				SRC TR-12-043

HPV3 REPRODUCTION/DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY STUDY PLAN REVIEW

(FINAL – DOES NOT CONTAIN CBI)

Benzenesulfonic acid, 3-nitro-, sodium salt (1:1), CASRN 127-68-4

Prepared by:

Teresa Manyin, William L. Richards, and Laura Morlacci

Chemical, Biological and Environmental Center

SRC, Inc.

7502 Round Pond Road

North Syracuse, NY 13212

Contract No. EP-W-09-027

Task FG<IP_ADDRESS>

Submitted to:

OCSPP/OPPT/RAD (7403M)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, D.C. 20460

Debra Milligan, Project Officer

Meena Sonawane, Work Assignment Manager

David Brooks, Alternate Work Assignment Manager

June 5, 2012

HPV3 Reproduction/Developmental Toxicity Study Plan Review:

Benzenesulfonic acid, 3-nitro-, sodium salt (1:1), CASRN 127-68-4

The test rule, “Testing of Certain High Production Volume Chemicals;
Third Group of Chemicals” (76 FR 65385, October 21, 2011), requires F2
toxicity testing for benzenesulfonic acid, 3-nitro-, sodium salt (1:1)
(CASRN 127-68-4).  The F2 requirement consists of a
Reproduction/Developmental Toxicity Screening Test following 40 CFR
799.9355.  A study plan for this test, to be conducted by Jai Research
Foundation, was submitted to EPA by Tiarco Chemical on February 24,
2012.  Given that the study plan stated that the purity of the test
substance would be 96.9%, which does not meet the test rule requirement
for a purity of at least 99%, EPA requested that Tiarco Chemical submit
a detailed description of the test substance’s composition to
determine if the proposed test substance would yield toxicity test data
that were representative of the test rule chemical.  The composition of
the proposed test substance was submitted to EPA by Tiarco Chemical in a
CBI submission (DCN<PHONE_NUMBER>9) received by EPA on April 11, 2012.

The study plan is reviewed herein for compliance with the test rule
guideline, 40 CFR 799.9355.  The composition of the proposed test
substance is also evaluated.

Review of Study Plan:

The submitted study plan, “Reproduction/Developmental Toxicity
Screening Test of Sodium 3-Nitrobenzene Sulfonate (CAS # 127-68-4; US
EPA HPV3) in Wistar Rats” is considered adequate to satisfy the
mammalian reproduction/developmental toxicity testing requirement with
the following stipulations and modifications:

In section 5.11: Mating Procedure (p. 10), the study plan states: “If
mating has not occurred during two weeks mating period, re-mating of
females with proven males of the same group may be performed.”  This
appears to indicate that the mating period could be longer than two
weeks, whereas the 40 CFR 799.9355 indicates that the mating period
should be no longer than two weeks.  This statement should be revised to
more clearly explain the mating procedure, while adhering to the test
rule guideline.

The study plan does not indicate when unmated females will be
sacrificed.  According to 40 CFR 799.9355, females showing no evidence
of copulation are sacrificed 24-26 days after the last day of the mating
period.  These details should be added to the study plan.

The test guideline cited in section 2.2: Regulatory Guidelines (p. 5 of
the study plan) is OPPTS 870.3550.  This section should also cite the
test rule guideline, 40 CFR 799.9355 (“TSCA Reproduction/Developmental
Toxicity Screening Test”, December 15, 2000); the laboratory
conducting this test should ensure compliance with 40 CFR 799.9355.

In section 5.7: Housing (p. 9), the study plan states: “Throughout
experiment period, the rats will be housed individually.  Except during
the mating period, the rats will be housed in groups of 2 rats/cage (one
male plus one female).”  This is unclear.  This section should be
revised to state: “Throughout the experiment period, the rats will be
housed individually, with the exception that during the mating period,
the rats will be housed in groups of 2 rats/cage (one male plus one
female).”

In section 7.2: Pups (p. 12), the study plan should be modified to
include the identification of runts (pups that are significantly smaller
than corresponding control pups) during the examination of pups at
birth.

In section 7.2.1: Pup Body Weight (p. 12), the study plan states that
individual pup body weights will be recorded.  Additionally, the total
weight of pups in each litter should be calculated (by summing the
individual pup body weights for each litter); litter weights should be
statistically analyzed to determine treatment effects.

In section 7.3: Necropsy (p. 13), the word “scarified” should be
replaced with “sacrificed”.

In section 8.2: Data Evaluation (p. 14), a statement should be added to
indicate that statistical analyses on pup data (e.g., number of pups
born, pup body weights, pup survival) will be conducted on a per-litter
or per-dam basis.

Review of Test Substance Composition:

The composition of the proposed test substance, which was submitted to
EPA by Tiarco Chemical in a CBI submission (DCN<PHONE_NUMBER>9), is
considered to be acceptable, with the stipulation that the dose levels
must be expressed as the concentration of active ingredient (i.e., CASRN
127-68-4).  A more detailed review of the test substance composition,
which includes CBI, is contained in DCN<PHONE_NUMBER>4.

Conclusion:

The submitted study plan and proposed test substance are acceptable with
the stipulations described above.

HPV3 Reproduction/Developmental Toxicity Study Plan Review (Final)	CASRN
127-68-4

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  2


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 174 (Monday, September 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55114-55116]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21817]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2009-0043]

Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records; Extension of the
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information
Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the

information collection requirements specified in the Access to Employee
Exposure and Medical Records Standard (29 CFR 1910.1020).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
November 8, 2013.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, Hand Delivery, Express Mail, Messenger, or Courier Service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2009-0043,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal
business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number (OSHA-2009-0043) for the Information Collection Request
(ICR). All comments, including any personal information you provide,
are placed in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information
on submitting comments see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the
section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download from the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609,
200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2044.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information
is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal,
collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of
the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes
information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for
enforcement of the Act or for developing information regarding the
causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and
accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires OSHA to obtain
such information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those
operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent
feasible, unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining information
(29 U.S.C. 657).
    Under the authority granted by the OSH Act, OSHA published a health
regulation governing access to employee exposure monitoring data and
medical records. This regulation does not require employers to collect
any information or to establish any new systems of records. Rather, it
requires that employers provide workers, their designated
representatives, and OSHA with access to employee exposure monitoring
and medical records, and any analyses resulting from these records that
employers must maintain under OSHA's toxic chemical and harmful
physical agent standards. In this regard, the regulation specifies
requirements for record access, record retention, worker information,
trade secret management, and record transfer. Accordingly, the Agency
attributes the burden hours and costs associated with exposure
monitoring and measurement, medical surveillance, and the other
activities required to generate the data governed by the regulation to
the health standards that specify these activities; therefore, OSHA did
not include these burden hours and costs in this ICR.
    Access to exposure and medical information enables employees and
their designated representatives to become directly involved in
identifying and controlling occupational health hazards, as well as
managing and preventing occupationally-related health impairment and
disease. Providing the Agency with access to the records permits it to
ascertain whether or not employers are complying with the regulation,
as well as the recordkeeping requirements of its other health
standards; therefore, OSHA access provides additional assurance that
workers and their designated representatives are able to obtain the
data they need to conduct their analyses.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    The Agency is requesting an adjustment increase of 65,522 burden
hours from 664,993 to 730,515 hours. This increase is the result of an
adjustment in the number of establishments used in this analysis
increasing from 690,591 to 759,668, a total adjustment of 69,077. The
Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this
notice, and will include this summary in its response to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records (29 CFR
1910.1020).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0065.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits; Not-for-profit
organizations; Federal Government; State, Local, or Tribal Government.
    Number of Respondents: 759,668.
    Total Responses: 6,548,554.
    Frequency of Responses: Initially, Annually, On occasion.
    Average Time per Response: Varies from 5 minutes (.08 hour) for a
manager

to respond to a request to 1 hour (1.0) for a manager to prepare
necessary documentation.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 730,515.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on this Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2009-0043). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>). Comments
and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
dates of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
Web site.
    All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for
inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments and access
the docket is available at the Web site's ``User Tips'' link. Contact
the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available
through the Web site, and for assistance in using the Internet to
locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012
(77 FR 3912, January 25, 2012).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on September 3, 2013.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2013-21817 Filed 9-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 235 (Friday, December 7, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63106-63109]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26447]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 270

[Docket No. FRA-2011-0060, Notice No. 9]
RIN 2130-AC79

System Safety Program

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; stay of regulations.

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

SUMMARY: On August 12, 2016, FRA published a final rule requiring
commuter and intercity passenger railroads to develop and implement a
system safety program (SSP) to improve the safety of their operations.
FRA has stayed the SSP final rule's requirements until December 4,
2018. FRA is issuing this final rule to extend that stay until
September 4, 2019.

DATES: Effective December 4, 2018, the stay of 49 CFR part 270 is
extended until September 4, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Docket: For access to the docket to read background
documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
follow the online instructions for accessing the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Gross, Attorney, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office
of Chief Counsel; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 12, 2016, FRA published a final
rule requiring commuter and intercity passenger railroads to develop
and implement an SSP to improve the safety of their operations. See 81
FR 53850. On February 10, 2017, FRA stayed the SSP final rule's
requirements until March 21, 2017, consistent with the new
Administration's guidance issued January 20, 2017, intended to provide
the Administration an adequate opportunity to review new and pending
regulations. See 82 FR 10443 (Feb. 13, 2017). To provide additional
time for that review, FRA extended the stay until May 22, 2017, June 5,
2017, December 4, 2017, and then December 4, 2018. See 82 FR 14476
(Mar. 21, 2017); 82 FR 23150 (May 22, 2017); 82 FR 26359 (June 7,
2017); and 82 FR 56744 (Nov. 30, 2017).\1\ In that November 2017
document, FRA stated that the stays of the rule's requirements did not
affect the SSP final rule's information protection provisions in 49 CFR
270.105, which took effect on August 14, 2017, for information a
railroad compiles or collects after that date solely for SSP purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FRA notes it inadvertently published two notifications in
the Federal Register identified as Notice No. 6 for this docket. See
82 FR 23150 (May 22, 2017), Docket No. FRA-2011-0060-0043; and 82 FR
26359 (June 7, 2017), Docket No. FRA-2011-0060-0044. Before
identifying the duplication, FRA published a subsequent Notice No.
7. See 82 FR 56744 (Nov. 30, 2017), Docket No. FRA-2011-0060-0047.
FRA is numbering this document as Notice No. 9, to reflect that it
is actually the ninth notification published for this docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA's review included petitions for reconsideration of the SSP
final rule (Petitions). Various rail labor organizations (Labor
Organizations) filed a single joint petition.\2\ State and local
transportation departments and authorities (States) filed the three
other petitions, one of which was a joint petition (State Joint
Petition).\3\ The State Joint Petition requested that FRA stay the SSP
final rule, and NCDOT specifically requested that FRA stay the rule
while FRA was considering the

petitions. All Petitions were available for public comment in the
docket for the SSP rulemaking. On November 15, 2016, the Massachusetts
Department of Transportation submitted a comment supporting the State
Joint Petition, also asking FRA to stay the SSP final rule. FRA did not
receive any public comments opposing the States' requests for a stay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The labor organizations that filed the joint petition are:
The American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA), Brotherhood of
Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), Brotherhood of Maintenance
of Way Employes Division (BMWED), the Brotherhood of Railroad
Signalmen (BRS), Brotherhood Railway Carmen Division (TCU/IAM), and
Transport Workers Union of America (TWU).
    \3\ The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA), Indiana
Department of Transportation (INDOT), Northern New England Passenger
Rail Authority (NNEPRA), and San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority
(SJJPA) filed a joint petition (Joint Petition). The North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and State of Vermont Agency of
Transportations (VTrans) each filed separate petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 30, 2017, FRA met with the Passenger Safety Working
Group and the System Safety Task Group of the Railroad Safety Advisory
Committee (RSAC) to discuss the Petitions and comments received in
response to the Petitions.\4\ FRA specifically invited its state
partners to this meeting, which was also open to the public. This
meeting was necessary for FRA to receive input from industry and the
public, and to discuss potential paths forward to respond to the
Petitions prior to FRA taking final action. During the meeting, a
representative from the Oregon Department of Transportation asked
whether the SSP final rule would be further stayed pending FRA's
development of a response to the Petitions and public input received at
the meeting. An FRA representative indicated that he anticipated a
further stay of the rule to provide time to resolve the issues raised
by the petitions. None of the meeting participants expressed opposition
to a further stay. See generally FRA-2011-0060-0046.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Attendees at the October 30, 2017, meeting included
representatives from the following organizations: ADS System Safety
Consulting, LLC; American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO); American Public Transportation
Association (APTA); American Short Line and Regional Railroad
Association (ASLRRA); ATDA; Association of American Railroads (AAR);
BLET; BMWED; BRS; CCJPA; The Fertilizer Institute; Gannett Fleming
Transit and Rail Systems; International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers; Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA); National
Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak); National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB); NCDOT; NNEPRA; San Joaquin Regional Rail
Commission/Altamont Corridor Express; Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and
Transportation Workers (SMART); and United States Department of
Transportation--Transportation Safety Institute. During the meeting,
an attorney from Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell, LLP representing AASHTO
indicated he was authorized to speak on behalf of all the State
petitioners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to draft rule text FRA presented for discussion during
the RSAC meeting, the States indicated they would need an extended
caucus to discuss. On March 16, 2018, the Executive Committee of the
States for Passenger Rail Coalition (SPRC) \5\ provided, and FRA
uploaded to the rulemaking docket, proposed revisions to the draft rule
text. See FRA-2011-0060-0050. FRA is reviewing and considering these
suggested revisions in formulating its response to the petitions for
reconsideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ SPRC's website indicates it is an ``alliance of State and
Regional Transportation Officials,'' and each state petitioner
appears to be an SPRC member. See https://www.s4prc.org/state-programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the request for a continued stay of the rule, the comment
received supporting a stay, the lack of opposition to a stay in either
the comments or at the public RSAC meeting, and FRA's interest in
addressing the issues raised in the State petitions through notice and
comment rulemaking prior to requiring full compliance with the SSP
final rule, FRA finds notice and comment for this stay to be
impracticable and incompatible with the forthcoming NPRM.

Regulatory Impact and Notices

Executive Orders 12866 and 13771, and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures

    This final rule is a non-significant deregulatory action within the
meaning of Executive Order 12866 and DOT policies and procedures. See
44 FR 11034 (Feb. 26, 1979. The final rule is considered an E.O. 13771
deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings are below.
    In August 2016, FRA issued the System Safety Program final rule
(2016 Final Rule) as part of its efforts to continuously improve rail
safety and to satisfy the statutory mandate in sections 103 and 109 of
the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. The 2016 Final Rule requires
passenger railroads to establish a program that systematically
evaluates railroad safety risks and manages those risks with the goal
of reducing the number and rates of railroad accidents, incidents,
injuries, and fatalities. Paperwork requirements are the largest burden
of the 2016 Final Rule.
    FRA believes that this final rule, which will stay the requirements
of the 2016 Final Rule until September 4, 2019, will reduce regulatory
burden on the railroad industry. By staying the requirements of the
2016 Final Rule, railroads will realize a cost savings as railroads
will not sustain any costs during the first nine months of this
analysis. In addition, because this analysis discounts future costs and
this final rule will move forward all costs by nine months, the present
value costs of this stay will lower the present value cost of the SSP
rulemaking. FRA estimates this cost savings to be approximately
$255,928, at a 3-percent discount rate, and $246,360, at a 7-percent
discount rate. The following table shows the 2016 Final Rule's total
cost, delayed an additional nine months past the 2017 stay extension,
the implementation date total costs, and the cost savings from the
additional nine-month implementation date delay.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Present     Present
                                                     value       value
                                                     (7%)        (3%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 Final Rule, total cost.....................  $2,327,223  $3,412,649
Cost savings from nine-month delay..............     246,360     255,928
2016 Final Rule, total cost with cost savings      2,080,863   3,156,721
 from nine-month delay..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., and
Executive Order 13272, 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), require agency
review of proposed and final rules to assess their impact on small
entities. An agency must prepare an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis unless it determines and certifies that a rule, if
promulgated, would not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the FRA Administrator certifies that this final
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    This final rule will affect passenger railroads, but will have a
beneficial effect, lessening the burden on any small railroad.
    ``Small entity'' is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601 as including a small
business concern that is independently owned and operated, and is not
dominant in its field of operation. The U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) has authority to regulate issues related to small
businesses, and stipulates in its size standards that a ``small
entity'' in the railroad industry is a for profit ``linehaul railroad''
that has fewer than 1,500 employees, a ``short line railroad'' with
fewer than 1,500 employees, or a ``commuter rail system'' with annual
receipts of less than $15.0 million dollars. See ``Size Eligibility
Provisions and Standards,'' 13 CFR part 121, subpart A. Additionally, 5
U.S.C. 601(5) defines as ``small entities'' governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts with populations less than 50,000. Federal agencies may adopt
their own size standards for small entities, in consultation with SBA
and in conjunction with public comment. Pursuant to that authority, FRA
has published a final statement of agency policy that formally
establishes ``small entities'' or ``small businesses'' as being
railroads, contractors, and hazardous

materials shippers that meet the revenue requirements of a Class III
railroad as set forth in 49 CFR 1201.1-1, which is $20 million or less
in inflation-adjusted annual revenues, and commuter railroads or small
governmental jurisdictions that serve populations of 50,000 or less.
See 68 FR 24891 (May 9, 2003), codified at appendix C to 49 CFR part
209. The $20-million limit is based on the Surface Transportation
Board's revenue threshold for a Class III railroad. Railroad revenue is
adjusted for inflation by applying a revenue deflator formula in
accordance with 49 CFR 1201.1-1. FRA is using this definition for this
rulemaking.
    For purposes of this analysis, this final rule will apply to 30
commuter or other short-haul passenger railroads and two intercity
passenger railroads, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak) and the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARC). Neither is
considered a small entity. Amtrak serves populations well in excess of
50,000, and the ARC is owned by the State of Alaska, which has a
population well in excess of 50,000.
    Based on the definition of ``small entity,'' only one passenger
railroad is considered a small entity: The Hawkeye Express (operated by
the Iowa Northern Railway Company). As the final rule is not
significant, this final rule will merely provide this entity with
additional compliance time without introducing any additional burden.
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(b), the
FRA Administrator hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. A
substantial number of small entities may be impacted by this
regulation; however, any impact will be minimal and positive.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    There are no new collection of information requirements contained
in this final rule and, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., an information collection submission
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is not required. The
record keeping and reporting requirements already contained in the SSP
final rule were approved by OMB on October 5, 2016. The information
collection requirements thereby became effective when they were
approved by OMB. The OMB approval number is OMB No. 2130-0599, and OMB
approval expires on October 31, 2019.

Federalism Implications

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999),
requires FRA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by State and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies
that have federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order
to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the agency
may not issue a regulation with federalism implications that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs and that is not required by
statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments
or the agency consults with State and local government officials early
in the process of developing the regulation. Where a regulation has
federalism implications and preempts State law, the agency seeks to
consult with State and local officials in the process of developing the
regulation.
    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. FRA has determined
that this rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government. In addition, FRA has determined that this rule
does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local
governments. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of
Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

Environmental Assessment

    FRA has evaluated this rule in accordance with its ``Procedures for
Considering Environmental Impacts'' (FRA's Procedures) (64 FR 28545,
May 26, 1999) as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other environmental statutes, Executive Orders,
and related regulatory requirements. FRA has determined that this rule
is not a major FRA action (requiring the preparation of an
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment) because it
is categorically excluded from detailed environmental review pursuant
to section 4(c)(20) of FRA's Procedures. See 64 FR 28547, May 26, 1999.
    In accordance with section 4(c) and (e) of FRA's Procedures, the
agency has further concluded that no extraordinary circumstances exist
with respect to this regulation that might trigger the need for a more
detailed environmental review. As a result, FRA finds that this rule is
not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Pursuant to section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency shall, unless
otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory
actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector
(other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in law). Section 202 of the Act (2
U.S.C. 1532) further requires that before promulgating any general
notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the
promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may
result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted
annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and before promulgating any
final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was
published, the agency shall prepare a written statement detailing the
effect on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector.
This final rule will not result in such an expenditure, and thus
preparation of such a statement is not required.

Energy Impact

    Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a
Statement of Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' 66
FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). FRA has evaluated this rule in accordance with
Executive Order 13211 and has determined that this regulatory action is
not a ``significant energy action'' within the meaning of Executive
Order 13211.
    Executive Order 13783, ``Promoting Energy Independence and Economic
Growth,'' requires Federal agencies to review regulations to determine
whether they potentially burden the development or use of domestically
produced energy resources, with particular attention to oil, natural
gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources. See 82 FR 16093 (Mar. 31,
2017). FRA determined this regulatory action will not burden the
development or use of

domestically produced energy resources.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 270

    Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, System safety.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20106-20107, 20118-20119, 20156,
21301, 21304, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Mathew M. Sturges,
Deputy Administrator.

The Rule

0
In consideration of the foregoing, FRA extends the stay of the SSP
final rule published August 12, 2016 (81 FR 53850) until September 4,
2019.

[FR Doc. 2018-26447 Filed 12-4-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: April 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 74)]
[Notices]
[Page 19571-19577]
[DOCID:fr18ap07-109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55621; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2006-86]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change and Amendments No. 1, 2, 3, and 4 Thereto and
Order Granting Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change as
Modified by Amendments No. 2 and 4 Thereto Adopting Generic Listing
Standards for Exchange-Traded Funds Based on International or Global
Indexes or Indexes Described in Exchange Rules Previously Approved by
the Commission as Underlying Benchmarks for Derivative Securities

April 12, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby
given that on November 13, 2006, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange.
On March 19, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal.
On March 20, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the
proposal.\3\ On April 4, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 3 to
the filing. On April 10, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 4 to
the filing.\4\ This order provides notice of the proposal, as amended,
and approves the proposal on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 2 replaced and superseded the original filing
and Amendment No. 1 in their entirety.
    \4\ Amendment No. 4 superseded Amendment No. 3 in its entirety.
In Amendment No. 4, the Exchange made clarifying changes to Exhibit
5 and the purpose section, including reflecting a recent approval of
an exchange rule that changed the current rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NYSE Arca, through its wholly owned subsidiary NYSE Arca Equities,
Inc. (``NYSE Arca Equities''), proposes to amend its rules governing
NYSE Arca, L.L.C. (also referred to as the ``NYSE Arca Marketplace''),
the equities trading facility of NYSE Arca Equities. The Exchange
proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3), 5.5(g)(2), and
8.100 to include generic listing standards for Investment Company

Units (``Units'') and Portfolio Depositary Receipts (``PDRs'')
(``Units'' and ``PDRs'' together referred to herein as ``exchange-
traded funds'' or ``ETFs'') that are based on international or global
indexes or on indexes described in exchange rules that have been
previously approved by the Commission for the trading of ETFs and other
index-based securities. The text of the proposed rule change is
available at the Exchange, from the Commission's Public Reference Room,
and on NYSE Arca's Web site (http://www.nysearca.com).

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3),
5.5(g)(2), and 8.100 to include generic listing standards for series of
Units and PDRs that are based on international or global indexes or on
indexes described in rules previously approved by the Commission under
Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act \5\ for the trading of ETFs,
options, or other specified index-based securities. This proposal would
enable the Exchange to list and trade ETFs pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e)
under the Exchange Act \6\ if each of the conditions set forth in
Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) or Commentary .01
to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.100 is satisfied. Rule 19b-4(e) provides
that the listing and trading of a new derivative securities product by
a self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') shall not be deemed a proposed
rule change, pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of Rule 19b-4, if the
Commission has approved, pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act,
the SRO's trading rules, procedures, and listing standards for the
product class that would include the new derivatives securities
product, and the SRO has a surveillance program for the product
class.\7 \Similar proposals for the New York Stock Exchange LLC
(``NYSE''), The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), and the American
Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'') have been approved by the Commission.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e).
    \7\ When relying on Rule 19b-4(e), the SRO must submit Form 19b-
4(e) to the Commission within five business days after the exchange
begins trading a new derivative securities product. See 17 CFR
240.19b-4(e)(2)(ii). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
40761 (December 8, 1998), 63 FR 70952 (December 22, 1998).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55269 (February 9,
2007), 72 FR 7490 (February 15, 2007) (SR-Nasdaq-2006-050);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55113 (January 18, 2007), 72 FR
3179 (January 24, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2006-101); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 54739 (November 9, 2006), 71 FR 66993 (November 17,
2006) (SR-Amex-2006-78); and Securities Exchange Act Release No.
55018 (December 28, 2006), 72 FR 1040 (January 9, 2007) (SR-Amex-
2006-109) (making clarifying changes to the generic listing
standards set forth in SR-Amex-2006-78).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exchange-Traded Funds

    NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3) and 5.5(g)(2) provide standards
for initial and continued listing of Units, which are securities
representing interests in a registered investment company that could be
organized as a unit investment trust, an open-end management investment
company, or a similar entity. The investment company must hold
securities comprising, or otherwise based on or representing an
interest in, an index or portfolio of securities, or the investment
company must hold securities in another registered investment company
that holds securities in such a manner.\9\ NYSE Arca Equities Rule
8.100 allows for the listing and trading on the Exchange of PDRs. PDRs
represent securities based on a unit investment trust that holds the
securities that comprise an index or portfolio underlying a series of
PDRs. Pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3) and 8.100, Units
and PDRs must be issued in a specified aggregate minimum number in
return for a deposit of specified securities and/or a cash amount. When
aggregated in the same specified minimum number, Units and PDRs must be
redeemable by the issuer for the underlying securities and/or cash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3)(A)(i)(a)-(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To meet the objective of providing investment returns that
correspond to the price, dividend, and yield performance of the
underlying index, an ETF may use a ``replication'' strategy or a
``representative sampling'' strategy with respect to the ETF
portfolio.\10\ An ETF using a replication strategy invests in each
stock of the underlying index in about the same proportion as that
stock is represented in the index itself. An ETF using a representative
sampling strategy generally invests in a significant number but not all
of the component securities of its underlying index, and will hold
stocks that, in the aggregate, are intended to approximate the full
index in terms of key characteristics, such as price/earnings ratio,
earnings growth, and dividend yield.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In either case, an ETF, by its terms, may be considered
invested in the securities of the underlying index to the extent the
ETF invests in sponsored American Depositary Receipts (``ADRs''),
Global Depositary Receipts (``GDRs''), or European Depositary
Receipts (``EDRs'') that trade on exchanges with last-sale reporting
of securities in the underlying index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, an ETF portfolio may be adjusted in accordance with
changes in the composition of the underlying index or to maintain
compliance with requirements applicable to a regulated investment
company under the Internal Revenue Code (``IRC'').\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For an ETF to qualify for tax treatment as a regulated
investment company, it must meet several requirements under the IRC,
including requirements with respect to the nature and the value of
the ETF's assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Generic Listing Standards for Exchange-Traded Funds

    The Commission has previously approved generic listing standards
for ETFs based on indexes that consist of stocks listed on U.S.
exchanges.\12\ In general, the proposed criteria for the underlying
component securities in the international and global indexes are
similar to those for the domestic indexes, but with modifications as
appropriate for the issues and risks associated with non-U.S.
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3);
Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.100; Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 44551 (July 12, 2001), 66 FR 37716 (July 19, 2001)
(SR-PCX-2001-14) (approving generic listing standards for Units and
PDRs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission has previously approved rules governing
the listing and trading of ETFs based on international indexes--those
based on non-U.S. component stocks--as well as global indexes--those
based on non-U.S. and U.S. component stocks.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53999 (June
15, 2006), 71 FR 35981 (June 22, 2006) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-30)
(approving the trading of certain Wisdom Trade exchange-traded
funds); and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53230 (February 6,
2006), 71 FR 7594 (February 13, 2006) (SR-PCX-2005-116) (approving
the listing and trading of funds of iShares, Inc. based on certain
MSCI country-specific indexes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has also approved rules of other exchanges that
permit the listing pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) of index-based derivatives
where the Commission had previously approved rules contemplating the
trading of

specified index-based derivatives on the same index, on the condition
that all of the standards set forth in those orders, in particular with
respect to surveillance sharing agreements, continued to be
satisfied.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6); Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 52204 (August 3, 2005), 70 FR 46559 (August 10,
2005) (SR-PCX-2005-63) (approving generic listing standards for
index-linked securities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that adopting additional generic listing
standards for ETFs and applying Rule 19b-4(e) thereto should fulfill
the intended objective of that rule by allowing those ETFs that satisfy
the proposed generic listing standards to commence trading without the
need for the public comment period and Commission approval. The
proposed rules have the potential to reduce the time frame for bringing
ETFs to market, thereby reducing the burdens on issuers and other
market participants. The failure of a particular ETF to comply with the
proposed generic listing standards under Rule 19b-4(e) would not,
however, preclude the Exchange from submitting a separate filing
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) requesting Commission approval to list and
trade a particular ETF.

Requirements for Listing and Trading ETFs Based on International and
Global Indexes or Previously Approved Indexes

    ETFs listed pursuant to these proposed generic listing standards
for international and global indexes, and for indexes described in
rules previously approved by the Commission for trading of options or
other derivative securities, would be traded, in all other respects,
under the Exchange's existing trading rules and procedures that apply
to ETFs \15\ and would be covered under the Exchange's surveillance
program for derivative products. The Exchange represents that its
surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of
Units and PDRs listed pursuant to the proposed new listing standards
and those traded pursuant to UTP. Specifically, the Exchange will rely
on its existing surveillance procedures governing derivative products,
which apply both to Exchange-listed Units and PDRs and those traded
pursuant to UTP. In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy
prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its
employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3), 5.5(g)(2), and
8.100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To list an ETF pursuant to the proposed generic listing standards
for international or global indexes, and for indexes described in
exchange rules previously approved by the Commission for trading of
options or other derivative securities, the index underlying the Units
or PDRs must satisfy all the conditions contained in proposed
Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) (for Units) or
proposed Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.100 (for PDRs).
However, for Units or PDRs traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP, only
the provisions of paragraphs (c), (e), (f), (g), and (h) of Commentary
.01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j) and NYSE Arca Equities Rule
8.100(c) and paragraphs (c), (e), (f), and (g) of Commentary .01 to
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.100 would apply. These paragraphs relate to
trading increments, trading hours, dissemination of IIV, implementation
of surveillance procedures, information circulars, and prospectus
delivery.
    As with the existing generic standards for ETFs based on domestic
indexes, these generic listing standards are intended to ensure that
stocks with substantial market capitalization and trading volume
account for a substantial portion of the weight of an index or
portfolio. While the standards in this proposal are based on the
standards contained in the current generic listing standards for ETFs
based on domestic indexes, they have been adapted as appropriate to
apply to international and global indexes.
    As proposed, the definition section of each of NYSE Arca Equities
Rules 5.2(j)(3) and 8.100 would be revised to include definitions of
U.S. Component Stock and Non-U.S. Component Stock. These new
definitions would provide the basis for the standards for indexes with
either domestic or international stocks, or a combination of both. A
``Non-U.S. Component Stock'' would mean an equity security that is not
registered under Section 12(b) or 12(g) of the Exchange Act,\16\ and
that is issued by an entity that (1) is not organized, domiciled, or
incorporated in the United States, and (2) is an operating company
(including a real estate investment trust) or income trust, but
excluding an investment trust, unit trust, mutual fund, or derivative).
This definition is designed to create a category of component stocks
that are issued by companies that are not based in the United States,
but that also are not subject to oversight through Commission
registration, and would include sponsored GDRs and EDRs. This
definition would appear in an amended introductory paragraph in NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) and new subsection (4) of NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 8.100(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 781(b) or (g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A ``U.S. Component Stock'' would mean an equity security that is
registered under Section 12(b) or 12(g) of the Exchange Act or an ADR,
the underlying equity security of which is registered under Section
12(b) or 12(g) of the Exchange Act. An ADR with an underlying equity
security that is registered pursuant to the Exchange Act is considered
a U.S. Component Stock because the issuer of that underlying security
is subject to Commission jurisdiction and must comply with Commission
rules. This definition would appear in an amended introductory
paragraph in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) and new subsection (3)
of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.100(a).
    The Exchange proposes that, to list a Unit or PDR based on an
international or global index or portfolio pursuant to the generic
listing standards, such index or portfolio must meet the following
criteria:
     Component stocks that in the aggregate account for at
least 90% of the weight of the index or portfolio each shall have a
minimum market value of at least $100 million (proposed NYSE Arca
Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .01(a)(B)(1), and 8.100,
Commentary .01(a)(B)(1));
     Component stocks that in the aggregate account for at
least 90% of the weight of the index or portfolio each shall have a
minimum worldwide monthly trading volume during each of the last six
months of at least 250,000 shares (proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rules
5.2(j)(3), Commentary .01(a)(B)(2) and 8.100, Commentary .01(a)(B)(2));
     The most heavily weighted component stock may not exceed
25% of the weight of the index or portfolio and the five most heavily
weighted component stocks may not exceed 60% of the weight of the index
or portfolio (proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3), Commentary
.01(a)(B)(3) and 8.100, Commentary .01(a)(B)(3));
     The index or portfolio shall include a minimum of 20
component stocks (proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3),
Commentary .01(a)(B)(4) and 8.100, Commentary .01(a)(B)(4)); and
     Each U.S. Component Stock in the index or portfolio shall
be listed on a national securities exchange and shall be an NMS Stock
as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act, and
each Non-U.S. Component Stock in the index or portfolio shall be listed
on an exchange that has last-sale reporting (proposed NYSE Arca
Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .01(a)(B)(5) and 8.100, Commentary
.01(a)(B)(5)).

    The Exchange believes that these proposed standards are reasonable
for international and global indexes, and, when applied in conjunction
with the other listing requirements, would result in the listing and
trading on the Exchange of ETFs that are sufficiently broad-based in
scope and not readily susceptible to manipulation. The Exchange also
believes that the proposed standards would result in ETFs that are
adequately diversified in weighting for any single security or small
group of securities, which should significantly reduce concerns that
trading in an ETF based on an international or global index could
become a surrogate for the trading of securities not registered in the
United States.
    The Exchange further notes that, while these standards are similar
to those for indexes that include only U.S. Component Stocks, they
differ in certain important respects and are generally more
restrictive, reflecting greater concerns over portfolio diversification
with respect to ETFs investing in components that are not individually
registered with the Commission. First, in the proposed standards,
component stocks that in the aggregate account for at least 90% of the
weight of the index or portfolio each shall have a minimum market value
of at least $100 million, compared to a minimum market value of at
least $75 million for indexes with only U.S. Component Stocks.\17\
Second, in the proposed standards, the most heavily weighted component
stock may not exceed 25% of the weight of the index or portfolio, in
contrast to a 30% standard for an index or portfolio comprised of only
U.S. Component Stocks (in the case of Units, but not PDRs, which has a
25% standard). Third, in the proposed standards, the five most heavily
weighted component stocks may not exceed 60% of the weight of the index
or portfolio, compared to a 65% standard for indexes comprised of only
U.S. Component Stocks. Fourth, the minimum number of component stocks
in the proposed standards is 20, in contrast to a minimum of 13 in the
standards for an index or portfolio with only U.S. Component Stocks.
Finally, the proposed standards require that each Non-U.S. Component
Stock included in the index or portfolio be listed and traded on an
exchange that has last-sale reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Market value is calculated by multiplying the total shares
outstanding by the price per share of the component stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to modify Commentary .01(b)(2) to NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) and Commentary .01(b)(3) to NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 8.100 to require that the index value for an ETF listed
pursuant to the proposed standards for international and global indexes
be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at
least every 60 seconds during the time when the ETF shares trade on the
NYSE Arca Marketplace. In contrast, the index value for an ETF listed
pursuant to the existing standards for domestic indexes must be
disseminated at least every 15 seconds during the trading day. This 60-
second standard reflects limitations, in some instances, on the
frequency of intra-day trading information with respect to Non-U.S.
Component Stocks and that in many cases, trading hours for overseas
markets overlap only in part, or not at all, with NYSE Arca Marketplace
trading hours.
    In addition, Commentary .01(c) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3)
and Commentary .01(c) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.100 are being
modified to define the term ``Intraday Indicative Value'' (``IIV'') as
the estimate, updated at least every 15 seconds, during the Core
Trading Session (9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Eastern Time), and, if applicable
the Opening Session (4 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., Eastern Time) of the value of
a share of each ETF, for ease of reference in these rules and also in
NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.5(g)(2)(b) and 8.100(e)(2)(ii) regarding
continued listing standards. The Exchange also proposes to clarify in
Commentary .01(c) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) and Commentary
.01(c) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.100 that the IIV would be updated
at least every 15 seconds during regular market hours and during any
pre-market trading sessions for the ETF to reflect changes in the
exchange rate between the U.S. dollar and the currency in which any
component stock is denominated. In addition, if the IIV does not change
during some or all of the period when trading is occurring on the
Exchange, then the last official calculated IIV must remain available
throughout Exchange trading hours.
    The Exchange is proposing that it may designate a series of Units
or PDRs for trading during the Opening Session or Late Trading Session
(4 p.m. to 8 p.m., Eastern Time) as long as the index value and IIV
dissemination requirements of Commentary .01(b)(2) and (c) to NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) and Commentary .01(b)(3) and (c) to NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 8.100 are met. If there is no overlap with the trading
hours of the primary market trading the underlying components of a
series of Units or PDRs, the Exchange may designate such series for
trading in the Opening Session as long as the last official calculated
IIV remains available. Although the IIV does not need to be calculated
during the Exchange's Late Trading Session, the last official
calculated IIV must also remain available during such session.
    The Exchange is also proposing to add a subsection (i) to
Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) and a subsection
(h) to Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.100 regarding the
creation and redemption process for ETFs and compliance with Federal
securities laws for ETFs listed pursuant to the new generic listing
standards. These new subsections would apply to Units listed pursuant
to Commentary .01(a)(B) or (C) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) and
for PDRs listed pursuant to Commentary .01(a)(B) or (C) to NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 8.100. They would require that the statutory prospectus
or the application for exemption from provisions of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 for the ETF being listed pursuant to these new
standards must state that the ETF must comply with the federal
securities laws in accepting securities for deposits and satisfying
redemptions with redemption securities, including that the securities
accepted for deposits and the securities used to satisfy redemption
requests are sold in transactions that would be exempt from
registration under the Securities Act of 1933.
    The Commission has approved generic standards providing for the
listing pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) of other derivative products based on
indexes described in rules previously approved by the Commission under
Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act.\18\ The Exchange proposes to
include in the generic standards for the listing of Units and PDRs, in
new Commentary .01(a)(C) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) and
Commentary .01(a)(C) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.100, indexes
described in rule changes that have been approved by the Commission in
connection with the trading of options, PDRs, Units, Index-Linked
Exchangeable Notes, or Index-Linked Securities. The Exchange believes
that the application of that standard to ETFs is appropriate because
the underlying index would have been subject to Commission review in
the context of the approval of rules contemplating the trading of other
derivatives. This new generic standard would be limited to stock
indexes and portfolios and would require that each component stock be
either: (1) A U.S. Component Stock that

is listed on a national securities exchange and is an NMS Stock as
defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act; or (2) a
Non-U.S. Component Stock that is listed and traded on an exchange that
has last-sale reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify the initial and continued listing
standards relating to disseminated information relating to ETFs to
formalize in the rules existing best practices for providing equal
access to material information about the value of ETFs. Pursuant to
NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3)(A)(v) and NYSE Arca Equities
8.100(e)(1)(ii), prior to approving an ETF for listing, the Exchange
would obtain a representation from the ETF issuer that the net asset
value (``NAV'') per share would be calculated daily and made available
to all market participants at the same time. Proposed NYSE Arca
Equities Rules 5.5(g)(2)(b) and 8.100(e)(2)(ii) would set forth the
trading halt parameters for ETFs. In particular, the proposed rules
specifically provide that, if the IIV (as defined in Commentary .01 to
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) and Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 8.100) or the index value applicable to that series of
ETFs is not being disseminated as required when the Exchange is the
listing market, the Exchange may halt trading during the day in which
the interruption to the dissemination of the IIV or the index value
occurs. If the interruption to the dissemination of the IIV or the
index value persists past the trading day in which it occurred, the
Exchange would halt trading no later than the beginning of the trading
day following the interruption.
    In addition, proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.5(g)(2)(b) and
8.100(e)(2)(ii) have been modified to provide that the Exchange: (1)
Would halt trading in a series of ETFs if the circuit breaker
parameters of Rule 7.12 have been reached; and (2) in exercising its
discretion to halt trading in a series of ETFs, would consider factors
such as the extent to which trading in the underlying securities is not
occurring or whether other unusual conditions or circumstances
detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are
present, in addition to other relevant factors.
    The Exchange is proposing other minor and clarifying changes to
NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3) and 8.100. The standards set forth
in Commentary .01(a)(A) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) and
Commentary .01(a)(A) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.100 are being
modified to make the wording of each requirement consistent. In
addition, Commentary .01(a)(A)(5) to each of NYSE Arca Equities Rules
5.2(j)(3) and 8.100 would be modified to reflect the adoption of
Regulation NMS. Proposed Commentary .01(b)(4) to NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 5.2(j)(3) and Commentary .01(b)(4) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule
8.100 would be added to make sure that an entity that advises index
providers or calculators has in place procedures designed to prevent
the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding
the index underlying the ETF.
    The Exchange is also proposing the following clean-up changes to
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.100 in order to make it consistent with NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3). The Exchange proposes changing the term
``Reporting Authority'' to ``one or more major market data vendors'' in
Commentary .01(c) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.100.\19\ Also,
Commentary .01(c) to NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3) and 8.100 would
be modified to clarify that the obligation to disseminate an IIV
applies to Units and PDRs that are listed or traded on the Exchange
(which would include Units or PDRs traded pursuant to UTP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52809 (November 18,
2005), 70 FR 71590 (November 29, 2005) (SR-PCX-2005-108) (approving
change to listing standards for Units to allow ``one or more major
market data vendors'' to satisfy dissemination requirements rather
than ``Reporting Authority'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act,\20\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\21\ in particular, in that it is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Exchange 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-NYSEArca-2006-86 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-NYSEArca-2006-86. 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 NYSE Arca. 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-NYSEArca-2006-86 and should be submitted on or before
May 9, 2007.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Change

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\22\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act \23\ in
that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ In approving this rule change, the Commission notes that it
has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange must file a proposed rule change with the
Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act \24\ and
Rule 19b-4 thereunder \25\ to list and trade any ETF based on an index
comprised of foreign securities. The Exchange also must file a proposed
rule change to list and trade ETFs based on indexes or portfolios
described in rule changes that have previously been approved by the
Commission as underlying benchmarks for derivative securities. However,
Rule 19b-4(e) provides that the listing and trading of a new derivative
securities product by an SRO will not be deemed a proposed rule change
pursuant to Rule 19b-4(c)(1) if the Commission has approved, pursuant
to Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act, the SRO's trading rules,
procedures, and listing standards for the product class that would
include the new derivative securities product, and the SRO has a
surveillance program for the product class. The Exchange's proposed
rules for the listing and trading of ETFs pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e)
based on (1) certain indexes with components that include foreign
securities or (2) indexes or portfolios previously described in
exchange rules that have been approved by the Commission as underlying
benchmarks for derivative securities, fulfill these requirements. Use
of Rule 19b-4(e) by NYSE Arca to list and trade such ETFs should
promote competition, reduce burdens on issuers and other market
participants, and make such ETFs available to investors more
quickly.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \26\ The Commission notes, however, that the failure of a
particular ETF to meet these generic listing standards would not
preclude the Exchange from submitting a separate proposed rule
change to list and trade the ETF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission previously has approved generic listing standards
for other exchanges that are substantially similar to those proposed
here by NYSE Arca.\27\ This proposal does not appear to raise any novel
regulatory issues. Therefore, the Commission finds that NYSE Arca's
proposal is consistent with the Exchange Act on the same basis that it
approved the other exchanges' generic listing standards for ETFs based
on international or global indexes or on indexes or portfolios
described in exchange rules that have been previously approved by the
Commission as underlying benchmarks for derivative securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55269 (February 9,
2007), 72 FR 7490 (February 15, 2007) (SR-Nasdaq-2006-050);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55113 (January 18, 2007), 72 FR
3179 (January 24, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2006-101); and Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 54739 (November 9, 2006), 71 FR 66993 (November 17,
2006) (SR-Amex-2006-78).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Commentary .01(a)(A) and (B) to NYSE Arca Equities Rules
5.2(j)(3) and 8.100 establish standards for the composition of an index
or portfolio underlying an ETF. These requirements are designed, among
other things, to require that components of an index or portfolio
underlying the ETF are adequately capitalized and sufficiently liquid,
and that no one security dominates the index. The Commission believes
that, taken together, these standards are reasonably designed to ensure
that securities with substantial market capitalization and trading
volume account for a substantial portion of any underlying index or
portfolio, and that when applied in conjunction with the other
applicable listing requirements, will permit the listing and trading
only of ETFs that are sufficiently broad-based in scope to minimize
potential manipulation. The Commission further believes that the
proposed listing standards are reasonably designed to preclude NYSE
Arca from listing and trading ETFs that might be used as surrogate for
trading in unregistered securities. The requirement that each component
security underlying an ETF be an NMS Stock (in the case of a U.S.
Component Stock) or listed on an exchange and subject to last-sale
reporting (in the case of a Non-U.S. Component Stock) also should
contribute to the transparency of the market for these ETFs.
    The proposed generic listing standards will permit NYSE Arca to
list and trade an ETF if the Commission has previously approved an SRO
rule change that contemplates listing and trading a derivative product
based on the same underlying index. NYSE Arca would be able to rely on
that earlier approval order, provided that: (1) The securities
comprising the underlying index consist of U.S. Component Stocks or
Non-U.S. Component Stocks, as set forth in proposed NYSE Arca Equities
Rules 5.2(j)(3), 8.100(a)(3), and 8.100(a)(4); and (2) NYSE Arca
complies with the commitments undertaken by the other SRO set forth in
the prior order, including any surveillance-sharing arrangements with a
foreign market.
    The Commission believes that NYSE Arca's proposal is consistent
with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Exchange Act,\28\ which sets
forth Congress' finding that it is in the public interest and
appropriate for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair
and orderly markets to assure the availability to brokers, dealers, and
investors of information with respect to quotations for and
transactions in securities. The Exchange's proposal requires the value
of the index or portfolio underlying an ETF based on a global or
international index to be disseminated at least once every 60 seconds
during Exchange trading hours.\29\ Furthermore, these generic listing
standards provide that the issuer of an ETF must represent that it will
calculate the NAV and make it available daily to all market
participants at the same time.\30\ In addition, an IIV, which
represents an estimate of the value of a share of each ETF, must be
updated and disseminated at least once every 15 seconds during the time
an ETF trades on the Exchange.\31\ The IIV will be updated to reflect
changes in the exchange rate between the U.S. dollar and the currency
in which any index or portfolio component stock is denominated.\32\
When there is no overlap with the trading hours of the primary market
or markets trading the underlying components of an ETF,

NYSE Arca may trade such ETF during the Opening Session without an IIV
being updated, as long as the last official calculated IIV remains
available. Although the IIV is not calculated during the Late Trading
Session, the last official calculated IIV must also remain available
during such session. The Commission believes that the proposed rules
regarding the dissemination of the index value and the IIV are
reasonably designed to promote transparency in the pricing of ETFs and
thus are consistent with the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(iii).
    \29\ See proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3), Commentary
.01(b)(2) and 8.100, Commentary .01(b)(3). If an index or portfolio
value does not change for some of the time that the ETF trades on
the Exchange, the last official calculated value must remain
available throughout Exchange trading hours.
    \30\ See proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3)(A)(v) and
8.100(e)(1)(ii).
    \31\ See proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3), Commentary
.01(c) and 8.100, Commentary .01(c).
    \32\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Exchange's trading halt rules are reasonably
designed to prevent trading in an ETF when transparency cannot be
assured. Proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.5(g)(2)(b) provides that,
when the Exchange is the listing market, if the IIV or index value
applicable to an ETF is not disseminated as required, the Exchange may
halt trading during the day in which the interruption occurs. If the
interruption continues, the Exchange will halt trading no later than
the beginning of the next trading day.\33\ This proposed rule is
substantially similar to those recently adopted by other exchanges and
found by the Commission to be consistent with the Exchange Act.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ In addition, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34 sets forth
trading halt procedures when the Exchange trades ETFs pursuant to
UTP.
    \34\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54997
(December 21, 2006), 71 FR 78501 (December 29, 2006) (SR-NYSEArca-
2006-77).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving this proposal, the Commission relied on NYSE Arca's
representation that its surveillance procedures are adequate to
properly monitor the trading of the Units and PDRs listed pursuant to
the proposed new listing standards or traded on a UTP basis. This
approval is conditioned on the continuing accuracy of that
representation.

Acceleration

    The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule
change, as amended, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication
of the notice of the amended proposal in the Federal Register. The
Commission notes that NYSE Arca's proposal is substantially similar to
other proposals that have been approved by the Commission.\35\ The
Commission does not believe that NYSE Arca's proposal raises any novel
regulatory issues and, therefore, that good cause exists for approving
the filing before the conclusion of a notice-and-comment period.
Accelerated approval of the proposal will expedite the listing and
trading of additional ETFs by the Exchange, subject to consistent and
reasonable standards. Therefore, the Commission finds good cause,
consistent with Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,\36\ to approve
the proposed rule change, as amended, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See supra note 27.
    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act,\37\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2006-86),
as amended, be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-7324 Filed 4-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 4 (Monday, January 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 938]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00024]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP13-28-000]

Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on December 14, 2012, Dominion Transmission, Inc.
(Dominion), 701 East Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, filed a
prior notice application pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.208 of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations under the
Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Dominion's blanket certificate issued in
Docket No. CP82-537-000, to replace 3.36 miles of existing 26-inch
diameter pipeline located in Fairfield, Franklin and Muskingum
counties, Ohio, and 1.57 miles of 30-inch diameter pipeline located in
Beaver County, Pennsylvania, all as more fully set forth in the
application, which is open to the public for inspection. The filing may
also be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Brad
Knisley, Regulatory and Certificates Analyst, Dominion Transmission,
Inc., 701 East Cary Street, Richmond, VA 23219 or telephone (804) 771-
4412 or fax<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person 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.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. Persons unable to file
electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest
or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: December 28, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00024 Filed 1-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 76069]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30659]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Random Drug and Alcohol Testing Percentage Rates of Covered
Aviation Employees for the Period of January 1, 2011, Through December
31, 2011

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA has determined that the minimum random drug and
alcohol testing percentage rates for the period January 1, 2011,
through December 31, 2011, will remain at 25 percent of safety-
sensitive employees for random drug testing and 10 percent of safety-
sensitive employees for random alcohol testing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Kevin Kearns, Office of Aerospace
Medicine, Drug Abatement Division, Program Administration Branch (AAM-
810), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Room 806, Washington, DC 20591; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Discussion: Pursuant to 14 CFR 120.109(b), the FAA Administrator's
decision on whether to change the minimum annual random drug testing
rate is based on the reported random drug test positive rate for the
entire aviation industry. If the reported random drug test positive
rate is less than 1.00%, the Administrator may continue the minimum
random drug testing rate at 25%. In 2009, the random drug test positive
rate was 0.534%. Therefore, the minimum random drug testing rate will
remain at 25% for calendar year 2011.
    Similarly, 14 CFR 120.217(c), requires the decision on the minimum
annual random alcohol testing rate to be based on the random alcohol
test violation rate. If the violation rate remains less than 0.50%, the
Administrator may continue the minimum random alcohol testing rate at
10%. In 2009, the random alcohol test violation rate was 0.088%.
Therefore, the minimum random alcohol testing rate will remain at 10%
for calendar year 2011.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If you have questions about how the annual
random testing percentage rates are determined please refer to the Code
of Federal Regulations Title 14, section 120.109(b) (for drug testing),
and 120.217(c) (for alcohol testing).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 1, 2010.
Frederick E. Tilton,
Federal Air Surgeon.
[FR Doc. 2010-30659 Filed 12-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 368]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33209]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0374]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Petition To Request an Exemption
From 100 Percent Identity Testing of Dietary Ingredients; Current Good
Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or
Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Petition to Request an Exemption
From 100 Percent Identity Testing of Dietary Ingredients; Current Good
Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or
Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements'' has been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley, Jr., Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of September 30,
2010 (75 FR 60463), the Agency announced that the proposed information
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44
U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0608.
The approval expires on December 31, 2013. A copy of the supporting
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: December 27, 2010.
David Dorsey,
Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning and Budget.
[FR Doc. 2010-33209 Filed 1-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P