[Federal Register: October 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 200)]
[Notices]
[Page 61040]
[DOCID:fr17oc06-85]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-6-000]

Rendezvous Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Tariff Filing

October 11, 2006.
    Take notice that on October 3, 2006 Rendezvous Pipeline Company,
L.L.C. (Rendezvous) tendered for filing its FERC Gas Tariff, Original
Volume No. 1.
    Rendezvous states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with
the Commission's orders issued on July 27, 2005, in Docket No. CP05-40-
000 and CP05-41-000, and on November 17, 2005, in Docket No. CP05-40-
001 and CP05-41-001. Rendezvous Gas Services, L.L.C., 112 FERC ]
61,141, reh'g denied, 113 FERC ] 61,169 (2005). Rendezvous has proposed
a tariff effective date of November 2, 2006.
    Rendezvous states that copies of the filing were served on all
parties listed on the official service lists in Docket Nos. CP05-40 and
CP05-41, and on the Wyoming Public Service Commission.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-17218 Filed 10-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 193)]
[Notices]
[Page 51573]
[DOCID:fr07oc09-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP09-468-000]

Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Application

September 30, 2009.
    Take notice that on September 23, 2009, Dominion Transmission,
Inc., (Dominion), 120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, filed
with the Commission an application in Docket No. CP09-468-000, pursuant
to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), for authorization to
reclassify from jurisdictional transmission to gathering, exempt from
the Commission's jurisdiction under Section 1(b) of the NGA,
approximately 1.5 miles of 4-inch diameter pipeline (Line No. TL-447)
and the O'Dell Compressor Station, which consists of one 115 H.P.
compressor unit, in Upshur County, West Virginia, as more fully set
forth in the application which is open to public inspection. This
filing may be also viewed on the Web at  http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERCOnline Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Brad
A. Knisley, Regulatory and Certificates Analyst II, Dominion
Transmission, Inc., 701 East Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, or
via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, and
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    Comment Date: October 21, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-24125 Filed 10-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 84 (Monday, May 2, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25571]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09329]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0324]

Special Local Regulations, Clinch River, Miles 48.5-52, Oak
Ridge, TN

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a special local regulation for
the American Athlete Conference Women's Regatta (Formerly U.S. Rowing
Southeast Youth Championship Regatta) on May 14, 2022, to provide for
the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our
regulation for marine events within the Eighth Coast Guard District
identifies the regulated area for this event in Oak Ridge, TN. During
the enforcement periods, the operator of any vessel in the regulated
area must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any
Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.801 will be enforced from May 14,
2022, through May 16, 2022. The regulations in 33 CFR 100.801 will be
enforced from 6 a.m. until 7 p.m., each day from May 14, 2022, through
May 16, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notification of enforcement, call or email If you have questions on
this rule, call or email MST3 Benjamin Gardner, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce special local
regulations in 33 CFR 100.801 for the American Athlete Conference
Women's Regatta (Formerly U.S. Rowing Southeast Youth Championship
Regatta) regulated area from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. from May 14, 2022 to May
16, 2022. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life
on navigable waterways during this 3-day event. Our regulation for
marine events within the Eighth Coast Guard District, Sec.  100.801,
specifies the location of the regulated area for the American Athlete
Conference Women's Regatta (Formerly U.S. Rowing Southeast Youth
Championship Regatta) which encompasses portions of the Clinch River.
During the enforcement periods, as reflected in Sec.  100.100(c), if
you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply
with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol
displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
    In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this
enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information
broadcasts, local radio stations and area newspapers.

    Dated: April 25, 2022.
A.M. Beach,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2022-09329 Filed 4-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11709-11711]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03687]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68913; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-024]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Clarify the Measure Used To Determine Whether the Price of a Stock Is
Equal to or Greater Than One Dollar Under Rule 4120(a)(11)

February 12, 2013.
    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 31, 2013 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to clarify the measure used to determine
whether the price of a stock is equal to or greater than $1 dollar
under Rule 4120(a)(11).
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.
* * * * *

4120. Trading Halts

(a) Authority To Initiate Trading Halts or Pauses

    In circumstances in which Nasdaq deems it necessary to protect
investors and the public interest, Nasdaq, pursuant to the procedures
set forth in paragraph (c):
    (1)-(10) No change.
    (11) Shall, between 9:45 a.m. and 3:35 p.m., or in the case of an
early scheduled close, 25 minutes before the close of trading,
immediately pause trading for 5 minutes in any Nasdaq-listed security,
other than rights and warrants, when the price of such security moves a
percentage specified below within a 5-minute period.
    (A) The price move shall be 10% or more with respect to securities
included in the S&P 500[supreg] Index, Russell 1000[supreg] Index, and
a pilot list of Exchange Traded Products;

    (B) The price move shall be 30% or more with respect to all NMS
stocks not subject to section (a)(11)(A) of this Rule with a price
equal to or greater than $1; and
    (C) The price move shall be 50% or more with respect to all NMS
stocks not subject to section (a)(11)(A) of this Rule with a price less
than $1.
    The determination that the price of a stock is equal to or greater
than $1 under paragraph (a)(11)(B) above or less than $1 under
paragraph (a)(11)(C) above shall be based on the last reported closing
price on Nasdaq [the previous trading day, or, if no closing price
exists, the last sale reported to the Consolidated Tape on the previous
trading day].
    At the end of the trading pause, Nasdaq will re-open the security
using the Halt Cross process set forth in Nasdaq Rule 4753. In the
event of a significant imbalance at the end of a trading pause, Nasdaq
may delay the re-opening of a security.
    Nasdaq will issue a notification if it cannot resume trading for a
reason other than a significant imbalance.
    Price moves under this paragraph will be calculated by changes in
each consolidated last-sale price disseminated by a network processor
over a five minute rolling period measured continuously. Only regular
way in-sequence transactions qualify for use in calculations of price
moves. Nasdaq can exclude a transaction price from use if it concludes
that the transaction price resulted from an erroneous trade.
    If a trading pause is triggered under this paragraph, Nasdaq shall
immediately notify the single plan processor responsible for
consolidation of information for the security pursuant to Rule 603 of
Regulation NMS under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If a primary
listing market issues an individual stock trading pause, Nasdaq will
pause trading in that security until trading has resumed on the primary
listing market or notice has been received from the primary listing
market that trading may resume. If the primary listing market does not
reopen within 10 minutes of notification of a trading pause, Nasdaq may
resume trading the security. The provisions of this paragraph shall be
in effect during a pilot set to end on February 4, 2013.
* * * * *

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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this rule change is to clarify the source of the
price used in determining whether the price of a stock is equal to or
greater than $1, or less than $1, for purposes of applying Rule
4120(a)(11)(B) or (C). Rule 4120(a)(11) states that the determination
that the price of a stock is equal to or greater than $1 under
paragraph Rule 4120(a)(11)(B) or less than $1 under paragraph Rule
4120(a)(11)(C) shall be based on the closing price on the previous
trading day, or, if no closing price exists, the last sale reported to
the Consolidated Tape on the previous trading day. As a practical
matter, it is only in a rare circumstance that the last sale reported
to the Consolidated Tape is used as the measure for determining the $1
threshold. This occurs when a security is thinly-traded and no trades
have occurred on the Exchange on the previous trading day. The Exchange
believes that using the last reported NASDAQ closing price as the
measure for determining the $1 threshold is a more reliable and
accurate means of measuring the price of a low-priced security.\3\ In
low-priced thinly-traded securities, the Exchange believes that an off-
exchange transaction in an Exchange-listed security reported to the
Consolidated Tape is less reflective of the security's price than a
transaction occurring on the Exchange resulting in a closing price,
even if that closing price precedes an off-exchange transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange notes that the changes proposed herein are
reflective of its current practice, in that it has used the last
reported closing price on NASDAQ as the measure for determining the
$1 threshold price since adopting Rules 4120(a)(11)(B) and (C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule change makes the pricing measure consistent with that
used to determine price decline for the short sale-related circuit
breaker. In discussing the reason it elected to use a covered
security's listing market at the end of regular trading hours on the
prior day as an appropriate measure of price decline for the short
sale-related circuit breaker, the Commission stated:

    The last price reported in the consolidated system is more
likely to reflect an anomalous trade, e.g., a trade that is not
consistent with the current market due to, for example, the 90
second reporting window, or an uncorrected error. Listing markets
generally have in place specific procedures designed to ensure the
accuracy and reliability of their closing prices. Thus, we believe
it is appropriate to use the more accurate closing price as
determined by the covered security's listing market rather than the
last price reported in the consolidated system.\4\

    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61595 (February 26,
2010), 75 FR 11232 at 11255 (March 10, 2010) (adopting a short sale-
related circuit breaker that, if triggered, will impose a
restriction on the prices at which securities may be sold short).
Rule 201 of Regulation SHO requires that a trading center establish,
maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to prevent the execution or display of a short sale order
of a covered security at a price that is less than or equal to the
current national best bid if the price of that covered security
decreases by 10% or more from the covered security's closing price
as determined by the listing market for the covered security as of
the end of regular trading hours on the prior day. See 17 CFR
242.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NASDAQ agrees and believes that the Commission's analysis is
particularly true in the case of thinly-traded securities.

    In addition to being consistent with the short sale-related circuit
breaker, the proposed change will make the $1 threshold determination
methodology under Rule 4120(a)(11) consistent with the Limit up-Limit
down plan process to determine the percentage parameter applicable
during a trading day, under which the reference price is based on the
prior day's closing price on the primary listing market or the last
sale on the primary listing market if no such closing price exists.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In the Order Approving, on a Pilot Basis, the National
Market System Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility, the
reference price used for determining which percentage parameter
shall be applicable during a trading day shall be based on the
closing price of the NMS stock on the primary listing exchange on
the previous trading day, or if no closing price exists, the last
sale on the primary listing exchange reported by the Processor. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-67091 (May 31, 2012), 77 FR
33498 (June 6, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\6\ which requires
the rules of an exchange to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The proposed rule

change is designed to promote more accurate determinations of the price
of securities under the trading pause provided by Rule 4120(a)(11),
thus promoting just and equitable principles of trade, removing
impediments to, and perfecting the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system. The proposed rule change also is designed
to support the principles of Section 11A(a)(1) \7\ of the Act in that
it seeks to assure fair competition among brokers and dealers and among
exchange markets. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule meets
these requirements in that it promotes more accurate trading pause
triggers, as well as transparency and uniformity across markets
concerning decisions to pause trading in a security when there are
significant price movements. Moreover, the Exchange believes that other
listing markets with functionally identical rules are concurrently
adopting the changes proposed herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The
proposed rule change merely modifies how the value of a low-priced
security is measured, replacing the current method with what the
Exchange believes to be a more reliable and accurate measure. The
proposed change will enhance the operation of the trading pause process
by making the determination of the $1 threshold more accurate and
reflective of the current value of a low-priced security, which in turn
contributes to the protection of investors and the public interest.
Accordingly, the proposed changes will not impose any burden on
competition while providing more accurate trading pause determinations
under Rule 4120(a)(11).

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \10\ to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-024 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-024. 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 such 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 No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-024 and should be
submitted on or before March 12, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-03687 Filed 2-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 183 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58301]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23105]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 33

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0941; Amendment No. 33-33]
RIN 2120-AF57

Technical Amendment; Airworthiness Standards: Aircraft Engines;
Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Technical amendment; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting a technical amendment published on July
5, 2012 (77 FR 39623). In that technical amendment, the FAA clarified
aircraft engine vibration test requirements in the airworthiness
standards. The technical amendment was in response to inquiries from
applicants requesting FAA engine type certifications and aftermarket
certifications, such as supplemental type certificates, parts
manufacturing approvals, and repairs. We revised the regulation to
clarify that engine surveys require an engine test. Representatives of
industry suggested that our technical amendment was in fact, a
substantive change in the regulation, not a clarification. The FAA is
correcting our prior action in response to that industry claim. This
document amends the FAA's regulations to reverse the changes to Sec.
33.83(a) amendment 33-33 and restore Sec.  33.83(a) to its previous
amendment 33-17.

DATES: This corrective action becomes effective September 20, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Dorina Mihail, Federal Aviation Administration,
Engine and Propeller Directorate, Standards Staff, ANE-110, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5229; (781)
238-7153; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Vincent
Bennett, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Regional Counsel,
ANE-7, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-
5299; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 5, 2012, the FAA published a Technical Amendment entitled,
``Airworthiness Standards: Aircraft Engine'' (77 FR 39623). In that
technical amendment, the FAA intended to clarify vibration test
requirements in Sec.  33.83 of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 33.
By letter dated August 3, 2012, the Modification and Replacement Parts
Association (MARPA) asserts that the rule appears to be a substantive
change that should have been open to public comment. The MARPA further
asserts that had the rule been open for comment, it and others would
have commented that the technical amendment undermines the existing
regulatory system, rather than improving it, and that it imposes
unnecessary burdens on the applicant and the government with no
commensurate safety benefit. We do not agree with MARPA's assertion
that the rule change was substantive. However, in the interest of
transparency in the rulemaking process, we are changing the language of
Sec.  33.83(a) amendment 33-33 back to the language in Sec.  33.83(a)
of the previous amendment 33-17.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

The Correcting Amendment

    In consideration of the following, the Federal Aviation
Administration corrects part 33 of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:

PART 33--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES

0
1. The authority citation for part 33 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.

0
2. Revise Sec.  33.83(a) to read as follows:

Sec.  33.83  Vibration test.

    (a) Each engine must undergo vibration surveys to establish that
the vibration characteristics of those components that may be subject
to mechanically or aerodynamically induced vibratory excitations are
acceptable throughout the declared flight envelope. The engine surveys
shall be based upon an appropriate combination of experience, analysis,
and component test and shall address, as a minimum, blades, vanes,
rotor discs, spacers, and rotor shafts.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 13, 2012.
Lirio Liu,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-23105 Filed 9-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57443-57444]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26185]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469; FRL-9971-65-OLEM]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Continuous Release Reporting Requirements;
Reporting Air Releases of Hazardous Substances From Animal Wastes at
Farms Under CERCLA Section 103

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``Continuous Release Reporting
Requirements; Reporting Air Releases of Hazardous Substances From
Animal Wastes at Farms Under CERCLA Section 103'' (EPA ICR No. 1445.13,
OMB Control No. 2050-0086) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a request for approval of a
collection for a sector (farms) that were not included in the ICR
currently approved by OMB (Control No. 2050-0086) (EPA ICR No.
1445.12). A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments may be submitted on or before December 15, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2007-0469, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to [email protected] or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email
to [email protected]. Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sicy Jacob, Office of Emergency
Management, 5104A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: This information collection request (ICR) addresses the
reporting and recordkeeping activities required for farms to comply
with EPA's Continuous Release Reporting Regulation (CRRR; 40 CFR 302.8)
implementing Section 103(f)(2) of CERCLA. The CRRR clarifies the types
of releases that qualify for reporting under CERCLA Section 103(f)(2)
and establishes the reporting requirements applicable to qualifying
releases. This ICR estimates the burden and cost impacts on farms
reporting air releases of hazardous substances from animal wastes at
farms under CERCLA Section 103(f).

 Statutory Background

    CERCLA Section 103(a) requires persons in charge of a facility or
vessel to immediately notify the National Response Center (NRC) of any
hazardous substance release that equals or exceeds its reportable
quantity (RQ) and is not federally permitted. EPA regulations
implementing CERCLA Section 103 is codified in 40 CFR part 302. The
information collection for episodic releases (immediate release
notification) is covered under OMB Control Number 2050-0046. Section
103(f)(2) of CERCLA provides relief from the per-occurrence
notification requirements of Section 103(a) for hazardous substance
releases that are ``continuous,'' and ``stable in quantity and rate,''
provided that such releases are reported ``annually, or at such time as
there is any statistically significant increase'' in the quantity of
the release. Section 103(f)(2) contemplates that, in the case of
certain ``continuous'' and ``stable'' releases, the notification
objectives of CERCLA can be achieved with less frequent reporting.

 Background for this ICR

    On December 18, 2008, EPA published a final rule, ``CERCLA/EPCRA
Administrative Reporting Exemption for Air Releases of Hazardous
Substances From Animal Waste at Farms,'' that exempted farms releasing
hazardous substances from animal waste to the air at or above threshold
levels from reporting under CERCLA Section 103. The final rule also
exempted reporting of such releases under EPCRA section 304 if the farm
had fewer animals than a large concentrated animal feeding operation
(CAFO).
    On April 11, 2017, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated this final rule,
thus eliminating the exemptions. Therefore, farms that were previously
not subject to reporting requirements for air releases of hazardous
substances from animal wastes are now required to report. This means
that farms are now subject to CERCLA Section 103 reporting requirements
for air releases of hazardous substances from animal waste at the
farms. In this ICR, EPA assumes that farms may utilize the streamlined
reporting option, Continuous Release Reporting, to report air releases
of hazardous substances from animal wastes. This ICR (1445.13) amends
the current approved ICR (1445.12, OMB Control No. 2050-0086) to add
farms sector and their burden and costs associated with continuous
release reporting requirements.
    Form Number: 6200-15.
    Respondents/affected entities: 44,900 farms.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under CERCLA Section
103.
    Estimated number of respondents: 44,900 (total).
    Frequency of response: Farms may utilize the streamlined reporting
option, continuous release reporting, of hazardous substances above
their reportable quantities from animal wastes rather than providing
immediate notification on a per-occurrence basis.
    Total estimated burden: 496,893 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $14,958,973 (per year), includes $455,061
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 496,893 hours per
year in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR
currently approved by OMB (EPA ICR No. 1445.12). This increase is due
to the vacatur of the December 18, 2008 Final Rule which exempted farms
from reporting air releases of hazardous substances from animal wastes
at farms. All farms are now subject to CERCLA reporting for air
releases of hazardous substances from animal wastes that are equal to
or greater than their reportable quantities (RQs) within any 24-hour
period.

    Dated: November 29, 2017.
Reggie Cheatham,
Director, Office of Emergency Management.
[FR Doc. 2017-26185 Filed 12-4-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81068-81069]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25674]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP23-519-000]

Rio Bravo Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Rio Bravo Pipeline Route
Amendment

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Rio
Bravo Pipeline Route Amendment (Route Amendment), proposed by Rio Bravo
Pipeline Company, LLC (RB Pipeline) in the above-referenced docket.\1\
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction
and operation of the Route Amendment in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC
staff concludes that approval of the proposed Route Amendment, with
appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As authorized, the Rio Bravo Pipeline System consists of
135.7 miles of dual (parallel) pipelines; one 42 inches in diameter
and the other 48 inches in diameter; one new compressor station; and
associated meter stations and valves and related facilities. The Rio
Bravo Pipeline Project was approved by the Commission on November
22, 2019, in Docket No. CP16-455-000, and amended (and approved by
the Commission) on April 21, 2023, in Docket no. CP20-481-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Route Amendment includes the following four pipeline
route adjustments, all within the State of Texas:
     adjust the certificated route between approximate milepost
(MP) 69.8 to approximate MP 79.4 in Willacy County to conform to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Biological Opinion issued for the Rio
Bravo Pipeline Project and to minimize impacts on potential ocelot
habitat (the ``U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Route Adjustment'');
     adjust the certificated route between approximate MP 92.4
and MP 93.0 in Willacy County to accommodate requirements of the
International Boundary and Water Commission and landowner requests (the
``North Floodway Route Adjustment'');
     adjust the certificated route between approximate MP 99.7
and MP 100.5 in Willacy and Cameron Counties to accommodate a landowner
request (the ``Arroyo Colorado Route Adjustment''); and
     relocate a meter station and extend the approved Rio Bravo
Pipeline route approximately 0.6 mile in Cameron County from the
currently certificated terminus site to the meter station within the
fenceline of the approved Rio Grande LNG Terminal site (the ``Terminus
Adjustment'').
    The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability of the
EA to Federal, State, and local government representatives and
agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups;
Native American Tribes; potentially affected landowners and other
interested individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the
Route Amendment area. The EA is only available in electronic format. It
may be viewed and downloaded from the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on
the natural gas environmental documents page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). In
addition, the EA may be accessed by using the eLibrary link on the
FERC's website. Click on the eLibrary link (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search), select ``General Search'' and enter the docket number
in the ``Docket Number'' field, excluding the last three digits (i.e.,
CP23-519). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The EA is not a decision document. It presents Commission staff's
independent analysis of the environmental issues for the Commission to
consider when addressing the merits of all issues in this proceeding.
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should
focus on the EA's disclosure and discussion of 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 the Commission has the opportunity to
consider your comments prior to making its decision on this Route
Amendment, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington,
DC on or before 5 p.m. eastern time on December 14, 2023.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or [email protected]. Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
FERC Online. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only
comments on a project;
    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the
eFiling feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to FERC Online. 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 Commission. Be sure to reference the Route Amendment docket number
(CP23-519-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal
Service must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington,
DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status,
but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.
Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or judicial review of
the Commission's decision. At this point in this proceeding, the
timeframe for filing timely intervention requests has expired. Any
person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion
to intervene out-of-time pursuant to Rule 214(b)(3) and (d) of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214(b)(3) and
(d)) and show good cause why the time limitation should be waived.
Motions to intervene are more fully described at https://www.ferc.gov/how-intervene.
    Additional information about the Route Amendment is available from
the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on
the FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary
link also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued
by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including

landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and
others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission
processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such
as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].
    In addition, the Commission 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 https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to
register for eSubscription.

    Dated: November 14, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-25674 Filed 11-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 56)]
[Notices]
[Page 13781]
[DOCID:fr23mr07-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-348-000]

Columbia Gulf Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in
FERC Gas Tariff

March 19, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 14, 2007, Columbia Gulf Transmission
Company (Columbia Gulf) filed the following revised tariff sheets to
its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet
No. 171A, to be effective April 13, 2007.
    Columbia Gulf states that it is making this filing to specify the
amount of credit assurance applicable to non-firm Shippers.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5323 Filed 3-22-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35459-35460]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12515]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89008; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2020-31]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Approving a
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2, To Modify Rule
6.60-O Regarding the Treatment of Orders Subject to Trade Collar
Protection

June 4, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On April 9, 2020, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ a
proposed rule change to modify Exchange Rule 6.60-O regarding the
treatment of orders subject to Trade Collar Protection. The Exchange
submitted Amendment No. 2, which superseded and replaced the proposed
rule change, on April 23, 2020.\4\ The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on April 30, 2020.\5\ The
Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order approves
the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ Amendment No. 2 is available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2020-31/srnysearca202031-7238141-217098.pdf.
The Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 on April 22, 2020, and
withdrew it on April 23, 2020.
    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88737 (April 24, 2020),
85 FR 24069 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal, as Modified by Amendment No. 2

    The Exchange states that it proposes changes to Rule 6.60-O(a) to
modify functionality and to adopt enhancements to the operation of the
Trading Collars.\6\ The Exchange applies Trade Collar Protection to
incoming market orders and marketable limit orders (each a ``collared
order'' and, collectively, ``Marketable Orders'') if the width of the
NBBO is greater than one Trading Collar. As described more fully in the
Notice, the Exchange states that Trading Collars mitigate the risks
associated with orders sweeping through multiple price points
(including during extreme market volatility) and resulting in
executions at prices that are potentially erroneous.\7\ According to
the Exchange, by applying Trading Collars to incoming orders, the
Exchange provides an opportunity to attract additional liquidity at
tighter spreads and it ``collars'' affected orders at successive price
points until the bid and offer are equal to the bid-ask differential
guideline for that option (i.e., equal to the Trading Collar).\8\
Similarly, by applying Trading Collars to partially executed orders,
the Exchange states that it prevents the balance of such orders from
executing away from the prevailing market after exhausting interest at
or near the top of book on arrival.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Notice, supra note 5, 85 FR at 24070. ``Trading
Collars'' are determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis
and, unless announced otherwise via Trader Update, are the same
value as the bid-ask differential guidelines established pursuant to
Rule 6.37-O(b)(4). See Rule 6.60(a)(2).
    \7\ See Notice, supra note 5, 85 FR at 24070.
    \8\ See id.
    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to modify the treatment of
incoming market orders when the width of the NBBO is greater than one
Trading Collar (i.e., a ``wide market'') and there is an existing
contra-side collared order. Currently, an incoming market order would
immediately execute against an existing contra-side collared order in a
wide market.\10\ The Exchange proposes to reject a market order to buy
(sell) received in a wide market if there is already a collared
Marketable Order to sell (buy).\11\ The Exchange states that the
proposed rule change would prevent the execution of the market order at
a potential erroneous price and provide the collared order greater
opportunity to receive execution.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rule 6.60-O(a)(1)(A).
    \11\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(1)(B).
    \12\ See Notice, supra note 5, 85 FR at 24070.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend the operation of the Trading
Collar so

that the display price would be the last execution price of the
collared order.\13\ Currently, the display price of a collared
Marketable Order could be based on either the available contra-side
trading interest within (or outside of) one Trading Collar or the
Collar Range \14\ of the collared order.\15\ The Exchange states that
the proposed rule change would simplify the method of selecting the
display price (i.e., the current collar execution price) thereby
enabling investors to gauge market interest, and, by using a single
standard to determine the display price, provide more certainty for
order senders.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(5).
    \14\ A ``Collar Range'' is within one Trading Collar above (for
buy orders) or below (for sell orders) the collar execution price.
See Rule 6.60-O(a)(4)(D).
    \15\ See Rule 6.60-O(a)(5)(A)-(B).
    \16\ See Notice, supra note 5, 85 FR at 24071.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, a collared order to buy (sell) would be assigned a new
collar execution price one Trading Collar above (below) the current
displayed price of the collared order and processed at the updated
price after the expiration of one second and absent an update to the
NBBO.\17\ The Exchange states that the current rule is silent as to the
impact of any portion of the collared order routing to an away market
as well as which side of the NBBO needs to update during the one-
second time period.\18\ Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to define an
``Expiration'' as when a collared order displays without executing,
routing, or repricing and there is no update to the same-side NBBO
price for a period of at least one second.\19\ The Exchange states that
the proposed modification makes clear that any such routing or same-
side NBBO updates would restart the one-second timer for repricing
purposes, and that collared orders subject to conditions that qualify
as a proposed Expiration would be repriced as set forth in Rule 6.60-
O(a)(6)(C).\20\ Relatedly, the Exchange proposes to add a new paragraph
that provides that a market order that is collared will cancel after it
is subject to a specified number of Expirations, to be determined by
the Exchange and announced by Trader Update.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Rule 6.60-O(a)(6)(C).
    \18\ See id.
    \19\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(6)(C).
    \20\ See Notice, supra note 5, 85 FR at 24071.
    \21\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(6)(C)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange states that it will announce the
implementation of the proposed rule change in a Trader Update to be
published no later than 60 days following a Commission approval.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Notice, supra note 5, 85 FR at 24071.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\23\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 2, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\24\
which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the Exchange believes that the proposal
to reject incoming market orders when there is a contra-side collared
order would allow the collared order to continue to seek liquidity
while providing the latter-arriving, contra-side order protection from
execution in a wide market, which could be indicative of unstable
market conditions or market dislocation.\25\ The Exchange also believes
that rejecting the incoming market order rather than collaring it while
there is a collared order on the contra-side would provide greater
execution opportunities for the collared order.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Notice, supra note 5, 85 FR at 24071.
    \26\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal to select the
display price of a collared order based on the current collar execution
price would provide order senders with more certainty and enable them
to gauge indications of market interest.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the Exchange believes that the proposed
definition of ``Expiration'' and the proposal to limit the number of
Expirations per collared market order would improve the operation of
the Trading Collar functionality because canceling back market orders
that have persisted for a certain number of Expirations, which could be
indicative of unstable market conditions, should provide order senders
more certainty of the handling of such orders and help avoid such
orders receiving bad executions in times of market dislocation.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission notes that the Exchange states that the
proposed rule modifications to the Trading Collar functionality are
similar to functionality available on other options exchanges.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Specifically, the Exchange compares the Trading Collar
functionality, as proposed, with NASDAQ Options Market and NASDAQ
OMX BX, Options 3, Section 15 (Risk Protections) (b)(1), Acceptable
Trade Range. The Exchange states that these exchanges provide a risk
protection feature for quotes and orders, which prevents executions
(partial or otherwise) of orders beyond an ``acceptable trade
range'' (as calculated by the exchange) and that when an order (or
quote) reaches the limits of the ``acceptable trade range'', it
posts for a period not to exceed one second and recalculated a new
``acceptable trade range''. See id. 85 FR at 24072.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the operation of the Trade Collar
Protection mechanism set forth in the proposal is consistent with the
Act. In addition, the Commission believes that the proposed changes
should provide more certainty for investors with respect to how their
orders will be handled on the Exchange. Accordingly, the Commission
believes that the proposal is reasonably designed to help prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, protect investors and the public interest.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\30\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2020-31), as
modified by Amendment No. 2, be, and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-12515 Filed 6-9-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 31, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31352-31353]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13456]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1966-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Wisconsin; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Wisconsin (FEMA-1966-DR), dated April 5, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 20, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Wisconsin is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major

disaster by the President in his declaration of April 5, 2011.

    Walworth County for emergency protective measures [Category B],
including snow assistance, under the Public Assistance program for
an additional 24-hour period during or proximate to the incident
period (already designated for Public Assistance and emergency
protective measures [Category B], including snow assistance, under
the Public Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour period
during or proximate to the incident period).

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-13456 Filed 5-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: Shaja Joyner,<PHONE_NUMBER>; PM Team 20 Registration Division

EPA has received a pesticide petition 1F7891 from Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.

   1. by establishing a tolerance for residues of

azoxystrobin: (methyl (E)-2-{2-[6-(2-cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-4-yloxy]phenyl}-
3-methoxyacrylate) and the Z isomer of azoxystrobin, (methyl (Z)-2-{2-[6-(2- cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-4-yloxy]pheny1}-3-methoxyacrylate) in or on the agricultural commodities in or on the raw agricultural commodity sugarcane at 0.2 ppm. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of the FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

   A. Residue Chemistry

 Plant metabolism. The metabolism of azoxystrobin as well as the nature of the residues is adequately understood for purposes of the tolerances. Plant metabolism has been evaluated in four diverse crops, cotton, grapes, wheat and peanuts which should serve to define the similar metabolism of azoxystrobin a wide range of crops. Parent azoxystrobin is the major component found in crops. Azoxystrobin does not accumulate in crop seeds or fruits. Metabolism of azoxystrobin in plants is complex with more than 15 metabolites identified. These metabolites are present at low levels, typically much less than 5% of the TRR.

 Analytical method. An adequate analytical method, gas chromatography with nitrogen-phosphorus detection (GC-NPD) or in mobile phase by high performance liquid chromatography with ultra-violet detection (HPLC-UV), is available for enforcement purposes with a limit of detection that allows monitoring of food with residues at or above the levels set in these tolerances. The Analytical Chemistry section of the EPA concluded that the method(s) are adequate for enforcement. Analytical methods are also available for analyzing meat, milk, poultry and eggs which also underwent successful independent laboratory validations.

 Magnitude of residues. Complete residue data to support the requested tolerances have been submitted. The requested tolerances are adequately supported.
In support of the requested tolerance, Syngenta has conducted the necessary trials in accordance with the requirements of the EPA Residue Chemistry Guidelines 860.1500 to determine the magnitude of residue of azoxystrobin in or on the requested commodities.

   A. Toxicological Profile

     1.  Acute toxicity.

                                                                 Acute toxicity
 NOAEL = < 200 mg/kg/day UF = 300
 Acute RfD = 0.67 mg/kg/day FQPA SF = 1X
aPAD = Acute RfD + FQPA
SF = 0.67 mg/kg/day
Acute neurotoxicity study in rates LOAEL = 200 mg/kg/day based on
diarrhea and 2- hours post dose at all dose levels up to and including 20 mg/kg/day (the LOAEL)

   Genotoxicty. Azoxystrobin was positive for forward gene mutation in mouse lymphoma cells, but was not mutagenic in the salmonella/mammalian activation gene mutation assay, showed some evidence of concentration-related induction of chromosomal aberrations over background in the presence of moderate to severe toxicity in the in vitro mammalian cytogenetics assay in human lymphocytes, caused no increase in the induction of micronuclei in the mouse bone marrow micronucleus assay, and did not increase the incidence of unscheduled DNA synthesis in rat hepatocytes/mammalian cells.

      Reproductive and developmental toxicity
Reproductive and Developmental toxicity)
NOAEL = 25 mg/kg/day
UF = 100
FQPA  SF = 1.X
 Prenatal developmental oral toxicity
 study in rates
LOA.EL = 100 mg/kg/day based on
 increased maternal diarrhea, urinary incontinence,: and salivation.

      Subchronic toxicity
Subchronic Toxicity
NOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day
 UF = 100
FQPA  SF = 1.X
 90-Day feeding study in rats
LOA.EL = 211/223 mg/kg/day in males/females based on decreased body weight gain in both sexes and clinical signs indicative of reduced nutrition.

      Chronic Toxicity
Chronic Toxicity
NOAEL = 18 mg/kg/day
UF = 100
Chronic RfD = 0.18 mg/kg/day
FQPA  SF = 1.X
cPAD = chronic RfD + FQPA
SF = 0.18 mg/kg/day
 Combined chronic toxicity
 carcinogenicity feeding study in rates LOAEL = 34/117 mg/kg/day in males/females based on reduced body weights in both sexes and bile duct lesions in males.

 Azoxystrobin is classified "as not likely to be carcinogenic in humans"

6.   Animal metabolism. The metabolism of azoxystrobin as well as the nature of the residues is adequately understood.
7.  Metabolite toxicology. There are no metabolites of concern based on a differential metabolism between plants and animals.
     8. Endocrine disruption. There is no evidence that azoxystrobin is an endocrine

disrupter.
   A. Aggregate Exposure

     1.  Dietary exposure. Acute (Tier III) and chronic (Tier III) dietary exposure evaluations were made for azoxystrobin using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID(TM), version 2.16) from Exponent.  All consumption data for these assessments were taken from the USDA's Continuing Survey of Food Intake by individuals (CSFII) with the 1994-96 consumption database and the Supplemental CSFII children's survey (1998) consumption database.  These exposure assessments included all currently registered and pending uses of azoxystrobin plus a proposed use on sugarcane.  Residue data was taken from field trials where azoxystrobin was applied at the maximum intended use rate and samples were harvested at the minimum pre-harvest interval (PHI) to obtain maximum residue values.  Calculated and projected percent crop treated (%CT) values were incorporated in these assessments.  Anticipated residues in meat and milk were calculated by constructing theoretical nutritionally balanced diets.  Drinking water estimates were included directly into the dietary exposure assessment using the higher of the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) for surface and ground water.

. i.  Food. Acute exposure. The azoxystrobin acute dietary (food only) risk assessment was performed for all population subgroups using an acute reference dose (aRfD) of 0.67 mg/kg/day based an acute neurotoxicity study in rats with a LOAEL of 200 mg/kg/day and an uncertainty factor of 300X (100X for intra- and inter-species variability and 3X for absence of a NOAEL).  No additional FQPA safety factor was applied.  For the purpose of the aggregate risk assessment, the exposure value was expressed in terms of margin of exposure (MOE), which was calculated by dividing the LOAEL by the exposure for each population subgroup.  In addition, exposure was expressed as a percent of the acute reference dose (%aRfD).  At the 99.9[th] percentile, acute dietary (food only) exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 4,467 (6.7% of the aRfD of 0.67 mg/kg/day).  The most sensitive sub-population was infants (<1 year old) with a MOE of 2,130-(14.0% of the aRfD of 0.67 mg/kg/day).  Since the benchmark MOE for this assessment is 300 and since EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the aRfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from dietary (food only) exposure to residues arising from all current and proposed uses for azoxystrobin.

Chronic exposure.  The azoxystrobin chronic dietary (food only) risk assessment was performed for all population subgroups using a chronic reference dose (cRfD) of 0.18 mg/kg/day based on a combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study in rats with a NOAEL of 18 mg/kg/day and an uncertainty factor of 100X (for combined intra- and inter-species variability).  No additional FQPA safety factor was applied.  For the purpose of the aggregate risk assessment, the exposure value was expressed in terms of MOE, which was calculated by dividing the NOAEL by the exposure for each population subgroup.  In addition, exposure was expressed as a percent of the chronic reference dose (%cRfD).  Chronic dietary (food only) exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 9,605 (1.0% of the cRfD of 0.18 mg/kg/day).  The most sensitive sub-population was children (1-2 years old) with a MOE of 3,683 (2.7% of the cRfD of 0.18 mg/kg/day).  Since the benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the cRfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from dietary (food) exposure to residues arising from all current and proposed uses for azoxystrobin.

Cancer.  Azoxystrobin has been classified as "not likely to be a human carcinogen" based on the revised Cancer Guidelines.  Therefore, no cancer risk assessment was performed for azoxystrobin.

ii. Drinking water. The Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) of azoxystrobin were determined using Tier l screening models, SCI-GROW which estimates pesticide concentration in ground water and FIRST which estimates pesticide concentration in surface water.  EDWCs of azoxystrobin from the currently registered uses plus the proposed sugarcane use were determined.  Based on the SCI-GROW modeling, the highest groundwater EDWC for azoxystrobin is 3.1 ppb (acute and chronic) based on the currently registered use on turf.  Based on the FIRST modeling, the turf use provided the highest surface water EDWCs of 173 ppb for acute and 33 ppb for chronic.  Since the surface water EDWCs exceed the ground water EDWC, the surface water values were used for risk assessment purposes and will be considered protective for any ground water concentration concerns.

Acute Exposure from Drinking Water:  The acute surface water EDWC of 173 ppb was input directly into the DEEM-FCID(TM) software as "water, direct and indirect, all sources" to model the acute drinking water exposures.  Exposure contributions at the 99.9%-ile of exposures were determined by taking the difference between the aggregate (food + drinking water) exposures and the food (alone) exposures for each population subgroup.  Acute drinking water exposure U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 23,156 (1.3% of the aRfD of 0.67 mg/kg-bw/day).  The most exposed sub-population was all infants (<1 year old) with a MOE of 7868 (3.8% of the aRfD of 0.67 mg/kg/day).  Since the benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the aRfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from acute drinking water exposure to residues arising from all current and proposed uses for azoxystrobin.

Chronic Exposure from Drinking Water:  The chronic surface water EDWC of 33 ppb was input directly into the DEEM-FCID(TM) software as "water, direct and indirect, all sources" to model the chronic drinking water exposures.  Chronic drinking water exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 25,878 (0.4% of the cRfD of 0.18 mg/kg-bw/day).  Chronic drinking water exposure to the most exposed sub-population (infants <1 year old) resulted in a MOE of 7,893 (1.3% of the cRfD of 0.18 mg/kg-bw/day).  Since the Benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the cRfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from chronic drinking water exposure to residues arising from all current and proposed uses for azoxystrobin.

Non-dietary exposure. Risk assessments were conducted for non-dietary uses of azoxystrobin since it is currently registered for residential use outdoors on turf and ornamentals and for use in residentially applied paint.  Azoxystrobin may be applied to turf at rates of up to 1.19 lb a.i./acre (not to exceed 5 lb a.i./acre per year) and to ornamentals at rates of up to 0.75 lb a.i./acre (not to exceed 5 lb a.i./acre per year).  The maximum concentration of azoxystrobin in paint is 1% a.i. (w/w).  A short-term handler risk assessment was required for adults because there is a residential handler inhalation exposure scenario.  Both short- and intermediate-term risk assessments were required for toddlers based on the potential for hand-to-mouth, object-to mouth, and soil ingestion exposure from treated turf.  For incidental non-dietary oral and inhalation exposures to azoxystrobin, a NOAEL of 25 mg/kg/day was used for short-term exposure and a NOAEL of 20 mg/kg/day was used for intermediate-term exposure.  No dermal assessment is required.

For inhalation exposure scenarios, the MOE for adults (U.S. population) making applications of treated paint is 1,406 for short-term exposure.  For post-application exposure to treated turf, the non-dietary oral MOEs for children 1-6 years are 1,399 for short-term exposure and 1,927 for intermediate-term exposure.  Since the EPA's benchmark MOE for azoxystrobin is 100, the residential exposures for both adults and children do not exceed EPA's level of concern.

Cumulative Effects. Cumulative Exposure to Substances with a Common Mechanism of Toxicity.   [Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider "available information" concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and "other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity".  Azoxystrobin is related to the naturally occurring strobilurins.  Syngenta has concluded that further consideration of a common mechanism of toxicity is not appropriate at this time since there is no data to establish whether a common mechanism exists with any other substances.

   B.    Safety Determination

US. population The acute dietary exposure analysis (food plus water) showed that exposure from all registered and proposed azoxystrobin crop uses would result in a MOE of 3,744 (7.97% of the aRfD) for the general U.S. population, which exceeds the benchmark MOE of 300.  The chronic dietary exposure analysis (food plus water) showed that exposure from all registered and proposed azoxystrobin crop uses resulted in a MOE of 7,005 (1.4% of the cRfD) which exceeds the benchmark MOE of 100.  Based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data supporting these petitions, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to residues arising from all current and proposed azoxystrobin crop uses, including anticipated dietary exposure from food, water, and all other types of non-occupational exposures.

 Infants and Children The acute dietary exposure analysis (food plus water) showed that exposure from all registered and proposed azoxystrobin crop uses would result in a MOE of 1,676 (17.8% of the aRfD) for the most sensitive population subgroup, infants <1 year old, which exceeds the benchmark MOE of 300.  The chronic aggregate dietary (food and water) exposure analysis showed that exposure from all registered and proposed azoxystrobin crop uses would result in a MOE of 3,040 (3.3% of the cRfD) for the most sensitive population subgroup, children (1-2 years old), which exceeds the benchmark MOE of 100.  For short-term exposures, the dietary (food and water) exposure was aggregated with the residential exposure (MOE 1,399) resulting in a short-term aggregate MOE of 815 for the most sensitive population subgroup, children 1-6 years old.  For intermediate-term exposures, the food plus water exposure was aggregated with the residential exposure (MOE 1,927) resulting in an intermediate-term aggregate MOE of 863 for children 1-6 years old.  The EPA has determined that there is reliable data support using the standard MOE and uncertainty factor (100X for chronic and 300X for acute) for azoxystrobin and that an additional safety factor of 10 is not necessary to be protective of infants and children.  Based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data supporting these petitions, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to residues arising from all registered and proposed azoxystrobin crop uses, including anticipated dietary exposure from food, water, and all other types of non-occupational exposures.

F. International Tolerances There are no Codex, Canadian, or Mexican MRLs for azoxystrobin in or on the proposed commodities.  Therefore harmonization of tolerances is not an issue.