[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 5, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 20712]
[FR Doc No: E9-10349]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0664]

Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.

    Name of Committee: Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on May 29, 2009, from 8
a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
    Location: Rosen Shingle Creek, Panzacola Ballroom, 9939
Universal Boulevard, Orlando, FL 32819. The hotel telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Contact Person: Nicole Vesely, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research (HFD-21), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane
(for express delivery, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1093), Rockville, MD
20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information
Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area), code
3014512542. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date
information on this meeting. A notice in the Federal Register about
last minute modifications that impact a previously announced
advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough
to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the
agency's Web site and call the appropriate advisory committee hot
line/phone line to learn about possible modifications before coming
to the meeting.
    Agenda: On May 29, 2009, the committee will discuss the
biologics license application (BLA) 125326, proposed trade name
ARZERRA (ofatumumab), GlaxoSmithKline, for the proposed indication
of treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia who have
received prior therapy.

    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/acmenu.htm, click on
the year 2009 and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before May
15, 2009. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between
approximately 10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Those desiring to make formal
oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief
statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish
to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an
indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation
on or before May 7, 2009. Time allotted for each presentation may be
limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater
than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public
hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers
for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will
notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by May 8,
2009.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Nicole Vesely at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/oc/advisory/default.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee
meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: April 28, 2009.
Randall W. Lutter,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-10349 Filed 5-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68919-68922]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27311]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73590; File No. SR-MIAX-2014-56]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Amend
Exchange Rule 515A

November 13, 2014.
    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 31, 2014, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC
(``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. On November 12, 2014, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change.\3\ The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, MIAX deleted a sentence from purpose
section which incorrectly described the current functionality of the
Price Improvement Mechanism (``PIM'') offered by the International
Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''). See ISE Rule 723. Because the
sentence was immaterial to the filing, MIAX submitted Amendment No.
1 to delete it from the filing. MIAX did not propose any other
changes to the filing in Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 515A.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend MIAX Rule 515A regarding PRIME to
allow orders of any size to initiate a PRIME Auction on MIAX at a price
which is at or better than the national best bid or offer (``NBBO'').
The proposed change is based on recent filings of other competing
exchanges.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 70654 (October 10,
2013), 78 FR 62891 (October 22, 2013) (SR-PHLX-2013-76); 72554 (July
8, 2014), 79 FR 40830 (July 14, 2014) (SR-ISE-2014-35).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 515A provides that a Member (the ``Initiating Member'') may
initiate an Auction provided that: (i) If the Agency Order is for 50
standard option contracts or 500 mini-option contracts or more, the
Initiating Member must stop the entire Agency Order as principal or
with a solicited order at the better of the NBBO or the Agency Order's
limit price (if the order is a limit order); or (ii) if the Agency
Order is for less than 50 standard option contracts or 500 mini-option
contracts, the Initiating Member must stop the entire Agency Order as
principal or with a solicited order at the better of (A) the NBBO price
improved by a $0.01 increment; or (B) the Agency Order's limit price
(if the order is a limit order).\5\ In addition, to initiate the
Auction for auto-match submissions, the Initiating Member must mark the
Agency Order for Auction processing, and for auto-match as principal
the price and size of all Auction responses up to an optional
designated limit price in which case the Agency Order will be stopped
at the better of the NBBO (if 50 standard option contracts or 500 mini-
option contracts or greater), $0.01 increment better than the NBBO (if
less than 50 standard option contracts or 500 mini-option contracts),
or the Agency Order's limit price.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Rule 515A(a)(1).
    \6\ See Exchange Rule 515A(a)(2)(i)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to discontinue the disparate treatment for
Agency Orders less than 50 contracts or 500 mini-option contracts. As a
result, all Agency Orders regardless of their size will be treated the
same as Agency Orders that are 50 standard option contracts or 500
mini-option contracts or more in current Rule 515A(a)(1)(ii).
Similarly, for auto-match submissions, the Exchange will discontinue
the requirement that Agency Orders for less

than 50 contracts or 500 mini-option contracts to be $0.01 increment or
better than the NBBO in current Rule 515A(a)(2)(i)(A). As a result, for
auto-match submissions, all Agency Orders regardless of their size will
be stopped at the better of the NBBO or the Agency Order's limit price.
The Exchange notes that the requirement will remain unchanged for both
single price submissions and auto-match that if the MBBO on the same
side of the market as the Agency Order represents a limit order on the
Book the stop price must be at least $0.01 increment better than the
booked order's limit price.\7\ The Exchange notes that orders on the
Book on the opposite side of the market as the Agency Order that are
priced at the MBBO when the Agency Order has a stop price equal to the
opposite order, will be executed in the same manner as today for orders
more than 50 contracts or 500 mini-option contracts in accordance to
the priority rules for PRIME in Rule 515A(a)(2)(iii). The Exchange
notes that other exchanges provide the same functionality.\8\ Priority
rules for PRIME will remain unchanged with Priority Customers
continuing to have priority at each price level in accordance with Rule
515A(a)(2)(iii). After Priority Customer interest at a given price
point has been satisfied, remaining contracts will be allocated in
accordance with the priority rules set forth in Rule 515A(a)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Exchange Rule 515A(a)(2)(i)(A).
    \8\ See PHLX Rule 1080(n); ISE Rule 723.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples show how allocations will be allocated at
the conclusion of the Prime Auction with the proposed changes.
Example 1--Single Price Submission
NBBO = $1.15-$1.20 200 x 200
BBO = $1.15-$1.20 100 x 100
Agency Order to buy 100 contracts with a limit price of $1.20
    Initiating Member's Contra Order selling 100 contracts with a
single stop price of $1.20
    RFR sent identifying the option, side and size, with initiating
price of $1.20 \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange notes that under the current Rule the
initiating price would have been $1.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (Auction Starts)
     @110 milliseconds MM1 response received, AOC eQuote to
Sell 5 at $1.17
     @230 milliseconds MM4 response received, AOC eQuote to
Sell 100 at $1.20
     @450 milliseconds MM3 response received, AOC eQuote to
Sell 40 at $1.22
     500 milliseconds (Auction Ends)
    Under this scenario the Agency Order would be executed as follows:
    1. 5 contracts trade with MM1 @$1.17
    2. 40 contracts trade with the Initiating Member's Contra Order
@$1.20 (This satisfies their 40% participation guarantee)
    3. 55 contracts trade with MM4 @$1.20
Example 2--Single Price Submission, Less Than 50 Contracts
NBBO = $1.15-$1.20 200 x 200
BBO = $1.15-$1.20 100 x 100
Agency Order to buy 30 contracts with a limit price of $1.20
    Initiating Member's Contra Order selling 30 contracts with a single
stop price of $1.20
    RFR sent identifying the option, side and size, with initiating
price of $1.20 \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange notes that under the current Rule the
initiating price would have been $1.24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (Auction Starts)

     @110 milliseconds MM1 response received, AOC eQuote to
Sell 5 at $1.17
     @230 milliseconds MM4 response received, AOC eQuote to
Sell 5 at $1.18
     @450 milliseconds MM3 response received, AOC eQuote to
Sell 10 at $1.20
     500 milliseconds (Auction Ends)
    Under this scenario the Agency Order would be executed as follows:
    1. 5 contracts trade with MM1 @$1.17
    2. 5 contracts trade with MM4 @$1.18
    3. 12 contracts trade with the Initiating Member's Contra Order
@$1.20 (This satisfies their 40% participation guarantee)
    4. 8 contracts trade with MM3 @$1.20 (This fills the entire Agency
Order)
Example 3--Auto-Match
NBBO = $1.15-$1.25 200 x 200
BBO = $1.15-$1.25 100 x 100
Agency Order to buy 50 contracts with a limit price of $1.25
Initiating Member's Contra Order selling 50 contracts auto-match
RFR sent identifying the option, side and size, with initiating price
of $1.25 (Auction Starts)

     @ 150 milliseconds MM2 response received, AOC eQuote to
Sell 5 at $1.17
     @ 230 milliseconds MM4 response received, AOC eQuote to
Sell 10 at $1.18
     @ 450 milliseconds MM3 response received, AOC eQuote to
Sell 40 at $1.20
     500 milliseconds (Auction Ends)
    Under this scenario the Agency Order would be executed as follows:
    1. 5 contracts trade with MM2 @ $1.17
    2. 5 contracts trade with Contra Order @ $1.17 (due to auto-match)
    3. 10 contracts trade with MM4 @ $1.18
    4. 10 contracts trade with Contra Order @ $1.18 (due to auto-match)
    5. 8 contracts trade with Contra Order @ $1.20 (due to auto-match
of 40% of the remainder of the order participation guarantee)
    6. 12 contracts trade with MM3 @ $1.20 (This fills the entire
Agency Order)
Example 4--Auto-Match, Agency Order Entered Without a Limit Price, Less
Than 50 Contracts
NBBO = $1.15-$1.25 200 x 200
BBO = $1.15-$1.25 100 x 100
Agency Order to buy 50 contracts without a limit price
Initiating Member's Contra Order selling 30 contracts auto-match
RFR sent identifying the option, side and size, with initiating price
of $1.25 (Auction Starts)

     @ 150 milliseconds MM2 response received, AOC eQuote to
Sell 5 at $1.17
     @ 230 milliseconds MM4 response received, AOC eQuote to
Sell 5 at $1.18
     @ 450 milliseconds MM3 response received, AOC eQuote to
Sell 30 at $1.20
     500 milliseconds (Auction Ends)
    Under this scenario the Agency Order would be executed as follows:
    1. 5 contracts trade with MM2 @ $1.17
    2. 5 contracts trade with Contra Order @ $1.17 (due to auto-match)
    3. 5 contracts trade with MM4 @ $1.18
    4. 5 contracts trade with Contra Order @ $1.18 (due to auto-match)
    5. 4 contracts trade with Contra Order @ $1.20 (due to auto-match
of 40% of the remainder of the order participation guarantee)
    6. 6 contracts trade with MM3 @ $1.20 (This fills the entire Agency
Order)
    While the removal of the requirement that Agency Orders for less
than 50 contracts or 500 mini-option contracts to be $0.01 increment or
better than the NBBO, removes the guarantee of price improvement in a
limited instance, specifically when a PRIME Order is for fewer than 50
contracts and MIAX is already present at the NBBO at the commencement
of the Auction, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
will benefit customers because it will encourage the entry of more
orders into PRIME, thus it is more likely that such orders may receive
price improvement. Similar price improvement mechanisms on the ISE,
BOX, and PHLX do not guarantee price improvement over the NBBO today.
The BOX PIP mechanism and PHLX PIXL allow orders of any size to be
stopped at the NBBO or better which also does not guarantee price
improvement.\11\ As

noted above, the requirement will remain unchanged for both single
price submissions and auto-match that if the MBBO on the same side of
the market as the Agency Order represents a limit order on the Book the
stop price must be at least $0.01 increment better than the booked
order's limit price.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70654 (October 10,
2013), 78 FR 62891 (October 22, 2013) (SR-PHLX-2013-76).
    \12\ See Exchange Rule 515A(a)(2)(1)(A)[sic]. See also PHLX Rule
1080(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes using the same exact allocation method, as it
does today for Agency Orders of 50 contracts or 500 mini-options or
greater, is a fair distribution because the Contra-side Order provides
significant value to the market. The Initiating Member guarantees the
Agency Order the opportunity for price improvement, and is subject to
market risk while the order is exposed to other market participants.
The Initiating Member may not change or cancel its order once the PRIME
Auction commences. Other market participants are free to modify or
cancel their quotes and orders at any time during the auction. The
Exchange believes that the Initiating Member provides an important role
in facilitating the price improvement opportunity for market
participants.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will attract new
order flow that might not currently be afforded any price improvement
opportunity. Moreover, the Exchange notes that other competing options
exchanges currently have rules that allow it [sic] to commence its
[sic] price improvement auction, at a price equal to the NBBO.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See BOX Rules Chapter V, Section 18(e); PHLX Rule 1080(n);
ISE Rule 723.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that because there is no rational need for
volume differentiation, and as there is a competitive disadvantage to
the Exchange in continuing differentiation, it is appropriate to
discontinue the requirement that Agency Orders for less than 50
contracts or 500 mini-option contracts to be $0.01 increment or better
than the NBBO and thereby simplify the way PRIME operates.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt the proposed changes to the size
requirements subject to a Pilot Program ending July 18, 2015, pursuant
to which the Exchange will periodically submit reports based on the
comprehensive list of the data that the Exchange represented that it
will collect in order to aid the Commission in its evaluation of the
PRIME that incorporates the changes proposed.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Proposed Rule 515A, Interpretations and Policies .08. A
comprehensive list of the data that the Exchange represented that it
will collect is available in Exhibit 3 of SR-MIAX-2014-23. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 72009 (April 23, 2014), 79 FR
24032 (April 29, 2014) (SR-MIAX-2014-20); 72418 (June 18, 2014), 79
FR 35833 (June 24, 2014) (SR-MIAX-2014-23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) \15\ of the Act in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \16\ of the Act in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposal will result in
more orders of less than 50 contracts being executed in PRIME, thus
providing an increased probability of price improvement for small
orders. By removing the requirement as proposed, market participants
would be incentivized to introduce more customer orders to PRIME for
the opportunity to receive price improvement. Furthermore, Priority
Customers will continue to have priority at each price level in
accordance with Rule 515A(a)(2)(iii). In particular, the Exchange
believes that using the same allocation process as is used today for
Agency Orders of 50 contracts or greater, is fair and equitable because
of the value the Initiating Member brings to the market place.
Specifically, by stopping the Agency Order at or better than the NBBO,
the Initiating Member facilitates a process that protects investors and
is in the public interest by providing an opportunity for price
improvement. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
appropriate in the price improvement auctions are widely recognized by
market participants as invaluable, both as a tool to access liquidity,
and a mechanism to help meet their best execution obligations. The
proposed rule change will further the ability of market participants to
carry out these strategies. Finally, as noted above, the proposed
changes are a competitive response to how price improvement auctions on
other exchanges currently operate and with this proposal, the Exchange
will be on a more equal footing to compete with other exchanges for
orders to be executed in the PRIME.

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. The Exchange's proposal to
amend its rules regarding the start price of a PRIME Auction will not
impose a burden on competition because it will increase the number of
orders that may be executed in the PRIME and thereby receive price
improvement opportunities that were not previously available to them.
The PRIME Auction is designed to increase competition for order flow on
the Exchange in a manner intended to be beneficial to investors seeking
to effect option orders with an opportunity to access additional
liquidity and receive price improvement. The Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily direct order flow to competing venues who offer similar
functionality. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the
Auctions are pro-competitive by providing market participants with
functionality that is similar to that of other options exchanges.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \17\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \18\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of 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, as modified by Amendment No. 1, 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-MIAX-2014-56 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-MIAX-2014-56. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2014-56 and should be
submitted on or before December 10, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-27311 Filed 11-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 61 (Monday, March 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18024-18025]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06986]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER14-1548-000]

Cooper Mountain Solar 3, 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
Cooper Mountain Solar 3, 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 14, 2014.
    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
5 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 24, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-06986 Filed 3-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46828-46829]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19541]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2011-0011]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request, OMB No. 1660-0061; Federal Assistance to
Individuals and Households Programs

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; 30-day notice and request for comments; extension,
without change, of a currently approved information collection; OMB No.
1660-0061; FEMA Form 010-0-11 (previously FEMA Form 90-153),
Administrative Option Agreement for the Other Needs provision of
Individuals and Households Program, (IHP); FEMA Form 010-0-12, Request
for Continued Assistance (Application for Continued Temporary Housing
Assistance).

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of

respondents, the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources
used by respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data
collection instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 2, 2011.

ADDRESSES: 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 Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA
20598-3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information

    Title: Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households Programs.
    Type of information collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0061.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 010-0-11 (previously FEMA Form
90-153), Administrative Option Agreement for the Other Needs provision
of Individuals and Households Program, (IHP); FEMA Form 010-0-12,
Request for Continued Assistance (Application for Continued Temporary
Housing Assistance).
    Abstract: The Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households
Program (IHP) enhances applicants' ability to request approval of late
applications, request continued assistance, and appeal program
decisions. Similarly, it allows States to partner with FEMA for
delivery of disaster assistance under the ``Other Needs'' provision of
the IHP through Administrative Option Agreements and Administration
Plans addressing the level of managerial and resource support
necessary.
    Affected Public: Individuals or Households; State, Local or Tribal
Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 321,042.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Hour Burden per Respondent: Request for Approval
of Late Registration, 45 minutes; Request for Continued Assistance,
FEMA Form 010-0-12, 1 hour; Appeal of Program Decision, 45 minutes;
Administrative Option Agreement (for the other needs provision of IHP),
FEMA Form 010-0-11 (previously FF 90-153), 1 hour; Development of State
Administrative Plan for the other needs provision of IHP, 2 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 500,803 hours.
    Estimated Cost: There is no capital, start-up, operation or
maintenance cost associated with this collection.

    Dated: July 8, 2011.
Lesia M. Banks,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2011-19541 Filed 8-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 116 (Thursday, June 16, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39236-39237]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14097]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0124; FRL-9946-37-Region 9]

Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Eastern Kern Air
Pollution Control District and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management
District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District
(YSAQMD) and Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD)
portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions concern, respectively, the definition of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and emissions of VOCs from the surface coating
operations of wood products. We are approving local rules that regulate
these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by July 18, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2016-0124 at http://www.regulations.gov, or email to

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions
(audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The
written comment is considered the official comment and should discuss
all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission
(i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional
submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3024<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA. This proposal addresses the following local
rules: EKAPCD Rule 410.9 and YSAQMD Rule 1.1. In the Rules and
Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are approving these
local rules in a direct final action without prior proposal because we
believe these SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive
adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based
on this proposed rule.
    We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not
receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further
information, please see the direct final action.

    Dated: May 3, 2016.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2016-14097 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 78 (Wednesday, April 22, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22378-22380]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07474]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2019-0400; FRL-10007-36-Region 7]

Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Removal of Control of Emissions From
Bakery Ovens

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Missouri on December 3, 2018, and supplemented by letter on
May 22, 2019. Missouri requests that the EPA remove from its SIP a rule
related to control of emissions from bakery ovens in the Kansas City,
Missouri area. This rescission does not have an adverse effect on air
quality. The EPA's proposed approval of this rule revision is in
accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 22, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2019-0400 to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Written
Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Stone, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number (913) 551-
7714; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Written Comments
II. What is being addressed in this document?
III. Background
IV. What is the EPA's analysis of Missouri's SIP revision request?
V. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
VI. What action is the EPA taking?
VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2019-
0400 at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. What is being addressed in this document?

    The EPA is proposing to approve the removal of 10 Code of State
Regulation (CSR) 10-2.360, Control of Emissions from Bakery Ovens, from
the Missouri SIP.
    According to the May 22, 2019, letter from the Missouri Department
of Natural Resources, available in the docket for this proposed action,
Missouri rescinded 10 CSR 10-2.360, Control of Emissions from Bakery
Ovens because the only source subject to the

rule ceased operations in 2001. The state asserts in their submission
to the Agency that this rule is no longer necessary for attainment and
maintenance of the 1979, 1997, or 2008 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone.

III. Background

    The EPA established a 1-hour ozone NAAQS in 1971. 36 FR 8186 (April
30, 1971). On March 3, 1978, the EPA designated Clay, Platte and
Jackson counties (hereinafter referred to in this document as the
``Kansas City Area'') in nonattainment of the 1971 1-hour ozone
NAAQS,\1\ as required by the CAA Amendments of 1977. 43 FR 8962 (March
3, 1978). On February 8, 1979, the EPA revised the 1-hour ozone NAAQS,
referred to as the 1979 ozone NAAQS. 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). On
February 20, 1985, the EPA notified Missouri that the SIP was
substantially inadequate (hereinafter referred to as the ``SIP Call'')
to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Kansas City Area. See 50 FR
26198 (July 25, 1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Missouri's May 22, 2019 letter incorrectly states that the
Kansas City area was designated as a nonattainment area for the 1979
ozone NAAQS in 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address the SIP Call, Missouri submitted an attainment
demonstration on May 21, 1986, and volatile organic compound (VOC)
control regulations on December 18, 1987. See 54 FR 10322 (March 13,
1989) and 54 FR 46232 (November 2, 1989). The EPA subsequently approved
the revised control strategy for the Kansas City Area. Id. The EPA
redesignated the Kansas City Area to attainment of the 1979 1-hour
ozone standard on July 23, 1992. 57 FR 27939 (June 23, 1992). Pursuant
to section 175A of the CAA, the first 10-year maintenance period for
the 1-hour ozone standard began on July 23, 1992, the effective date of
the redesignation approval.
    Following the 1992 redesignation, a large uncontrolled commercial
bakery located in Kansas City was identified by the state of Missouri.
Since bakery operations emit significant amounts of ethanol, which is a
VOC, Missouri developed a regulation based on EPA's Alternative Control
Technology (ACT) \2\ document which is designed to provide states with
background information to assist them in developing RACT rules for this
source category. Unlike a control technique guideline (CTG) document,
however, the Bakery Oven ACT does not identify a presumptive norm for
RACT. An achievable control level is identified, and states are given
the flexibility to select control strategies. 10 Code of State
Regulation (CSR) 10-2.360, Control of Emissions from Bakery Ovens was
proposed June 6, 1995, and became effective in Missouri on November 30,
1995. The State submitted the rule as a SIP revision March 6, 1996. The
EPA proposed to approve the SIP revision. 61 FR 40591 (August 5, 1996).
As required by CAA section 172(b)(2), the rule was approved into the
Missouri SIP. 63 FR 38755 (July 20, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/ctg_act/199212_voc_epa453_r-92-017_bakery_ovens.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted, 10 CSR 10-2.360, Control of Emissions from Bakery Ovens,
was approved into the Missouri SIP as a RACT rule on July 20, 1998. 63
FR 38755 (July 20, 1998). At the time that the rule was approved into
the SIP, 10 CSR 10-2.360 applied to new or modified or existing
commercial bakeries whose potential emissions of VOCs are greater than
one hundred (100) tons per year (tpy) in Clay, Jackson and Platte
Counties in Missouri.
    By letter dated December 3, 2018, Missouri requested that the EPA
remove 10 CSR 10-2.360 from the SIP. Section 110(l) of the CAA
prohibits EPA from approving a SIP revision that interferes with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress (RFP), or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. On May
22, 2019, the state supplemented its SIP revision with a letter in
order to address the requirements of section 110(l) of the CAA.

IV. What is the EPA's analysis of Missouri's SIP revision request?

    In its May 22, 2019 letter, Missouri states that it intended its
RACT rules, such as 10 CSR 10-2.360, to solely apply to existing
sources in accordance with section 172(c)(1) of the CAA \3\. Missouri
clarified that although the applicability section of 10 CSR 10-2.360
states that the rule applies to new and existing installations (located
within the Clay, Jackson and Platte Counties), the rule applied to a
single existing source, the Wonder Bread factory in Kansas City,
Missouri. This assertion is confirmed in the State Implementation Plan
record in which the EPA approved this rule into the SIP in 1998.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The EPA agrees with Missouri's interpretation of CAA Section
172(c)(1) in regards to whether RACT is required for existing
sources, but also notes that the State regulation establishing RACT
may apply to new sources as well, dependent upon the State
regulation's language.
    \4\ https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1998-07-20/html/98-19134.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Missouri, in its May 22, 2019 letter, indicates that the Wonder
Bread factory in Kansas City, Missouri ceased operations in 2001 and
the emitting equipment was subsequently decommissioned. The EPA has
confirmed that the facility was completely dismantled and is no longer
operating.
    As stated above, Missouri clarified that 10 CSR 10-2.360 may be
removed from the SIP because section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires RACT
for existing sources, and because 10 CSR 10-2.360 was applicable to a
single source that has permanently ceased operations and therefore the
rule no longer reduces VOC emissions. Because the Wonder Bread factory
in Kansas City, Missouri was the only source that was subject to the
rule, and because the facility has been shut-down and dismantled and
since 2001 no new bakery oven facilities have commenced operation in
the area since Missouri developed this rule, the EPA is proposing to
find that the rule no longer provides an emission reduction benefit to
the Kansas City Area and is proposing to remove it from the SIP.
    Missouri's May 22, 2019 letter states that any new sources or major
modifications of existing sources are subject to new source review
(NSR) permitting. Under NSR, a new major source or major modification
of an existing source with a (potential to emit) PTE of 250 tons per
year (tpy) or more of any NAAQS pollutant is required to obtain a
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit when the area is
in attainment or unclassifiable, which requires an analysis of Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) in addition to an air quality
analysis and an additional impacts analysis. Sources with a PTE greater
than 100 tpy, but less than 250 tpy, are required to obtain a minor
permit in accordance with Missouri's New Source Review permitting
program, which is approved into the SIP.\5\ The EPA agrees with this
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA's latest approval of Missouri's NSR permitting program
rule was published in the Federal Register on October 11, 2016. 81
FR 70025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Missouri's May 22, 2019, letter also includes information
concerning ozone air quality in the Kansas City area from 1996 through
2018 that indicates a downward trend in monitored ozone design values.
Missouri states that despite promulgation of more stringent ozone NAAQS
in 1997, 2008 and 2015, the Kansas City area continues to monitor
attainment. The EPA has confirmed that certified ambient air quality
data for Kansas City Area as monitored at the Rocky Creek, Clay County
State and local air monitoring station is compliant with the most
recent ozone standard--the 2015 ozone

NAAQS.\6\ The 2016-2018 design value for that monitor is 70 parts per
million.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In accordance 40 CFR part 50.19(b), the 2015 8-hour primary
O3 NAAQS is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site
when 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-
hour average O3 concentration is less than or equal to
0.070 ppm, as determined in accordance with appendix U to 40 CFR
part 50.
    \7\ The monitoring data was reported, quality assured, and
certified in accordance with the requirements set forth in 40 CFR
part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because Missouri has demonstrated that removal of 10 CSR 10-2.360
will not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS, Reasonable Further
Progress (RRF) \8\ or any other applicable requirement of the CAA
because the single source subject to the rule has permanently ceased
operations and removal of the rule will not cause VOC emissions to
increase, and any new source would be required to go through the
appropriate permitting process that is protective of the NAAQS, the EPA
proposes to approve removal of 10 CSR 10-2.360 from the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ RFP is not applicable to the Kansas City Area because the
area is in attainment of all applicable ozone standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The
State provided public notice on this SIP revision from February 28,
2018, to April 5, 2018 and held a public hearing on March 29, 2018.
Missouri received five comments from the EPA that related to Missouri's
lack of an adequate demonstration that the rule could be removed from
the SIP in accordance with section 110(l) of the CAA. Missouri's May
22, 2019 letter addressed the EPA's comments. In addition, the revision
meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section
110 and implementing regulations.

VI. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is proposing to approve Missouri's request to rescind 10
CSR 2.360 from the SIP because the rule applied to a single source that
has permanently ceased operations. Any new sources or major
modifications of existing sources in the Kansas City Area are subject
to NSR permitting. Additionally, the maintenance period for the 1979
ozone NAAQS for the Kansas City Area ended in 2014 and the area
continues to monitor attainment of the 2015 Ozone NAAQS. We are
processing this as a proposed action because we are soliciting comments
on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after
consideration of any comments.

VII. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is proposing to amend regulatory text
that includes incorporation by reference. As described in the proposed
amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below, the EPA is proposing to
remove provisions of the EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations from the
Missouri State Implementation Plan, which is incorporated by reference
in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.

     Dated: April 3, 2020.
Edward Chu,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

Sec.  52.1320  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by removing
the entry ``10-2.360'' under the heading ``Chapter 2-Air Quality
Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the Kansas City
Metropolitan Area''.

[FR Doc. 2020-07474 Filed 4-21-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


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

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited.  As a high school teacher this time of year is extremely busy for me and I need more time to devote to my research into your regulation. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I am currently in contact with my state’s senators, representatives, and state legislature.  I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback and to ask for an additional few months versus the years it took the FDA I feel is a very reasonable request.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes/vaporizers as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I feel better than I ever have as e-cigarettes/vaporizers contain none of the toxins that regular combustible tobacco products have in them.  I find it an amazing time to live in where I can obtain my nicotine without having to smoke traditional cigarettes, take extremely powerful and often dangerous medications, or wear a patch that has a very large failure rate.  Thus far vaporizers have been the only successful harm reduction product to actually work for me, and I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 187 (Thursday, September 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50821-50822]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20914]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-78-000]

PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Penneast Pipeline Project
Amendment

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the
PennEast Pipeline Project Amendment (Amendment Project), proposed by

PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC (PennEast) in the above-referenced
docket. PennEast proposes to amend their certificate of public
convenience and necessity for the previously approved PennEast Pipeline
Project (Docket No. CP15-558-000) that was issued by the Commission on
January 19, 2018. The Amendment Project would include four
modifications to adjust certain aspects of the design, alignment,
workspace, and construction methods for the PennEast Pipeline Project
in Luzerne, Carbon, Monroe, and Northampton counties, Pennsylvania.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Project in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC
staff concludes that approval of the proposed Project, with appropriate
mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and U.S. Department of Agriculture--Natural Resources
Conservation Service participated as cooperating agencies in the
preparation of the EA. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or
special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the
proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis.
    The Amendment Project would consist of the following four proposed
modifications to the previously approved PennEast Pipeline Project, all
in Pennsylvania:
     Saylor Avenue Realignment [Plains Township (Twp.), Luzerne
County]--a 0.4-mile-long pipeline realignment between milepost (MP)
8.5R3 and MP 8.9R3 to address construction feasibility and land use
impacts;
     Interstate 81 Workspace Adjustment (Plains Twp., Luzerne
County)--a revised horizontal directional drill (HDD) design and
workspace adjustment between MP 10.0R2 and 10.4R2 due to historic
mines;
     Appalachian Trail PPL Electric Utilities Crossing
Realignment (Lower Towamensing Twp., Carbon County, Eldred Twp., Monroe
County, and Moore Twp., Northampton County)--a 5.5-mile-long pipeline
re-route from MP 48.6R2 to MP 53.6R3 to collocate the crossing of the
Appalachian National Scenic Trail along an existing utility corridor,
relocation of the Blue Mountain Interconnect, and addition of a 0.5-
mile-long, 4-inch-diameter Blue Mountain Lateral; and
     Freemansburg Avenue Realignment (Bethlehem Twp.,
Northampton County)--a 0.6-mile-long pipeline realignment between MP
69.7R3 and MP 70.8R3 and redesign of construction method from HDD to
open cut to avoid karst topography.
    The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability to
federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies;
elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native
American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested
individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the Project
area. The EA is only available in electronic format. It may be viewed
and downloaded from the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on the
Environmental Documents page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis.asp). In addition, the EA may be accessed by using the
eLibrary link on the FERC's website. Click on the eLibrary link
(https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp), click on General
Search, and enter the docket number in the ``Docket Number'' field,
excluding the last three digits (i.e. CP19-78). Be sure you have
selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at (866) 208-
3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
should focus on the EA's disclosure and discussion of potential
environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid
or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the
more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the
opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on
this project, it is important that we receive your comments in
Washington, DC on or before 5:00pm Eastern Time on October 21, 2019.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the
eFiling feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(CP19-78-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a
motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Motions to intervene are more
fully described at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or
judicial review of the Commission's decision. The Commission may grant
affected landowners and others with environmental concerns intervenor
status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and
direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can adequately
represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you
intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your
comments considered.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link
also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-20914 Filed 9-25-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 157)]
[Notices]
[Page 41437-41438]
[DOCID:fr17au09-85]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-P-0443]

Determination That DEMADEX (Torsemide) Injection, 20 Milligrams/2
Milliliter (10 Milligrams/Milliliter) and 50 Milligrams/5 Milliliter
(10 Milligrams/Milliliter), Was Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of
Safety or Effectiveness

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing its
determination that DEMADEX (torsemide) injection, 20 milligrams (mg)/2
milliliter (mL) (10 mg/mL) and 50 mg/5 mL (10 mg/mL), was not withdrawn
from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination
will allow FDA to approve abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for
torsemide injection, 20 mg/2mL (10 mg/mL) and 50 mg/5 mL (10 mg/mL), if
all other legal and regulatory requirements are met.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nikki Mueller, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 6312, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-3601.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price
Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417
(the 1984 amendments)), which authorized the approval of duplicate
versions of drug products approved under an ANDA procedure. ANDA
applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which
they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the
same strength and dosage form as the ``listed drug,'' which is a
version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do
not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary
to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA). The only clinical
data required in an ANDA are data to show that the drug that is the
subject of the ANDA is bioequivalent to the listed drug.
    The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which
requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes
this list as part of the ``Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic
Equivalence Evaluations,'' which is known generally as the ``Orange
Book.'' Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the
agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for
reasons of safety or effectiveness, or if FDA determines that the
listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or
effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162). Under Sec.  314.161(a)(1) (21 CFR
314.161(a)(1)), the agency must determine whether a listed drug was
withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness before an
ANDA that refers to that listed drug may be approved. FDA may not
approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.
    PharmaForce, Inc., submitted a citizen petition dated August 5,
2008 (Docket No. FDA-2008-P-0443), under 21 CFR 10.30 requesting that
the agency determine whether DEMADEX (torsemide) injection, 20 mg/2 mL
(10 mg/mL) and 50 mg/5 mL (10 mg/mL), was withdrawn from sale for
reasons of safety or effectiveness. DEMADEX (torsemide) injection is
the subject of NDA 20-137, held by Roche Pharmaceuticals (Roche) and
was initially approved on August 23, 1993. DEMADEX is indicated for the
treatment of edema associated with congestive heart failure, renal
disease, or hepatic disease. Roche notified FDA on June 16, 2008, that
it was no longer marketing DEMADEX (torsemide) injection, 20 mg/2 mL
(10 mg/mL) and 50 mg/5 mL (10 mg/mL), and the drug product was moved to
the ``Discontinued Drug Product List'' section of the Orange Book.
    FDA has reviewed its records and, under Sec.  314.161, has
determined that DEMADEX (torsemide) injection, 20 mg/2 mL (10 mg/mL)
and 50 mg/5 mL (10

mg/mL), was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or
effectiveness. The petitioner identified no data or other information
suggesting that DEMADEX (torsemide) injection, 20 mg/2 mL (10 mg/mL)
and 50 mg/5 mL (10 mg/mL), was withdrawn for reasons of safety or
effectiveness. FDA has independently evaluated relevant literature and
data for possible postmarketing adverse events and has found no
information that would indicate that this product was withdrawn from
sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. Accordingly, the agency
will continue to list DEMADEX (torsemide) injection, 20 mg/2 mL (10 mg/
mL) and 50 mg/5 mL (10 mg/mL), in the ``Discontinued Drug Product
List'' section of the Orange Book. The ``Discontinued Drug Product
List'' delineates, among other items, drug products that have been
discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or
effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to DEMADEX (torsemide) injection, 20
mg/2 mL (10 mg/mL) and 50 mg/5 mL (10 mg/mL), may be approved by the
agency if all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval
of ANDAs are met. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product
should be revised to meet current standards, the agency will advise
ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.

    Dated: August 7, 2009.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E9-19641 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: May 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 102)]
[Notices]
[Page 29775-29776]
[DOCID:fr27my10-80]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0001]

Food and Drug Administration

Food Labeling Workshop; Public Workshop

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Office of Regulatory
Affairs, Southwest Regional Small Business Representative (SWR SBR)
Program, in collaboration with the University of Arkansas (UA), is
announcing a public workshop entitled ``Food Labeling Workshop.'' This
public workshop is intended to provide information about FDA food
labeling regulations and other related subjects to the regulated
industry, particularly small businesses and startups.
    Date and Time: This public workshop will be held on August 4 and 5,
2010, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: The public workshop will be held at the Continuing
Education Center, 2 East Center St., Fayetteville, AR (located
downtown).
    Contact: David Arvelo, Food and Drug Administration, Southwest
Regional Office, 4040 North Central Expressway, suite 900, Dallas, TX
75204,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For information on accommodation options, visit http://
www.uark.edu/ua/foodpro/Workshops/Food_Labeling_Workshop.html or
contact Steven C. Seideman, 2650 North Young Ave., Institute of Food
Science & Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72704,
479-575-4221, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Registration: You are encouraged to register by July 21, 2010. UA
has a $250 registration fee to cover the cost of facilities, materials,
and breaks. There is no registration fee for FDA employees. Seats are
limited; please submit your registration as soon as possible. Course
space will be filled in the order of receipt of registration. Those
accepted into the course will receive confirmation. Registration will
close after the course is filled. Registration at the site is not
guaranteed but may be possible on a space available basis on the day of
the public workshop beginning at 8 a.m. The cost of registration at the
site is $350 payable to: ``The University of Arkansas.'' If you need
special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Steven C.
Seideman (see Contact) at least 14 days in advance.
    Registration Form Instructions: To register online, please visit
http://www.uark.edu/ua/foodpro/Workshops/Food_Labeling_Workshop.html
or submit your full name, business or organization name, complete
mailing address, telephone number, e-mail address, optional fax number,
and any special accommodations required due to a disability, along with
a check or money order for $250 payable to the ``The University of
Arkansas.'' Mail to: Institute of Food Science & Engineering,
University of Arkansas, 2650 North Young Ave., Fayetteville, AR 72704.
    Transcripts: Transcripts of the public workshop will not be
available due to the format of this workshop. Course handouts may be
obtained in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM, after submission of a Freedom
of Information request. Written requests are to be sent to Division of
Freedom of Information (HFI-35), Office of Management Programs, Food
and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 6-30, Rockville, MD
20857.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This public workshop is being held in
response to the large volume of food labeling inquiries from small food
manufacturers and startups originating from the area covered by FDA's
Dallas

District Office. The SWR SBR presents these workshops to help achieve
objectives set forth in section 406 of the Food and Drug Administration
Modernization Act of 1997 (21 U.S.C. 393), which include working
closely with stakeholders and maximizing the availability and clarity
of information to stakeholders and the public. This is consistent with
the purposes of the SBR Program, which are in part to respond to
industry inquiries, develop educational materials, sponsor workshops
and conferences to provide firms, particularly small businesses, with
firsthand working knowledge of FDA's requirements and compliance
policies. This workshop is also consistent with the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), as
outreach activities by government agencies to small businesses.
    The goal of this public workshop is to present information that
will enable manufacturers and regulated industry to better comply with
labeling requirements, especially in light of growing concerns about
obesity and food allergens. Information presented will be based on
agency position as articulated through regulation, compliance policy
guides, and information previously made available to the public. This
is a hands-on workshop. Topics to be discussed at the workshop include:
(1) Mandatory label elements, (2) nutrition labeling requirements, (3)
the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004, (4)
voluntary health and nutrient content claims and (5) special labeling
issues such as exemptions and current topics on food labeling and
nutrition. FDA expects that participation in this public workshop will
provide regulated industry with greater understanding of the regulatory
and policy perspectives on food labeling and increase voluntary
compliance.

    Dated: May 21, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-12740 Filed 5-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 23, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 35385]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15574]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG19-150-000.
    Applicants: East Blackland Solar Project 1 LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of East Blackland Solar Project 1 LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190717-5027.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: EG19-151-000.
    Applicants: RE Maplewood LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of RE Maplewood LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190717-5030.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: EG19-152-000.
    Applicants: RE Maplewood 2 LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of RE Maplewood 2 LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190717-5031.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/19.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2344-001.
    Applicants: Headwaters Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Report Filing: Refund Report Filing to be effective N/
A.
    Filed Date: 7/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20190716-5071.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-373-001.
    Applicants: Paulding Wind Farm II LLC.
    Description: Report Filing: Refund Report Filing to be effective N/
A.
    Filed Date: 7/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20190716-5072.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1357-000.
    Applicants: GridLiance High Plains LLC.
    Description: Motion to Intervene and Consolidate and Formal
Challenge of Xcel Energy Services Inc. to March 15, 2019 Annual
Informational filing by GridLiance High Plains, LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/1/19.
    Accession Number: 20190701-5344.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1802-000.
    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company.
    Description: Response of Portland General Electric Company to June
25, 2019 Letter requesting additional information.
    Filed Date: 7/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20190716-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2029-001.
    Applicants: Mankato Energy Center II, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Mankato Energy Center
II Reactive Supply Service Tariff Filing to be effective 6/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 7/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190717-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2408-000.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Joint Use
Agreement with MidAmerican to be effective 9/15/2019.
    Filed Date: 7/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20190716-5107.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2409-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-07-17_SA 2414 ATC-DPC
2nd Rev T-T to be effective 7/15/2019.
    Filed Date: 7/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190717-5049.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2410-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-07-17_SA 3331 WPSC-ATC
E&P (J886) to be effective 7/15/2019.
    Filed Date: 7/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190717-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2411-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ATSI submits 5 ECSAs,
Service Agreement Nos. 5208, 5331, 5332, 5339, and 5392 to be effective
9/16/2019.
    Filed Date: 7/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190717-5069.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/19.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF19-1362-000.
    Applicants: Orbit Bloom Energy, LLC.
    Description: Application for Certification of Qualifying
Cogeneration Facility Status of Orbit Bloom Energy, LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/12/19.
    Accession Number: 20190712-5210.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/19.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 17, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-15574 Filed 7-22-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P