to contact
clients annually and provide them with quarterly notices to ensure that
the sponsor has current information about the client's financial
status, investment objectives, and restrictions on management of the
account. Maintaining current information enables the program manager to
evaluate the client's portfolio in light of the client's changing needs
and circumstances. The requirement that clients be provided with
quarterly statements of account activity is designed to ensure the
client receives an individualized report, which the Commission believes
is a key element of individualized advisory services.
    The Commission staff estimates that approximately 64 wrap fee and
mutual fund wrap programs administered by 56 program sponsors use the
procedures under rule 3a-4.\5\ Although it is impossible to determine
the exact number of clients that participate in investment advisory
programs, an estimate can be made by dividing total assets by the
industry average account

size ($345.5 billion \6\ divided by $126,202),\7\ for a total of
2,737,675 clients. Additionally, an average number of new accounts
opened each year can be estimated by dividing the average annual
increase in account assets in 2003 through 2006, by the average account
size ($57.7 billion divided by $126,202), for an average annual number
of new accounts of 457,204.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ These estimates are based on statistical information on wrap
fee and mutual fund wrap programs provided by Cerulli Associates in
2003. We request comment on whether the number of wrap programs and
program sponsors has changed.
    \6\ See Cerulli Associates, The Cerulli Edge: Managed Accounts
Edition, Advisors Issue 10 (3d quarter 2006).
    \7\ Id. at 13.
    \8\ The requirement for initial client contact and evaluation is
not a recurring obligation, but only occurs when the account is
opened. The estimated annual hourly burden is based on the average
number of new accounts opened each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission staff estimates that each program sponsor spends
approximately 1.25 hours annually in preparing, conducting and/or
reviewing interviews for each new client; 30 minutes annually
preparing, conducting and/or reviewing annual interviews for each
continuing client; and one hour preparing and mailing quarterly account
activity statements, including the notice to update information to each
client. Based on the foregoing, the Commission staff therefore
estimates the total annual burden of the rule's paperwork requirements
for all program sponsors to be 4,449,415.5 hours. This represents a
decrease of 2,063,087 hours from the prior estimate of 6,512,502.5
hours. The decrease results from a change in the method of computation
for the number of clients that participate in these investment advisory
programs. Previously, we have computed the number of clients based on
the minimum account requirement for participation in these programs.
For this estimate we computed the number of clients based on the
industry average account size in these programs resulting in a decrease
in the estimated number of clients in these investment advisory
programs.
    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived
from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the
costs of Commission rules and forms.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burdens
of the collections of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burdens of the collections of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O
Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia, 22312;
or send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 5, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-4459 Filed 3-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3837-3838]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00469]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 8c-1; SEC File No. 270-455, OMB Control No. 3235-0514.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments

on the existing collection of information provided for in Rule 8c-1 (17
CFR 240.8c-1), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange
Act'') (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 8c-1 generally prohibits a broker-dealer from using its
customers' securities as collateral to finance its own trading,
speculating, or underwriting transactions. More specifically, Rule 8c-1
states three main principles: (1) A broker-dealer is prohibited from
commingling the securities of different customers as collateral for a
loan without the consent of each customer; (2) a broker-dealer cannot
commingle customers' securities with its own securities under the same
pledge; and (3) a broker-dealer can only pledge its customers'
securities to the extent that customers are in debt to the broker-
dealer.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Exchange Act Release No. 2690 (November 15, 1940);
Exchange Act Release No. 9428 (December 29, 1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The information required by Rule 8c-1 is necessary for the
execution of the Commission's mandate under the Exchange Act to prevent
broker-dealers from hypothecating or arranging for the hypothecation of
any securities carried for the account of any customer under certain
circumstances. In addition, the information required by Rule 8c-1
provides important investor protections.
    There are approximately 60 respondents as of year-end 2015 (i.e.,
broker-dealers that conducted business with the public, filed Part II
of the FOCUS Report, did not claim an exemption from the Reserve
Formula computation, and reported that they had a bank loan during at
least one quarter of the current year). Each respondent makes an
estimated 45 annual responses, for an aggregate total of 2,700
responses per year.\2\ Each response takes approximately 0.5 hours to
complete. Therefore, the total third-party reporting burden per year is
1,350 burden hours.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 60 respondents x 45 annual responses = 2,700 aggregate total
of annual responses.
    \3\ 2,700 responses x 0.5 hours = 1,350 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: January 3, 2017.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-00469 Filed 1-11-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 13 (Monday, January 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7906-7907]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01299]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79800; File No. SR-ISEGemini-2017-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Schedule of Fees

January 13, 2017.
    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 January 3, 2017, ISE Gemini, LLC (``ISE Gemini'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Schedule of Fees to eliminate
the Performance Routing Program.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at www.ise.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The 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
    Currently, the Exchange offers Performance Routing Program (``PRP)
rebates to Non-ISE Gemini Market Maker,\3\ Firm Proprietary,\4\ Broker-
Dealer,\5\ and Professional Customer \6\ orders based on the member's
maker average daily volume (``ADV'') in Non-ISE Gemini Market Maker,
Firm Proprietary, Broker-Dealer, and Professional Customer orders that
improve the national best bid or offer (``NBBO'') in a series at the
time of order entry (``PRP eligible contracts'').\7\ Specifically,
members that execute an ADV of 9,999 PRP eligible contracts or fewer
are entitled to a maker rebate of $0.25 per contract in both Penny
Symbols and Non-Penny Symbols for their Non-ISE Gemini Market Maker,
Firm Proprietary, Broker-Dealer, and Professional Customer orders.
Members that execute an ADV of 10,000 or more PRP eligible contracts
are entitled to a maker rebate of $0.40 per contract in Penny Symbols
and $0.65 per contract in Non-Penny Symbols for the above market
participant types if the order does not improve the NBBO at the time of
order entry. In addition, members that qualify for the higher tier of
PRP rebates are entitled to a maker rebate of $0.47 per contract in
Penny Symbols and $0.71 per contract in Non-Penny Symbols for the above
market participant types if the order improves the NBBO in the series
at the time it is entered.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A ``Non-ISE Gemini Market Maker'' is a market maker as
defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, registered in the same options class on another options
exchange.
    \4\ A ``Firm Proprietary'' order is an order submitted by a
member for its own proprietary account.
    \5\ A ``Broker-Dealer'' order is an order submitted by a member
for a broker-dealer account that is not its own proprietary account.
    \6\ A ``Professional Customer'' is a person or entity that is
not a broker/dealer and is not a Priority Customer.
    \7\ All eligible volume from affiliated members is aggregated in
determining applicable tiers, provided there is at least 75% common
ownership between the members as reflected on each member's Form BD,
Schedule A.
    \8\ See Schedule of Fees, Section I., Regular Order Fees and
Rebates, footnotes 14 and 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to eliminate the PRP as this program has
not been successful in attracting order flow that improves the NBBO. As
proposed, members will receive a maker rebate of $0.25 per contract in
Penny Symbols and Non-Penny Symbols for their Non-ISE Gemini Market
Maker, Firm Proprietary, Broker-Dealer, and Professional Customer
orders (i.e., the current Tier 1 maker rebate). Members will no longer
be able to achieve higher maker rebates based on their maker ADV in
Non-ISE Gemini Market Maker, Firm Proprietary, Broker-Dealer, and
Professional Customer orders that improve the NBBO in a series at the
time of order entry.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This includes both the regular rebate for orders that do not
improve the NBBO at the time of order entry, and the enhanced
rebates provided in footnotes 14 and 15 of the Schedule of Fees for
orders that improve the NBBO at the time of order entry. The regular
rebates will now be marked ``n/a'' since there will no longer be any
PRP tiers, and the associated footnotes for enhanced rebates will be
eliminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\10\ in general, and
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it is designed
to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to
eliminate the PRP as this rebate program was not successful in
attracting the type of order flow that it was designed to incentivize.
The Exchange adopted the PRP to encourage members enter orders that
improve the NBBO in order to create more trading opportunities at
better prices for all market participants that trade on the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the PRP has met this goal, and is
therefore proposing to eliminate the program. With the proposed
elimination of the PRP, Non-ISE Gemini Market Maker, Firm Proprietary,
Broker-Dealer, and Professional Customer orders will continue to be
entitled to a maker rebate in Penny and Non-Penny Symbols that is the
same as the current Tier 1 maker rebate. The current Tier 2 maker
rebates for these market participant types will be removed as this tier
is being eliminated with the elimination of the PRP program. The
Exchange believes

that the Tier 1 maker rebate remains competitive and will continue to
incentivize members to send order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange
further believes that the proposed fee change is not unfairly
discriminatory as it provides equal rebates to Non-ISE Gemini Market
Maker, Firm Proprietary, Broker-Dealer, and Professional Customer
orders. In addition, although Priority Customer \12\ and Market Maker
\13\ orders will be entitled to more favorable maker rebates, the
Exchange does not believe that this is unfairly discriminatory. As has
historically been the case, Priority Customer orders remain entitled to
more favorable maker rebates in order to encourage this order flow. A
Priority Customer is by definition not a broker or dealer in
securities, and does not place more than 390 orders in listed options
per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial
account(s). This limitation does not apply to participants whose
behavior is substantially similar to that of market professionals,
including Professional Customers, who will generally submit a higher
number of orders than Priority Customers. Similarly, the Exchange
believes that it is not unfairly discriminatory to offer higher maker
rebates to Market Makers as Market Makers are subject to additional
requirements and obligations (such as quoting requirements) that other
market participants are not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ A ``Priority Customer'' is a person or entity that is not a
broker/dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders
in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its
own beneficial account(s), as defined in Rule 100(a)(37A).
    \13\ The term Market Maker refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See Rule
100(a)(25).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\14\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily direct their order flow to competing venues. In such an
environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other
exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that
the proposed fee changes reflect this competitive environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\15\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \16\ 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: (i) Necessary or
appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of
investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-ISEGemini-2017-01 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-ISEGemini-2017-01. 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-ISEGemini-2017-01 and should
be submitted on or before February 13, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-01299 Filed 1-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 74544-74545]
[DOCID:fr08de08-95]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59033; File No. SR-DTC-2008-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; the Depository Trust Company;
Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Eliminate the
Ability To Obtain a Physical Certificate From DTC for Issues That Are
Eligible and Participating in the Direct Registration System

December 1, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On July 9, 2008, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') proposed rule
change SR-DTC-2008-08 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'').\1\ Notice of the proposal was published
in the Federal Register on September 2, 2008.\2\ The Commission
received two comment letters.\3\ For the reasons discussed below, the
Commission is granting approval of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58404 (August 21, 2008),
73 FR 51326.
    \3\ Letters from Daniel Raider (September 30, 2008) and Candice
D. Fordin, Associate Counsel, The Depository Trust Company (October
13, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    Currently, DTC participants (i.e., broker-dealers and banks) use
the Withdrawal-by-Transfer (``WT'') service to instruct DTC to have
securities assets held in the participant's DTC account reregistered in
the name of an individual investor, a firm, or a third party. The
reregistered assets can be issued in certificated form or as a DRS
position.\4\ On receipt of a WT instruction from a participant, DTC
either (i) sends a certificate the issuer's transfer agent for
reregistration in the name of the person or entity identified in the WT
instruction or (ii) instructs the issuer's transfer agent to debit
DTC's position and issue securities in the name of the person or entity
identified in the WT instruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Issues that participate in the DRS program allow investors
to hold their assets in DRS book-entry form on the books of the
issuer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In an effort to further reduce the industry's dependency on
physical certificates, DTC is eliminating the issuance of physical
certificates through its WT service for issues that participate in DRS.
DTC believes this modification of its WT service reaffirms its goals of
reducing the costs and risk associated with processing physical
certificates.
    Pursuant to the rule change, beginning January 1, 2009, DTC will no
longer provide for the issuance of a certificate through the WT service
if the issue is participating in DRS. Instead, DTC will instruct the
issuer's transfer agent to establish a DRS position and to provide a
DRS statement in lieu of a physical certificate. An investor will still
be able to obtain a physical certificate to the person or entity
identified in the WT instruction by taking the investor's DRS statement
directly to the issuer's transfer agent for conversion to a certificate
or by using DTC's Deposit and Withdrawal at Custodian (``DWAC'')
process.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ DWAC is a method of electronically transferring shares
between participants and the transfer agent. For more information
about the DWAC service, see Securities Exchange Act Release No.
30283 (January 23, 1992), 57 FR 3658 (January 30, 1992) [File No.
SR-DTC-91-16] (order granting approval of the DWAC service).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule change will also eliminate a participant's ability to
obtain a physical certificate through the WT service for issues
eligible but not participating in DRS on or after July 1, 2009
(``elimination date''). For the small number of issues anticipated not
to have become eligible to participate in DRS by the elimination date,
WT instructions requesting a physical certificate may continue to be
processed through DWAC or Rush WT processes.
    Additionally, the rule change will eliminate DTC's Direct Mail by
Depository (``DMD'') service for all issues in the fourth quarter of
2009. As a result, DTC will no longer mail certificates to investors.
Participants will still be able to use the Direct Mail by Agent
(``DMA'') service through which DTC instructs the transfer agent to
provide DRS statements or physical certificates to investors or their

appointed third parties. Physical certificates could also be obtained
through DTC's Central Delivery processes through which DTC mails
certificates to the participant or allows the participant to pick up
the certificate.

III. Comment Letters

    The Commission received two comment letters, one from an individual
investor and the other from DTC.\6\ The individual investor opposed the
proposed rule change because he contends it is inconsistent with the
purposes of the Exchange Act and would undermine the ability of
beneficial shareholders to become registered shareholders, particularly
with respect to issues that are not DRS eligible. The commenter
believes that registered shareholders can be assured of receiving
information directly from the company, receiving dividends promptly,
and obtaining certain rights afforded under state law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address the concerns raised by the commenter, DTC responded with
a comment letter. DTC stated that the commenter's understanding of DRS
is inaccurate because investors holding positions in DRS are actually
registered directly on the records of the issuer in book-entry form and
therefore are registered shareholders. Furthermore, DTC contended that
DRS provides benefits such as reducing the risk of holding securities
certificates and allowing the assets to be accurately and quickly moved
from DRS to street name position for despositing, thereby assisting in
the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions. DTC also noted that because investors holding DRS
positions are registered shareholders, they will receive all
communications and disbursements directly from the issuer and may
request a certificate directly from the issuer's transfer agent.

IV. Discussion

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, assure
the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or
control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in the
clearance and settlement of securities transactions, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a national system for the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.\7\ Broker-dealers currently use DTC's services to obtain
securities certificates on behalf of themselves or their customers.
Discontinuing those services at DTC should decrease the use of
securities certificates. DTC's rule change should make processing
securities transactions more safe and efficient by discouraging the use
of securities certificates, which increase the risks and costs
associated with processing securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contrary to the commenter's statements that DTC's proposed rule
change would undermine the investor's ability to become a registered
shareholder or eliminate the investor's ability to obtain a
certificate, DTC's proposed rule change does neither. Only the issuer
can decide whether to make securities eligible for DRS or make
securities certificates available. DTC's proposed rule will simply
eliminate the issuance of securities certificates through DTC's WT
service for issues that are participating in DRS. Furthermore, as DTC
noted, investor's holding their securities in DRS are registered
shareholders and thereby eligible to all the same rights and
obligations as are eligible to investors holding securities
certificates.
    Accordingly, for the reasons stated above the Commission believes
that the rule change is consistent with DTC's obligation under Section
17A of the Act.

V. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-DTC-2008-08) be and hereby
is approved.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-28963 Filed 12-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 45 (Thursday, March 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14784-14786]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05257]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP13-53-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Garner Lng Offloading
Facilities and Utilization Project and Request for Comments on
Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Garner liquefied natural gas
(LNG) Offloading Facilities and Utilization Project (Project) involving
construction and operation of LNG offloading facilities by Northern
Natural Gas Company (Northern) in Hancock County, Iowa. The Commission
will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether
the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Details on how
to submit written comments are in the Public Participation section of
this notice. Please note that the scoping period will close on April 1,
2013.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    Northern provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC
entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I
Need To Know?''. This fact sheet addresses a number of typically-asked
questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate
in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on
the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Northern proposes to construct and operate an LNG offloading
facility, immediately adjacent to the existing Garner LNG storage
facility that would allow Northern to provide trailer-delivered LNG
service to support the operation and maintenance of its pipeline
system, and provide LNG to third parties on an interruptible basis.
    The Project would consist of the following facilities:
     Offloading station including, LNG pump skid, LNG trailer
loading skid, and skid enclosures;
     aboveground transfer piping including, pipe, and concrete
and steel pipe support;
     isolation, check, and flow control valves;
     mass flow meter and overpressure protection system;
     spill containment system;
     security fence, an electrical operated security gate, and
security monitoring system;
     fire and gas detection system and emergency shutdown
system;
     widen the existing driveway of the Garner LNG storage
facility; and

     add new access road from the existing driveway.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov
using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    The property owned by Northern encompasses a total of 169 acres.
The existing Garner LNG storage facility occupies approximately 25.6
acres. Construction of the Project would require approximately 49.5
acres, including areas within and outside of the existing Garner LNG
storage facility. Operation of the Project would require approximately
1.07 acres. All construction materials and construction equipment would
be staged and stored within the Project area.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\2\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of
the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     land use;
     water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     cultural resources;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     air quality and noise;
     endangered and threatened species;
     cumulative impacts; and
     public safety.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on
the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish
and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We
will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations
to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and
address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the
Public Participation section beginning on page 4.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of
this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA
\3\. Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status
should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the
Public Participation section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the Iowa State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to solicit
its views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian
tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic
properties.\4\ We will define the project-specific Area of Potential
Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO as the project develops. On
natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all
areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction
right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and
access roads). Our EA for this project will document our findings on
the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of
consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so
that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before April
1, 2013.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the project docket number (CP13-53-000) with your submission.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert
staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for interested persons to
submit brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground

facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will
update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to
ensure that we send the information related to this environmental
review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities
interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are
located under the Help link on the Commission's Web site, by clicking
on ``How to Intervene.''

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP13-
53). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: February 28, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-05257 Filed 3-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 20 (Thursday, January 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5018-5019]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01854]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Information Collection Activities: Submission for the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Request for Comment

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and
solicitation of public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. chapter 35), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below will be submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The ICR describes the
nature of the information collection and its expected burden. A Federal
Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting public comments
on the following information collection was published on October 30,
2013 (Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 210/pp. 65038-65040).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 3, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Russell Pierce, Contracting
Officer's Technical Representative, Office of Behavioral Safety
Research (NTI-132), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W46-472, Washington, DC 20590. Dr. Pierce's
phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and his email address is
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: None.
    Title: Medical Review Guidelines and Medical Advisory Board
Practices.
    Form No.: NHTSA 1228.
    Type of Review: Regular.
    Respondents: TransAnalytics (NHTSA's Contractor) plans to enlist
the assistance of the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators (AAMVA) to identify the most appropriate contact in each
State (and the District of Columbia), for distribution of the
questionnaire and the narrative summary for review and update.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 51.
    Estimated Time per Response: The average amount of time for each
State to complete the questionnaire is estimated at 5 hours. This
includes time for each medical review contact to review and edit the
narrative describing their State's medical review structure and process
and the time that may be required to respond to telephone contacts made
by TransAnalytics if necessary, to follow-up or clarify questionnaire
responses.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 255 hours.
    Frequency of Collection: This census will administered a single
time.
    Abstract: As our population ages, age-related impairments in safe
driving abilities will become more prevalent. The private automobile
remains by far the most often used and most preferred means of meeting
community mobility needs among older adults. Along with the increase in
the number of older drivers, an increase in the driving exposure of
older adults is likely, both in terms of the frequency of their trips
and the distances they drive. In addition, due to increased physical
frailty, older individuals are also most likely to be seriously injured
or killed in an automotive crash. Therefore, driver medical review
practices are likely to assume a more prominent role in the years
ahead.
    Medical review guidelines and practices can help evaluate drivers
referred to a State motor vehicle licensing agency for reexamination
due to concerns about unsafe driving performance possibly resulting
from suspected age or medical condition related impairments in visual,
physical, or mental abilities. Society has an interest in ensuring that
these medical review guidelines and practices are in place and are
effective in reducing motor vehicle crashes, injury, and death.
    This project will collect information from an individual in the
Medical Review Department in each of the 50 State Driver Licensing
Agencies and The District of Columbia about their State's driver
medical review structure and processes. The information collected will
be used to produce a short narrative describing each State's medical
review structure and processes, plus several appendices with tables
displaying each individual State's responses to the questions, and
totals for each response. Data will be collected, according to each
respondent's preference, via a Microsoft Word document distributed and
collected via email or a print version distributed and collected via
U.S. mail, and the responses will consist primarily of checkbox
response types and fill-in-the-blank options when non-standard
checkboxes are selected. Additionally, questionnaire respondents will
be provided with a short narrative that describes their State's medical
review processes, and asked to review and edit/update the narrative as
necessary to ensure its accuracy.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for Department of
Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments Are Invited On: whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department of Transportation, including whether the information
will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate
of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. A comment to OMB is most
effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this
notice.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 27, 2014.
Jeff Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2014-01854 Filed 1-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 24 (Monday, February 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 8631]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02539]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0052; FRL-10016-94]

Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New
Uses (October 2020)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has received applications to register new uses for
pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients.
Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to
comment on these applications.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 10, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by the docket
identification (ID) number and the File Symbol of the EPA registration
number of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, Registration
Division (RD) (7505P), main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The mailing address for each contact
person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part
of the mailing address, include the contact person's name, division,
and mail code. The division to contact is listed at the end of each
application summary.

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.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide
products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant
to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA
is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on
these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not
imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.
Notice of Receipts--New Uses
    1. EPA Registration Number(s): 100-811, 100-828, 100-953, 100-1663,
and 100-1664. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0417. Applicant:
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419.
Active ingredient: Cyprodinil. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed
Use(s): Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B, except watercress;
celtuce; fennel, Florence, fresh leaves and stalk; kohlrabi; leaf
petiole vegetable subgroup 22B; leafy greens subgroup 4-16A, except
parsley, fresh leaves; lemon/lime subgroup 10-10B; sugar apple;
tropical and subtropical, small fruit, inedible peel, subgroup 24A; and
vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16. Contact: RD.
    2. EPA Registration Numbers: 100-1462, 100-1463, 100-1465 and 100-
1467. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0375. Applicant: Syngenta Crop
Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. Active
ingredient: Bicyclopyrone. Product type: Herbicide. Proposed uses:
Banana; broccoli; garlic, bulb; hops, dried cones; horseradish; onion,
bulb; onion, green; papaya; plantains; strawberry; sweet potato, roots;
timothy, forage; timothy, hay; and watermelon. Contact: RD.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: November 9, 2020.
Delores Barber,
Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2021-02539 Filed 2-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 169)]
[Notice]
[Page 50353]
[DOCID:fr31au07-85]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-529-001]

Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd; Notice of Compliance Filing

August 24, 2007.
    Take notice that on August 22, 2007, Wyoming Interstate Company,
LTD (WIC) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second
Revised Volume No. 2, the following tariff sheets to become effective
August 17, 2007:

Third Revised Sheet No. 11A.
Eighth Revised Sheet No. 28.

    WIC states that the filing is being made in compliance with the
Commission Order Date August 16, 2007 in the above listed proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-17265 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16662-16664]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06720]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-1999-5748; FMCSA-1999-6156; FMCSA-2001-11426; FMCSA-
2003-16564; FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2005-23099; FMCSA-2006-23773;
FMCSA-2006-24015; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2007-0017; FMCSA-2007-0071;
FMCSA-2007-29010; FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2009-0011; FMCSA-2009-0291;
FMCSA-2010-0050; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2011-0379; FMCSA-2012-0040;
FMCSA-2012-0104; FMCSA-2012-0106; FMCSA-2013-0166; FMCSA-2013-0174;
FMCSA-2014-0002; FMCSA-2014-0003; FMCSA-2014-0004; FMCSA-2014-0005;
FMCSA-2014-0006]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 88
individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these individuals to continue to
operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision
requirement in one eye.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions was effective on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in
the discussions below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical

Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to  http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On December 29, 2016, FMCSA published a notice announcing its
decision to renew exemptions for 88 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) to operate a CMV in interstate
commerce and requested comments from the public (81 FR 96196). The
public comment period ended on January 30, 2017, and two comments were
received.
    As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the
eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these
exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater
than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current
regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to driver a CMV if that person:

    Has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each
eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected
to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant
binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or
without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70[deg] in
the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize
the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and
amber.

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received two comments in this preceding. Amy Schindler stated
that she believes granting these exemptions are potentially unsafe. As
discussed in section II of this notice, FMCSA has evaluated the
eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these
exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater
than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current
regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Whitney-Rose Levis is in favor of
granting the exemptions, but states that the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations should be updated to allow monocular drivers to
operate without having to renew an exemption.

VI. Conclusion

    As of July 8, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 40 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (64 FR
40404; 64 FR 66962; 66 FR 63289; 67 FR 10471; 67 FR 19798; 68 FR 64944;
69 FR 19611; 70 FR 57353; 70 FR 67776; 70 FR 72689; 71 FR 26602; 72 FR
58362; 72 FR 64273; 72 FR 67340; 72 FR 67344; 73 FR 1395; 73 FR 6242;
73 FR 15254; 73 FR 15567; 73 FR 16950; 73 FR 27015; 73 FR 27017; 74 FR
62632; 74 FR 65842; 74 FR 65845; 75 FR 9477; 75 FR 9482; 75 FR 14656;
75 FR 19674; 75 FR 20881; 75 FR 27621; 75 FR 28684; 76 FR 70215; 77 FR
7233; 77 FR 10606; 77 FR 13689; 77 FR 17115; 77 FR 23799; 77 FR 23800;
77 FR 27847; 77 FR 27849; 77 FR 33558; 77 FR 38386; 78 FR 62935; 78 FR
64280; 78 FR 76395; 79 FR 1908; 79 FR 10606; 79 FR 14328; 79 FR 14331;
79 FR 14333; 79 FR 14571; 79 FR 17641; 79 FR 18390; 79 FR 18392; 79 FR
22000; 79 FR 22003; 79 FR 23797; 79 FR 27365; 79 FR 27681; 79 FR 28588;
79 FR 29495; 79 FR 29498; 79 FR 38649):

Guy M. Alloway (OR)
Roger E. Anderson (TX)
Alan A. Andrews (NE)
William C. Christy (FL)
David F. Cialdea (MA)
Gerard J. Cormier (MA)
Travis C. Denzler (MN)
Barent H. Eliason (MO)
Sean O. Feeny (FL)
Paul W. Fettig (SD)
Hector O. Flores (MD)
Brian R. Gallagher (TX)
Todd C. Grider (IN)
Jimmy G. Hall (NC)
Taras G. Hamilton (TX)
Donald W. Holt (MA)
William D. Jackson (MN)
Darryl J. Johnson (MN)
Gregory R. Johnson (SC)
Glenn K. Johnson, Jr. (NC)
John Lucas (NC)
Albert E. Malley (MN)
Steven Martin (IL)
Charles E. Meis (TX)
Carlos A. Mendez-Castellon (VA)
Michael R. Moore (MD)
Charles R. Morris, Jr. (OH)
Hassan Ourahou (KY)
James M. Nohl (MN)
Enoc Ramos III (TX)
Jamey D. Reed (OK)
Christopher A. Reineck (OH)
James T. Rohr (MN)
Joe Sanchez (TX)
James S. Seeno (NV)
Steven S. Smith, Jr. (PA)
Thomas L. Tveit (SD)
Kevin R. White (NC)
Richard W. Wylie (CT)
Steven E. Young (MO)
    The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos:
FMCSA-1999-5748; FMCSA-2001-11426; FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2007-0017;
FMCSA-2007-0071; FMCSA-2007-29019; FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2009-0291;
FMCSA-2010-0050; FMCSA-2012-0040; FMCSA-2012-0104; FMCSA-2013-0166;
FMCSA-2013-0174; FMCSA-2014-0002; FMCSA-2014-0003; FMCSA-2014-0004;
FMCSA-2014-0005. Their exemptions are effective as of July 8, 2016, and
will expire on July 8, 2018.
    As of July 12, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 7 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (71 FR 4194;
71 FR 13450; 73 FR 15255; 75 FR 9481; 75 FR 20882; 75 FR 22178; 75 FR
25917; 75 FR 25918; 75 FR 39729; 77 FR 15184; 77 FR 27847; 77 FR 27850;
77 FR 36338; 77 FR 38386; 79 FR 35220):

Walter M. Brown (SC)
Chadwick S. Chambers (AL)
William C. Dempsey, Jr. (MA)
Miguel H. Espinoza (CA)
Ricky P. Hastings (TX)
Leland B. Moss (VT)
Markus Perkins (LA)

    The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos:
FMCSA-2005-23099; FMCSA-2009-0011; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2011-0379;
FMCSA-2012-0104. Their exemptions are effective as of July 12, 2016,
and will expire on July 12, 2018.
    As of July 20, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 17 individuals have satisfied

the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision
requirements (64 FR 5948; 65 FR 159; 67 FR 10471; 67 FR 10475; 67 FR
19798; 68 FR 74699; 69 FR 8260; 69 FR 10503; 69 FR 19611; 70 FR 57353;
70 FR 72689; 71 FR 6824; 71 FR 6828; 71 FR 6829; 71 FR 14567; 71 FR
19604; 71 FR 26602; 71 FR 30229; 71 FR 32183; 71 FR 41310; 73 FR 11989;
73 FR 15567; 73 FR 27017; 73 FR 27018; 73 FR 28187; 73 FR 36955; 75 FR
36778; 75 FR 36779; 77 FR 38384; 79 FR 35212; 79 FR 35218; 79 FR
47175):

Delmas C. Bergdoll (WV)
Kenneth J. Bernard (LA)
Harvis P. Cosby (MD)
Daniel R. Franks (OH)
Walter D. Hague, Jr. (VA)
William G. Hix (AR)
Timothy B. Hummel (KY)
Clarence H. Jacobsma (IN)
Charles E. Johnston (MO)
Aaron C. Lougher (OR)
William F. Mack (WA)
Patrick E. Martin (WA)
Leland K. McAlhaney (IN)
Ronald M. Price (MD)
Scott D. Russell (WI)
Alton M. Rutherford (FL)
Sandra J. Sperling (WA)

    The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos:
FMCSA-1999-6156; FMCSA-2001-11426; FMCSA-2003-16564; FMCSA-2005-22194;
FMCSA-2006-23773; FMCSA-2006-24015; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2008-0021;
FMCSA-2014-0006. Their exemptions are effective as of July 20, 2016,
and will expire on July 20, 2018. As of July 22, 2016, and in
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 15
individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed
exemption from the vision requirements (79 FR 35212; 79 FR 47175):

Abdulahi Abukar (KY)
Gregory K. Banister (SC)
Amanuel W. Behon (WA)
Kenneth W. Bos (MN)
Brian L. Elliot (MO)
Bradley C. Hansell (OR)
Samuel L. Klaphake (MN)
Timothy L. Klose (PA)
Phillip E. Mason (MO)
Kenneth A. Orrino (WA)
Ruel W. Smith (SD)
Loren Smith (SD)
Seth D. Sweeten (ID)
Ronald L. Weiss (MN)
John T. White, Jr. (NC)

    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2014-0006. Their
exemptions are effective as of July 22, 2016, and will expire on July
22, 2018.
    As of July 30, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 9 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (71 FR
32183; 71 FR 41310; 73 FR 36955; 75 FR 25917; 75 FR 36779; 75 FR 39729;
77 FR 33017; 77 FR 36338; 77 FR 38384; 77 FR 44708; 79 FR 37843; 79 FR
38661):

Dale W. Coblentz (MT)
Lester M. Ellingson, Jr.
Damon G. Gallardo (CA)
Daniel L. Grover (KS)
James E. Modaffari (OR)
Larry A. Nienhaus (MI)
Gregory A. Reinert (MN)
Scott J. Schlenker (WA)
Joseph B. Shaw, Jr. (VA)

    The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos:
FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2012-0106. Their exemptions
are effective as of July 30, 2016, and will expire on July 30, 2018.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid
for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and
31315.

    Issued on: March 29, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-06720 Filed 4-4-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: May 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 88)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25973-25975]
[DOCID:fr08my07-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0827; FRL-8302-9]

Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Maricopa
County Environmental Services Department

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the
Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) portion of
the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns
particulate matter (PM-10) emissions from open burning. We are
approving a local rule under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA
or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on July 9, 2007 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by June 7, 2007. If we receive
such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2006-0827, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail http://www.regulations.gov is an

``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Petersen, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4118<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What are the purposes of the submitted rule revision?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule we are approving with the dates that the
rule was amended by the local air agency and submitted by the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Local agency                   Rule              Rule title          Revised     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCESD...............................  314....................  Open Outdoor Fires.....     04/20/05     06/08/06
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 7, 2006, the submittal of MCESD Rule 314 was determined
by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51
Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    A version of MCESD Rule 314 was approved into the SIP on August 12,
2002 (67 FR 52416).

C. What are the purposes of the submitted rule revision?

    Section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to submit
regulations that control volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides,
particulate matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health
and the environment. These rules were developed as part of local air
districts' programs to control these pollutants.
    The purposes of the submitted MCESD Rule 314 revision are as
follows:
     (314.200): The rule revises various definitions in order
to improve clarity.
     (314.302.6 and 314.302.7): The rule adds the requirements
that an air curtain destructor (a) be used to burn vegetative material
greater than 6 inches diameter and (b) not operate closer than 500 feet
from the nearest dwelling.
     (314.402.3 and 314.402.4): The rule adds the requirements
that (a) a permittee must comply with the regulations of the local fire
agency and (b) Maricopa County must obtain a permit for its own burning
from ADEQ.
    EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about
these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
CAA) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and
193). SIP rules in serious PM-10 nonattainment areas must require for
significant sources best available control measures (BACM), including
best available control technology (BACT) (see section 189(b)). MCESD
regulates a serious PM-10 nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so
MCESD Rule 314 must fulfill the requirements of BACM/BACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate rules
consistently include the following:
     Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans, U.S. EPA, 40 CFR part 51.
     PM-10 Guideline Document (EPA-452/R-93-008).

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe MCESD Rule 314 is consistent with the relevant policy
and guidance regarding enforceability, BACM/BACT, and SIP relaxations.
The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is fully
approving the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills all
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance.
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rule. If we
receive adverse comments by June 7, 2007, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not

receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be
effective without further notice on July 9, 2007. This will incorporate
the rule into the federally enforceable SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, 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 the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 9, 2007. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 23, 2007.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(135) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (135) An amended regulation was submitted on June 8, 2006, by the
Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Maricopa County Environmental Services Department.
    (1) Rule 314, adopted on July 13, 1988 and amended on April 20,
2005.
* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E7-8689 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 154 (Thursday, August 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39483-39484]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16999]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Form ADV-E, SEC File No. 270-318, OMB Control No. 3235-0361

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the

``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a
request for extension of the previously approved collection of
information discussed below.
    Form ADV-E (17 CFR 279.8) is the cover sheet for certificates of
accounting filed pursuant to rule 206(4)-2 under the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940 (17 CFR 275.206(4)-2). The rule further requires
that the public accountant file with the Commission a Form ADV-E and
accompanying statement within four business days of the resignation,
dismissal, removal or other termination of its engagement.
    The Commission has estimated that compliance with the requirement
to complete Form ADV-E imposes a total burden of approximately 0.05
hours (3 minutes) per respondent. Based on current information from
advisers registered with the Commission, the Commission staff estimates
that 1,749 filings will be submitted with respect to surprise
examinations and 38 filings will be submitted with respect to
termination of accountants. Based on these estimates, the total
estimated annual burden would be 89.35 hours ((1,749 filings x .05
hours) + (38 filings x .05 hours)).
    The information provided on Form ADV-E is mandatory. Responses will
not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing
to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does
not display a valid OMB control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following website, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
[email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Candace
Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
[email protected]. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days
of this notice.

    Dated: August 3, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-16999 Filed 8-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P