[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 30, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17611-17613]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7462]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0253; FRL-8866-6]

Propylene Oxide; Proposed Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend the propylene oxide tolerance
on ``nut, tree, group 14'' to ``nutmeat, processed, except peanuts'' to
correct an error in a prior rulemaking.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 14, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0253, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0253. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Garvie, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. This Proposal

    In this action, EPA is proposing to amend the propylene oxide
tolerance

(40 CFR 180.491) on ``nut, tree, group 14'' to read ``nutmeat,
processed, except peanuts.'' A final rule published in the Federal
Register of September 24, 2008 (73 FR 54954) (FRL-8382-2). EPA took the
opposite action--amending the propylene oxide tolerance by replacing
``nutmeat, processed, except peanuts'' with ``nut, tree, group 14.''
EPA explained that its 2008 action was taken to ``conform'' the
commodity terms in the propylene oxide tolerances with ``current Agency
practice.'' A proposed rule was published in the Federal Register of
June 4, 2008 (73 FR 31788, 317990) (FRL-8363-9). The Reregistration
Eligibility Decision for propylene oxide further explained that
although ``no change to the current tolerance level is required for
nutmeat (processed, except peanuts),'' * * * ``corrections need to be
made to some of the existing commodity definitions'' including changing
the nutmeats tolerance to a tree nut group tolerance. EPA, published a
notice, Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Propylene Oxide, in the
Federal Register of August 9, 2006 (71 FR 45555) (FRL-8066-9).
    Despite these explanations that the change to the nutmeats
tolerance was a conforming technical correction without substantive
effect, the changed tolerance terminology is significantly different
than the commodity term it replaced. Crop Group 14 (tree nuts) applies
to a specific list of raw nuts. On its face, ``nutmeat, processed,
except peanuts'' applies to all processed nutmeats other than peanuts.
Such a substantive change to the scope of a tolerance cannot be
effected unless the Agency makes the necessary statutory findings under
FFDCA section 408. Because no such findings were made, EPA considers
the prior action to have been without effect and the pre-existing
tolerance covering ``nutmeat, processed, except peanuts'' to define the
scope of the propylene oxide tolerance as to nuts. Accordingly, EPA is
proposing in this action to correct the propylene oxide tolerance in
the CFR by returning to the status quo prior to rulemaking of September
24, 2008. Under this proposal, the nutmeat tolerance for propylene
oxide would read ``nutmeat, processed, except peanuts,'' which is
exactly as it did prior to the September 24, 2008 rulemaking.
    EPA requests comment on whether its proposed action adequately
addresses the error included in its September 24, 2008 rulemaking.

III. Shortened Comment Period

    FFDCA section 408(e)(2) requires a comment period of not less than
60 days on EPA tolerance actions proposed on the Agency's initiative
unless EPA ``for good cause finds that a shorter comment period would
be in the public interest * * *.'' EPA has determined that such good
cause exists here. The September 2008 rulemaking was intended, among
other things, to make a minor, routine change to one of the commodity
terms in the propylene oxide tolerance for the purpose of conforming
the propylene oxide tolerance to the standard list of commodity terms
used by EPA. Due to its own mistake, EPA did not merely make a
conforming change but substituted a new commodity term that was not co-
extensive with the existing commodity term. This has led to confusion
as to the scope of the propylene oxide tolerance and was unfair to
propylene oxide registrants who relied on EPA assertions that it was
making a technical conforming change. EPA is now proposing to return
the CFR to the status quo prior to its error. It is in the public
interest to remove the confusion arising from EPA's error with dispatch
and thus EPA concludes there is good cause to limit the comment period
to 15 days.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This proposed rule amends a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these
types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because
this proposed rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order
12866 due to its lack of significance, this proposed rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed rule does not contain
any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any enforceable
duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Nor does
it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898,
entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994);
or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045,
entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not
involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration
of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA),
Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), the Agency hereby certifies that this proposed action will not
have significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. In fact, this rule will have no impact because it
merely corrects an error in the propylene oxide tolerance regulation
that was inserted in the regulation without proper authority and thus
was without legal effect. In addition, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' This proposed rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States. This action
does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency
has determined that this proposed rule does not have any ``tribal
implications'' as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 3175, requires EPA to develop
an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal implications'' is
defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have
``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.''
This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: March 21, 2011.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as
follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. Section 180.491 is amended by revising the ``Nut, tree, group
14'' commodity in the tables in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) to read as
follows:

Sec.  180.491  Propylene oxide; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Nutmeat, processed, except peanuts..........................         300

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

     (2) * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Nutmeat, processed, except peanuts..........................        10.0

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-7462 Filed 3-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 44 (Thursday, March 5, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12939-12940]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04478]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2008-0010]

Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Committee management; request for applicants for appointment to
the Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy.

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

SUMMARY: The National Fire Academy (Academy) is requesting individuals
who are interested in serving on the Board of Visitors for the National
Fire Academy (Board) to apply for appointments as identified in this
notice. Pursuant to the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of
1974, the Board shall review annually the programs of the Academy and
shall make recommendations to the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Administrator, through the United States Fire Administrator,
regarding the operation of the Academy and any improvements that the
Board deems appropriate. The Board is composed of eight members, all of
whom have national or regional leadership experience in the fields of
fire safety, fire prevention (such as community risk reduction to
include wildland urban interface), fire control, research and
development in fire protection, treatment and rehabilitation of fire
victims, or local government services management, which includes
emergency medical services. The Academy seeks to appoint four
individuals to a position on the Board that will be open due to term
expiration. If other positions are vacated during the application
process, candidates may be selected from the pool of applicants to fill
the vacated positions.

DATES: Resumes will be accepted until 11:59 p.m. EST April 6, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The preferred method of submission is via email. However,
resumes may also be submitted by mail. Please only submit by ONE of the
following methods:
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: National Fire Academy, U.S. Fire Administration,
Attention: Debbie Gartrell-Kemp, 16825 South Seton Avenue, Emmitsburg,
Maryland 21727-8998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alternate Designated Federal Officer:
Dr. Kirby Kiefer,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board is an advisory committee
established in accordance with the provision of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. Appendix. The purpose of the Board is to
review annually the programs of the Academy and advise the FEMA
Administrator on the operation of the Academy and any improvements
therein that the Board deems appropriate. In carrying out its
responsibilities, the Board examines Academy programs to determine
whether these programs further the basic missions that are approved by
the FEMA Administrator, examines the physical plant of the Academy to
determine the adequacy of the Academy's facilities, and examines the
funding levels for Academy programs. The Board submits a written annual
report through the United States Fire Administrator to the FEMA
Administrator. The report provides detailed comments and
recommendations regarding the operation of the Academy.
    Individuals who are interested in serving on the Board are invited
to apply for consideration for appointment. There is no application
form; however, a current resume and statement of interest will be
required. The appointment shall be for a term of up to three years.
Individuals selected for the appointment shall serve as Special
Government Employees (SGEs), defined in section 202(a) of title 18,

United States Code. The candidate selected for the appointment will be
required to complete a Confidential Financial Disclosure Form (U.S.
Office of Government Ethics (OGE) Form 450).
    The Board shall meet as often as needed to fulfill its mission, but
not less than twice each fiscal year to address its objectives and
duties. The Board will meet in person at least once each fiscal year
with additional meetings held via teleconference. Board members may be
reimbursed for travel and per diem incurred in the performance of their
duties as members of the Board. All travel for Board business must be
approved in advance by the Designated Federal Officer. To the extent
practical, Board members shall serve on any subcommittee that is
established.
    FEMA does not discriminate in employment on the basis of race,
color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual
orientation, gender identity, marital status, disability and genetic
information, age, membership in an employee organization, or other non-
merit factor. FEMA strives to achieve a diverse candidate pool for all
its recruitment actions.
    Current DHS employees, contractors, and potential contractors will
not be considered for membership. Federally registered lobbyists will
not be considered for SGE appointments.

Tonya L. Hoover,
Deputy Fire Administrator, Superintendent, National Fire Academy,
United States Fire Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-04478 Filed 3-4-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-74-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 46796]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18947]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13563-003]

Juneau Hydropower, Inc.; Notice of Environmental Site Review

    On Tuesday, August 26, 2014, and Wednesday, August 27, 2014, at 8
a.m. Alaska Time Zone, Commission staff will be participating in an
environmental site review (site review) for the Sweetheart Lake
Hydroelectric Project in the City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska. The
site review will consist of both a boat and aerial tour of the project
site. All interested individuals, organizations, and agencies are
invited to attend. Anyone with questions about the site review should
contact Duff Mitchell of Juneau Hydropower, Inc. at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Those
individuals planning to participate in the site review should notify
Mr. Mitchell of their intent no later than August 18, 2014.

    Dated: August 5, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-18947 Filed 8-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 207 (Thursday, October 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65109-65111]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23353]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96125; File No. SR-BX-2022-019]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Transaction Fees and Credits at Equity 7, Section 118(e)

October 21, 2022.
    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 October 11, 2022, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction fees and
credits at Equity 7, section 118(e).
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/bx/rules, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange operates on the ``taker-maker'' model, whereby it
generally pays credits to members that take liquidity and charges fees
to members that provide liquidity.\3\ Currently, the Exchange has a
schedule, at Equity 7, section 118(e), which consists of several
different credits and fees for Retail Orders \4\ and Retail Price
Improvement Orders \5\ under Rule 4780 (Retail Price Improvement
Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed pricing changes on
October 3, 2022 (SR-BX-2022-018). The instant filing replaces SR-BX-
2022-018, which was withdrawn on October 11, 2022.
    \4\ Retail Orders shall mean an order type with a Non-Display
Order Attribute submitted to the Exchange by a Retail Member
Organization (as defined in Rule 4780). A Retail Order must be an
agency Order, or riskless principal Order that satisfies the
criteria of FINRA Rule 5320.03. The Retail Order must reflect
trading interest of a natural person with no change made to the
terms of the underlying order of the natural person with respect to
price (except in the case of a market order that is changed to a
marketable limit order) or side of market and that does not
originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized
methodology. See Rule 4702(b)(6).
    \5\ Retail Price Improving (``RPI'') Orders shall mean an Order
Type with a Non-Display Order Attribute that is held on the Exchange
Book in order to provide liquidity at a price at least $0.001 better
than the NBBO through a special execution process described in Rule
4780. A Retail Price Improving Order may be entered in price
increments of $0.001. RPI Orders collectively may be referred to as
``RPI Interest.'' See Rule 4702(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
schedule of fees and credits, at Equity 7, section 118(e).
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to (1) amend the qualifying
criteria for an existing fee for RPI Orders that provide liquidity; and
(2) eliminate an existing credit for Retail Orders that access
liquidity.
    Currently, the Exchange charges a $0.0018 per share executed fee
for RPI Orders entered by a member that (i) quotes RPI Orders in at
least 2,500 symbols on average per day and (ii) provides liquidity
through RPI Orders equal to or exceeding an average daily volume of
2,500,000 shares. The Exchange charges a fee of $0.0025 per share
executed for all other RPI Orders that provide liquidity. The Exchange
proposes to amend the $0.0018 fee by decreasing the number of quoted
symbols needed to qualify for the fee from 2,500 to 1,200 on average
per day. The Exchange hopes that the less strict qualifying criteria
will encourage member organizations to increase liquidity providing
activity on RPI Orders on the Exchange. If the proposal is effective in
achieving this purpose, then the quality of the Exchange's market will
improve, particularly with respect to RPI and retail orders to the
benefit of all participants, especially those who submit RPI and Retail
Orders.
    Currently, the Exchange provides certain credits for Retail Orders
that provide liquidity. The Exchange

proposes to eliminate its credit of $0.0010 per share executed for
Retail Orders with an accepted price greater than or equal to $10,000
that access liquidity provided by a Retail Price Improvement Order by
reducing the credit from $0.0010 to $0.0000. The proposed $0.0000
credit per share executed (for Retail Orders with an accepted price
greater than or equal to $10,000 that access liquidity provided by a
Retail Price Improvement Order) reflects that such qualifying Orders
would receive no credits, including from elsewhere in the fee schedule.
The Exchange has limited resources at its disposal to devote to
incentives and it periodically reassesses the allocation of those
resources when they prove to be ineffective.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section
6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposed changes to its schedule of fees and credits
are reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange
is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for equity
securities transaction services that constrain its pricing
determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive
has long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities
and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
equity security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of
several equity venues to which market participants may direct their
order flow. Competing equity exchanges offer similar tiered pricing
structures to that of the Exchange, including schedules of rebates and
fees that apply based upon members achieving certain volume thresholds.
    Within this environment, market participants can freely and often
do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in
response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. As such, the
proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase
its liquidity and market share relative to its competitors.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable to amend the
$0.0018 per share executed fee for RPI Orders by lowering the number of
symbols in which a member most quote in RPI Orders on average during
the day to qualify for it. As discussed above, the Exchange's goal is
to increase liquidity adding activity in RPI Orders on its platform. It
is reasonable and equitable to address this need by easing the
qualification requirements as an incentive for members to increase
their liquidity activity in RPI Orders on the Exchange. If the proposal
is effective in achieving this purpose, then the quality of the
Exchange's market will improve, particularly with respect to RPI and
Retail orders to the benefit of all participants, especially those who
submit RPI and Retail Orders.
    In addition, the Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable
to eliminate the credit of $0.0010 per share executed for Retail Orders
with an accepted price greater than or equal to $10,000 that access
liquidity provided by a Retail Price Improvement Order because the
incentive was not effective in achieving its intended effect. The
Exchange has limited resources at its disposal to devote to incentives
and it periodically reassesses the allocation of those resources when
they prove to be ineffective.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. As an initial matter, the Exchange believes that
nothing about its volume-based tiered pricing model is inherently
unfair; instead, it is a rational pricing model that is well-
established and ubiquitous in today's economy among firms in various
industries--from co-branded credit cards to grocery stores to cellular
telephone data plans--that use it to reward the loyalty of their best
customers that provide high levels of business activity and incent
other customers to increase the extent of their business activity. It
is also a pricing model that the Exchange and its competitors have long
employed with the assent of the Commission. It is fair because it
incentivizes customer activity that increases liquidity, enhances price
discovery, and improves the overall quality of the equity markets.
    The Exchange intends for its proposal to improve market quality for
all members that submit RPI and Retail Orders on the Exchange and by
extension attract more liquidity to the market, improving market wide
quality and price discovery. Although net adders of liquidity for RPI
Orders will benefit most from the proposal, this result is fair insofar
as increased liquidity adding activity in RPI Orders will help to
improve market quality and the attractiveness of the Exchange to all
existing and prospective retail participants.
    Any participant that is dissatisfied with the proposal is free to
shift their order flow to competing venues that provide more generous
pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intramarket Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that its proposal will place any
category of Exchange participant at a competitive disadvantage. As
noted above, all member organizations of the Exchange will benefit from
any increase in market activity that the proposal effectuates. Member
organizations may modify their businesses so that they can meet the
required thresholds and pay lower

charges. Moreover, members are free to trade on other venues to the
extent they believe that the fees assessed, and credits provided, are
not attractive. As one can observe by looking at any market share
chart, price competition between exchanges is fierce, with liquidity
and market share moving freely between exchanges in reaction to fee and
credit changes.
Intermarket Competition
    The Exchange believes that its proposed modifications to its
schedule of fees and credits will not impose a burden on competition
because the Exchange's execution services are completely voluntary and
subject to extensive competition both from the other live exchanges and
from off-exchange venues, which include alternative trading systems
that trade national market system stock. The Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at
other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other
exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted
from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges.
Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and
because market participants may readily adjust their order routing
practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes
in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely
limited.
    The proposed changes are reflective of this competition because, as
a threshold issue, the Exchange is a relatively small market so its
ability to burden intermarket competition is limited. In this regard,
even the largest U.S. equities exchange by volume only has 17-18%
market share, which in most markets could hardly be categorized as
having enough market power to burden competition. Moreover, as noted
above, price competition between exchanges is fierce, with liquidity
and market share moving freely between exchanges in reaction to fee and
credit changes. This is in addition to free flow of order flow to and
among off-exchange venues which comprises more than 40% of industry
volume in recent months.
    In sum, the Exchange intends for the proposed changes to its fees
and credits, in the aggregate, to increase member incentives to engage
in the addition of liquidity on the Exchange. If the changes proposed
herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the
Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of
members or competing order execution venues to maintain their
competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BX-2022-019 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-BX-2022-019. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BX-2022-019, and should be submitted on
or before November 17, 2022.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-23353 Filed 10-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 244 (Thursday, December 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72946-72947]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27783]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CD22-2-000]

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

    On December 7, 2021, as supplemented on December 15, 2021, the City
of Beaverton, Oregon filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying
conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal
Power Act (FPA). The proposed Sexton Mountain Pump Station
Hydroelectric Project would have an installed capacity of up to 200
kilowatts (kW), and would be located along an existing 30-inch pipeline
adjacent to the Sexton Mountain Pumping Station in the City of
Beaverton, Washington County, Oregon.
    Applicant Contact: Ronan Igloria, GSI Water Solutions, Inc., 55 SW
Yamhill St., Suite 300, Portland, OR 97204,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    FERC Contact: Christopher Chaney,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed
project would consist of: (1) One Francis turbine unit with a capacity
of 100 kW, with a second up to 100-kW unit planned in the future; (2)
intake and discharge pipes connecting to the 30-inch pipeline; and (3)
appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an estimated
annual generation of approximately 392 megawatt-hours during the first
year of operation.
    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined
or deemed to meet all the criteria shown in the table below.

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

    Preliminary Determination: The proposed Sexton Mountain Pump
Station Hydroelectric Project will not alter the primary purpose of the
conduit, which is to transport water for municipal use. Therefore,
based upon the above criteria, Commission staff preliminarily
determines that the proposal satisfies the requirements for a

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

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may send a
paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be
addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852. A copy of all other filings in reference
to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all
persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Locations of Notice of Intent: The Commission provides all
interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of
this document via the internet through the Commission's website at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number
(i.e., CD22-2) in the docket number field to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. Copies of the notice of
intent can be obtained directly from the applicant. For assistance,
call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected]. For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 16, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-27783 Filed 12-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 40 (Thursday, March 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12391-12392]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04054]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Waivers and
ATC Authorization in Controlled Airspace Under Part 107

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
Department of Transportation invites public comments about our
intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval
to renew a previously approved information collection. The FAA
established the Waivers and ATC Authorization in Controlled Airspace
under Part 107 portal to allow a remote pilot in command to request a
waiver from regulations or an authorization for a small unmanned
aircraft system (UAS) to operate in Class B, C, D, and the lateral
boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an
airport.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by April 3, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

PUBLIC COMMENTS INVITED:  You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronda Thompson by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB Control Number: 2120-0768.
    Title: ATC authorizations in Controlled Airspace under Part 107.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The Department intends to submit this information
collection to OMB to request an approval for the information collection
currently titled ``ATC Authorization in Controlled Airspace under Part
107.'' The Department requests approval for a renewal of this
information collection approval that will include expanding the
information collection to encompass requests for Waivers under 14 CFR
part 107, subpart D, currently approved as Information Collection 2120-
0027, which covers waivers issued by the FAA under Part 91. In this
information collection, the Department does not intend to affect those
waivers in any manner. As a result, the Department requests approval
for information collections for Part 107 waivers and airspace
authorizations within Information Collection 2120-0768.
    The FAA uses the ATC Authorization in Controlled Airspace and
Waivers under 14 CFR part 107, subpart D portal to determine whether
the remote pilot can safely conduct the proposed small UAS operation in
controlled airspace (Class B, C, D, and Class E surface areas), and/or
whether the remote pilot can safely operate the small UAS under the
terms of a waiver that authorizes deviation from a particular
regulation. In this regard, the FAA reviews and analyzes the
information it collects through the Certificate of Waiver or
Authorization to determine the type and extent of the intended
deviation from prescribed regulations. The remote pilot in command will
be required to submit information electronically to the FAA

regarding the operation to be conducted. Information will include
contact information for the remote pilot in command, the date and time
of the operation, as well as its anticipated duration, and the airspace
for which the request is submitted. If the remote pilot in command
wishes to conduct the same operation on a number of dates/times, the
request will permit multiple dates/times to be listed to reduce the
number of submissions required.
    In general, the FAA will issue a certificate of waiver or
authorization to deviate to the applicant (individuals and businesses)
if the proposed operation does not create a hazard to persons,
property, other aircraft, and includes the operation of unmanned
aircraft. To obtain such a certificate of waiver, an applicant must
submit a request containing a complete description of the proposed
operation and a justification, including supporting data and
documentation as necessary that establishes the operation will not
endanger the national airspace system or people on the ground. The FAA
expects the amount of data and analysis required as part of the
application will be proportional to the specific relief the applicant
requests.
    Respondents: Approximately 19,000 requests per year.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: .5 hour.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 9,500 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 8, 2017.
Ronda L. Thompson,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Performance, Policy &
Records Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2017-04054 Filed 3-1-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 107 (Wednesday, June 4, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32169-32170]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12939]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0384; FRL-9911-17]

Imazapic; Pesticide Tolerances; Technical Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; technical correction.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a final rule in the Federal Register of August 16,
2013, concerning the establishment of a tolerance for imazapic in or on
sugarcane, cane. This document is being issued to correct the codified
section by including a footnote under the table in paragraph (a)(1) to
denote that there are no U.S. registrations for the commodity
sugarcane, cane.

DATES: This final rule correction is effective June 4, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0384, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois Rossi, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 305-7090; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this action apply to me?

    The Agency included in the August 16, 2013 final rule a list of
those who may be potentially affected by this action.

II. What does this technical correction do?

    EPA issued a final rule in the Federal Register of August 16, 2013
(78 FR 49927) (FRL-9394-8) that established a tolerance for residues of
the herbicide imazapic in or on the commodity sugarcane, cane. EPA
inadvertently omitted the footnote ``There are no US registrations as
of August 16, 2013.'' in the tolerance table denoting that the
established tolerance on sugarcane, cane is an import tolerance only.

III. Why is this correction issued as a final rule?

    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B)) provides that, when an Agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest, the Agency may issue a final rule without
providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has
determined that there is good cause for making this technical
correction final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment,
because the addition of a footnote to the tolerance table for the
reason stated in Unit II, is not a significant change and does not
affect the outcomes of the August 16, 2013 final rule. EPA finds that
this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

IV. Do any of the statutory and executive order reviews apply to this
action?

    All applicable statutory requirements were discussed in the final
rule that was published on August 16, 2013.

V. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
this rule in the Federal Register. This final rule is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: May 28, 2014.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. In Sec.  180.490, amend the table in paragraph (a)(1) by
revising the entry for ``Sugarcane, cane'' to read as follows:

Sec.  [emsp14]180.490  Imazapic; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Sugarcane, cane \2\........................................         0.03

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ There are no U.S. registrations as of June 4, 2014.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-12939 Filed 6-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11732-11733]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04654s]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0914; Airspace Docket No. 13-AGL-29]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Mineral Point, WI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Mineral
Point, WI. A Class E surface area is necessary to accommodate increased
business aviation and flight instruction activity at Iowa County
Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the
airport. This action also would amend the geographic coordinates for
existing Class E airspace.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2013-0914/Airspace Docket No. 13-
AGL-29, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket
Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the
building at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817-321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2013-0914/
Airspace Docket No. 13-AGL-29.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/airports--airtraffic/air--traffic/publications/airspace--
amendments.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace designated as a
surface area within a 4.1-mile radius of Iowa County Airport, Mineral
Point, WI. Increases in business aviation, air cargo, and flight
instruction operations under instrument meteorological conditions have
made this addition of controlled airspace necessary for the safety and
management of IFR operations at the airport. In addition, this action
would amend the geographic coordinates of the current Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to coincide with the
FAA's aeronautical database.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6002 and 6005,
respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9X, dated August 7, 2013 and effective
September 15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be
published subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend controlled airspace at Iowa County Airport, Mineral
Point, WI.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9X,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 7, 2013, and
effective September 15, 2013, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace designated as surface areas.

* * * * *

AGL WI E2 Mineral Point, WI [New]

Mineral Point, Iowa County Airport, WI
    (Lat. 42[deg]53'13'' N., long. 90[deg]14'12'' W.)

    Within a 4.1-mile radius of Iowa County Airport. This Class E
airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times
established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and
time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/
Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface.

* * * * *

AGL WI E5 Mineral Point, WI [Amended]

Mineral Point, Iowa County Airport, WI
    (Lat. 42[deg]53'13'' N., long. 90[deg]14'12'' W.)
Mineral Point NDB
    (Lat. 42[deg]53'17'' N., long. 90[deg]13'35'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.2-mile radius of Iowa County Airport, and within 2.6
miles each side of the 029[deg] bearing from the Mineral Point NDB
extending from the 7.2-mile radius to 7.4 miles northeast of the
airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on February 2, 2014.
Kent M. Wheeler,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2014-04654s Filed 2-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 240 (Friday, December 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64417-64419]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27075]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84765; File No. SR-Phlx-2018-79]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Update the
Trading Floor Qualification Examination

December 10, 2018.
    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 November 30, 2018, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or

``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to revise its floor qualification
examination. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to delete obsolete
questions, change the format of certain questions from ``true/false''
to multiple choice, add several new questions, and revise certain
questions, as described further below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to improve the
Exchange's program for qualification of members by updating its floor
qualification examination. The Exchange has employed a written floor
qualification examination, which is required for persons seeking to act
as members on the trading floor, for many years.\3\ The examination was
last amended in 2012.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Rules 620(a) and 901(c). See also Rule 1061 applicable
to Floor Brokers.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67508 [sic] (July 26
[sic], 2012), 77 FR 46141 (July 27, 2012 [sic]) (SR-Phlx-2012-96).
See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63603 (December 22,
2010), 75 FR 82419 (December 30, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-180);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 33304 (December 9, 1993), 58 FR
65613 (December 15, 1993) (SR-Phlx-92-34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, the Exchange proposes to update the examination in a
variety of ways. The examination would continue to be comprised of 100
questions. Those questions would be randomly and electronically
selected from a question bank of 188 questions, an increase of 16
questions from the existing question bank. The floor qualification
examination would continue to be administered by the Exchange's
membership department, and continue to require a passing score of 70
during a 75 minute testing period.
    The Exchange proposes to delete 11 obsolete questions. Nine of the
questions deleted test knowledge that is no longer applicable because
of revisions to the PHLX rules. The other two questions deleted test
knowledge no longer needed to trade on the Phlx floor. The Exchange
also proposes to modify 55 questions by changing the format of those
questions from ``true/false'' to multiple choice. The subject matter
covered by each of those questions will not change. The Exchange
further proposes to add 27 new questions. Twenty of the new questions
generally test knowledge of the new Floor Broker Management System
(``FBMS''). The remaining seven questions were added to expand the bank
from which questions are selected. Finally, the Exchange notes that
certain questions were revised to correct grammatical errors and
standardize the answer format. With these changes, the total number of
questions available for random and electronic selection will increase
from 172 to 188.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \6\ in particular, in that it is designed 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.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(c)(3)(B) of the Act,\7\ which authorizes
exchanges to prescribe standards of training, experience and competence
for persons associated with exchange members, and gives exchanges the
authority to bar a natural person from becoming a member or a person
associated with a member, if the person does not meet the standards of
training, experience and competence prescribed in the rules of the
exchange. The Exchange believes that revising its floor member
qualification examination as proposed in this filing, including by
deleting obsolete questions, changing the format of 55 questions from
``true/false'' to multiple choice, and adding questions, including
those that relate to the new FMBS [sic], will better test the knowledge
of prospective floor members, and thereby enhance the Exchange's
standards for training, experience and competence. In addition, the
exchange is modifying the format of its ``true/false'' questions to
multiple choice and making certain other changes, such as correcting
grammatical errors and standardizing the answer format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(c)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1)
\9\ thereunder, the Exchange has designated this proposal as one that
constitutes a stated policy, practice or interpretation with respect to
the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing rule of the
SRO, and therefore has become effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing,

including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2018-79 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-Phlx-2018-79. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2018-79 and should be submitted on
or before January 4, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-27075 Filed 12-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P