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

Docket ID No.: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0554

EPA Registration Division contact: Sidney Jackson<PHONE_NUMBER>)

Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)

Pesticide Petition # 8E7347

******Note to Terri Stowe – Highlighted in the following paragraph is
a statement noting that the existing “cherry” tolerance can be
deleted with the establishment of  tolerances by this action and we will
make that deletion.  I believe you handled “deletion” actions under
a separate heading in previous NOF listings.

EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP) # 8E7347 from Interregional
Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers,
The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W,
Princeton, NJ  08450, 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, by establishing tolerances for residues of the
insecticide etoxazole,
2-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2-ethoxyphenyl]-4,5-dihy
drooxazole, in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: stone
fruit, crop group 12, except plum, at 1.0 parts per million (ppm), plum
at 0.12 ppm, plum, prune, dried at 0.4 ppm, cucumber at 0.02 ppm, tomato
at 0.25 ppm, spearmint tops  at 10 ppm, peppermint tops at 10 ppm,
peppermint oil at 20 ppm and spearmint oil at 20 ppm. The established
1.0 ppm tolerance for cherry may be deleted.  EPA has determined that
the petitions contain data or information regarding the elements set
forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; 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

. The metabolism of etoxazole is adequately understood for the purpose
of the proposed tolerances.

.  Practical analytical methods for detecting and measuring levels of
etoxazole have been developed and validated in/on all appropriate
agricultural commodities and respective processing fractions.  The LOQ
of etoxazole in the methods is 0.02 ppm which will allow monitoring of
food with residues at the levels proposed for the tolerances.

.  Residue data have been submitted which adequately support the
requested tolerance.

B. Toxicological Profile

The toxicological profile for etoxazole which supports this petition for
tolerances was published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2003
(68 FR 55485)(FRL-7324-8).

C. Aggregate Exposure

.  A chronic dietary analysis was conducted to estimate exposure to
potential etoxazole residues in/on the following crops: cotton, fruit,
pome (Crop Group 11), strawberry, tangerines, nut, tree (Crop Group 14),
pistachios, grapes, hops, and mint. The addition of the proposed uses to
the approved uses of etoxazole is expected to make a negligible
incremental risk to the dietary risk assessment conducted and therefore,
the assessment has not been repeated to include these minor uses.

The Cumulative and Aggregate Risk Evaluation System (CARES) Version 2.0
was used to conduct these assessments.  This Tier I assessment used
issued and proposed tolerances, default processing factors, and the
assumption of 100% crop treated.  No adjustments were made for common
washing, cooking or preparation practices. Exposure estimates for water
were made based upon modeling (FIRST and SCI-GROW).

.  a. Acute-An endpoint of concern attributable to a single oral dose
was not selected for either the general U.S. population (including
infants and children) or the female 13-50 years old population subgroup.
 Therefore, quantitation of the acute risk is not required.

b.  Chronic-The chronic dietary exposure estimate of etoxazole residues
in food was calculated to be, at most, 15.2% of the chronic Population
Adjusted Dose (c-PAD) with a MOE of 6500.  The population subgroup with
the highest exposure was children 1-2 years old.  The c-PAD was defined
as the NOEL from a dog chronic oral toxicity study and includes an
uncertainty factor of 100 to account for intra- and inter-species
variation  (NOEL = 4.62 mg/kg bw/day, c-PAD = 0.046 mg/kg/day).

.   Since etoxazole is applied outdoors to growing agricultural crops,
the potential exists for the parent or its metabolites to reach ground
or surface water that may be used for drinking water. Because of the
physical properties of etoxazole, it is unlikely that etoxazole or its
metabolites can leach to potable groundwater. To quantify potential
exposure from drinking water, surface water concentrations for etoxazole
were estimated using FIRST and SCI-GROW models. The annual average
surface water concentration of etoxazole and its metabolites was
predicted to be 1.77 ppb.  Chronic exposure from this drinking water
would be 0.0000506 and 0.000177 mg/kg/day for adults and children,
respectively; 0.38% of the c-PAD of 0.046 mg/kg/day for children.  Based
on this worse case analysis, the contribution of drinking water is
negligible.

.  Etoxazole is proposed only for agricultural uses and no  homeowner or
turf uses. Thus, no non-dietary risk assessment is needed.

D. Cumulative Effects

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that the Agency must consider
"available information" concerning the cumulative effects of a
particular pesticide's residues and "other substances that have a common
mechanism of toxicity." Available information in this context include
not only toxicity, chemistry, and exposure data, but also scientific
policies and methodologies for understanding common mechanisms of
toxicity and conducting cumulative risk assessments. Although the Agency
has some information in its files that may turn out to be helpful in
eventually determining whether a pesticide shares a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, EPA does not at this time have the
methodologies to resolve the complex scientific issues concerning common
mechanism of toxicity in a meaningful way for most registered
pesticides.

E. Safety Determination

i.  Acute Risk. No acute endpoint has been identified the general U.S.
population. Therefore, no assessment of acute exposure from food to this
subgroup is required.

ii.  Chronic Risk.  The potential chronic exposure from food to the U.S.
Population and various non-child/infant population subgroups will
utilize at most 2.8% of the c-PAD.  Addition of the worse case, dietary
exposure from water (0.0000506 mg/kg/day) has no effect on this
exposure.  The Agency has no cause for concern if total chronic residue
contribution is less than 100% of the c-PAD, because the PAD represents
the level at or below which daily aggregate exposure over a lifetime
will not pose appreciable risk to human health.  Therefore, it can be
concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the overall U.S. Population from aggregate, chronic exposure to
etoxazole residues.

.  i. Safety Factor for Infants and Children. In assessing the potential
for additional sensitivity of infants and children to residues of
etoxazole, FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an additional
margin of safety, up to ten-fold, for added protection for infants and
children in the case of threshold effects unless EPA determines that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children.  The
toxicological data base for evaluating prenatal and postnatal toxicity
for etoxazole is complete with respect to current data requirements.
There are no special prenatal or postnatal toxicity concerns for infants
and children, based on the results of the rat and rabbit developmental
toxicity studies or the 2-generation reproductive toxicity study in
rats. EPA has concluded that reliable data support use of the standard
100-fold uncertainty factor and that an additional uncertainty factor is
not needed for etoxazole to be further protective of infants and
children.

ii. Acute Risk. No acute endpoint has been identified for infants and
children. Therefore, no assessment of acute exposure from food to this
subgroup is required.

iii.  Chronic Risk.  The potential chronic exposure from food to
children 1-2 years old (the most highly exposed child/infant subgroup)
will utilize at most 15.2% of the c-PAD.  Addition of the worse case,
dietary exposure from water (0.000177 mg/kg/day) increases this exposure
to 15.6% of the c-PAD.  Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children
from aggregate, chronic exposure to etoxazole residues.

F. International Tolerances

 PAGE  4

{<HED2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<HED2>}

{<HED2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<HED2>}

{<P>}

{<HED2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 17, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52319-52320]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22692]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0257]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Delaware River, Pennsauken
Township, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the DELAIR Memorial Railroad Bridge
across the Delaware River, mile 104.6, at Pennsauken Township, NJ. This
deviation will allow the bridge to be remotely operated from the
Conrail South Jersey dispatch center in Mount Laurel, NJ, instead of
being operated by an on-site bridge tender.

DATES: This deviation is effective without actual notice from October
17, 2018 through 7:59 a.m. on December 15, 2018. For the purposes of
enforcement, actual notice will be used from 8 a.m. on October 16,
2018, until October 17, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2016-0257 is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Hal R. Pitts, Fifth Coast Guard
District (dpb); telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    On April 12, 2017, we published a notice in the Federal Register
entitled, ``Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Delaware River, Pennsauken
Township, NJ'' announcing a temporary deviation from the regulations,
with request for comments (see 82 FR 17562). This temporary deviation
commenced at 8 a.m. on April 24, 2017, and concluded at 7:59 a.m. on
October 21, 2017. The purpose of the deviation was to test the newly
installed remote operation system of the DELAIR Memorial Railroad
Bridge across the Delaware River, mile 104.6, at Pennsauken Township,
NJ, owned and operated by Conrail Shared Assets. The installation of
the remote operation system did not change the operational schedule of
the bridge.
    On June 30, 2017, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled, ``Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Delaware River,
Pennsauken Township, NJ'' (see 82 FR 29800). This proposed regulation
will allow the bridge to be remotely operated from the Conrail South
Jersey dispatch center in Mount Laurel, NJ, instead of being operated
by an on-site bridge tender. This proposed regulation will not change
the operating schedule of the bridge. The original comment period
closed on August 18, 2017.
    During the initial test deviation performed from 8 a.m. on April
24, 2017, through 7:59 a.m. on October 21, 2017, the bridge owner
identified deficiencies in the remote operation center procedures,
bridge to vessel communications, and equipment redundancy. Comments
concerning these deficiencies were submitted to the docket and provided
to the Coast Guard and bridge owner by representatives from the
Mariners' Advisory Committee for the Bay and River Delaware.
    On October 18, 2017, we published a notice in the Federal Register
entitled, ``Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Delaware River, Pennsauken
Township, NJ'' announcing a second temporary deviation from the
regulations, with request for comments (see 82 FR 48419). This
temporary deviation commenced at 8 a.m. on October 21, 2017, and
concluded at 7:59 a.m. on April 19, 2018. This notice included a
request for comments and related material to reach the Coast Guard on
or before January 15, 2018.
    On December 6, 2017, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking;
reopening of comment period; entitled ``Drawbridge Operation
Regulation; Delaware River, Pennsauken Township, NJ'' in the Federal
Register (see 82 FR

57561). This notice included a request for comments and related
material to reach the Coast Guard on or before January 15, 2018.
    On January 22, 2018, we published a notice of temporary deviation
from regulations; reopening comment period; entitled ``Drawbridge
Operation Regulation; Delaware River, Pennsauken Township, NJ'' in the
Federal Register (see 83 FR 2909). This notice included a request for
comments and related material to reach the Coast Guard on or before
March 2, 2018.
    On February 15, 2018, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking;
reopening comment period; entitled ``Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Delaware River, Pennsauken Township, NJ'' in the Federal Register (see
83 FR 6821). This notice included a request for comments and related
material to reach the Coast Guard on or before March 2, 2018.
    The Coast Guard reviewed 26 comments posted to the docket and six
reports with supporting documentation submitted by the bridge owner
during the initial and second temporary deviations concerning the
remote operation system of the DELAIR Memorial Railroad Bridge. Through
this review, the Coast Guard found that further testing and evaluation
of the remote operation system of the drawbridge was necessary before
making a decision on the proposed regulation.
    On April 26, 2018, we published a notice in the Federal Register
entitled, ``Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Delaware River, Pennsauken
Township, NJ'' announcing a third temporary deviation from the
regulations, with request for comments (see 83 FR 18226). This
temporary deviation commenced at 8 a.m. on April 19, 2018, and is
scheduled to conclude at 7:59 a.m. on October 16, 2018. This notice
included a request for comments and related material to reach the Coast
Guard on or before August 17, 2018.
    On May 4, 2018, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking;
reopening comment period; entitled ``Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Delaware River, Pennsauken Township, NJ'' in the Federal Register (see
83 FR 19659). This notice included a request for comments and related
material to reach the Coast Guard on or before August 17, 2018.
    During the third temporary deviation, the following changes were
implemented: (1) The on-site bridge tender was removed from the bridge,
(2) qualified personnel would return and operate the bridge within 60
minutes if the remote operation system is considered in a failed
condition, and (3) comments concerning the utility and value of the
automated identification system (AIS) were requested.
    The Coast Guard received no comments posted to the docket during
the third temporary deviation; however, the Coast Guard did receive two
reports with supporting documentation submitted by the bridge owner.
The Coast Guard is conducting an evaluation of the proposed rulemaking
and has decided to publish a temporary deviation to allow the DELAIR
Memorial Railroad Bridge across the Delaware River, mile 104.6, at
Pennsauken Township, NJ, to continue to be remotely operated from the
Conrail South Jersey dispatch center in Mount Laurel, NJ, instead of
being operated by an on-site bridge tender, to allow sufficient time
for the evaluation to be completed. The operating schedule published in
33 CFR 117.716 will not change with the remote operation of the bridge.

II. Temporary Deviation From Regulations

    The operating schedule is published in 33 CFR 117.716. Under this
temporary deviation, the bridge will be remotely operated from the
Conrail South Jersey dispatch center in Mount Laurel, NJ, instead of
being operated by an on-site bridge tender.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating methods immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: October 12, 2018.
Hal R. Pitts,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-22692 Filed 10-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: June 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 109)]
[Notices]
[Page 32460-32461]
[DOCID:fr08jn10-90]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-431-000]

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC; Notice of Request
Under Blanket Authorization

May 28, 2010.
    Take notice that on May 14, 2010, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of
America LLC (Natural), 3250 Lacey Road, Suite 700, Downers Grove,
Illinois 60515, filed in Docket No. CP10-431-000, an application
pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208, 157.211 and 157.212 of the
Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) as amended, to
construct and operate facilities necessary to deliver natural gas to
Bridgeline Holdings L.P. (Bridgeline) in Johnsons Bayou, Cameron
Parish, Louisiana, under Natural's blanket certificate issued in Docket
No. CP82-402-000,\1\ all as more fully set forth in the application
which is on file with the Commission and open to the public for
inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 20 FERC ] 62,415 (1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Natural proposes to construct and operate a delivery interconnect
off its UTOS Lateral in order to deliver natural gas volumes to
Bridgeline. To accomplish this, Natural would construct and operate a
16-inch tap; approximately 530 feet of 12-inch diameter pipeline; a
metering platform; a dual 8-inch meter on the metering platform; and
such other appurtenant facilities required to effect the interconnects
to deliver up to 200,000 Dth/day of natural gas from its UTOS Lateral
to Bridgeline. Natural further states that it would construct
approximately 180 feet of 16-inch diameter interconnecting pipeline
between the metering facilities located on the platform and the UTOS
Lateral. Through the proposed piping, Natural would deliver natural gas
from the platform and metering equipment to Bridgeline's existing
pipeline system, where Bridgeline has already constructed the tap for
this interconnection. Natural would also construct certain section
2.55(a) non-

jurisdictional facilities, including a valve actuator, a meter tube
outlet valve, an instrument building, cathodic protection for all
piping and equipment. Natural also states that it would cost an
estimated $6,100,000 to construct the proposed facilities.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Bruce
H. Newsome, Vice President, Regulatory Products and Services, Natural
Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC, 3250 Lacey Road, 7th Floor,
Downers Grove, Illinois 60515-7918, or via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or by e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be
viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number filed to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or, for
TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments, protests and interventions may
be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
intervenors to file electronically.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-13554 Filed 6-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 245)]
[Notices]
[Page 72815-72819]
[DOCID:fr21de07-140]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2006-24058]

Pipeline Safety: Grant of Special Permit; TransCanada Pipelines
Limited

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA);
DOT.

ACTION: Notice; Grant of Special Permit.

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

SUMMARY: The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) is granting TransCanada Pipelines Limited (TransCanada) a
special permit waiving compliance from the Federal pipeline safety
regulation in 49 CFR 192.611 for two pipeline segments in the Portland
Natural Gas Transmission System, described below under ``Pipeline
System Affected.'' The regulation requires natural gas pipeline
operators to confirm or revise the maximum allowable operating pressure
of a pipeline after a change in class location.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Mayberry at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Special Permit Request

    Pipeline Operator: TransCanada petitioned PHMSA on April 8, 2005,
for a special permit to waive compliance from the Federal pipeline
safety regulation in 49 CFR Sec.  192.611 for two pipeline segments of
the Portland Natural Gas Transmission System (PNGTS) 24-inch mainline
operated by TransCanada and described below under ``Pipeline System
Affected.'' The regulation requires natural gas pipeline operators to
confirm or revise the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of a
pipeline after a change in class location.
    Pipeline System Affected: This special permit request covers two
segments of a single 24-inch pipeline known as the PNGTS pipeline in
and near the town of North Windham, Maine. Special permit segment 1
includes 615 feet that changed from a Class 1 location to a Class 3
location on March 1, 2004, and an additional 2,298 feet that

TransCanada anticipates will change from a Class 1 location to a Class
3 location for a total of 2,913 feet. Special permit segment 2 is just
upstream of special permit segment 1 and includes 4,766 feet
anticipated by TransCanada to change from a Class 1 location to a Class
3 location. Anticipated class location change for both special permit
segments is due to residential and commercial development anticipated
by TransCanada. The two ``special permit segments'' are defined as
follows:
     Special Permit Segment 1: 2,913 feet, mile post (MP)
132.20 to MP 132.75
     Special Permit Segment 2: 4,766 feet, MP 130.88 to MP
131.78
    A special permit inspection area is defined as the area within 220
yards of each side of a pipeline centerline along the entire length of
the special permit segment and along the pipeline up to 25 miles
upstream and downstream of the special permit segment. The ``special
permit inspection area'' for this special permit consists of the area
within 220 yards of each side of the PNGTS pipeline centerline along
the entire length of the pipeline from 25 miles upstream of special
permit segment 2 to approximately 10 miles downstream of special permit
segment 1 and is inclusive of both special permit segments.

Public Notice

    On September 7, 2006, PHMSA published a notice of the TransCanada
request in the Federal Register (71 FR 52871) inviting interested
persons to comment on the request. On February 8, 2007, PHMSA posted
another notice in the Federal Register (72 FR 6042) informing the
public that we have changed the name granting a waiver to a special
permit. We did not receive any public comments for or against this
special permit request. We also requested and received supplemental
information from TransCanada. The special permit petition, Federal
Register notice, supplemental information from TransCanada and all
other documents pertinent to this special permit request are available
for review by the public in Docket Number PHMSA-2006-24058 in the
Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) located on the internet at
http://www.Regulations.gov.

Special Permit Analysis

    Background: On June 29, 2004, PHMSA published in the Federal
Register (69 FR 38948) the criteria it uses for the consideration of
class location change special permits. First, certain threshold
requirements must be met for a pipeline section to be further evaluated
for a class location change special permit. Second, the age and
manufacturing process of the pipe; system design and construction;
environmental, operating and maintenance histories; and integrity
management program (IMP) elements are evaluated as significant
criteria. These significant criteria are presented in matrix form and
can be reviewed in the FDMS, Docket Number PHMSA-RSPA-2004-17401.
Third, such special permits will only then be granted when pipe
conditions and active integrity management provides a level of safety
greater than or equal to a pipe replacement or pressure reduction.
    Threshold Requirements: Each of the threshold requirements
published by PHMSA in the June 29, 2004 FR notice is discussed below
for the TransCanada special permit petition.
    (1) No pipeline segments in a class location changing to Class 4
location will be considered. This special permit request is for two
pipeline segments in class locations that have changed or are
anticipated to change from Class 1 to Class 3. This requirement has
been met for both PNGTS special permit segments.
    (2) No bare pipe will be considered. Both special permit segments
of the PNGTS pipeline are coated with Fusion Bond Epoxy (FBE), meeting
this requirement.
    (3) No pipe containing wrinkle bends will be considered. There are
no wrinkle bends in the special permit segments. This requirement has
been met for both PNGTS special permit segments.
    (4) No pipe segments operating above 72 percent of the specified
minimum yield strength (SMYS) will be considered for a Class 3 special
permit. The PNGTS pipeline operates at or below 72 percent SMYS. This
requirement has been met for both PNGTS special permit segments.
    (5) Records must be produced that show a hydrostatic test to at
least 1.25 x MAOP. The PNGTS pipeline has been hydrostatically tested
to 1,846 pounds per square inch gauge (psig), 1.28 x MAOP. This
requirement has been met for both PNGTS special permit segments.
    (6) In-line inspection (ILI) must have been performed with no
significant anomalies identified that indicate systemic problems. The
PNGTS pipeline has been ILI inspected with no significant anomalies in
the special permit segments, thus meeting this requirement.
    (7) The special permit inspection area must be inspected according
to the operator's IMP and periodically inspected with an in-line
inspection technique. This special permit will include conditions
requiring TransCanada to perform additional inspections in the special
permit inspection area on a frequency consistent with the integrity
management regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 192, Subpart O. The
special permit conditions will also require TransCanada to incorporate
both special permit segments in its written IMP as ``covered segments''
in a ``high consequence area (HCA)'' per 49 CFR 192.903.
    Criteria Matrix: The original and supplemental data submitted by
TransCanada for the special permit segments have been compared to the
class location change special permit criteria matrix. The data falls
within the ``probable acceptance'' column of the criteria matrix for
all criteria except for a change, from a Class 1 location to a Class 3
location, which falls within the ``possible acceptance'' column of the
criteria matrix, and the ILI Time Frame Requirement which falls within
the ``possible acceptance'' column of the criteria matrix.
    (1) Pipe design and construction, including pipe manufacture,
material, design stress and weld radiography: the pipe of both special
permit segments was manufactured in 1998-1999 of American Petroleum
Institute Specification 5L, Specification for Line Pipe (API 5L), X-70
steel, using a 72 percent SMYS design factor per Sec.  192.111, with
documented 100 percent circumferential field weld radiographic
inspection. The pipe coating is mill-applied FBE with field-applied FBE
on circumferential welds. All of these factors fall within the
``probable acceptance'' column of the criteria matrix.
    (2) Pressure testing: both special permit segments were pressure
tested in 1998 to 1,846 psig corresponding to 128 percent MAOP and 92
percent SMYS. No test failures occurred. These factors fall within the
``probable acceptance'' column of the criteria matrix.
    (3) Environmental considerations: the depth of cover is given as 48
inches for both special permit segments, exceeding the requirements of
Sec.  192.327(a). Both special permit segments are located in stable
terrain that does not contain any major slopes. These factors fall
within the ``probable acceptance'' column of the criteria matrix.
    (4) Operational considerations: according to TransCanada, there
were no leaks or failures in the two special permit segments of the
pipeline. The pipeline transports only dry gas with light pressure
fluctuations. Cathodic protection (CP) was operational in the fall of
1999 on both pipeline special

permit segments, which was within 9 months of the in-service date of
the pipeline. A baseline close interval survey (CIS) of the entire
PNGTS pipeline was performed during the summer of 2000. No low
potentials or CP anomalies were identified in the special permit
segments. No safety related condition reports (SRCR) have been issued
for the special permit segments. These factors fall within the
``probable acceptance'' column of the criteria matrix.
    (5) Integrity management program: special permit segment 1 is
currently within an HCA, while special permit segment 2 is anticipated
by TransCanada to become an HCA in its entirety due to anticipated
development. The entire PNGTS pipeline (including both special permit
segments) transports odorized gas. Leakage surveys using leak detection
equipment are performed annually on the entire pipeline including the
special permit segments. PNGTS performed an ILI on November 1, 2002,
which was more than two years but less than five years prior to the
special permit application date, placing this criterion in the
``possible acceptance'' column of the criteria matrix. Two minor (less
than 4 percent) anomalies identified in the 2002 ILI were excavated in
2005; no active corrosion was found. A high resolution magnetic flux
leakage (MFL) ILI is scheduled for 2009 on the pipeline sections
including the special permit segments. A baseline CIS was performed in
2002 on the entire PNGTS pipeline system. TransCanada annually performs
a CIS of 15-20 percent of the system and proposes to perform a CIS on
the special permit segments annually. TransCanada has not identified
any coating or corrosion issues. TransCanada proposes to perform a
direct current voltage gradient (DCVG) survey on both special permit
segments and 1,000 feet upstream and downstream of the special permit
segments. TransCanada also proposes to perform weekly aerial patrols
and quarterly ground road crossing patrols, including leakage surveys,
using leak detection equipment in the proposed special permit segments.
TransCanada additionally proposes to install buried excavation warning
tape over the pipeline comprising the special permit segments. All of
these factors, with the exception of the ILI time frame criterion, fall
within the ``probable acceptance'' column. The ILI time frame falls
within the ``possible acceptance'' column because it was several months
outside the two year requirement prior to the special permit
application.

Special Permit Findings

    PHMSA finds that granting this special permit is not inconsistent
with pipeline safety and will provide a level of safety equal to or
greater than pipe replacement or pressure reduction. We do so because
the special permit analysis shows the following:
    (1) The special permit segments meet six of the seven threshold
requirements. The seventh threshold requirement, that the special
permit inspection area be inspected according to the operator's IMP and
periodically inspected with an in-line inspection technique, will be
addressed in the special permit conditions. The special permit
conditions will also include annual inspection requirements of the
special permit inspection area and both special permit segments on a
frequency consistent with 49 CFR 192, Subpart O; the Integrity
Management regulations.
    (2) The special permit segments fall in the ``probable acceptance''
column of the criteria matrix for all criteria except for class
location change and ILI time frame. The class location change for both
special permit segments is from a Class 1 location to a Class 3
location, which places this parameter in the ``possible acceptance''
column. The last ILI that was performed on the entire PNGTS pipeline
containing the special permit segments was on November 1, 2002, which
is longer than two but less than five years preceding the special
permit petition. This places the ILI time frame parameter in the
``possible acceptance'' column.
    (3) The special permit conditions will require TransCanada to
implement enhanced IMP actions for the entire special permit inspection
area.

Special Permit Grant

    PHMSA grants a special permit of compliance from 49 CFR 192.611 to
TransCanada Pipelines Limited for two pipeline segments defined below
in or near North Windham, Maine in the Portland Natural Gas
Transmission System. The special permit segments are where the class
locations along the pipeline have changed or are anticipated to change
in the future from a Class 1 location to a Class 3 location. As of July
1, 2007, only 615 feet of special permit segment 1 has actually changed
to Class 3 location. PHMSA is nevertheless granting this special permit
for both the actual and the anticipated class location change along
both special permit segments because the additional integrity
management program actions required by this special permit for the
entire special permit inspection area will enhance the safety of
operation of the PNGTS pipeline. This special permit applies to the
pipeline special permit segments defined as follows:
     Special permit segment 1: 2,913 feet, mile post (MP)
132.20 to MP 132.75
     Special permit segment 2: 4,766 feet, MP 130.88 to MP
131.78
    A special permit inspection area is defined as the area within 220
yards of each side of a pipeline centerline along the entire length of
the special permit segment and along the pipeline up to 25 miles
upstream and downstream of the special permit segment. The ``special
permit inspection area'' for this special permit consists of the area
within 220 yards of each side of the PNGTS pipeline centerline along
the entire length of the pipeline from 25 miles upstream of special
permit segment 2 to approximately 10 miles downstream of special permit
segment 1 and inclusive of both special permit segments.

Special Permit Conditions

    This special permit is granted with the following conditions:
    (1) TransCanada must continue to operate the special permit
segments at or below the existing MAOP.
    (2) TransCanada must incorporate both special permit segment 1 and
special permit segment 2 into its written IMP as ``covered segments''
in an HCA as defined in 49 CFR Subpart O, Sec.  192.903, except for the
reporting requirements contained in 49 CFR 192.945. The special permit
segments included in this special permit need not be included in
TransCanada's IMP baseline assessment plan.
    (3) TransCanada must perform a CIS of the entire length of the
special permit inspection area not later than one year after the grant
of special permit and remediate any areas of inadequate cathodic
protection. A CIS and remediation need not be performed on the special
permit inspection area if a CIS and remediation have been performed
within 6 years of the grant of special permit. If factors beyond
TransCanada's control prevent the completion of the CIS and remediation
within one year, a CIS and remediation must be completed as soon as
practicable and a letter justifying the delay and providing the
anticipated date of completion must be submitted to the Director, PHMSA
Eastern Region not later than one year of the grant of special permit.
    (4) TransCanada must perform ongoing CIS of both special permit
segment 1 and special permit segment 2 at the applicable reassessment
interval(s) for a ``covered segment'' determined in accordance with 49
CFR 192.939.

    (5) TransCanada must perform a Direct Current Voltage Gradient
(DCVG) survey of both special permit segment 1 and special permit
segment 2 not later than one year after the grant of special permit to
verify the pipeline coating conditions and to remediate any integrity
issues in the special permit segments. If factors beyond TransCanada's
control prevent the completion of the DCVG and remediation within one
year, a DCVG and remediation must be performed as soon as practicable
and a letter justifying the delay and providing the anticipated date of
completion must be submitted to the Director, PHMSA Eastern Region not
later than one year of the grant of special permit.
    (6) TransCanada must evaluate the potential for stress corrosion
cracking (SCC), according to 49 CFR 192.929 within one year after the
grant of special permit. If the potential for SCC is identified,
TransCanada must perform a stress corrosion cracking direct assessment
(SCCDA) of the special permit inspection area in accordance with 49 CFR
192.929.
    (7) TransCanada must submit the CIS, DCVG and SCCDA findings
including remediation actions in a written report to the Director,
PHMSA Eastern Region not later than two years after the grant of
special permit.
    (8) TransCanada must amend applicable sections of its operations
and maintenance (O&M) manual(s) to incorporate the inspection and
reassessment intervals by ILI along the entire length of the special
permit inspection area at a frequency consistent with 49 CFR Sec.  192,
Subpart O.
    (9) TransCanada must amend applicable sections of its O&M manual(s)
to incorporate the inspection and reassessment intervals by CIS of both
special permit segment 1 and special permit segment 2 at a frequency
consistent with 49 CFR Part 192, Subpart O.
    (10) The assessments of the special permit segments and the special
permit inspection area using ILI must conform to the required maximum
reassessment intervals specified in 49 CFR 192.939.
    (11) TransCanada must schedule future reassessment dates for the
special permit inspection area according to 49 CFR Sec.  192.939 by
adding the required time interval to the previous assessment date.
    (12) TransCanada must ensure their damage prevention program
incorporates the applicable best practices of the Common Ground
Alliance (CGA) within the special permit inspection area.
    (13) TransCanada must give sufficient notice to the Director, PHMSA
Eastern Region to enable observation of any or all special permit
related activities in the special permit inspection area.
    (14) TransCanada must determine and provide certification that all
inspections and activities associated with this special permit will not
impact or defer any of the operator's assessments for HCAs under 49 CFR
part Sec.  192, subpart O, particularly those associated with the most
significant 50 percent.
    (15) Within three months following approval of this special permit
and annually thereafter, TransCanada must report the following to the
Director, PHMSA Eastern Region:
    (a) The economic benefits of the special permit to TransCanada.
This should address both the costs avoided from not replacing the pipe
and the added costs of the inspection program (required for the initial
report only).
    (b) In the first annual report, fully describe how the public
benefits from energy availability. This should address the benefits of
avoided disruptions as a consequence of pipe replacement and the
benefits of maintaining system capacity. Subsequent reports must
indicate any changes to this initial assessment.
    (c) The number of new residences, other structures intended for
human occupancy and public gathering areas built within the special
permit inspection area.
    (d) Any new integrity threats identified during the previous year
and the results of any in-line inspections or direct assessments
performed during the previous year in the special permit inspection
area.
    (e) Any reportable incident, any leak normally indicated on the DOT
Annual Report and all repairs on the pipeline that occurred during the
previous year in the special permit inspection area.
    (f) On-going damage prevention initiatives affecting the special
permit inspection area and a discussion on the success of the
initiatives.
    (g) Any mergers, acquisitions, transfer of assets, or other events
affecting the regulatory responsibility of the company operating the
pipeline.
    (16) At least one CP pipe-to-soil test station must be located
within each HCA with a maximum spacing between test stations of one-
half mile within an HCA. In cases where obstructions or restricted
areas prevent test station placement, the test station must be placed
in the closest practical location. This requirement applies to any HCA
within the special permit inspection area.
    (17) If any annual test station readings within the special permit
inspection area fall below 49 CFR part 192, subpart I requirements,
remediation must occur within six months and include a CIS on each side
of the affected test station to the next test station and identified
corrosion system modifications to ensure corrosion control. If factors
beyond TransCanada's control prevent the completion of remediation
within six months, remediation must be completed as soon as practicable
and a letter justifying the delay and providing the anticipated date of
completion must be submitted to the Director, PHMSA Eastern Region not
later than one year after the grant of special permit.
    (18) Anomaly Evaluation and Repair:
    (a) General: TransCanada shall account for ILI tool tolerance and
corrosion growth rates in scheduled response times and repairs.
    (b) Dents: TransCanada shall repair dents in the special permit
segments and special permit inspection area in accordance with 49 CFR
Sec.  192.933.
    (c) Repair Criteria: Repair criteria applies to anomalies located
within the special permit inspection area when they have been excavated
and investigated in accordance with 49 CFR 192.485 and 192.933 as
follows:
    (i) Special permit segments--repair any anomaly with a failure
pressure ratio (FPR) less than or equal to 1.39 for pipe operating at a
stress level up to 72 percent of SMYS and any anomaly greater than 50
percent of pipe wall thickness.
    (ii) Special permit inspection area--the response time must be in
accordance with 49 CFR Sec.  192, subpart O, the applicable edition of
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Standard B31.8S, Managing
System Integrity of Gas Pipelines (ASME B31.8S) and TransCanada's IMP.
    (d) Response Time for ILI Results: The following guidelines provide
the required timing for excavation and investigation of anomalies based
on ILI results. Reassessment by ILI will ``reset'' the timing for
anomalies not already investigated and/or repaired. TransCanada must
evaluate ILI data by using either the ASME Standard B31G, Manual for
Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines (ASME B31G),
or the Modified B31G (0.85dL) for calculating the predicted failure
pressure ratio to determine anomaly responses.
    (i) Special permit segment:

--Immediate response: FPR equal to or less than 1.1 or anomalies equal
to and greater than 80 percent of pipe wall thickness;

--1-year response: pipe operating at a stress level up to 72 percent of
SMYS--FPR equal to or less than 1.39 and anomalies equal to or greater
than 60 percent of pipe wall thickness;
--Scheduled reponse: pipe operating at a stress level up to 72 percent
of SMYS--FPR greater than 1.39 and anomalies less than 60 percent of
pipe wall thickness.

    (ii) Special permit inspection area: The response time must be in
accordance with 49 CFR Sec.  192, subpart O, ASME B31.8S (applicable
edition) and TransCanada's IMP.
    (19) PHMSA may extend either or both of the original special permit
segments to include contiguous segments of pipeline up to the limits of
the special permit inspection area pursuant to the following
conditions. TransCanada must:
    (a) Provide at least 90 days advance written notice to the
Director, PHMSA Eastern Region and PHMSA Headquarters of a requested
extension of either or both of special permit segment 1 and special
permit segment 2 based on an actual class location change and include a
schedule of inspections and of any anticipated remedial actions. If
PHMSA Headquarters makes a written objection before the effective date
of the requested special permit segment (90 days from receipt of the
above notice), the requested special permit segment extension does not
become effective.
    (b) Complete all inspections and remediation of the proposed
special permit segment extension to the extent required of the original
special permit segment.
    (c) Apply all the special permit conditions and limitations
included herein to all future extensions.

Special Permit Limitations

    PHMSA has the sole authority to make all determinations on whether
TransCanada has complied with the specified conditions. Should
TransCanada fail to comply with any conditions of this special permit,
or should PHMSA determine this special permit is no longer appropriate
or that this special permit is inconsistent with pipeline safety, PHMSA
may revoke this special permit and require TransCanada to comply with
the regulatory requirements of 49 CFR 192.611.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60118 (c)(1) and 49 CFR 1.53.

    Issued in Washington, DC on December 17, 2007.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. E7-24776 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 53 (Monday, March 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 16028]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6508]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-1239-000]

Crofton Bluffs Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Crofton Bluffs Wind, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 2, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 13, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-6508 Filed 3-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 25, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47930-47932]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15654]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97950; File No. SR-CBOE-2023-018]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a
Proposed Rule Change To Make Permanent the Operation of Its Flexible
Exchange Options Pilot Program Regarding Permissible Exercise
Settlement Values for FLEX Index Options

July 19, 2023.

I. Introduction

    On April 10, 2023, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to make permanent
the operation of its Flexible Exchange Options (``FLEX Options'') pilot
program that permits P.M.-settled Flexible Exchange Index Options
(``FLEX Index Options'') to expire on or within two business days of
the third-Friday-of-the-month expirations for non-FLEX Options (``Pilot
Program'').\3\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on April 28, 2023.\4\ On June 8, 2023, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,\5\ the Commission designated a
longer period within which to approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.\6\ The
Commission has received no comment letters on the proposed rule change.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \7\ to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ A third-Friday-of-the month expiration is referred to as
``Expiration Friday''. Prior to the Pilot Program, Exchange rules
prohibited P.M.-settled FLEX Index Options to expire on any business
day that falls on or within two business days of an Expiration
Friday. During the Pilot Program, P.M.-settled FLEX Index Options
are permitted on or within two business days of an Expiration
Friday. See note 8, infra and accompanying text.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97368 (April 24,
2023), 88 FR 26353 (``Notice'').
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97672, 88 FR 38930
(June 14, 2023). The Commission designated July 20, 2023, as the
date by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove,
the proposed rule change.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to make permanent the operation of its
Flexible Exchange Options Pilot Program that permits the Exchange to
list FLEX Index Options whose exercise settlement value is derived from
closing prices of the component securities on the last trading day
prior to expiration (``P.M. settlement'') that expire on or within two
business days of a third Friday-of-the-month expiration day for a non-
FLEX Option (other than quarterly index expiration options).\8\ As
stated above, prior to the Pilot Program P.M.-settled FLEX Index
Options were prohibited from expiring on or within two business days of
an Expiration Friday.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A ``Quarterly Index Expiration'' or ``QIX'' option is an
index options contract that expires on the last business day of a
calendar quarter. See CBOE Rule 4.11.
    \9\ See note 3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In January 2010, the Commission approved the Exchange rule that
established the Pilot Program.\10\ At the time, the Commission stated
its continued concern about the adverse effects and impact of P.M.
settlements upon market volatility and the operation of fair and
orderly markets on the underlying cash market at or near the close of
trading.\11\ However, the Commission also recognized that allowing P.M.
settlement for FLEX Index Options that expire on, or within two
business days of, Expiration Friday may allow more market participants
to benefit from trading customized-type options on the Exchange rather
than the OTC market.\12\ The Commission approved the Exchange's
proposal on a pilot basis to allow the Exchange and the Commission to
monitor and evaluate the Pilot Program for potential adverse market
effects.\13\ In order to facilitate this assessment, the Exchange
committed to provide the Commission with data and analysis in
connection with the Pilot Program on an annual and interim basis.\14\
Although the pilot period was originally scheduled to end on March 28,
2011, the Exchange filed to extend the operation of the pilot on
multiple occasions, which, pursuant to current CBOE Rule 4.21(b)(5)(B),
is currently set to expire on the earlier of November 6, 2023 or the
date on which the Pilot Program is approved on a permanent basis.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61439 (January 28,
2010), 75 FR 5831 (February 4, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2009-087) (``FLEX P.M.
Pilot Program Approval Order''). The initial pilot period was set to
expire on March 28, 2011, which date was added to the rules in 2010.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61676 (March 9, 2010), 75 FR
13191 (March 18, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-026).
    \11\ See FLEX P.M. Pilot Program Approval Order, 75 FR at 5832.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 64110 (March 23,
2011), 76 FR 17463 (March 29, 2011) (SR-CBOE-2011-024); 66701 (March
30, 2012), 77 FR 20673 (April 5, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-027); 68145
(November 2, 2012), 77 FR 67044 (November 8, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-
102); 70752 (October 24, 2013), 78 FR 65023 (October 30, 2013) (SR-
CBOE-2013-099); 73460 (October 29, 2014), 79 FR 65464 (November 4,
2014) (SR-CBOE-2014-080); 77742 (April 29, 2016), 81 FR 26857 (May
4, 2016) (SR-CBOE-2016-032); 80443 (April 12, 2017), 82 FR 18331
(April 18, 2017) (SR-CBOE-2017-032); 83175 (May 4, 2018), 83 FR
21808 (May 10, 2018) (SR-CBOE-2018-037); 84537 (November 5, 2018),
83 FR 56113 (November 9, 2018) (SR-CBOE-2018-071); 85707 (April 23,
2019), 84 FR 18100 (April 29, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-021); 87515
(November 13, 2020), 84 FR 63945 (November 19, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-
108); 88782 (April 30, 2020), 85 FR 27004 (May 6, 2020) (SR-CBOE-
2020-039); 90279 (October 28, 2020), 85 FR 69667 (November 3, 2020)
(SR-CBOE-2020-103); 91782 (May 5, 2021), 86 FR 25915 (May 11, 2021)
(SR-CBOE-2021-031); 93500 (November 1, 2021), 86 FR 61340 (November
5, 2021) (SR-CBOE-2021-064); 94812 (April 28, 2022), 87 FR 26381
(May 4, 2022) (SR-CBOE-2022-020); 96239 (November 4, 2022), 87 FR
67985 (November 10, 2022) (SR-CBOE-2022-053); and 97452 (May 8,
2023), 88 FR 30822 (May 12, 2023) (SR-CBOE-2023-025) (extending the
pilot program through the earlier of November 6, 2023 or the date on
which the pilot program is approved on a permanent basis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the Pilot Program's inception in 2010, the Exchange has
submitted reports to the Commission regarding the Pilot Program that
detail the Exchange's experience with the Pilot Program, pursuant to
the FLEX PM Pilot Program Approval Order.\16\ Specifically, the
Exchange states it has submitted annual reports to the Commission
analyzing volume and open interest for each broad-based FLEX Index
Options class overlying a third Friday-of-the-month expiration day,
P.M.-settled FLEX Index Options series.\17\ The Exchange further states
that the annual reports also contain certain pilot period and pre-pilot
period analyses of volume and open interest for third Friday-of-the-
month expiration days, A.M.-settled FLEX Index series and third Friday-
of-the-month expiration day Non-FLEX Index series overlying the same
index as a third Friday-of-the-month expiration day, P.M.-settled FLEX
Index Option.\18\ The Exchange states the annual reports also contain
information and analysis of FLEX Index Options trading patterns, and
index price volatility and underlying share trading activity for each
broad-based index class overlying an Expiration Friday, P.M.-settled
FLEX

Index Option that exceeds certain minimum open interest parameters.\19\
The Exchange also provided, on a periodic basis, interim reports of
volume and open interest.\20\ The Exchange states, in its proposal,
that, during the course of the Pilot Program, it has provided the
Commission with any additional data or analyses the Commission
requested if it deemed such data or analyses necessary to determine
whether the Pilot Program was consistent with the Exchange Act.\21\ The
Exchange states it has made public on its website all data and analyses
previously submitted to the Commission under the Pilot Program,\22\ and
will continue to make public any data and analyses it submits to the
Commission while the Pilot Program is still in effect.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Notice, 88 FR at 26354.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ Id at 26354-55.
    \19\ Id at 26355.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Available at https://www.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/pm_settlement_pilot/flex/.
    \23\ See Notice, 88 FR at 26355.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As set forth more fully in the Notice, the Exchange concludes that
the Pilot Program does not negatively impact market quality or raise
any unique or prohibitive regulatory concerns.\24\ The Exchange states
it has not identified any evidence from the pilot data indicating that
the trading of P.M.-settled FLEX Options has any adverse impact on fair
and orderly markets on Expiration Fridays for broad-based indexes or
the underlying securities comprising those indexes, nor have there been
any observations of abnormal market movements attributable to P.M.-
settled FLEX Options from any market participants that have come to the
attention of the Exchange.\25\ In order to support its overall
assessment of the Pilot Program, the Exchange includes both an
assessment of a study conducted at the direction of the staff of the
Commission's Division of Economic and Risk Analysis (``DERA'') and the
Exchange's review and analysis of pilot data.\26\ Among other things,
the Notice includes the Exchange's analysis of end of day volatility as
well as a comparison of the impact of quarterly index rebalancing
versus P.M.-settled expirations.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id.
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id at 26354-58. The Exchange states that while the DERA
staff study and corresponding Exchange study specifically evaluated
SPX options, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to extrapolate
the data to apply to FLEX P.M. options. Id at 26358.
    \27\ Id at 26356.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that it completed an analysis intended to
evaluate whether the introduction of P.M.-settled options impacted the
quality of the A.M.-settled options market.\28\ Specifically, the
Exchange compared values of key market quality indicators
(specifically, the bid-ask spread \29\ and effective spread \30\) in
SPXW options both before and after the introduction of Tuesday
expirations and Thursday expirations for SPXW options on April 18 and
May 11, 2022, respectively.\31\ The Exchange states it believes
analyzing whether the introduction of new SPXW P.M.-settled expirations
(i.e., SPXW options with Tuesday and Thursday expirations) impacted the
market quality of then-existing SPXW P.M.-settled expirations (i.e.,
SPXW options with Monday, Wednesday, and Friday expirations) provides a
reasonable substitute to evaluate whether the introduction of P.M.-
settled index options impacted the market quality of the underlying
cash markets when the Pilot Program began.\32\ The Exchange also states
that FLEX Options are nearly identical to non-FLEX Options and overly
the same indexes.\33\ Therefore, the Exchange believes analyzing the
impact of new SPXW options on then-existing SPXW options permit the
Exchange to extrapolate that it is unlikely the introduction of P.M.-
settled FLEX Options significantly impacted the market quality of A.M.-
settled options when the Pilot Program began.\34\ The full analysis was
submitted with the Exchange's proposal in Exhibit 3.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Id at 26357.
    \29\ The Exchange calculated for each of SPXW options (with
Monday, Wednesday, and Friday expirations) and SPY Weekly options
(with Monday, Wednesday, and Friday expirations) the daily time-
weighted bid-ask spread on the Exchange during its regular trading
hours session, adjusted for the difference in size between SPXW
options and SPY options (SPXW options are approximately ten times
the value of SPY options).
    \30\ The Exchange calculated the volume-weighted average daily
effective spread for simple trades for each of SPXW options (with
Monday, Wednesday, and Friday expirations) and SPY Weekly options
(with Monday, Wednesday, and Friday expirations) as twice the amount
of the absolute value of the difference between an order execution
price and the midpoint of the national best bid and offer at the
time of execution, adjusted for the difference in size between SPXW
options and SPY options.
    \31\ See Notice, 88 FR at 26357. For purposes of comparison, the
Exchange paired SPXW options and SPY options with the same moneyness
and same days to expiration.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Id. at 26358.
    \34\ Id.
    \35\ Id at 26357.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange states that the significant changes in the
closing procedures of the primary markets in recent decades, including
considerable advances in trading systems and technology, has
significantly minimized risks of any potential impact of P.M.-, cash-
settled FLEX Options on the underlying cash markets.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Id at 26358.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-CBOE-
2023-018 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \37\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues raised by the proposed rule change. Institution of proceedings
does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with
respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as described below, the
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide
additional comment on the proposed rule change to inform the
Commission's analysis of whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\38\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration. As
described above, the Exchange has proposed to make permanent the
operation of its Pilot Program that permits FLEX Index Options to use
P.M. settlement values on or within two business days of a third
Friday-of the month expiration day for a non-FLEX Option. The
Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional analysis
of, and input from commenters with respect to, the proposed rule
change's consistency with the Act, and in particular, Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, 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.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Id.
    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, it is not clear if the Exchange's proposal contains
sufficient analysis and data as it relates to FLEX Index Options and
the Pilot Program. The Commission therefore believes that there are
questions raised as to whether the analysis and data provided by the
Exchange provides sufficient support to determine that the proposal is

consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange
Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the
self-regulatory organization [`SRO'] that proposed the rule change.''
\41\ The description of a proposed rule change, its purpose and
operation, its effect, and a legal analysis of its consistency with
applicable requirements must all be sufficiently detailed and specific
to support an affirmative Commission finding,\42\ and any failure of an
SRO to provide this information may result in the Commission not having
a sufficient basis to make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule
change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the applicable rules and
regulations.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Rule 700(b)(3), Commission Rules of Practice, 17 CFR
201.700(b)(3).
    \42\ Id.
    \43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Commission believes it is appropriate to
institute proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange
Act \44\ to determine whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their data, views, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule change
is consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act,
or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear
to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be
facilitated by an oral presentation of data, views, and arguments, the
Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\45\ any
request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \46\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Acts Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (Jun. 4, 1975), grants to
the Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--
either oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is
appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-
regulatory organization. See Securities Acts Amendments of 1975,
Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75,
94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be approved
or disapproved by August 15, 2023. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
August 29, 2023. The Commission asks that commenters address the
sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in
addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the
proposed rule change.
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2023-018 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2023-018. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number to File Number SR-CBOE-2023-018
and should be submitted by August 15, 2023.
    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-15654 Filed 7-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 119 (Friday, June 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35406-35407]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14182]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline And Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Office of Hazardous Materials Safety; Notice of Applications for
Modification of Special Permit

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of Applications for Modification of Special Permits

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR Part 107,
Subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety has received the applications described herein. This
notice is abbreviated to expedite docketing and public notice. Because
the sections affected, modes of transportation, and the nature of
application have been shown in earlier Federal Register publications,
they are not repeated here. Requests for modification of special
permits (e.g. to provide for additional hazardous materials, packaging
design changes, additional mode of transportation, etc.) are described
in footnotes to the application number. Application numbers with the
suffix ``M'' denote a modification request. These applications have
been separated from the new application for special permits to
facilitate processing.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 7, 2014.
    Address Comments To: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation
Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the applications are
available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30,
1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washing-ton DC or at http://regulations.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for modification of special
permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal
hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR
1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 12, 2014.
Donald Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits.

Modification Special Permits

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Regulation(s)         Nature of special
   Application No.          Docket No.             Applicant             affected            permits thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11834-M.............  ......................  Ashland, Inc.        49 CFR 173.173,      To modify the special
                                               Dublin, OH.          173.202 173.203,     permit to authorize two
                                                                    and 172.301(c).      Class 8 materials.

11903-M.............  ......................  Comptank             49 CFR 107.503(b),   To modify the special
                                               Corporation          172.102(c)(3) SP     permit to authorize a
                                               Bothwell, ON.        B15 and B23,         54-inch diameter, 312-
                                                                    173.241, 173.242,    inch length, single rib
                                                                    173.243, 178.345-    vessel with a design
                                                                    1, -2, -3, -4, -7,   pressure of 35 psig.
                                                                    -14 and -15,
                                                                    180.405,180.413(d).
11911-M.............  ......................  Transfer Flow, Inc.  49 CFR 177.834(h),   To modify the special
                                               Chico, CA.           and 178.700(c)(1).   permit to authorize and
                                                                                design flexibility in
                                                                                lieu of modifying the
                                                                                special permit for each
                                                                                design change.
13027-M.............  ......................  Hernco Fabrication   49 CFR 173.202,      To modify the special
                                               Services Midland,    173.203, 173.241,    permit to authorize a
                                               TX.                  173.242, and         new vent.
                                                                    173.243.
14919-M.............  ......................  TK Holdings Inc./    49 CFR 173.301(a),   To modify the special
                                               Takata Armada, MI.   173.302a, and        permit to remove the
                                                                    178.65(f)(2).        specifications for
                                                                                cylinder sizes and
                                                                                water capacities.
15428-M.............  ......................  National             49 CFR 172.300,      To modify the special
                                               Aeronautics and      172.400 and Part     permit to authorize
                                               Space                173.                 Divison 1.3C, 1.4C and
                                               Administration                            1.4S materials in non-
                                               (NASA) Washington,                        DOT specification
                                               DC.                                       packagings.
15448-M.............  ......................  U.S. Department of   49 CFR 172.320,      To modify the special
                                               Defense Scott AFB,   173.51, 173.56,      permit to authorize
                                               IL.                  173.57 173.58.       packagings that have
                                                                                not been specifically
                                                                                and approved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-14182 Filed 6-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4909-60-M