[Federal Register: November 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 230)]
[Notices]
[Page 72557]
[DOCID:fr28no08-138]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Agency Information Collection; Activity Under OMB Review; (14 CFR
Part 221--Exemption From Passenger Tariff-Filing Requirements in
Certain Instances and Mandatory Electronic Filing of Residual Passenger
Tariffs)

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), DOT.
    Docket: OST-2008-0259, Pricing and Multilateral Affairs Division.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments; Extension of a currently
approved information collection.

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

    Correction: The 30-day Federal Register Notice is amended to change
the number of responses from 229,200 to 46,000, and change the total
annual burden from 45,840 to 230,000. In the original 30-day notice,
the figures for number of responses and burden hours were transposed.
In addition to correcting the transposition, we are rounding the
figures.
SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public
Law 104-13, (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) this notice announces that the
Information Collection Request, abstracted below, is being forwarded to
the Office of Management and Budget for (notice and request for
comments) of currently approved (Exemption from Passenger Tariff-Filing
Requirements in Certain Instances, and Mandatory Electronic Filing of
Residual Passenger Tariffs). Earlier, a Federal Register Notice with a
60-day comment period was published (September 9, 2008) (Volume 73,
Number 175) (Page 52445-52447). One comment was received from Airline
Tariff Company (ATPCO) that states that it files fares and rules data
electronically with the Department of Transportation (DOT) through a
single industry centralized tool, the ATPCO Government Filing System
(GFS). If a decision is made to continue the current tariff-filing
process, ATPCO believes that a single industry centralized tool is the
best solution, and it will partner with DOT to explore additional
efficiencies.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by December 29, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bernice Gray,<PHONE_NUMBER> or John
Kiser,<PHONE_NUMBER>), Pricing and Multilateral Affairs Division,
Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Room W86-319 or W86-433, Washington, DC 20590. Office
hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Comments: Comments should be sent to OMB: Attention DOT/OST Desk
Officer, Officer of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(e-mail).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control No.: 2106-0009.
    Title: Exemption from Passenger Tariff-filing Requirements in
Certain Instances and Mandatory Electronic Filing of Residual Passenger
Tariffs.
    Respondents: The vast majority of the air carriers filing
international tariffs are large operators with revenues in excess of
several million dollars each year. Small air carriers operating
aircraft with 60 seats or less and 18,000 pounds payload or less that
offer on-demand air-taxi service are not required to file such tariffs.
    Number of Respondents: 148.
    Number of Responses: 46,000.
    Total Annual Burden: 230,000.
    Abstract: Chapter 415 of Title 49 of the United States Code
requires that every air carrier and foreign air carrier file with the
Department of Transportation (DOT), publish and keep open (i.e., post)
for public inspection tariffs showing all ``foreign'' or
``international'' fares, and related charges for air transportation
between points served by it, and any other air carrier or foreign air
carrier when through services, fares and related charges have been
established; and showing, to the extent required by DOT regulations,
all classifications, rules, regulations, practices, and services in
connection with such air transportation. Once tariffs are filed and
approved by DOT, they become a legally binding contract of carriage
between carriers and users of foreign air transportation.
    Part 221 of the Department's Economic Regulations (14 CFR part 221)
set forth specific technical and substantive requirements governing the
filing of tariff material with the DOT Office of International
Aviation's Pricing and Multilateral Affairs Division. A carrier
initiates an electronic tariff filing whenever it wants to amend an
existing tariff for commercial and competitive reasons or when it
desires to file a new one. Electronic tariffs filed pursuant to part
221 are used by carriers, computer reservation systems, travel agents,
DOT, other government agencies and the general public to determine the
prices, rules and related charges for international passenger air
transportation. In addition, DOT needs U.S. and foreign air carrier
passenger tariff information to monitor international air commerce,
carry out carrier route selections and conduct international
negotiations.
    Part 293 exempts carriers from their statutory and regulatory duty
to file international tariffs in many specific markets.
    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of
the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, by
the use of electronic means, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the
request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of
public record.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 20, 2008.
Patricia Lawton,
DOT PRA Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-28277 Filed 11-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-62-P


  MacroButton macIb01 i

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

EPA Registration Division contact: Susan Lewis and<PHONE_NUMBER>

Valent U.S.A. Corporation

3E8182

EPA has received a pesticide petition ([3E8182]) from Valent U.S.A.
Corporation, 1600 Riviera Ave., Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA  94596,
proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by
establishing a tolerance for residues of mandestrobin (S-2200),
(2-[(2,5-dimethylphenoxy)methyl]-α-methoxy-N-methyl-benzeneacetamide)
in or on the raw agricultural commodity small fruit vine climbing except
fuzzy kiwifruit crop subgroup 13-07F, fruit at 5 parts per million
(ppm), juice at 7 ppm and dried fruit at 10 ppm; low growing berry
subgroup 13-07G, fruit at 3 ppm; and rapeseed crop subgroup 20A, seed at
0.6 ppm.  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or
information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of
FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the
submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the
petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the
petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. The nature of residues in crops is well
understood.  Nature of the residue studies (OCSPP Harmonized Guideline
860.1300) were conducted in wheat, lettuce and oilseed rape as
representative crops in order to characterize the fate of S-2200 in all
crop matrices.  Two radiocarbon labeling positions were studied in each
crop, Phenoxy and Benzyl.  Plant metabolism studies have been presented
covering the crop categories of cereal/grass crop (wheat), pulses and
oilseeds (oilseed rape) and leafy crop (lettuce).  The route of
metabolism of S-2200 has been shown to be similar in the three crop
groups, with the extent of metabolism being greater at longer
pre-harvest intervals.  Parent S-2200 was a major component of the
residue in all crops.  Glycoside conjugates of 2-CH2OH-S-2200 and
glycoside and malonyl-glycoside conjugates of 4-OH-S-2200 were major
components of the residue in wheat and oilseed rape commodities, and
De-Xy-S-2200 was also a major component of the residue in wheat grain
and straw.  These metabolites were all found in the lettuce study, but
occurred at levels below 10% TRR.  In addition, glycoside conjugates of
5-CH2OH-S-2200 were observed in the rotational crops in the confined
rotational crop study.

	2. Analytical method. An independently validated analytical method has
been submitted for analyzing parent S-2200 residues with appropriate
sensitivity in all crop commodities for which tolerances are being
requested.

	3. Magnitude of residues. Field trials were carried out to determine
the magnitude of the residue in/on canola, grape and strawberry, and
canola and grape processed fractions.  The number and locations of field
trials were in accordance with OPPTS Guideline 860.1500.  Field trials
were carried out using the maximum label rates, the maximum number of
applications, and the minimum pre-harvest interval (PHI) proposed for
all the crops.  Tolerances are proposed for Small Fruit Vine Climbing
Except Fuzzy Kiwifruit Crop Subgroup 13-07F, fruit at 5 ppm, juice at 7
ppm and dried fruit at 10 ppm; Low Growing Berry Subgroup 13-07G, fruit
at 3 ppm; and Rapeseed Crop Subgroup 20A, seed at 0.6 ppm.  There was no
concentration of residues into the processed fractions of canola,
therefore no separate tolerances are proposed for those fractions.

B. Toxicological Profile

A complete, valid and reliable database of mammalian and genetic
toxicology studies has been submitted to EPA that supports the proposed
tolerances for S-2200 on Rapeseed Subgroup 20A, Small Fruit Vine
Climbing, Except Fuzzy Kiwifruit Subgroup 13-07F and Low Growing Berry
Subgroup 13-07G.

	1. Acute toxicity.  The acute toxicity of technical grade S-2200 is low
by all routes. S-2200TG has a low oral, dermal and inhalation toxicity
to rats. It is considered a non-irritating to the eyes and skin and is
not a skin sensitizer. The battery of acute toxicity studies place
S-2200 in EPAToxicity Category III.

	2. Genotoxicty. In an array of in-vitro and in-vivo genotoxicity
studies compliant with the most recent genetic toxicity testing
strategies, S-2200TG showed no evidence of genotoxicity.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. S-2200TG was examined in a
2 generation reproductive toxicity study in the rat and in developmental
toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit.  In the multigeneration study,
S-2200TG showed no evidence of an effect on fertility or reproductive
function.  In a gavage developmental toxicity study, administration to
pregnant rats at the limit dose elicited a slight reduction in food
consumption over the first 3 days of dosing only. Administration of
S-2200TG by oral gavage to pregnant rabbits elicited no systemic
toxicity to maternal female rabbits.  There was no evidence of
embryotoxicity or developmental effects at any dose level tested.

	4. Subchronic toxicity. S-2200TG was tested in short term repeat dose
dietary toxicity studies up to 90 days in the rat and mouse and up to 1
year in the dog.  Rats and mice tolerated limit doses (up to, or in
excess of, 1000 mg/kg bw/day) without obvious ill-health.  The target
organ in all species was the liver (weight increase and histological
hypertrophy).  Dogs tolerated the upper limit dose least well of the 3
species tested.  In dogs, high dose treatment resulted in marked
retardation of development and weight gain, increased liver weights,
histological pigmentation, centrilobular swelling and fibrosis, with
associated marked blood biochemical changes.  When dietary
concentrations were refined in the 52 week study effects were limited to
altered liver function.  Similar but lesser effects were seen in the rat
and drove the NOAEL in this species.  In addition in the rat, thyroid
follicular hypertrophy and hyaline droplet male nephropathy
(α2-µglobulin) were also seen. The modes of action with respect to the
thyroid follicular cell effects and male nephropathy are shown with
mechanistic studies and in the literature not to be relevant to the
human risk assessment. S-2200TG was not toxic to the immune system in
rats.  The mouse appeared to be the least sensitive species with
increased liver weights only.  S-2200TG elicited no signs of toxicity in
a 28 day repeat dose dermal toxicity study in rats up to the limit dose
of 1000 mg/kg bw day.

The potential for S-2200TG to cause neurotoxicity was assessed in acute
and subchronic neurotoxicity studies.  The only treatment-related
finding in the acute neurotoxicity study was a decrease in mean
locomotor activity, seen at 2000 mg/kg bw at 8 hours post-dose, and was
considered likely attributable to transient systemic toxicity rather
than typical neurotoxicity.  In a 90-day subchronic neurotoxicity study,
no evidence of specific neurotoxicity was found at up to 15,000 ppm.
After 28 days dietary administration, S-2200TG was not toxic to the
immune system in rats.

	5. Chronic toxicity.  In the rat combined chronic toxicity and
carcinogenicity study the NOAEL was driven by decreased body weight
gain, decreased food consumption, alterations in the liver and changes
to blood biochemistry parameters. S-2200TG did not reveal any
carcinogenic potential.  An increased incidence of ovary sex-cord
stromal tumor (SCST) was observed in female rats.  But, the lesions are
unlikely to be direct effects of treatment with S-2200TG and are
considered not toxicologically significant.

In the mouse carcinogenicity study there were no effects on survival or
on the incidence or morphology of tumors to indicate any oncogenic
potential.  In the absence of adverse effects, the NOAEL was set at the
top dose.

	6. Animal metabolism. The absorption, distribution, metabolism and
elimination of [14C]S-2200 were investigated in rats at doses of 5 mg/kg
bw and 1000 mg/kg bw.  At the low dose absorption of S-2200 was rapid
and greater than 90%.  At the high dose, systemic exposure (AUC) to
S-2200 derived radioactivity was sub-proportional, indicating saturation
of absorption processes.  Radioactivity was widely distributed
throughout the body.  There was no evidence of accumulation into
tissues.  There were no significant sex or label differences in the
pharmacokinetic parameters.  Clearance from the plasma was almost
complete by 120 hours post-administration of 5 or 1000 mg/kg bodyweight.
 Excretion into expired air was negligible.  Fecal elimination, via the
bile, was the primary route of elimination.  However, renal elimination
was also important for the excretion of metabolites.  More than 70% of
radioactivity was eliminated within 48 hours of administration.  There
did not appear to be any gender-, dose- or radiolabel related
differences in rates or routes of excretion.  S-2200 was extensively
metabolised to numerous metabolites (unchanged parent formed <0.2% of
administered dose at low dose).  The primary routes of metabolism were
by oxidation and subsequent conjugation with glucuronic acid,
demethylation with subsequent oxidation, or oxidation with subsequent
demethylation.  There was generally no discernible shift in metabolism
at high or repeat doses except in the kidney.  Kidney metabolite
profiles exhibited both gender and repeat dose differences, in the type
and number of metabolites observed.

	7. Metabolite toxicology. In appropriate assays, none of the
metabolites of S-2200:  2-COOH-S-2200, 5-COOH-S-2200, 2-CH2OH-S-2200,
4-OH-S-2200, nor De-Xy-S-2200 was considered to be mutagenic.  None of
the metabolites was classifiable for acute oral toxicity with the
exception of 5-COOH-S-2200 for which the LD50 lay between 300 and 2000
mg/kg bw.  All of the free metabolites/aglycones found in crops are also
found in the rat.  2-CH2OH-S-2200 and 5-CH2OH-S-2200 are considered to
be produced as the intermediates for 2-COOH-S-2200 and 5-COOH-S-2200.
Therefore their toxicity is considered to have been adequately covered
by the toxicity studies performed on S-2200.

	8. Endocrine disruption. Several special studies to evaluate the
potential endocrine effects of S-2200 have been conducted.  These
studies show no interaction with the estrogen receptor and
steroidogenesis by in vitro assays.   Additional in vivo studies include
an evaluation of the potential effects on reproduction and development,
and an evaluation of the pathology of the endocrine organs following
short- or long-term exposure.  These studies revealed no
endocrine-related effects.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. Dietary exposures from food and water were
considered for the petitioned uses on commercial/residential turf and
tolerances in or on the raw agricultural commodity Rapeseed Crop
Subgroup 20A, Small Fruit Vine Climbing Except Fuzzy Kiwifruit Crop
Subgroup 13-07F, fruit at 5 ppm; and Low Growing Berry Subgroup 13-07G,
fruit at 3 ppm as follows:

	i. Food. Chronic dietary exposures to S-2200 Fungicide were calculated
using Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model DEEM-FCIDTM, Version 3.16. A
Tier I chronic dietary exposure assessment was conducted using
tolerance-level residues, 100% crop treated, and default processing
factors for processed commodities lacking supporting residue data.  As
S-2200 Fungicide is not acutely toxic, no quantitative assessment of
acute dietary exposure is required. For the chronic dietary assessment,
the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) of 0.19 mg/kg/day has been
calculated from the chronic toxicity endpoint using an uncertainty
factor of 100X to account for inter- and intra-species variability.

	ii. Drinking water. Estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs)
using the PRZM-GW model were included as part of the dietary exposure
assessment.  The maximum EDWC is from ground water and is estimated to
be 55.7 ppb based on the application of S-2200 Fungicide to turf at a
maximum seasonal application rate of 2 lb ai/acre/year (4 applications
at 0.5 lb ai/acre).

	2. Non-dietary exposure. There is potential for short-term
post-application exposure to the general population from contact with
treated golf courses and residential turf.  The primary route of
exposure would be dermal, although non-dietary ingestion can be a route
for toddlers on treated lawns.  Using NOAEL’s from subchronic duration
dermal and oral toxicity studies of 1000 mg/kg/day and 91 mg/kg/day,
respectively, and default transfer coefficients, short-term residential
post-application margins of exposure were calculated and incorporated
into the non-dietary and aggregate risk assessment.

D. Cumulative Effects

FFDCA Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that the Agency must consider
“available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of a
particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances'' that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.  There are currently no available data or
other reliable information indicating that S-2200 Fungicide shares a
common mechanism of toxicity with any other substance.  Only the
aggregate exposure of S-2200 Fungicide has been considered in this risk
assessment.

E. Safety Determination

FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an additional margin of
safety, up to ten-fold, for added protection for infants and children in
the case of threshold effects, unless EPA determines that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants and children.  The
toxicological database for evaluating prenatal and postnatal toxicity
for S-2200 Fungicide is complete with respect to current data
requirements, and there are no special prenatal or postnatal toxicity
concerns for infants and children.  This therefore, warrants reducing
the FQPA Safety Factor for protection of infants and children to 1X.

	1. U.S. population. Based on a highly conservative risk assessment,
Valent USA Corporation concludes that there is a reasonable certainty
that no harm will result to the general population from the aggregate
exposure to S-2200 Fungicide from the proposed uses.  The newly proposed
uses of S-2200 Fungicide result in an estimated dietary exposure to the
U.S. Population equivalent to 3% of the cPAD.   Chronic aggregate
exposures below 100% of the cPAD are generally considered to represent a
reasonable certainty of no harm to exposed populations.

	2. Infants and children. Based on a highly conservative risk
assessment, Valent USA Corporation concludes that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from the
aggregate exposure to S-2200 Fungicide from the proposed uses.  The most
highly exposed subgroup is children 1-2 years of age with an estimated
dietary exposure equivalent to 13.3% of the cPAD.  Chronic aggregate
exposures below 100% of the cPAD are generally considered to represent a
reasonable certainty of no harm to exposed populations. When dietary
exposures are aggregated with non-dietary exposures from
treated琠牵ⱦ琠敨眠牯瑳挭獡癯牥污位⁅獩㔠㠵映
牯挠楨摬敲条獥ㄠ㈭礠慥獲位獅映牯愠汬漠桴牥瀠
灯汵瑡潩畳杢潲灵⁳牡牧慥整⹲䄠杧敲慧整䴠䕏⁳
牧慥整⁲桴湡琠敨氠癥汥漠潣据牥ㄨ〰
湩楤慣整
爠慥潳慮汢散瑲楡瑮⁹景渠慨浲映牯攠灸獯摥瀠灯
汵瑡潩獮ମ

B*

B*

B*

íÞÔÁÔ²§˜‡v‡˜²e˜eWLe@²9

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

f

j

r

€

ˆ

¶

È

Ô

ÿ

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

F. International Tolerances

There are no CODEX maximum residue levels (MRLs) established or proposed
for residues of S-2200 in Small Fruit Vine Climbing, Except Fuzzy
Kiwifruit Subgroup 13-07F, Low Growing Berry Subgroup 13-07G and
Rapeseed Subgroup 20A.  There are currently no tolerances for residues
of S-2200 in these crops in Canada or Mexico.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register: July 31, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 43255-43256]
[DOCID:fr31jy06-122]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54198; File No. SR-CHX-2005-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1
and 2 Thereto and Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval to Amendment No. 3 Relating to the Exchange's Order Priority
Rule and the Mandatory Use of Order Match Functionalities

July 24, 2006.

I. Introduction

    On February 3, 2005, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ to amend Exchange Article XXX, Rule 2 to clarify the
requirements of the Exchange's priority rule and to require specialists
to make use of Exchange-provided order match functionalities except in
limited circumstances. On September 16, 2005 and October 6, 2005, the
Exchange filed Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, to the proposed
rule change. The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for
comment in the Federal Register on October 28, 2005.\3\ The Commission
received no comments on the proposal. On July 13, 2006, the Exchange
filed Amendment No. 3.\4\ This order approves the proposed rule change,
as amended by Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3, grants accelerated approval
to Amendment No. 3, and solicits comments on Amendment No. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52647 (October 21,
2005), 70 FR 62152 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Partial Amendment dated July 13, 2006 (``Amendment No.
3''). The text of Amendment No. 3 is available on the Exchange's Web
site (http://www.chx.com/rules/ proposed--rules.htm), at the

Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Article XXX, Rule 2, to
clarify the requirements of the Exchange's priority rule and to require
specialists to make use of Exchange-provided order match
functionalities except in limited circumstances. The Exchange's
priority rule generally requires Exchange specialists to give
precedence to orders in their books for the purchase or sale of
securities over their own dealer (proprietary) orders.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Article XXX, Rule 2, Precedence to Orders in
Book. Specialists, however, are not required to give precedence to
certain professional orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's systems incorporate order match functionalities that
are designed to replace proposed specialist proprietary orders with
eligible customer orders in the specialist's book. These order match
functionalities, among other things, prevent a specialist from manually
executing a proprietary order when there is a customer order on the
same side on the book that is eligible for execution. The proposed rule
change would require specialists to use the order match functionalities
except when there are system problems with the order match
functionalities,\6\ and in certain circumstances related to the
execution of preopening orders pursuant to the Exchange's rules,\7\ or
related to satisfaction through ITS of a trade through of a customer
order.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange stated that it does not anticipate that systems
problems will occur frequently, but has included this exception to
the rule to address those relatively rare circumstances when the
order match functionality is not operating properly due to
unexpected consequences of unrelated systems changes or a software
failure. The Exchange stated that it did not intend the exception to
allow participants to avoid the use of order match functionalities,
but to recognize that there could be limited circumstances when the
order match functionalities are malfunctioning.
    \7\ See Exchange Article XXX, Rule 37(a)(4). In Amendment No. 3,
the Exchange clarified that this proposed exception only applies to
listed securities.
    \8\ In addition, in Amendment No. 3, the Exchange eliminated the
proposed exception that when a specialist received an inbound ITS
execution in satisfaction of a complaint lodged by an Exchange
specialist against another market center, the specialist would not
be required fill any other customer order(s) in his or its book as a
result of having received the ``satisfying'' ITS execution. In
Amendment No. 3, the Exchange revised the rule text to clarify that
when a specialist receives an inbound ITS execution in satisfaction
of another market center's trade-through of a customer order that
the specialist has already filled, the specialist, under current
Exchange rules, is required to give the customer order that was
traded through by the other ITS market center any better price that
the specialists receives in satisfaction of the trade-through.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning Amendment No. 3, including whether Amendment No. 3
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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CHX-2005-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2005-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
Amendment No. 3 of File Number SR-CHX-2005-01 and should be submitted
on or before August 21, 2006.

IV. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act \9\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\10\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange be 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed change to clarify the
requirements of the Exchange's priority rule is designed to provide
both investors and specialists with a better understanding of a
specialist's obligations. The Commission further believes that the
proposed change to require specialists to make use of order match
functionalities, except under limited circumstances, could prevent
potential trading ahead violations from occurring by ensuring that
eligible orders on the book are executed in place of the specialist's
proprietary interest.
    The Commission finds good cause for approving Amendment No. 3 to
the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after publishing
notice of Amendment No. 3 in the Federal Register pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act.\12\ The Commission believes that the changes
proposed in Amendment No. 3 clarify the application of the Exchange's
priority rule and proposed exception to the requirement to use order
match functionalities. Further, the Commission believes the proposal in
Amendment No. 3 to eliminate one of the exceptions proposed in the
Notice reflects the specialist's obligations under the Exchange's
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C 78s(b)(2). Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act, the Commission may not approve any proposed rule change, or
amendment thereto, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of
publication of the notice thereof, unless the Commission finds good
cause for so doing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\13\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CHX-2005-01), as amended by
Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3, is hereby approved, and that Amendment No.
3 is approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-12184 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: February 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 29)]
[Notices]
[Page 8104-8106]
[DOCID:fr12fe08-82]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA--2006--25026]

Pipeline Safety: Grant of Special Permit; Key West Pipeline
Company

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

ACTION: Notice; grant of special permit.

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

SUMMARY: The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) is granting Key West Pipeline Company (KWPC) a special permit
waiving compliance from the Federal pipeline safety regulations that
require a hazardous liquid pipeline operator to place a marker over the
center of an exposed underwater pipeline segment that is less than 200
yards long and to bury an exposed underwater pipeline segment so that
the top of the pipe is 36 inches below the underwater natural bottom
for normal excavation or 18 inches for rock excavation. PHMSA finds
that granting this special permit is not inconsistent with pipeline
safety because the special permit analysis shows that the KWPC exposed
underwater pipeline segment is in a restricted, shallow channel with
surrounding water depths that would cause vessels to run aground before
contacting the exposed underwater pipeline segment. Also, the United
States Coast Guard (USCG) has determined that placing a marker in the
channel over the center of the exposed underwater pipeline segment
would pose a hazard to navigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Lemoi at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Special Permit Request

    Pipeline Operator: KWPC petitioned PHMSA on January 10, 2006, for a
special permit waiving compliance from the Federal pipeline safety
regulations in 49 CFR 195.413(c)(2) and 195.413(c)(3) for an exposed
underwater pipeline segment in the Key West, Florida area. The
regulations require a hazardous liquid pipeline operator to place a
marker above the center of an exposed underwater pipeline segment that
is less than 200 yards long in accordance with 33 CFR part 64 and to
bury an exposed underwater pipeline segment so that the top of the pipe
is 36 inches below the underwater natural bottom for normal excavation
or 18 inches for rock excavation. The operator must complete the burial
of the pipeline within six months after discovery of the exposed pipe,
or no later than November 1 of the following year if the six month
period is later than November 1 of the year of discovery.
    Pipeline System Affected: This special permit covers 200 feet of
exposed pipe on a four mile underwater pipeline segment that runs from
the Trumbo Point Naval Annex of the Key West Naval Air Station, Key
West, Florida to Stock Island, Florida. The exposed segment lies in the
Fleming Channel immediately adjacent to the Trumbo Point Naval Annex.
Both sides of the Fleming Channel, near the exposed pipeline, are
bordered by annexes of the Key West Naval Air Station. The four mile
underwater pipeline segment is the western portion of the 7.1-mile, 4-
inch KWPC pipeline, which transports JP5 jet fuel from KWPC's Bulk
Storage and Transfer Facility on Key West to the U.S. Navy's bulk fuel
storage facility on Boca Chita Key, Florida. The special permit segment
is defined as 200 feet of the KWPC pipeline from station 0+00 to
station 2+00 as shown in Figure 4 of the KWPC special permit request
dated January 10, 2006.

Public Notice

    On October 16, 2006, PHMSA posted notice of the KWPC request in the
Federal Register (71 FR 60794) inviting interested persons to comment
on the request. On February 8, 2007, PHMSA posted another notice in the
Federal Register (72 FR 6042) informing the public that we have changed
the name granting a waiver to a special permit. We did not receive any
comments for or against this special permit request as a result of this
notice. The special permit request, Federal Register notice and all
other pertinent documents are available for review by the public in
Docket Number PHMSA-2006-25026 in the Federal Docket Management System
located on the internet at http://www.Regulations.gov.

Special Permit Analysis

    Background: In response to the Offshore Pipelines Navigation
Hazards Act, Public Law 101-599, the Federal pipeline safety
regulations in 49 CFR Part 195 were amended on November 27, 1991, to
require an inspection of underwater pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico and
its inlets to be completed before November 16, 1992. Amendment 195-47
defined the Gulf of Mexico and its inlets to mean the waters from the
mean high-water mark of the coast of the Gulf of Mexico and its inlets
open to the sea (excluding rivers, tidal marshes, lakes and canals)
seaward to include the territorial sea and Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS) to a depth of 15 feet, as measured from the mean low water.
    If during an inspection, an operator discovered a pipeline it
operates was an exposed underwater pipeline or constituted a hazard to
navigation, the operator was required to promptly notify the National
Response Center, mark the pipeline within 7 days, and rebury the pipe
36 inches below the seabed for normal excavation or 18 inches below the
seabed for rock excavation. The amendment defined exposed underwater
pipeline to mean a pipeline where the top of the pipe is protruding
above the seabed in water less than 15 feet deep, as measured from the
mean low water. It defined a hazard to navigation to mean a pipeline
where the top of the pipe is less than 12 inches below the seabed in
water less than 15 feet deep, as measured from the mean low water.
    To gain further information on the risks posed by underwater
pipelines, the DOT's Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) [now PHMSA] and
the Department of Interior's, Minerals Management Service, requested
the Marine Board,

Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research
Council conduct an interdisciplinary review and assessment of the many
technical, regulatory and jurisdictional issues that affect the safety
of marine pipelines in the offshore waters of the United States. The
National Research Council appointed the Committee on the Safety of
Marine Pipelines (Committee), under the auspices of the Marine Board,
to undertake the task. The Committee studied the Gulf of Mexico where
about 99 percent of the marine pipeline mileage is located.
    According to the Committee's 1994 report, the Committee found the
marine pipeline network does not present an extraordinary threat to
human life and that pipeline accidents involving deaths or injuries
were rare. The Committee also found the most widespread risks posed by
pipelines are oil pollution, mainly due to pipeline damage caused by
vessels and their gear, and impacts from anchors, nets, trawl boards
and hulls of cargo, fishing, and service vessels and mobile drilling
rigs account for most of the injuries, deaths, property damage, and
pollution. For example, the report notes that anchor damage alone
accounted for 90 percent of the pipeline-related pollution on the OCS
of the Gulf of Mexico. Moreover, the report states that very few
incidents produced most of the oil pollution from pipelines. That is,
the largest 11 pipeline spills caused by vessels accounted for 98
percent of the pollution from pipelines. The Committee's report
concluded the risks generally can be managed with available technology
and without major new regulations if enforcement of current regulations
is improved.
    The Committee recommended that operators inspect the depth of
burial of underwater pipelines at intervals determined by analysis of
the probabilities of risks. High risk areas are zones of high density
of pipelines; high density of vessel traffic; shallow waters; the
immediate vicinity of platforms; areas of severe erosion or shift of
the sea floor and high potential for flooding; and areas affected by
hurricanes or severe storms. According to the Committee report,
operators should schedule surveys of pipelines using the relatively
predictable behavior of sediment and shoreline erosion and after the
passage of major storms.
    On July 29, 2004, 49 CFR part 195 was amended (Amendment 195-82)
with additional underwater inspection requirements. The new and current
regulations require operators to prepare and follow a procedure to
identify pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico and its inlets in waters less
than 15 feet deep (as measured from mean low water) that are at risk of
being exposed underwater pipelines or hazards to navigation. The
regulations also require each operator to conduct periodic underwater
inspections of its pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico and its inlets in
waters less than 15 feet deep based on the identified risk. In lieu of
reburial of the discovered underwater exposed or hazard to navigation
pipeline, the regulations now allow an operator to employ engineered
alternatives that meet or exceed the level of protection provided by
burial.
    Pipeline Marker Analysis: In its special permit petition
submittals, KWPC asserted that a pipeline marker placed over the center
of the KWPC exposed underwater pipeline segment in accordance with 49
CFR 195.413(c)(2) would pose a hazard to navigation in Fleming Channel.
Therefore, KWPC proposed an alternate marking method to include a
marker on the shorelines of both Key West and Fleming Key as well as an
additional marker on the west side of the nearby road bridge linking
Key West to Fleming Key.
    KWPC included with its submittals to PHMSA a letter from the USCG
dated September 6, 2005, which approved an alternate marking method.
However, the USCG letter did not address KWPC's claim that a marker
placed in the channel above the center of the exposed underwater
pipeline segment would create a hazard in the channel. Therefore, PHMSA
sought and received additional information on this issue. This
information includes a Special Purpose Survey signed and certified on
October 2, 2007, by a professional land surveyor registered in the
state of Florida. The survey provided the coordinates of the end points
and center of the exposed underwater pipeline segment. PHMSA forwarded
these coordinates via e-mail to the USCG for evaluation. In a return
letter to PHMSA dated November 26, 2007, the USCG stated a ``pipeline
crossing sign above the center of the exposed pipeline is considered a
hazard to navigation for vessels transiting Fleming Cut in that area''
and recommended that a standard ``Danger Pipeline Crossing'' sign be
placed on the south side of Fleming Key Cut. KWPC's alternate marking
method includes the USCG recommended sign and two other signs: One on
the north side of Fleming Key Cut and one on the nearby road bridge
linking Key West to Fleming Key.
    Hazard to Navigation Analysis: A review of the legislative and
rulemaking histories relative to inspecting underwater pipelines
reveals the Offshore Pipelines Navigation Hazards Act, Public Law 101-
599 and subsequent rulemaking by DOT were intended to protect the
public from the hazards associated with pipeline damage caused
primarily by commercial fishing vessels in the shallow waters of the
northern Gulf of Mexico. Congress passed the law in response to two
fatal accidents in the late 1980s in the Gulf of Mexico near the Texas
and Louisiana coastlines. The DOT subsequently published regulations in
response to the law and to meet its mandate to protect the public and
the environment from the risks posed by underwater natural gas and
hazardous liquid pipelines.
    A review of the legislative and rulemaking histories also reveals
there was considerable debate about what did, or did not, constitute a
hazard to navigation. While the underwater exposed KWPC pipeline
segment meets the regulatory definition of a hazard to navigation,
there is considerable support for concluding that no actual hazard to
navigation exists. This support includes the following facts provided
by KWPC:
    (1) The exposed underwater pipeline segment is located hundreds of
miles from the primary area of concern, the northern Gulf of Mexico and
its inlets.
    (2) Commercial fishing vessels of the type used in the northern
Gulf of Mexico do not operate in the area of the exposed underwater
pipeline segment.
    (3) The exposed underwater pipeline segment is in Fleming Channel,
which is only used by pleasure boats seeking access to Key West Harbor
from Garrison Bright and the Key West Yacht Club.
    (4) Shallow waters in the Fleming Channel (11 feet) and surrounding
waters limit the transit traffic in the channel to vessels with drafts
less than 6.5 feet, allowing for a minimum clearance of 4.5 feet above
the exposed underwater pipeline segment.
    (5) Navigational charts for the Key West Harbor show the maximum
clearance beneath the road bridge linking Key West with Fleming Key is
18 feet. This low bridge clearance restricts the size of vessels able
to enter Fleming Channel near the exposed underwater pipeline segment.
    (6) Navigational charts for Key West Harbor show the exposed
underwater pipeline within a restricted, no anchorage area, under U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers regulation 33 CFR 334.610, Danger Zone and
Restricted Area Regulations.
    (7) Both sides of Fleming Channel, near the exposed pipeline, are
part of military annexes belonging to the Key West Naval Air Station.
The naval air station has regulations prohibiting

anchorage within the vicinity of the exposed underwater pipeline.
    A letter to KWPC of November 29, 2005, signed by the Chief,
Prevention Division, Seventh Coast Guard District, USCG states:

    ``The pipeline is submerged in a shallow area that is transited
solely by recreational vessels and surrounding waters restrict the
size of vessels that can transit the Fleming Key Cut. Due to the
surrounding water depths, vessels would run aground before
contacting the pipeline. Furthermore, covering the pipeline with the
appropriate amount of fill would reduce water depth further. Based
on the above factors, I have determined the exposed section of
pipeline does not pose danger to navigation that requires USCG
action under existing statutory authorities.''

Special Permit Findings

    PHMSA finds that granting this special permit is not inconsistent
with pipeline safety and will provide a level of safety equal to or
greater than reburial of the exposed underwater pipeline segment. We do
so because the special permit analysis shows the following:
    (1) The alternate pipeline marking method proposed by KWPC, and
agreed to by the USCG, will provide for three pipeline markers in lieu
of one pipeline marker and will provide adequate warning to passing
boats in Fleming Channel.
    (2) The alternate pipeline marking method proposed by KWPC, and
agreed to by the USCG, will avoid the navigational hazard that would be
created by placing a single marker above the center of the exposed
underwater pipeline segment.
    (3) The underwater exposed pipeline segment is in a shallow channel
where it is unlikely to be struck by a commercial fishing vessel or
gear from a commercial fishing vessel.
    (4) The underwater exposed pipeline segment is in a shallow channel
restricted area where the U.S. Navy enforces a prohibition against
anchoring.
    (5) The USCG states the surrounding water depths would cause
vessels to run aground before contacting the underwater exposed
pipeline segment.
    (6) PHMSA is granting this special permit subject to conditions and
limitations to ensure KWPC employs an alternate marking method to
provide a level of safety equal to or greater than a marker placed
above the center of the exposed underwater pipeline segment.
    (7) PHMSA is granting this special permit subject to conditions and
limitations to ensure KWPC employs alternative actions to provide a
level of safety equal to or greater than reburial of the exposed
underwater pipeline segment.

Special Permit Grant

    PHMSA grants a special permit of compliance from 49 CFR
195.413(c)(2) and 95.413(c)(3) to KWPC for 200 feet of the KWPC
pipeline from station 0+00 to station 2+00 as shown in Figure 4 of the
KWPC special permit request dated January 10, 2006.

Special Permit Conditions

    PHMSA grants this special permit with the following conditions:
    (1) KWPC will place signs on the shoreline of Key West and Fleming
Key, immediately adjacent to the exposed underwater pipeline segment
with the following information:
    WARNING Restricted Area Transit Only No Stopping or Anchoring
Within 100 Yards of Shore Underwater Utility 33 CFR 334.610
    (2) KWPC will place a similar sign on the west side of the road
bridge linking Key West to Fleming Key.
    (3) In addition to the 5-year inspections performed under KWPC's
procedures for inspections of underwater segments in the Gulf of Mexico
in waters less than 15 feet deep, KWPC will inspect the exposed
underwater pipeline segment on an annual basis to confirm that there
has been no material change in the condition of the exposed underwater
pipeline segment.
    (4) KWPC will notify the Director, PHMSA Southern Region within 30
days, in writing, of any
    a. material change in condition of the exposed underwater pipeline
segment found during any annual or 5-year inspection;
    b. any reportable or non-reportable leaks or incidents on the KWPC
pipeline, which impact the exposed underwater pipeline segment; and
    c. mergers, acquisitions, transfer of assets or other events
affecting the regulatory responsibility of the company operating the
KWPC pipeline.

Special Permit Limitations

    PHMSA has the sole authority to make all determinations on whether
KWPC has complied with the specified conditions. Should KWPC fail to
comply with any conditions of this special permit, or should PHMSA
determine this special permit is no longer appropriate or that this
special permit is inconsistent with pipeline safety, PHMSA may revoke
this special permit and require KWPC to comply with the regulatory
requirements of 49 CFR 195.413(c)(2) and 195.413(c)(3).

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

     Issued in Washington, DC on February 6, 2008.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
 [FR Doc. E8-2533 Filed 2-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 196 (Thursday, October 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47528-47529]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21981]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-N-5568]

Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 2017; Electronic Submissions
and Data Standards; Public Meeting; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the following public meeting entitled ``Prescription Drug User Fee Act
of 2017; Electronic Submissions and Data Standards.'' The topics to be
discussed will include the current status of electronic submissions and
data standards initiatives to improve the predictability and
consistency of the electronic submissions process in support of the
human drug review program. FDA is seeking input from a variety of
stakeholders--industry, academia, patient advocates, professional
societies and other interested parties--as it fulfills its commitment
under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 2017 (PDUFA) to hold annual
public meetings to seek stakeholder input related to enhancing the
transparency and accountability of the electronic submission and data
standards activities. FDA will use the information from the public
meeting to inform the development of the FDA Information Technology
(FDA IT) Strategic Plan and electronic submissions gateway target
timeframes.

DATES: The public meeting will be held March 21, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 4
p.m. Submit either electronic or written comments regarding this public
meeting prior to the meeting through April 18, 2018. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for registration date and
information.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room
(Rm. 1503, Section A), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for the
public meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1,
where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking
and security information, please refer to https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/default.htm.
    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely
filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be
submitted on or before April 18, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov
electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern
Time at the end of April 18, 2018. Comments received by mail/hand
delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered
timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance
receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2017-N-5568 for ``Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 2017;
Electronic Submissions and Data Standards.'' Received comments, those
filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket
and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,''
publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets
Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Fitzmartin, Center for Drug
Evaluation

and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 51, Rm. 1115, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-7911.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is committed to achieve the long-term goal of improving the
predictability and consistency of the electronic submission process,
and enhancing transparency and accountability of FDA information
technology related activities. FDA agreed in the PDUFA VI commitment
letter to hold annual public meetings to seek stakeholder input related
to electronic submissions and data standards to inform the FDA IT
Strategic Plan and published targets. The commitment letter outlines
FDA's performance goals and procedures under the PDUFA program for the
years 2018-2022. The commitment letter can be found at https://www.fda.gov/forindustry/userfees/prescriptiondruguserfee/ucm446608.htm.

II. Topics for Discussion at the Public Meeting

    FDA strives to achieve a fully automated standards-based IT
environment that enhances the regulatory review processes for human
drugs and biologics. The purpose of the March 21, 2018, public meeting
is to obtain input from industry and other interested stakeholders on
enhancing the transparency and accountability of the electronic
submission and data standards activities. To help fulfill its
commitment, FDA is particularly interested in receiving input on the
following topics:
     Electronic Submissions
    [cir] Electronic submission process, including key electronic
submission milestones and associated sponsor notifications from the
completion of the upload of the submission to the Electronic
Submissions Gateway (ESG) through the time the submission is made
available to the review team.
    [cir] Electronic submission system past performance, emerging
industry needs, and technology initiatives.
    [cir] Published and future targets for the ESG and related
electronic submission systems.
    [cir] Implementation of electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD)
v4.0.
     Data Standards Initiatives
    [cir] International Organization for Standards (ISO) Identification
of Medicinal Products (IDMP): ISO IDMP standards implementation will
support a variety of regulatory activities related to development,
registration, and life cycle management of medicinal products, as well
as pharmacovigilance and risk management. There are five standards that
describe the substance (ISO 11238), dosage form and routes of
administration (ISO 11239), units of measure (ISO 11240), medicinal
product identifier (ISO 11615), and pharmaceutical product identifier
(ISO 11616).
    [cir] Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs): ICSRs provide a
consistent approach to the creation and review of drug and biologics
safety information and pharmacovigilance activities.
    FDA will consider all comments made at this workshop or received
through the docket (see ADDRESSES).

III. Participating in the Public Meeting

    Registration: To register to attend ``Prescription Drug User Fee
Act VI; Electronic Submissions and Data Standards; Public Meeting;
Request for Comments'' please send an email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by February 19, 2018. Please provide
complete contact information for each attendee, including name, title,
affiliation, address, email, and telephone.
    Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority
given to early registrants. Persons interested in attending this public
meeting must register by February 19, 2018, midnight Eastern Time.
Early registration is recommended because seating is limited;
therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each
organization. Registrants will receive confirmation when they have been
accepted.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Chenoa Conley,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at
least 7 days before the meeting.
    Request for Oral Presentations: During online registration you may
indicate if you wish to present during the public comment session and
which topic(s) you wish to address. FDA will do its best to accommodate
requests to make public comments. Individuals and organizations with
common interests are urged to consolidate or coordinate their
presentations. Following the close of registration, FDA will determine
the amount of time allotted to each presenter and the approximate time
each oral presentation is to begin, and will select and notify
participants by March 6, 2018. All requests to make oral presentations
must be received by the close of registration on February 19, 2018,
midnight Eastern Time. If selected for presentation, any presentation
materials must be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>no later
than March 14, 2018. No commercial or promotional material will be
permitted to be presented or distributed at the public meeting.
    Transcripts: Please be advised that as soon as a transcript of the
public meeting is available, it will be accessible at https://www.regulations.gov. It may be viewed at the Dockets Management Staff
(see ADDRESSES). A link to the transcript will also be available on the
internet at https://www.fda.gov/forindustry/userfees/prescriptiondruguserfee/ucm446608.htm.

    Dated: October 5, 2017.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-21981 Filed 10-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 224 (Monday, November 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72013-72015]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29970]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65749; File No. SR-MSRB-2011-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 2, Consisting of Proposed Interpretive Notice Concerning
the Application of MSRB Rule G-17, on Conduct of Municipal Securities
and Municipal Advisory Activities, to Underwriters of Municipal
Securities

November 15, 2011.
    On August 22, 2011, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``Board'' or ``MSRB'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change consisting of a proposed
interpretive notice concerning the application of MSRB Rule G-17 (on
conduct of municipal securities and municipal advisory activities to
underwriters of municipal securities). The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on September 9, 2011.\3\
The Commission received 5 comment letters.\4\ On October 11, 2011, the
MSRB extended the time period for Commission action to December 7,
2011. On November 3, 2011, MSRB filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule change. On November 10, 2011, MSRB withdrew Amendment No. 1,
responded to comments in a letter,\5\ and filed Amendment No. 2 to the
proposed rule change. The proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 2, is described in Items I and II below, which items have
been prepared by MSRB. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment
No. 2, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65263 (September 6,
2011), 76 FR 55989.
    \4\ See Letters from Joy A. Howard, Principal, WM Financial
Strategies, dated September 30, 2011 (``Howard Letter''); Mike
Nicholas, Chief Executive Officer, Bond Dealers of America, dated
September 30, 2010 (``BDA Letter''); Colette J. Irwin-Knott, CIPFA,
President, National Association of Independent Public Finance
Advisors, dated September 30, 2011 (``NAIPFA Letter''); Leslie M.
Norwood, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association, dated September 30, 2011
(``SIFMA Letter''); and Susan Gaffney, Director, Federal Liaison
Center, Government Finance Officers Association, dated October 3,
2011 (``GFOA Letter'').
    \5\ See letter from Margaret C. Henry, General Counsel, Market
Regulation, MSRB, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
dated November 10, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The MSRB is filing with the SEC the Amendment to File No. SR-MSRB-
2011-09, originally filed on August 22, 2011 (the ``original proposed
rule change''). The Amendment amends and restates the original proposed
rule change consisting of a proposed interpretive notice (the
``Notice'') concerning the application of MSRB Rule G-17 (on conduct of
municipal securities and municipal advisory activities) to underwriters
of municipal securities (as amended, the ``proposed rule change''). A
detailed description of the provisions of the Notice is set forth
below. The MSRB has requested that the proposed rule change be made
effective 90 days after approval by the Commission.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web
site at http://www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2011-Filings.aspx, at the MSRB'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 MSRB 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 Board 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

    (a) With the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, the MSRB was expressly
directed by Congress to protect municipal entities. Accordingly, the
MSRB is proposing to provide additional interpretive guidance that
addresses how Rule G-17 applies to dealers in the municipal securities
activities described below.
Scope of Notice
    As clarified by the Amendment, the Notice would concern the duties
of underwriters to municipal entity issuers of municipal securities
(``issuers''). It would not address the duties of underwriters to
obligated persons. The Notice would not apply to selling group members
and, unless otherwise specified, the Notice would apply only to
negotiated underwritings and not to competitive underwritings.
Role of the Underwriter/Conflicts of Interest
    The Amendment would add a new section to the Notice, which would
provide for robust disclosure by an underwriter as to its role, its
compensation, and actual or potential material conflicts of interest.
The disclosure would build on the disclosure already required by the
Rule G-23 interpretive notice approved by the Commission in May of this
year.\6\ Certain of the required disclosures could be made by a
syndicate manager on behalf of other syndicate members. The Notice
would also prohibit an underwriter from recommending that the issuer
not retain a municipal advisor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See SEC Release No. 34-64564, File No. SR-MSRB-2011-03 (May
27, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The required disclosures would generally be required to be made at
the time the underwriter is engaged to provide underwriting services
and to be made to an official of the issuer with the power to bind the
issuer by contract with the underwriter. The disclosure concerning the
arm's-length nature of the underwriter-issuer relationship would
continue to be required to be made at the earliest stages of the
underwriter-issuer relationship, as required by the Rule G-23
interpretive notice. In the case of disclosures triggered by
recommendations as to particular financings, as under the original
proposed rule change, the disclosures would be required to be provided
in sufficient time before the execution of a contract with the
underwriter to allow the official to evaluate the recommendation. The
disclosures required in the Notice under ``Role of the Underwriter/
Conflicts of Interest/Other Conflicts Disclosures'' were included in
the original proposed rule change. Pursuant to the Amendment, they
would simply be included in the list of required disclosures, so that
underwriters reviewing the Notice would only need to look to one place
to see all the required conflicts disclosures. The underwriter would be
required to attempt to obtain the written acknowledgement of the issuer
to the required disclosures and, if the issuer would not provide such

acknowledgement, to document that fact.
    Representations to Issuers. The Notice would provide that all
representations made by underwriters to issuers of municipal securities
in connection with municipal securities underwritings (e.g., issue
price certificates and responses to requests for proposals), whether
written or oral, must be truthful and accurate and may not misrepresent
or omit material facts.
    Required Disclosures to Issuers. As clarified by the Amendment, the
Notice would provide that an underwriter of a negotiated issue that
recommends a complex municipal securities transaction or product (e.g.,
a variable rate demand obligation with a swap) to an issuer has an
obligation under Rule G-17 to disclose all financial material risks
(e.g., in the case of a swap, market, credit, operational, and
liquidity risks) known to the underwriter and reasonably foreseeable at
the time of the disclosure, financial characteristics (e.g., the
material economic terms of the swap, the material terms relating to the
operation of the swap, and the material rights and obligations of the
parties during the term of the swap), incentives, and conflicts of
interest (e.g., payments received from a swap provider) regarding the
transaction or product. Underwriters would also be required to inform
the issuer that there might be accounting, legal, and other risks
associated with a swap and that the issuer should consult with other
professionals concerning such risks. Such disclosure would be required
to be sufficient to allow the issuer to assess the magnitude of its
potential exposure as a result of the complex municipal securities
financing. Disclosures concerning swaps would also be required to be
made only as to the swaps recommended by underwriters. If an issuer
decided to accept the recommendation of a swap provider other than the
underwriter, the underwriter would have no disclosure obligation with
regard to that other provider's swap.
    In the case of routine financing structures, underwriters would be
required to disclose the material aspects of the structures if the
issuer personnel did not otherwise have knowledge or experience with
respect to such structures. The Amendment would clarify that any
disclosures required to be made with respect to routine financings
would be based on the underwriter's ``reasonable belief'' that issuer
personnel lack knowledge or experience with such structures and be
linked to whether the underwriter had recommended the routine
financing.
    The disclosures would be required to be made in writing to an
official of the issuer whom the underwriter reasonably believed had the
authority to bind the issuer by contract with the underwriter (i) in
sufficient time before the execution of a contract with the underwriter
to allow the official to evaluate the recommendation and (ii) in a
manner designed to make clear to such official the subject matter of
such disclosures and their implications for the issuer. If the
underwriter did not reasonably believe that the official to whom the
disclosures were addressed was capable of independently evaluating the
disclosures, the underwriter would be required to make additional
efforts reasonably designed to inform the official or its employees or
agent.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Section 4s(h)(5) of the Commodity Exchange Act requires that
a swap dealer with a special entity client (including states, local
governments, and public pension funds) must have a reasonable basis
to believe that the special entity has an independent representative
that has sufficient knowledge to evaluate the transaction and its
risks, as well as the pricing and appropriateness of the
transaction. Section 15F(h)(5) of the Exchange Act imposes the same
requirements with respect to security-based swaps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Underwriter Duties in Connection with Issuer Disclosure Documents.
The Notice would provide that a dealer's duty to have a reasonable
basis for the representations it makes, and other material information
it provides, to an issuer and to ensure that such representations and
information are accurate and not misleading, as described above,
extends to representations and information provided by the underwriter
in connection with the preparation by the issuer of its disclosure
documents (e.g., cash flows).
    New Issue Pricing and Underwriter Compensation. The Notice would
provide that the duty of fair dealing under Rule G-17 includes an
implied representation that the price an underwriter pays to an issuer
is fair and reasonable, taking into consideration all relevant factors,
including the best judgment of the underwriter as to the fair market
value of the issue at the time it is priced. The Notice distinguishes
the fair pricing duties of competitive underwriters (submission of bona
fide bid based on dealer's best judgment of fair market value of
securities) and negotiated underwriters (duty to negotiate in good
faith). The Notice would provide that, in certain cases and depending
upon the specific facts and circumstances of the offering, the
underwriter's compensation for the new issue (including both direct
compensation paid by the issuer and other separate payments or credits
received by the underwriter from the issuer or any other party in
connection with the underwriting) may be so disproportionate to the
nature of the underwriting and related services performed, as to
constitute an unfair practice that is a violation of Rule G-17.
    Conflicts of Interest. The Notice would require disclosure by an
underwriter of potential conflicts of interest, including the existence
of third-party payments, values, or credits made or received, profit-
sharing arrangements with investors, and the issuance or purchase of
credit default swaps for which the underlying reference is the issuer
whose securities the dealer is underwriting or an obligation of that
issuer. The Amendment would clarify that the provisions of the Notice
concerning disclosures of third-party payments and credit default swaps
would require disclosure of the existence of third-party payments, but
not the amount, and that particular transactions in credit default
swaps would not be required to be disclosed under the Notice. These
disclosures would draw the attention of issuers to such payments and
credit default swap activity, and the issuers could choose to request
more information from the underwriters.
    Retail Order Periods. The Notice would remind underwriters not to
disregard the issuers' rules for retail order periods by, among other
things, accepting or placing orders that do not satisfy issuers'
definitions of ``retail.''
    Dealer Payments to Issuers. Finally, the Notice would remind
underwriters that certain lavish gifts and entertainment, such as those
made in conjunction with rating agency trips, might be a violation of
Rule G-17, as well as Rule G-20.
    (b) The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 15B(b)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act (``Exchange
Act''), which provides that:

    The Board shall propose and adopt rules to effect the purposes
of this title with respect to transactions in municipal securities
effected by brokers, dealers, and municipal securities dealers and
advice provided to or on behalf of municipal entities or obligated
persons by brokers, dealers, municipal securities dealers, and
municipal advisors with respect to municipal financial products, the
issuance of municipal securities, and solicitations of municipal
entities or obligated persons undertaken by brokers, dealers,
municipal securities dealers, and municipal advisors.
    Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act, provides that the
rules of the MSRB shall: Be 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 regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in municipal securities and municipal financial
products, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market in municipal securities and municipal financial
products, and, in general, to protect investors, municipal entities,
obligated persons, and the public interest.

    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2) of
the Exchange Act because it will protect issuers of municipal
securities from fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and
promote just and equitable principles of trade, while still emphasizing
the duty of fair dealing owed by underwriters to their customers. Rule
G-17 has two components, one an anti-fraud prohibition, and the other a
fair dealing requirement (which promotes just and equitable principles
of trade). The Notice would address both components of the rule. The
sections of the Notice entitled ``Representations to Issuers,''
``Underwriter Duties in Connection with Issuer Disclosure Documents,''
``Excessive Compensation,'' ``Payments to or from Third Parties,''
``Profit-Sharing with Investors,'' ``Retail Order Periods,'' and
``Dealer Payments to Issuer Personnel'' primarily would provide
guidance as to conduct required to comply with the anti-fraud component
of the rule and, in some cases, conduct that would violate the anti-
fraud component of the rule, depending on the facts and circumstances.
The sections of the Notice entitled ``Role of the Underwriter/Conflicts
of Interest,'' ``Required Disclosures to Issuers,'' ``Fair Pricing,''
and ``Credit Default Swaps'' primarily would provide guidance as to
conduct required to comply with the fair dealing component of the rule.

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

    The MSRB does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act, since it would apply
equally to all underwriters of municipal securities.

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

    The MSRB has separately filed a comment letter with the Commission
in which it discusses the responses to comment letters received by the
Commission in response to the notice for comment on the original
proposed rule change published in the Federal Register.

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

    By December 7, 2011 (which is the date that is 90 days after the
date the notice of the original proposed rule change was published in
the Federal Register) the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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. 2, 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-MSRB-2011-09 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2011-09. 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2011-09 and should be
submitted on or before December 1, 2011.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Commission believes that a 10-day comment period is
reasonable, given the date for Commission action is December 7,
2011. The 10-day comment period will provide adequate time for
comment.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-29970 Filed 11-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 187 (Friday, September 25, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60454-60455]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21201]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP20-521-000]

Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization; Northwest Pipeline
LLC

    Take notice that on September 10, 2020, Northwest Pipeline LLC
(Northwest), 2800 Post Oak Blvd., Houston, Texas 77056, filed in the
above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections
157.205 and 157.208 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural
Gas Act and its blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-433-000
for authorization to increase the maximum allowable operating pressure
(MAOP) of the Othello Lateral on Northwest's system located in Adams
County, Washington. Specifically, this project will increase the MAOP
of the Othello Lateral from 765 psig to 811 psig to have a consistent
MAOP with the Othello Loop. Northwest avers that there will be no
increase, reduction, or termination in firm service to any existing
customers, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on
file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, 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 Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. At this time, the
Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this prior notice request should be
directed to Liz Hughes, Regulatory Analyst, Northwest Pipeline LLC,
P.O. Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after the
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention. Any person filing to intervene, or
the Commission's staff may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the
Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed
therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized
effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is
filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for
filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an
application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's
public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and
state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list and will be
notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental
review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve
copies of

filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters
will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or
issued by the Commission and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFile link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    Dated: September 21, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-21201 Filed 9-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2434-2435]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00427]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP14-344-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Nicor--Negotiated Rate to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 1/2/14.
    Accession Number: 20140102-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/14/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-345-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: 01/02/14 Negotiated Rates--United Energy Trading, LLC
(HUB) 5095-89 to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 1/2/14.
    Accession Number: 20140102-5144.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/14/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-346-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: 01/02/14 Negotiated Rates--JP Morgan Ventures Energy
Corp

(HUB) 6025-89 to be effective 12/31/2013.
    Filed Date: 1/2/14.
    Accession Number: 20140102-5218.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/14/14.

    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.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    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: January 03, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-00427 Filed 1-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P