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

<EPA Registration Division contact: [insert name and telephone number
with area code]>

<INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide
petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please
insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline. Please do not change
the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace
the instructions that appear in green, i.e., “[insert company
name],” with the information specific to your action.>

<TEMPLATE:>

<[Bayer CropScience],]>

<[Insert petition number]>

<	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([insert petition number]) from
[Bayer CropScience], [P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709] proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to
amend 40 CFR part 180. by establishing a tolerance for residues of
[imidacloprid,
1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-imidazolidinimine] and its
metabolites containing the 6-chloropyridinyl moiety, all expressed as
the parent, in or on the raw agricultural commodity [vegetable, bulb,
group 3] at [2.5] parts per million (ppm).  EPA has determined that the
petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth
in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated
the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before
EPA rules on the petition.>

<A. Residue Chemistry>

<	1. Plant metabolism. [The nature of the imidacloprid residue in plants
and livestock is adequately understood. The residues of concern are
combined residues of imidacloprid and it metabolites containing the
6-chloropyridinyl moiety, all calculated as imidacloprid.    >

<	2. Analytical method. [The analytical method is a common moiety method
for imidacloprid and its metabolites containing the 6-chloropyridinyl
moiety using a permanganate oxidation, silyl derivatization, and
capillary GC MS selective ion monitoring.  This method has successfully
passed a petition method validation in EPA labs. There is a confirmatory
method specifically for imidacloprid and several metabolites utilizing
GC/MS and HPLC UV which has been validated by the EPA as well.
Imidacloprid and its metabolites are stable for at least 24 months in
the commodities when frozen.]>

<	3. Magnitude of residues. [A total of 9 field trials were conducted to
measure the magnitude of imidacloprid in/on bulb vegetables following a
single in-furrow spray application of Admire Pro 550 SC at a target rate
of 0.500 lb ai/A (0.485 to 0.512 lb ai/A or 0.543 to 0.574 kg ai/ha) to
green onions and dry bulb onions at the time of planting the bulbs.
Admire Pro 550 SC is suspension concentrate formulation containing 550 g
ai/L. There were no adjuvants added to the spray mixture.  In three of
the field trials, duplicate composite samples of whole green onion
plants without roots were collected at commercial maturity. A single
composite sample of whole green onion plants without roots was collected
from the control plot of each trial at the same time the samples were
collected from the treated plot.  In six of the field trials, duplicate
composite samples of dry onion bulbs were collected at commercial
maturity. A single composite sample of dry onion bulbs was collected
from the control plot of each trial at the same time the samples were
collected from the treated plot.

The total imidacloprid residue (imidacloprid + des nitro imidacloprid +
hydroxy imidacloprid + imidacloprid olefin + 6-chloronicotinic acid) was
analyzed in bulb vegetables samples by a common moiety method (oxidation
to 6-chloronicotinic acid) and quantitated by using a stable
isotopically labeled 6-chloronicotinic acid internal standard and
lc-ms/ms detection.  The limit of quantitation (LOQ) for imidacloprid in
green onion plants without roots and dry bulb onions was 0.020 ppm and
0.050 ppm, respectively.

The HAFT (highest average field trial residue) imidacloprid residue was
1.34 ppm in/on whole green onion plants without roots (maximum residue =
1.501 ppm) and 0.08 ppm in/on dry onion bulbs (maximum residue = 0.080
ppm) at commercial maturity. ]>

<B. Toxicological Profile>

<	1. Acute toxicity.  [Imidacloprid has low acute toxicity via the
dermal and inhalation routes and moderate acute toxicity via the oral
route.  The acute oral LD50 value for imidacloprid technical was found
to be 424 mg/kg for male rats and >450 mg/kg for female rats.  The acute
dermal LD50 is >5,000 mg/kg and the 4 hour rat inhalation LC50 is >5.33
mg/L in the rat.  Imidacloprid is not irritating to rabbit skin or eyes.
 Imidacloprid did not cause skin sensitization in guinea pigs.]>

<	2. Genotoxicty. [Imidacloprid has been evaluated for genotoxicity
using in vivo and in vitro tests, including mammalian cell gene mutation
tests, chromosomal aberration tests, unscheduled DNA synthesis tests,
bacterial DNA repair tests and other mutagenicity studies.  The weight
of evidence shows that imidacloprid is not mutagenic.>]

<	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [In a developmental
toxicity study with Sprague Dawley rats, pregnant animals received an
oral administration of imidacloprid at 0, 10, 30, or 100 mg/kg/day
during gestation. The maternal NOAEL was 10 mg/kg/day based on decreased
body weight gain and the fetal NOAEL was 30 mg/kg/day based on a slight
increase in the incidence of wavy ribs in the presence of maternal
toxicity.>

In a developmental toxicity study with rabbits, pregnant animals were
given oral doses of imidacloprid at 0, 8, 24, or 72 mg/kg bwt/day during
gestation. For maternal toxicity, the NOAEL was 24 mg/kg /day and the
LOEL was 72 mg/kg/day based on mortality, decreased body weight gain,
and decreased food consumption. For developmental toxicity, the NOAEL
was 24 mg/kg bwt/day and the LOAEL was 72 mg/kg bwt/day based on
decreased fetal body weight and increased resorptions.

In a 2-generation reproductive toxicity study, imidacloprid was
administered to rats at dietary levels of 0, 100, 250, or 700 ppm. For
parental/systemic toxicity, the NOAEL was 250 ppm (16.5 mg/kg/day) and
the LOAEL was 700 ppm based on decreased body weight in both sexes.  The
reproductive NOAEL was the highest dose tested, 700 ppm.]

<	4. Subchronic toxicity. [In a dermal toxicity study, groups of 5 male
and 5 female New Zealand White rabbits received repeated dermal
applications of imidacloprid at 1,000 mg/kg body weight/day, 6
hours/day, 5 days/week for 3 weeks. No dermal or systemic toxicity was
seen.  For systemic and dermal toxicity, the no observable adverse
effect level (NOAEL) was >1,000 mg/kg/day.]>

<	5. Chronic toxicity. [A chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study was
performed with imidacloprid administered to male and female rats for two
years at dietary levels of 100, 300, 900 or 1,800 ppm.  There was no
evidence of carcinogenicity.  At 300 ppm, there was an increased
incidence of mineralized particles in thyroid colloid of male rats.  The
NOAEL was 100 ppm (5.7 mg/kg/day for males and 7.6 mg/kg/day for
females).

The oncogenic potential of imidacloprid was investigated in B6C3F1 mice.
 Dietary doses were 0, 100, 330, 1,000 or 2,000 ppm.  Decreased body
weights, decreased food consumption and hepatocellular hypertrophy were
seen at the highest dose level.  There was no evidence of
carcinogenicity.  The NOAEL was 2,000 ppm (208 mg/kg for males and 274
for females). ]>

<	6. Animal metabolism. [The metabolism of NTN 33893 (imidacloprid) in
rats was reported in seven studies. These data show that imidacloprid
was rapidly absorbed and eliminated in the excreta (90% of the dose
within 24 hours), demonstrating no biologically significant differences
between sexes, dose levels, or route of administration. Elimination was
mainly renal (70 - 80% of the dose) and fecal (17 - 25%). The major part
of the fecal activity originated in the bile. Total body accumulation
after 48 hours consisted of 0.5% of the radioactivity with the liver,
kidney, lung, skin and plasma being the major sites of accumulation.
Therefore, bioaccumulation of imidacloprid is low in rats. Maximum
plasma concentration was reached between 1.1 and 2.5 hours. Two major
routes of biotransformation were proposed for imidacloprid. The first
route included an oxidative cleavage of the parent compound rendering
6-chloronicotinic acid and its glycine conjugate. Dechlorination of this
metabolite formed the 6-hydroxynicotinic acid and its mercapturic acid
derivative. The second route included the hydroxylation followed by
elimination of water of the parent compound rendering NTN 35884. A
comparison between [methylene -14C] imidacloprid and [imidazolidine
4,5-14C] imidacloprid showed that while the rate of excretion was
similar, the renal portion was higher with the imidazolidine labeled
compound. In addition, accumulation in tissues was higher with the
imidazolidine labeled compound (approximately 1% of the recovered
radioactivity).]>

<	7. Metabolite toxicology. [N/A.]>

<	8. Endocrine disruption. [EPA is required under the FFDCA, as amended
by FQPA, to develop a screening program to determine whether certain
substances (including all pesticide active and other ingredients) “may
have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a
naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the
Administrator may designate.”  Following recommendations of its
Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC),
EPA determined that there was a scientific basis for including, as part
of the program, the androgen and thyroid hormone systems, in addition to
the estrogen hormone system.  EPA also adopted EDSTAC’s recommendation
that the Program include evaluations of potential effects in wildlife.
For pesticide chemicals, EPA will use FIFRA and, to the extent that
effects in wildlife may help determine whether a substance may have an
effect in humans, FFDCA authority to require the wildlife evaluations.
As the science develops and resources allow, screening of additional
hormone systems may be added to the Endocrine Disruptor Screening
Program (EDSP).

When additional appropriate screening and/or testing protocols being
considered under the Agency’s EDSP have been developed, imidacloprid
may be subjected to further screening and/or testing to better
characterize effects related to endocrine disruption.]>

<C. Aggregate Exposure>

<	1. Dietary exposure. [Assessments were conducted to evaluate potential
risks due to chronic and acute dietary exposure of the U.S. population
and selected population subgroups to residues of imidacloprid.  These
analyses cover all registered and pending uses for imidacloprid
including the proposed use o畢扬瘠来瑥扡敬⹳ഠ

Exponent’s Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM-FCID™), which is
licensed to Bayer, was used to estimate the chronic and acute dietary
exposure. This software uses the food consumption data from the
1994_1998 USDA Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII
1994_1998).

The endpoint for acute dietary risk assessments is based on
neurotoxicity characterized by decreases in motor or locomotor activity
in female rats at 42 mg/kg bwt/day (LOEL) from an acute neurotoxicity
study. Based on an uncertainty factor of 10x for interspecies, 10x for
intraspecies and 3x for use of a LOAEL rather than a NOAEL, EPA has
established an acute reference dose (aRfD) = 0.14 mg/kg bwt/day.

For chronic dietary analyses, EPA has established the reference dose
(cRfD) for imidacloprid at 0.057 mg/kg/day based on a NOAEL of 5.7 mg/kg
bwt/day from a rat chronic toxicity carcinogenicity study and
uncertainty factors of 10x for interspecies and 10x for intraspecies.

Results from the acute and chronic dietary exposure analyses described
below demonstrate a reasonable certainty of no harm to the overall U.S.
population or any population subgroup will result from the use of
imidacloprid on currently registered and pending uses.]>

<	i. Food. [Tier 1 acute and Tier 2 chronic assessments were conducted
by addition of the bulb vegetable data to the latest EPA dietary
assessment. The results show that bulb vegetables add very little to the
overall dietary exposure for imidacloprid. The assessments show that the
total exposure for all registered and proposed uses of imidacloprid is
28% and 15% of the acute (aRfD) and chronic (cRfD) reference doses for
the general US population and 71% and 42% of the aRfD and cRfD,
respectively for Children 1-2, the most exposed population subgroup.]>

<	ii. Drinking water. [EPA assessment of the drinking water exposure
showed the estimated drinking water concentration to be 36 ppb and 17
ppb for acute and chronic exposure, respectively. The calculated
drinking water levels of comparison were 408 and 330 ppb, respectively.
]>

<	2. Non-dietary exposure. [Imidacloprid is currently registered for use
on the following residential non-dietary sites: Granular products for
application to lawns and ornamental plants; ready-to-use spray for
application to flowers, shrubs and house plants; plant spikes for
application to indoor and outdoor residential potted plants;
ready-to-use potting medium for indoor and outdoor plant containers;
liquid concentrate for application to lawns, trees, shrubs and flowers;
and ready-to-use liquid for directed spot application to cats and dogs.
In addition, there are numerous registered products intended for use by
commercial applicators to residential sites. These include gel baits for
cockroach control; products intended for commercial ornamental, lawn and
turf pest control; products for ant control; and products used as
preservatives for wood products, building materials, textiles and
plastics. The non-dietary exposure assessment is discussed in the Final
Rule on Imidacloprid Pesticide Tolerance published in Unit III.C.3. of
the Federal Register of June 13, 2003 (68 FR 35303). Addition of the
soybean use will have no impact on the non-dietary exposure to
imidacloprid.]>

<D. Cumulative Effects>

<	[Imidacloprid is a chloronicotinyl insecticide.  At this time, the EPA
has not made a determination that imidacloprid and other substances that
may have a common mechanism of toxicity would have cumulative effects.
Therefore, for these tolerance petitions, it is assumed that
imidacloprid does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances and only the potential risks of imidacloprid in its aggregate
exposure are considered.]>

<E. Safety Determination>

<	1. U.S. population. [Using the conservative exposure assumptions
described above and based on the completeness of the toxicity data, it
can be concluded that aggregate exposure to residues of imidacloprid
present a reasonable certainty of no harm.  Exposure from residues in
crops (based on a Tier 1 assessment) utilizes 28% of the aPAD and 15% of
the cPAD.  EPA generally has no concerns for exposures below 100% of the
Population Adjusted Doses.  Drinking water levels of concern are well
above the estimated drinking water concentrations as calculated by
conservative models.  An aggregate assessment for all uses for
imidacloprid demonstrated that there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result to the US Population from these uses of imidacloprid.]>

<	2. Infants and children. [EPA has considered data from developmental
toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit and a 2 generation reproduction
study in the rat. These studies are discussed under Section B
(Toxicology Profile) above.  The developmental toxicity data
demonstrated no increased sensitivity of rats or rabbits to in utero
exposure to imidacloprid. In addition, the multi generation reproductive
toxicity study did not identify any increased sensitivity of rats to in
utero or post natal exposure. Parental NOAELs were lower or equivalent
to developmental or offspring NOAELs. The developmental toxicity studies
are designed to evaluate adverse effects on the developing organism
resulting from maternal pesticide exposure during gestation.
Reproduction studies provide information relating to effects from
exposure to the pesticide on the reproductive capability of mating
animals and data on systemic toxicity.

FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold
margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold
effects to account for pre and post natal toxicity and the completeness
of the data base unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety
will be safe for infants and children. EPA has determined that the
toxicological database is complete for FQPA purposes and that there are
no residual uncertainties for pre-/post-natal toxicity for imidacloprid.
 Based on the available toxicity data the EPA has recommended that the
Special FQPA Safety Factor be reduced to 1x.

B*

B*

B*

"

%

t

␃愃̤摧粜ÁЀ1摧季fᤀ that the dietary exposure from all label
and pending uses of imidacloprid consumes 71% of the aPAD at the 95th
percentile and 42% of the cPAD for the most sensitive population
subgroup, all infants and children 1-2 years, respectively.  Thus, it
can be concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure to imidacloprid residues.]>

<F. International Tolerances>

<	[Imidacloprid is an insecticide used throughout the world to control
insect pests in crops, trees, ornamental plants and turf. Codex MRLs
have been established for numerous uses of imidacloprid. >

 PAGE

 PAGE   7


RCRA Hazardous Waste Regulations, Hazardous Waste Determination
SW-846 Test Method 9095B: Paint Filter Liquids Test
The document available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/documents/9095b_0.pdf contains information on the method used to detect the presence of free liquids in a representative sample of waste to determine compliance with Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 264.314 and 265.314. This method is an SW-846 Method-Defined Parameter (MDP), meaning that it may not be modified when used for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) testing. For more information, see the Methods Innovation Rule page.
The US EPA approved test method (EPA 9095B), referred to as "the paint filter test", is used to determine the presence of free liquids in a representative sample of waste.  It is referenced in the regulations pertaining to hazardous waste landfills (40 CFR 264.314 & 40 CFR 265.314) A 100 mL or 100 g sample of the material to be disposed in the landfill is placed in a a standard conical  [60 +/- 5% (fine meshed size) paint filter.  If any portion of the sample passes through and drops from the filter within a five (5) minute period, the material is deemed to contain free liquids, and material is deemed to contain free liquids for purposes of 40 CFR 264.314 and 265.314.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18379-18384]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08731]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83082; File No. SR-FINRA-2018-013]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To
Establish a Second Trade Reporting Facility in Conjunction With Nasdaq,
Inc.

April 20, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 19, 2018, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    FINRA is proposing to adopt rules relating to the establishment of
a second Trade Reporting Facility or ``TRF'' to be operated in
conjunction with Nasdaq, Inc. (``Nasdaq''). The second FINRA/Nasdaq
Trade Reporting Facility (``FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago'') would provide
FINRA members with another mechanism for reporting over-the-counter
(``OTC'') trades in NMS stocks and complying with FINRA's requirements
with respect to back-up trade reporting arrangements. The FINRA/Nasdaq
TRF Chicago would be governed by the rules applicable to the existing
FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility (``FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret''),
which were subject to notice and comment and approved by the
Commission.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54084 (June 30,
2006), 71 FR 38935 (July 10, 2006) (order approving SR-NASD-2005-
087); and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54798 (November 21,
2006), 71 FR 69156 (November 29, 2006) (order approving SR-NASD-
2006-104).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's
website at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. FINRA 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
    FINRA currently has three facilities that allow its members to
report OTC

trades in NMS stocks, as defined in SEC Rule 600(b) of Regulation NMS.
These are the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF, the FINRA/NYSE TRF, and the Alternative
Display Facility (``ADF'') (collectively, the ``FINRA Facilities'').
    On January 20, 2016, FINRA published a Trade Reporting Notice (the
``Trade Reporting Notice'' or the ``Notice'') with guidance on firms'
OTC equity trade reporting obligations in the event of a systems issue
during the trading day that prevents them from reporting OTC trades in
NMS stocks in accordance with FINRA rules.\4\ As set forth in the
Notice, a firm that routinely reports its OTC trades in NMS stocks to
only one FINRA Facility (a firm's ``primary facility'') must establish
and maintain connectivity and report to a second FINRA Facility (a
firm's ``secondary facility'') if the firm intends to continue to
support OTC trading as an executing broker while its primary facility
is experiencing a widespread systems issue.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Trade Reporting Notice, January 20, 2016 (OTC Equity
Trading and Reporting in the Event of Systems Issues).
    \5\ As discussed in the Notice, if a firm chooses not to have
connectivity to a secondary facility, it should cease executing OTC
trades altogether when its primary trade reporting facility is
experiencing a widespread systems issue. In that instance, the firm
could route orders for execution to an exchange or another FINRA
member (i.e., a member with connectivity and the ability to report
to a FINRA Facility that is operational).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago would provide FINRA members
with an additional mechanism to facilitate compliance with FINRA rules
and the Notice. Specifically, a primary user of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF
Carteret could report on a back-up basis to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF
Chicago pursuant to the same rules, pricing, features and performance
to which the firm is accustomed as a user of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF
Carteret--and vice versa.
    Like the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret, the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago
will be a facility of FINRA, subject to regulation by FINRA and to
FINRA's registration as a national securities association. FINRA
members that match and/or execute orders internally or through
proprietary systems may submit reports of these trades, with
appropriate information and modifiers, to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago,
which will then submit them to the appropriate exclusive securities
information processor (``SIP''). FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago trade reports
will be disseminated with a modifier indicating the source of the
transactions that will distinguish them from transactions executed on
an exchange or reported to other FINRA Facilities, including the FINRA/
Nasdaq TRF Carteret. The FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago will provide FINRA
with a real-time copy of each trade report for regulatory review
purposes. At the option of the participant, the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF
Chicago, like the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret, may provide the necessary
clearing information regarding transactions to the National Securities
Clearing Corporation.
    The proposed rule change would establish the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF
Chicago on the same terms as the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret. That is,
the new FINRA/Nasdaq TRF would be built with the same technology,
provide the same features and performance,\6\ offer the same pricing
and be governed by the same substantive rules, policies and procedures.
A single set of application materials and clearing arrangements will
provide for access to both FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret and FINRA/Nasdaq
TRF Chicago. Moreover, Nasdaq, as the ``Business Member'' (defined
below), has advised FINRA that these two TRFs will evolve in tandem and
remain the same going forward (for example, because the same fee and
credit schedule under the Rule 7600A Series will apply to both TRFs,
any pricing changes would apply to both TRFs).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Users of the two FINRA/Nasdaq TRFs may experience latency
differences due to their different geographic locations.
    \7\ According to Nasdaq, the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago will
include several new components to provide performance improvements
and operational efficiencies that Nasdaq intends to incorporate into
the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret shortly after the launch of FINRA/
Nasdaq TRF Chicago. Nasdaq will provide participants with notice
prior to re-platforming the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret. After Nasdaq
completes this re-platforming, Nasdaq generally intends to perform
updates, upgrades, fixes or other modifications to the two FINRA/
Nasdaq TRFs in tandem. However, Nasdaq notes that there may be
instances in which it will be necessary for Nasdaq to act in
sequence. During such instances, there may be disparities between
the two TRFs with respect to function or performance. Nasdaq expects
that any disparity in function or performance between the two TRFs
that arises during sequential changes will be transitory. Nasdaq
will provide participants with notice if it anticipates requiring
more than a de minimis transition period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq, as the Business Member, proposes to structure the FINRA/
Nasdaq TRF Chicago to be identical to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret (in
all respects other than its location) to provide FINRA members with a
convenient and efficient option to fulfill their obligations under the
Trade Reporting Notice through a set of primary and secondary reporting
facilities that share the same rules, pricing, features and
performance. Under the proposal, the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago will not
be limited to use as a back-up reporting facility. FINRA members will
also have the option of using the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago as their
primary trade reporting facility. Moreover, members may choose to
report some of their trades, on a primary basis, to the FINRA/Nasdaq
TRF Carteret and other trades, also on a primary basis, to the FINRA/
Nasdaq TRF Chicago (or to one of the other FINRA Facilities). Members
may choose to allocate their trade reports to more than one TRF as a
means of further increasing resiliency and mitigating their risks,
including the risks associated with outages.
    The proposed rule change would allow firms to aggregate the volume
of trades that they report on the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret and the
FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago. This would enable firms to continue to
qualify for any volume-based pricing that they would otherwise qualify
for if they limited their trade reporting to one of those facilities
only.
    It is important to note that although the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret
and the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago would be structured identically and
would allow for aggregated pricing, the two TRFs would physically
operate as distinct and independent facilities.\8\ For example, to help
ensure that the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago could effectively serve as a
back-up facility for the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret or vice versa, the
front-end technology used to operate the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago would
reside in Chicago, Illinois while the front-end technology used to
operate the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret would continue to reside in
Carteret, New Jersey. Geographic dispersion of these two TRFs would
lessen the risk of a regional outage affecting them both
simultaneously. FINRA also notes that rules that prohibit cross-
facility reporting would apply to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret and
FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago. For example, FINRA rules generally prohibit
the submission to a FINRA Facility of any non-tape report (including
clearing reports) associated with a previously executed trade that was
not reported to the same Facility, except with respect to the second
leg of a riskless principal or agency transaction.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Trades reported to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret or FINRA/
Nasdaq TRF Chicago will be subject to correction or modification
only on the TRF to which the trades were originally reported.
    \9\ See, e.g., Rule 7230A(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA's oversight of the proposed FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago would be
the same as FINRA's current oversight with respect to the two existing
TRFs.

In addition to real-time interaction with Business Member staff when
operational issues arise, FINRA currently executes its SRO oversight
functions by performing a three-part regularly recurring review of TRF
operations. First, before initial operation of the TRF can commence,
the Business Member is required to certify in writing that TRF
operations will comply with all relevant FINRA rules and federal
securities laws, and on a quarterly basis thereafter, the Business
Member must submit its current TRF procedures and a certification of
compliance with those procedures. Second, FINRA staff conducts monthly
conference calls with each Business Member to review TRF operations.
These monthly calls follow an established agenda, which includes, among
other things, whether there were any system outages or issues since the
prior monthly conference call (and if so, to confirm that they were
reported to FINRA and the SEC, as applicable), data latency, the status
of pending systems changes, TRF market data products and whether the
Business Member has or is developing any new products that would use
TRF data. Third, FINRA oversees a regular assessment cycle and
extensive review of TRF operations, as measured against the TRF
business requirements document and coding guidelines established by
FINRA, by an outside independent audit firm. FINRA also requires the
Business Member to submit on a quarterly basis an attestation that (1)
identifies all products that use TRF data, and (2) certifies that the
Business Member has no other products that use TRF data and that any
future products that use TRF data will be developed in consultation
with FINRA.
FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Limited Liability Company Agreement
    The Third Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement
of FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility LLC (the ``FINRA/Nasdaq TRF
LLC Agreement'' or the ``Agreement'') will govern the establishment of
the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago.
    Under the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF LLC Agreement, FINRA is the ``SRO
Member'' and has sole regulatory responsibility for both the FINRA/
Nasdaq TRF Carteret and FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago, including real-time
monitoring and T+1 surveillance, development and enforcement of trade
reporting rules and submission of proposed rule changes to the
Commission. Nasdaq, the Business Member under the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF LLC
Agreement, is primarily responsible for the management of the business
affairs of both the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret and FINRA/Nasdaq TRF
Chicago, which may not be conducted in a manner inconsistent with the
regulatory and oversight functions of FINRA. Among other things, the
Business Member will establish pricing for both the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF
Carteret and FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago, be obligated to pay the cost of
regulation and be entitled to the profits and losses, if any, derived
from operation of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret and FINRA/Nasdaq TRF
Chicago. The Business Member will also provide the ``user facing''
front-end technology used to operate both the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret
and FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago and transmit real-time trade report data
directly to the SIPs and to FINRA for audit trail purposes.
    The FINRA/Nasdaq TRF LLC Agreement is substantially similar to the
existing agreement that governs the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret (the
Second Amended and Restated FINRA/Nasdaq TRF LLC Agreement), which is
included in the FINRA Manual. However, it contains several amendments
that reflect the fact that the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility
LLC will now operate through two TRFs: FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret and
FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago.
    For example, the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF LLC Agreement provides for
separate termination provisions, in Section 20, for each FINRA/Nasdaq
TRF. The termination provision applicable to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF
Carteret is substantially the same as under the current agreement,
except as noted below. The termination provision applicable to the
FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago permits a Member of the LLC to terminate the
FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago upon at least one year's written notice; it
also permits the SRO Member to terminate the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago
for any reason that the SRO Member, in its sole discretion, determines
could have a negative impact on the maintenance of its status as a
preeminent SRO. In addition, the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF LLC Agreement
includes a provision in Section 20 that permits either Member of the
LLC to terminate either of the TRFs or the entire Agreement due to a
material breach by the other Member, if such breach is not cured within
60 days of notification thereof, or if the other Member becomes
bankrupt or insolvent, upon 30 days' written notice.
    Finally, the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF LLC Agreement includes a provision,
in Section 21, that clarifies that if either FINRA/Nasdaq TRF
terminates, the LLC will continue to operate and the terms of the
Agreement relating to the remaining FINRA/Nasdaq TRF will remain in
full force and effect. It also clarifies that the LLC will dissolve
upon an action by either LLC Member to terminate both FINRA/Nasdaq TRFs
or to terminate the last remaining FINRA/Nasdaq TRF.
Rules Applicable to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret and FINRA/Nasdaq TRF
Chicago
    FINRA proposes to amend the Rule 6300A, 7200A and 7600A Series,
which govern the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret, to accommodate the
establishment of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago. That is, FINRA proposes
to preface each of these Rule Series by noting that within them, any
use of the term ``FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility'' shall mean
the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret or the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago, as
applicable, depending on the facility to which the participant elects
to report.
    FINRA proposes to amend Rule 6300A to provide that the forms of
agreements required under the Rule 6300A Series, including the
agreement to allow a Participant to report and lock-in trades on a
member's behalf required under Rule 6380A(h), will be identical for
both FINRA/Nasdaq TRFs and a single agreement can be used for purposes
of both FINRA/Nasdaq TRFs. Members that elect to participate in both
FINRA/Nasdaq TRFs must amend any existing agreements under the Rule
6300A Series to reflect their application to both facilities.
    In addition, FINRA proposes to amend Rule 7200A to clarify that
application procedures and access requirements for the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF
Carteret would also be applicable to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago,
meaning that an application for access to one of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRFs
would provide for access to both of them, and that the requirements for
continuing access apply to both TRFs. Members that elect to participate
in both FINRA/Nasdaq TRFs must provide written notice to the FINRA/
Nasdaq TRFs and FINRA of such election, in the form prescribed by
FINRA, and amend any existing agreements under the Rule 7200A Series to
reflect their application to both Facilities. Moreover, FINRA proposes
to state, in Rules 6300A, 6360A, 6370A, 7200A and 7280A, that any
determination to suspend, terminate, restore, reinstate, limit or
prohibit access to or participation in one FINRA/Nasdaq TRF with
respect to a TRF participant will apply equally to the other FINRA/
Nasdaq TRF with respect to that participant.

    The proposed rule change would also amend the Rule 7600A Series to
state that its schedules of credits and fees will apply to reporting
activity that occurs on either or both of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRFs and
that a participant's eligibility for any volume-based credits or fee
caps will be determined based upon its aggregate reporting volume
between the two FINRA/Nasdaq TRFs.\10\ That is, Rule 7610A would be
amended to state that if a FINRA member reports trades in a given
quarter to both the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret and the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF
Chicago, then the amount of the member's Securities Transaction Credits
for that quarter will be calculated with respect to the member's
combined transactions on both TRFs. Similarly, Rule 7620A would be
amended to provide that if a participant reports trades to both the
FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret and the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago during a
given month, then the participant's aggregate reporting volume on the
FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret and the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago will be
considered for the purpose of determining whether and to what extent
charges or caps apply to the participant during that month.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ FINRA notes that Nasdaq, in its capacity as the Business
Member and operator of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRFs on behalf of FINRA,
will continue to administer the Rule 7600A Series and will collect
all fees and issue all credits on behalf of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF
Chicago, as well as the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret. FINRA's oversight
of this function performed by the Business Member will be conducted
through the aforementioned assessment and review of TRF operations
by an outside independent audit firm.
    \11\ FINRA notes that members will be able to report trades to
the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago via Nasdaq's ACT Workstation, a
Financial Information eXchange (``FIX'') line or indirectly via
third party intermediaries (e.g., service bureaus) and will be
required to pay the associated fees under Nasdaq rules. For example,
firms that report to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago via FIX--either
directly or indirectly through third party intermediaries--would pay
Nasdaq charges associated with FIX ports to connect to the FINRA/
Nasdaq TRF Chicago data center. See, e.g., Nasdaq Rule 7015. Firms
will not have the option of connecting to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF
Chicago via a computer-to-computer interface (``CTCI'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 7630A would be amended to reflect a technical change that
certification of affiliate status for aggregation of activity for
purposes of fees and credits will be made to, and subsequent
determinations regarding aggregation will be made by, the FINRA/Nasdaq
TRFs, not FINRA. FINRA members currently submit their requests for
aggregation to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret rather than to FINRA, and,
as such, the proposed change will better align the rule with current
practice.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As noted above, Nasdaq, as the TRF Business Member,
administers this Rule and receives the certifications of affiliate
status and makes the aggregation determinations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would amend Rule 7640A to state that
Nasdaq's license to use, distribute and sell FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret
market data to third parties, and to sell such data for fees that
Nasdaq charges under its rules, would also extend to FINRA/Nasdaq TRF
Chicago market data. In addition, the proposed rule change would amend
the rule to state that the list of Nasdaq data products that
incorporate FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret market data would also
incorporate FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago market data.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Prior to the date when the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago becomes
operational, Nasdaq intends to file with the Commission a proposal
to amend Nasdaq's rules governing its proprietary data products to
provide for the inclusion therein of FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Rule 6184 (Transactions in Exchange-Traded Managed Fund
Shares (``NextShares'')) would be amended to provide for the reporting
of transactions in NextShares to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago in the
same manner that such transactions currently are reported to the FINRA/
Nasdaq TRF Carteret.
    If the Commission approves the proposed rule change, the effective
date of the proposed rule change will be the date upon which the FINRA/
Nasdaq TRF Chicago commences operation, which is currently anticipated
to be no earlier than August 1, 2018. FINRA will provide notice of that
date upon successful completion of system testing and certification.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\14\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Act because it provides members with an alternative for meeting their
trade reporting obligations under FINRA rules and will allow members
that wish to connect to a secondary FINRA Facility in accordance with
the Trade Reporting Notice to continue executing OTC trades in NMS
stocks in the event their primary facility is experiencing a widespread
systems issue. FINRA believes that an additional facility for the
reporting of OTC transactions in NMS stocks in the event a member's
primary facility is experiencing systems issues will enhance the
resiliency and promote the integrity of the OTC market.
    In addition, FINRA believes that the proposed rule change provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
because the charges and credits that would apply to the FINRA/Nasdaq
TRF Chicago are the same as those that apply to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF
Carteret under current FINRA rules. The proposed rule change would also
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other
charges in that it would allow firms that choose to concurrently report
trades to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret and the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF
Chicago to aggregate their reporting volumes on the two TRFs so that
they could continue to qualify for volume-based pricing to the extent
that they would have otherwise qualified had they reported their trades
only to one of those TRFs. As discussed above, Nasdaq, as the Business
Member, has advised FINRA that the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret and the
FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago will be subject to identical fees under the
amended Rule 7600A Series, thereby allowing members to use either TRF
freely in terms of the volume reported to each TRF without providing a
disincentive to use one over the other for the sole purpose of
maintaining eligibility for any fee caps.

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The proposed rule change would apply only to members that have a
trade reporting obligation under the FINRA rules \15\ and elect to
report to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago. As noted above, there currently
are three FINRA Facilities that allow members to report OTC trades in
NMS stocks. There are only several hundred firms that execute and
report OTC trades in NMS stocks to the FINRA Facilities on a regular
basis. Many firms, including smaller firms, route their order flow to
another firm, e.g., their clearing firm, for execution,

and as the routing firm, they do not have the trade reporting
obligation. Thus, the proposed rule change will have no impact on many
members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ FINRA rules for reporting OTC transactions in equity
securities require that for transactions between members, the
``executing party'' report the trade to a FINRA facility. For
transactions between a member and a non-member or customer, the
member must report the trade. ``Executing party'' is defined under
FINRA Rule 6380A(b) as the member that receives an order for
handling or execution or is presented an order against its quote,
does not subsequently re-route the order, and executes the
transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained above, the proposed rule change provides members with
an alternative for meeting their trade reporting obligations under
FINRA rules and will allow members that wish to connect to a secondary
facility for trade reporting in accordance with the Trade Reporting
Notice to continue executing OTC trades in NMS stocks in the event
their primary facility is experiencing a widespread systems issue.
    The proposed FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago should provide benefits, in
particular, for those members that currently report trades to the
FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret, as such members would have the opportunity
to aggregate their reporting volumes if they choose to concurrently
report trades to both FINRA/Nasdaq TRFs. Thus, under the proposed fee
structure, if a member chooses to connect to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF
Carteret and FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago as primary and backup trade
reporting facilities, then the member will receive credit for the
shares reported to the backup facility. This may create an incentive
for members to jointly utilize the two FINRA/Nasdaq TRFs as primary and
back-up reporting facilities.
    FINRA staff analyzed participation agreements and reporting
activity to FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret, FINRA/NYSE TRF and ADF, and
found that 430 member firms reported to at least one FINRA Facility in
2017. While 84 firms had participation agreements with at least two
FINRA Facilities, only 20 of those firms reported to both the FINRA/
Nasdaq TRF Carteret and another FINRA Facility. Based on this one-year
sample, FINRA expects the proposal to potentially benefit at least
those firms that report to two or more FINRA Facilities; however, more
firms can potentially benefit from volume-based pricing in the long-
run, provided that reporting trades to more than one FINRA Facility
becomes necessary or preferred.
    To the extent that members choose to satisfy their reporting
obligations via the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret and FINRA/Nasdaq TRF
Chicago, and cease to maintain connectivity to the FINRA/NYSE TRF or
ADF as a back-up FINRA Facility to report trades, the latter two may
experience a reduction in reporting activity and hence revenue. Thus,
the impact on FINRA Facilities may effectively be an economic transfer
between them.
    The proposed FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago provides an alternative that
may provide costs savings to those members that choose to report to
both the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret and FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago instead
of spreading trade reporting between the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret and
another FINRA Facility. Members can effectively satisfy the requirement
under the Trade Reporting Notice to establish connectivity to a second
FINRA Facility to maintain reporting in the event that their primary
facility experiences a widespread systems issue during the trading day.
As such, members can use one FINRA/Nasdaq TRF as the primary reporting
facility and the other FINRA/Nasdaq TRF as the back-up facility. This
could mitigate the risks associated with a regional outage that could
simultaneously affect them both, as the front-end technology used to
operate the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago would reside in Chicago, Illinois
while the front-end technology used to operate the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF
Carteret would continue to reside in Carteret, New Jersey.
    However, the two FINRA/Nasdaq TRFs would have common technology,
computer code and features. As such, a member firm's decision to rely
upon the FINRA/Nasdaq TRFs to satisfy both its primary and back-up
requirements may not fully mitigate risks if these common technologies,
code or features contemporaneously experience problems or otherwise
fail. Thus, when member firms consider how they will meet their
reporting obligations going forward, they will need to weigh the
potential costs if both the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret and FINRA/Nasdaq
TRF Chicago experience common problems or become unavailable
simultaneously against the costs of maintaining connectivity to
unrelated FINRA Facilities with fewer efficiencies and less attractive
aggregate pricing.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2018-013 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2018-013. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments received
will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-

2018-013, and should be submitted on or before May 17, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-08731 Filed 4-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 6, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 55594]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21826]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER21-2967-000]

Strategic Energy Capital Fund, LP; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Strategic Energy Capital Fund, LP's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 20, 2021.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://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. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 30, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-21826 Filed 10-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60396-60397]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27424]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0631; FRL-9970-90]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection
(EPA ICR No. 1710.08); Comment Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this
document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information
Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The ICR, entitled: ``Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Disclosure
Requirements'' and identified by EPA ICR No. 1710.08 and OMB Control
No. 2070-0151, represents the renewal of an existing ICR that is
scheduled to expire on October 31, 2018. Before submitting the ICR to
OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific
aspects of the proposed information collection that is summarized in
this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the
docket for public review and comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0631, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: John Wilkins, National Program
Chemicals Division (7404T), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)),
EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility.
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used.
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected.
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

II. What information collection activity or ICR does this action apply
to?

    Title: Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Disclosure Requirements.
    ICR number: EPA ICR No. 1710.08.
    OMB control number: OMB Control No. 2070-0151.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on October
31, 2018. 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. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after
appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR
part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or
by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection
instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers
for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: Section 1018 of the Residential Lead Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 4852d) requires that sellers and
lessors of most residential housing built before 1978 disclose known
information on the presence of lead-based paint and lead-based paint
hazards, and provide an EPA approved pamphlet to purchasers and renters
before selling or leasing the housing. Sellers of pre-1978 housing are
also required to provide prospective purchasers with ten days to
conduct an inspection or risk assessment for lead-based paint hazards
before obligating purchasers under contracts to purchase the property.
The rule does not apply to rental housing that has been found to be
free of lead-based paint, zero-bedroom dwellings, housing for the
elderly, housing for the handicapped, or short term leases. The
affected parties and the information collection-related requirements
related to each are described below:
    1. Sellers of pre-1978 housing must attach certain notification and
disclosure language to their sales/leasing contracts. The attachment
lists the information disclosed and a statement of compliance by the
seller, purchaser and any agents involved in the transaction.
    2. Lessors of pre-1978 housing must attach notification and
disclosure language to their leasing contracts. The attachment, which
lists the information disclosed and a statement of compliance with all
elements of the rule, must be signed by the lessor, lessee and any
agents acting on their behalf. Agents and lessors must retain the
information for

three years from the completion of the transaction.
    3. Agents acting on behalf of sellers or lessors are specifically
required by Section 1018 to comply with the disclosure regulations
described above.
    Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (see 40
CFR 745, Subpart F, and 24 CFR 35, Subpart H). Respondents may claim
all or part of a notice confidential. EPA will disclose information
that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent
permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in TSCA section 14
and 40 CFR part 2.
    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.11
hours per response. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related
materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities
and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this ICR are persons engaged in selling or leasing certain residential
dwellings built before 1978, or who are real estate agents representing
such parties.
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 21,504,926.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:
2.6.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 5,952,344 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $130,067,754. This includes an
estimated burden cost of $130,067,754 and an estimated cost of $0 for
capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

III. Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    There is a decrease of 514,832 hours in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease reflects revisions to the estimated
number of respondents based on updates to data sources, and revisions
based on market factors, e.g., declines in the numbers of new rentals
and declines in the amount of owner-occupied target housing in the
market. This change is an adjustment. See the Supporting Statement for
details.

IV. What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Federal Register document pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to
announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit
additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or
the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: December 4, 2017.
Charlotte Bertrand,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2017-27424 Filed 12-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P