[Federal Register: June 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 120)]
[Notices]
[Page 35178-35180]
[DOCID:fr20jn08-103]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57965; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2006-060]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval to Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2
Thereto, To Establish Nasdaq Last Sale Data Feeds

June 16, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On December 19, 2006, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to create, and impose fees for, the ``Nasdaq Last
Sale for Nasdaq'' and ``Nasdaq Last Sale for NYSE/Amex'' data feeds
(``Nasdaq Last Sale Data Feeds''). The Nasdaq Last Sale Data Feeds
would provide real-time last sale information for executions occurring
within the Nasdaq Market Center, as well as those reported to the
jointly operated FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility (``Nasdaq
TRF''). On January 26, 2007, Nasdaq filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change. The proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in the Federal Register on
February 14, 2007.\3\ The Commission received three comment letters on
the proposal.\4\ On December 13, 2007, Nasdaq responded to the comment
letters.\5\ On June 10, 2008, Nasdaq filed Amendment No. 2 to the
proposed rule change. In Amendment No. 2, Nasdaq proposed to impose
fees for the Nasdaq Last Sale Data Feeds only for a four-month pilot
period beginning July 1, 2008.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55255 (February 8,
2007), 72 FR 7100.
    \4\ Letters to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, from
Christopher Gilkerson and Gregory Babyak, Co-Chairs of the Market
Data Subcommittee of the Technology and Regulation Committee,
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA''),
dated March 7, 2007 (``SIFMA Letter''); Chuck Thompson, President,
eSignal, Interactive Data Corporation, dated March 8, 2007
(``eSignal Letter''); and letter to Chairman Cox, Commission, from
Alan Davidson, Senior Policy Counsel, Google Inc. (``Google''),
dated June 12, 2007 (``Google Letter'').
    \5\ Letters to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, from
Jeffrey S. Davis, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Nasdaq,
dated December 13, 2007.
    \6\ On June 2, 2008, Nasdaq filed a proposed rule change,
designated as eligible for immediate effectiveness pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act, to offer the Nasdaq Last Sale Data
Feeds immediately without charge for one month, and thereafter
impose fees for an additional five-month pilot period. See SR-
NASDAQ-2008-050. On June 16, 2008, Nasdaq withdrew SR-NASDAQ-2008-
050, except for the provisions permitting Nasdaq to offer the Nasdaq
Last Sale Data Feeds at no charge for one month.

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

    The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 and is
simultaneously approving the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, on an accelerated basis.

II. Description of the Proposal

    Nasdaq proposes to create two separate data products containing
real-time last sale information for trades executed on Nasdaq or
reported to the Nasdaq TRF.\7\ First, the Nasdaq Last Sale for Nasdaq
data product would be a real-time data feed providing last sale
information, including execution price, volume, and time, for Nasdaq
securities executions on the Nasdaq system or reported to the Nasdaq
TRF. Second, the Nasdaq Last Sale for NYSE/Amex data product would be a
real-time data feed providing last sale information, including
execution price, volume, and time, for NYSE and Amex securities
executions on the Nasdaq system or reported to the Nasdaq TRF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In Amendment No. 2, Nasdaq removed from the proposal Nasdaq
Market Velocity and Nasdaq Market Forces services that Nasdaq
included in its initial proposal and Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq proposes two different pricing models, one for clients that
are able to maintain username/password entitlement systems and/or quote
counting mechanisms to account for usage, and a second for those that
are not. Firms with the ability to maintain username/password
entitlement systems or quote counting mechanisms would be eligible for
a specified fee schedule for the Nasdaq Last Sale for Nasdaq product
and a separate fee schedule for the Nasdaq Last Sale for NYSE/Amex
product. This pricing would be ``stair-stepped,'' such that the tiered
fees would be effective for incremental users in the new tier. For
example, a distributor of the Nasdaq Last Sale for Nasdaq product with
20,000 users would pay $0.60 for each of the first 10,000 users and
$0.48 for each of the next 10,000 users. Distributors may elect to pay
per query for their users if, for example, a substantial portion of
their users request a relatively small number of queries each month.
Firms would also be permitted to ``cap'' their payments for individual
queries at the corresponding monthly user rate.
    Firms that are unable to maintain username/password entitlement
systems or quote counting mechanisms would also have options for
purchasing the Nasdaq Last Sale Data Feeds. These firms could choose
between a ``Unique Visitor'' model for Internet delivery or a
``Household'' model for Television delivery. Unique Visitor and
Household populations would have to be reported monthly and validated
by a third party vendor or ratings agency approved by Nasdaq at
Nasdaq's sole discretion. This proposed pricing would also be stair-
stepped such that the tiered fees would be effective for the
incremental users in the new tier. For example, a distributor of Nasdaq
Last Sale for Nasdaq product that reports 600,000 Unique Visitors would
pay $0.036 for the first 100,000 visitors and $0.03 for the next
500,000 visitors. A Distributor that reports 3,000,000 households
reached would pay $0.0096 for each of the first 1,000,000 households
and $0.0084 for each of the next 2,000,000 households.
    In addition, Nasdaq proposes to offer reduced fees for a single
distributor of Nasdaq Last Sale Data Feeds via multiple distribution
mechanisms. Specifically, Nasdaq would discount the applicable fees for
distribution of Nasdaq Last Sale Data Feeds via Television for
Distributors that also distribute those products via the Internet and
achieve a new pricing tier for Unique Visitors, Users, or Queries.
Nasdaq proposes the following tiered discounts for a firm's Television
fees based on its number of Unique Visitors, Users, or Queries--10%
discount for the second tier, 15% discount for the third tier, and a
20% discount for the fourth tier. In addition, Nasdaq proposes to
establish a cap of $100,000 per month for Nasdaq Last Sale for Nasdaq
data product and $50,000 per month for Nasdaq Last Sale for NYSE/Amex
data product.
    As with other Nasdaq proprietary products, all distributors of the
Nasdaq Last Sale for Nasdaq and/or Nasdaq Last Sale for NYSE/Amex
products would pay a single $1500/month Nasdaq Last Sale Distributor
Fee in addition to any applicable usage fees. The $1,500 monthly fee
would apply to all distributors and would not vary based on whether the
data is distributed internally or externally or via both the Internet
and Television.

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

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, to be
implemented on a four-month pilot basis, is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\8\ In particular, it is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\ which requires that the
rules of a national securities exchange provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and issuers and other parties using its facilities, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ which requires, among other things, that the
rules of a national securities exchange be designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\11\ which
requires that the rules of an exchange not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Act. Finally, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change
is consistent with Rule 603(a) of Regulation NMS,\12\ adopted under
Section 11A(c)(1) of the Act, which requires an exclusive processor
that distributes information with respect to quotations for or
transactions in an NMS stock to do so on terms that are fair and
reasonable and that are not unreasonably discriminatory.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \12\ 17 CFR 242.603(a).
    \13\ Nasdaq is an exclusive processor of its last sale data
under Section 3(a)(22)(B) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(22)(B), which
defines an exclusive processor as, among other things, an exchange
that distributes data on an exclusive basis on its own behalf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received two comment letters expressing concerns
with the proposed rule change, and one comment letter supporting the
proposed rule change. Generally, SIFMA and eSignal suggested that
Nasdaq did not adequately demonstrate that the proposed rule change was
consistent with the Act.\14\ SIFMA asserted that Nasdaq had failed to
demonstrate that its proposal met the relevant requirements of the Act,
including that its market data fees be fair and reasonable and not
unreasonably

discriminatory.\15\ eSignal asserted that Nasdaq's proposal
unreasonably discriminated against smaller market data
distributors.\16\ Google, however, expressed strong support for the
proposal and noted its enthusiasm regarding the opportunity to give
more of its users access to real-time financial information online.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See SIFMA Letter and eSignal Letter.
    \15\ See SIFMA Letter.
    \16\ See eSignal Letter.
    \17\ See Google Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that Nasdaq amended the proposed rule change
so that its fees would be imposed only for a four-month pilot period.
On June 4, 2008, the Commission published for public comment a draft
approval order that sets forth a market-based approach for analyzing
proposals by self-regulatory organizations to impose fees for ``non-
core'' market data products that would encompass the Nasdaq Last Sale
Data Feeds.\18\ The Commission believes that Nasdaq's proposal is
consistent with the Act for the reasons noted preliminarily in the
Draft Approval Order. Pending review by the Commission of comments
received on the Draft Approval Order, and final Commission action
thereon, the Commission believes that approving Nasdaq's proposal on a
pilot basis would be beneficial to investors and in the public
interest, in that it should result in broad public dissemination of
real-time pricing information. Therefore, the Commission is approving
Nasdaq's proposed fees for a four-month pilot beginning July 1, 2008.
The broader approach ultimately taken by the Commission with respect to
non-core market data fees will necessarily guide Commission action
regarding fees for the Nasdaq Last Sale Data Feeds beyond the four-
month pilot period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57917 (June 4,
2008), 73 FR 32751 (June 10, 2008) (Notice of Proposed Order
Approving Proposal by NYSE Arca, Inc. to Establish Fees for Certain
Market Data and Request for Comment) (``Draft Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 thereto, before the
thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of filing thereof
in the Federal Register . As noted above, accelerating approval of this
proposal should benefit investors by facilitating their prompt access
to widespread, free, real-time pricing information contained in the
Nasdaq Last Sale Data Feeds. In addition, the Commission notes that the
proposal is approved only on a four-month pilot period while the
Commission analyzes comments on the Draft Approval Order. Therefore,
the Commission finds good cause, consistent with Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act, to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment
Nos. 1 and 2, on an accelerated basis.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning Amendment No. 2, including whether Amendment No. 2
is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NASDAQ-2006-060 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-NASDAQ-2006-060. 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, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2006-060 and should
be submitted on or before July 11, 2008.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\19\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2006-060), as
modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, be, and it hereby is, approved on
an accelerated basis until October 31, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    By the Commission.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-13955 Filed 6-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


"Johansson, Robert"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 06/12/2007 11:07 AM

To

Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

hello's

Hi Lydia,

Hope you are feeling better.

Here are comments on the secondary standard.

More comments to follow shortly.

Cheers,

Rob

________________________________________________

Robert Johansson, Ph.D.

OMB/OIRA/NREA

725 17th St. NW, Room 10202

Washington, DC 20503

(P)<PHONE_NUMBER>

(F)<PHONE_NUMBER>

(E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register: September 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 178)]
[Notices]
[Page 56112-56113]
[DOCID:fr15se10-83]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0480]

Integrated Food Safety System Online Collaboration Development--
Cooperative Agreement With the National Center for Food Protection and
Defense (U18)

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing its
intention to receive and consider a single source application for the
award of a cooperative agreement in fiscal year 2010 (FY10) to the
National Center for Food Protection and Defense (NCFPD). One of the
primary goals of the NCFPD is to allow FDA to meet the White House Food
Safety Working Group recommendation that the Federal government
prioritize crucial inspection and enforcement activity across the
world; support safety efforts by States, localities, and businesses at
home; and utilize data to guide these efforts and evaluate their
outcomes.

DATES:  Important dates are as follows:
    1. The application due date is September 27, 2010.
    2. The anticipated start date is September 2010.
    3. The opening date is September 27, 2010.
    4. The expiration date is September 30, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION AND ADDITONAL REQUIREMENTS CONTACT: Center
Contact: Heather Brown, Food and Drug Administration, Office of
Regulatory Affairs, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 13-45, Rockville, MD 20857,
301-796-4304, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Grants Management Contact: Kimberly Pendleton, Division of
Acquisition Support and Grants (HFA-500), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 2104, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:
301-827-7101, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For more information on this funding opportunity announcement (FOA)
and to obtain detailed requirements, please refer to the full FOA
located at http://www.fda.gov/Food/NewsEvents/ucm176500.htm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 93.103

A. Background

    This funding opportunity is a single source application for the
award of a cooperative agreement to the NCFPD to support the continued
development and operations of collaborative online tools involving a
range of stakeholders for the purposes of information sharing in the
development of an integrated food safety system, and the development
and implementation of a sustainable model for continued collaborative
communications and information sharing. Competition is limited to NCFPD
because it has unique expertise and capacity found nowhere else. It is
the host/creator of FoodSHIELD, an inter-governmental collaborative
project supporting information sharing at the Federal, State, and local
levels. NCFPD also has past experience directly supporting the White
House Food Safety Working Group Objectives to integrate the food safety
system at all levels.

B. Research Objectives

    Food can become contaminated at many different points--on the farm,
in processing or distribution facilities, during transit, at retail and
food service establishments, and in the home. In recent years, FDA, in
cooperation with other food regulatory and public health agencies, has
done a great deal to prevent both intentional and unintentional
contamination of food at each of these points. FDA has worked with
other Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, and foreign
counterpart food safety regulatory and public health agencies, as well
as with law enforcement and intelligence-gathering agencies, industry,
consumer groups, and academia to strengthen the Nation's food safety
and food defense system across the entire distribution chain.
    This cooperation has resulted in greater awareness of potential
vulnerabilities, the creation of more effective prevention programs,
new surveillance systems, and the ability to quickly respond to
outbreaks of foodborne illness. However, changes in consumer dietary
patterns, changes in industry practices, changes in the U.S.
population, and an increasingly globalized food supply chain and new
pathogens and other contaminants pose challenges that are requiring us
to adapt our current food protection strategies.
    Recognizing these challenges, President Obama has made a personal
commitment to improving food safety. On July 7, 2009, the multiagency
Food Safety Working Group (Working Group), which he established, issued
its key findings on how to upgrade the food safety system for the 21st
century. The

Working Group recommends a new public-health-focused approach to food
safety based on three core principles: Prioritizing prevention,
strengthening surveillance and enforcement, and improving response and
recovery. Preventing harm to consumers is the top priority. Too often
in the past, the food safety system has focused on reacting to problems
rather than preventing harm in the first place. The Working Group
recommends that food regulators shift toward prioritizing prevention
and move aggressively to implement sensible measures to prevent
problems before they occur.
    The intent is to fund a proposal for the continued development and
operation of collaborative online tools involving a range of
stakeholders for the purposes of information sharing in the development
of an integrated food safety system and the development and
implementation of a sustainable model for continued collaborative
communication and information sharing.

C. Eligibility Information

    Competition is limited to NCFPD because it has unique expertise and
capacity found nowhere else. It is the host/creator of FoodSHIELD, an
inter-governmental collaborative project that supports information
sharing at the Federal, State, and local levels. NCFPD is uniquely
qualified to provide well-established and high-level access to Food/Ag
Sector Organizations and coordination of electronic collaborative
tools, as well as collaborative support from the Department of Health
and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. NCFPD also has past experience directly
supporting the White House Food Safety Working Group Objectives to
integrate the food safety system at all levels.

II. Award Information/Funds Available

A. Award Amount

    The estimated amount of support in FY10 will be up to $250,000
total costs, with the possibility of up to 5 additional years of
support at $500,000 per year, subject to the availability of funds,
starting no later than September 2010 for the first year. More than one
application will be considered depending on the availability of funds.

B. Length of Support

    The award will provide 1 year of support, with the possibility of
up to 5 additional years of support.

III. Paper Application, Registration, and Submission Information

    To submit an electronic application in response to this FOA,
applicants should first review the full announcement located at http://
inside.fda.gov:9003/PolicyProcedures/GuidanceRegulations/
FederalRegister/ucm008714.htm. Persons interested in applying for a
grant may obtain an application at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/
forms.htm. (FDA has verified the Web site addresses throughout this
document, but FDA is not responsible for any subsequent changes to the
Web sites after this document publishes in the Federal Register.) For
all application submissions, the following steps are required:
     Step 1: Obtain a Dun and Bradstreet (DUNS) Number
     Step 2: Register With Central Contractor Registration
     Step 3: Register With Electronic Research Administration
(eRA) Commons
    Steps 1 and 2, in detail, can be found at http://www07.grants.gov/
applicants/organization_registration.jsp. Step 3, in detail, can be
found at https://commons.era.nih.gov/commons/registration/
registrationInstructions.jsp. After you have followed these steps,
submit paper applications to:
    Kimberly Pendleton, Division of Acquisition Support and Grants
(HFA-500), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 2104,
Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 10, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-22971 Filed 9-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 80 (Monday, April 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23300-23301]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09700]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2009-0014]

Hazard Communication Standard; 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 Hazard
Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200; 1915.1200; 1917.28; 1918.90;
1926.59; and 1928.21).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
June 26, 2015.

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 your comments and attachments
to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2009-0014, 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 the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2009-0014) 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 also may 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-
2222.

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 (PRA-95) (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 OSH 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 that OSHA 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).
    The information collection requirements in the Hazard Communication
Standard ensure that the hazards of chemicals produced or imported are
evaluated, and that information concerning these hazards is transmitted
to downstream employers and their workers. The Hazard Communication
Standard requires chemical manufacturers and importers to evaluate
chemicals they produce or import to determine if they are hazardous;
for those chemicals determined to be hazardous, they must develop
safety data sheets and warning labels. Employers are required to
establish hazard communication programs to transmit information on the
hazards of chemicals to their workers by means of labels on containers,
safety data sheets, and training programs.
    Implementation of these collection of information requirements will
ensure that workers understand the hazards and identities of the
chemicals to which they are exposed; thereby, reducing the incidence of
chemically-related occupational illnesses and injuries.

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

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Hazard Communication Standard
(29 CFR 1910.1200; 1915.1200; 1917.28; 1918.90; 1926.59; and 1928.21).
The Agency is requesting an adjustment decrease of 4,195,553 burden
hours (from 10,689,248 hours to 6,493,695 hours). The burden hour
decrease is primarily due to removing burden hours for employers
completing revisions to their Safety Data Sheets and deleting time
associated with employers becoming familiar with the Hazard
Communication Standard. The Agency will summarize any comments
submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in
the request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200; 1915.1200;
1917.28; 1918.90; 1926.59; and 1928.21).
    OMB Number: 1218-0072.
    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 2,161,311.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Total Responses: 56,821,535.
    Average Time per Response: Varies from 12 seconds for
establishments to label an in-plant container to 8 hours for
manufacturers or importers to conduct a hazard determination.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 6,493,695.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $25,015,143.

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; or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for this ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2009-0014).
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 their social security number
and date 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 from 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 from 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).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on April 22, 2015.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2015-09700 Filed 4-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 92 (Thursday, May 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29170-29171]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10233]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4649-DRD; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Puerto Rico; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (FEMA-4649-DR), dated
March 29, 2022, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued March 29, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated March 29, 2022, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico resulting from a severe storm, flooding,
and landslides during the period of February 4 to February 6, 2022,
is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major

disaster exists in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the Commonwealth.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance under section 408 will
be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Robert Little III, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    The municipalities of Cata[ntilde]o, Dorado, Toa Baja, Vega
Alta, and Vega Baja for Individual Assistance.
    All areas within the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are eligible
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-10233 Filed 5-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43821-43825]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17443]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0002]

Final Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified
BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and
modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that
each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being
already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be
obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for
inspection as indicated in the table below.

ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each
community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified
BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been
published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have
elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for
Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
    This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the
address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are
made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected
locations in each community are shown.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This final rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been
prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets
the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.11  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.11 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      * Elevation in
                                                                      feet (NGVD)  +
                                                                    Elevation in feet
                                                                    (NAVD)
           Flooding source(s)              Location of referenced     Depth in feet      Communities  affected
                                                 elevation             above ground
                                                                    [caret] Elevation
                                                                     in meters (MSL)
                                                                         Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                LaGrange County, Indiana, and Incorporated Areas
                                             Docket No.: FEMA-B-1175
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basin Lake.............................  Entire shoreline.........               +902  Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                LaGrange County.
Big Long Lake..........................  Entire shoreline.........               +957  Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                LaGrange County.
Big Turkey Lake........................  Entire shoreline within                 +932  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          community.                                    LaGrange County.
Cedar Lake.............................  Entire shoreline.........               +974  Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                LaGrange County.
Dallas Lake............................  Entire shoreline.........               +901  Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                LaGrange County.
Fish Lake..............................  Entire shoreline.........               +940  Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                LaGrange County.
Goose Pond.............................  Entire shoreline.........               +953  Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                LaGrange County.
Hackenburg Lake........................  Entire shoreline.........               +901  Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                LaGrange County.
Lake of the Woods......................  Entire shoreline within                 +953  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          community.                                    LaGrange County.
Little Turkey Lake.....................  Entire shoreline.........               +930  Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                LaGrange County.
Martin Lake............................  Entire shoreline.........               +902  Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                LaGrange County.
McClish Lake...........................  Entire shoreline within                 +953  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          community.                                    LaGrange County.
Messick Lake...........................  Entire shoreline.........               +901  Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                LaGrange County.
North Twin Lake........................  Entire shoreline.........               +846  Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                LaGrange County.
Olin Lake..............................  Entire shoreline.........               +902  Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                LaGrange County.
Oliver Lake............................  Entire shoreline.........               +902  Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                LaGrange County.
Pigeon Lake............................  Entire shoreline.........               +848  Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                LaGrange County.
Pretty Lake............................  Entire shoreline.........               +967  Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                LaGrange County.
Royer Lake.............................  Entire shoreline.........               +940  Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                LaGrange County.
Smith Hole.............................  Entire shoreline.........               +902  Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                LaGrange County.
South Twin Lake........................  Entire shoreline.........               +846  Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                LaGrange County.
Spectacle Lakes........................  Entire shoreline.........               +953  Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                LaGrange County.
Westler Lake...........................  Entire shoreline.........               +901  Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                LaGrange County.
Witmer Lake............................  Entire shoreline.........               +901  Town of Wolcottville,
                                                                                Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                LaGrange County.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

                                                    ADDRESSES
Town of Wolcottville
Maps are available for inspection at e LaGrange County Annex Building, 114 West Michigan Street, LaGrange, IN
 46761.

                                     Unincorporated Areas of LaGrange County
Maps are available for inspection at e LaGrange County Annex Building, 114 West Michigan Street, LaGrange, IN
 46761.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Sauk County, Wisconsin, and Incorporated Areas
                                             Docket No.: FEMA-B-1229
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baraboo River..........................  At the Columbia County                  +804  City of Baraboo, City of
                                          boundary.                                     Reedsburg,
                                                                                Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                Sauk County, Village of
                                                                                La Valle, Village of
                                                                                North Freedom, Village
                                                                                of Rock Springs, Village
                                                                                of West Baraboo.
                                         At the Juneau County                    +912
                                          boundary.
Devil's Lake Tributary (backwater        At the Baraboo River                    +820  City of Baraboo.
 effects from Baraboo River).             confluence.
                                         Approximately 780 feet                  +820
                                          downstream of Old Lake
                                          Road.
Hay Creek (backwater effects from        Approximately 75 feet                   +882  City of Reedsburg,
 Baraboo River).                          downstream of County                          Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Highway V.                                    Sauk County.
                                         Approximately 1,860 feet                +882
                                          upstream of County
                                          Highway V.
Little Baraboo River (backwater effects  At the Baraboo River                    +895  Unincorporated Areas of
 from Baraboo River).                     confluence.                                   Sauk County, Village of
                                                                                La Valle.
                                         Approximately 70 feet                   +895
                                          downstream of State
                                          Highway 58.
Narrows Creek (backwater effects from    At the Baraboo River                    +872  Unincorporated Areas of
 Baraboo River).                          confluence.                                   Sauk County, Village of
                                                                                Rock Springs.
                                         At the downstream side of               +872
                                          State Highway 154.
Plum Creek (backwater effects from       At the Baraboo River                    +912  Unincorporated Areas of
 Baraboo River).                          confluence.                                   Sauk County.
                                         Approximately 0.78 mile                 +912
                                          upstream of the Baraboo
                                          River confluence.
Seeley Creek (backwater effects from     At the Baraboo River                    +865  Unincorporated Areas of
 Baraboo River).                          confluence.                                   Sauk County.
                                         Approximately 1,450 feet                +865
                                          downstream of Freedom
                                          Road.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

                                                    ADDRESSES
City of Baraboo

Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 135 4th Street, Baraboo, WI 53913.

City of Reedsburg
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 134 South Locust Street, Reedsburg, WI 53959.

                                       Unincorporated Areas of Sauk County
Maps are available for inspection at West Square Building, 505 Broadway, Baraboo, WI 53913.

Village of La Valle
Maps are available for inspection at Village Hall, 103 West Main Street, La Valle, WI 53941.

Village of North Freedom
Maps are available for inspection at Village Hall, 103 North Maple Street, North Freedom, WI 53951.

Village of Rock Springs
Maps are available for inspection at Village Hall, 101 1st Street, Rock Springs, WI 53961.

Village of West Baraboo
Maps are available for inspection at Village Hall, 500 Cedar Street, Baraboo, WI 53913.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Washington County, Wisconsin, and Incorporated Area
                                             Docket No.: FEMA-B-7755
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edgewood Creek.........................  At the confluence with                  +947  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          North Creek.                                  Washington County,
                                                                                Village of Kewaskum.

                                         Approximately 1,120 feet                +981
                                          upstream of Kewaskum
                                          Village Limits.
Overflow...............................  Approximately 115 feet                  +937  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          downstream of Clinton                         Washington County,
                                          Road.                                         Village of Kewaskum.
                                         At confluence with                      +951
                                          Edgewood Creek.
Kettleview Creek.......................  At the confluence with                  +940  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Kewaskum Creek.                               Washington County,
                                                                                Village of Kewaskum.
                                         Downstream side of County              +1025
                                          Highway B.
Kewaskum Creek.........................  Just downstream of County               +938  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Road H.                                       Washington County,
                                                                                Village of Kewaskum.
                                         Approximately 800 feet                  +998
                                          downstream of Badger
                                          Road.
Overflow...............................  At the confluence with                  +946  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Kettleview Creek.                             Washington County.
                                         At the confluence with                  +952
                                          Kewaskum Creek.
Knights Creek..........................  At the confluence with                  +952  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          North Creek.                                  Washington County,
                                                                                Village of Kewaskum.
                                         Approximately 725 feet                 +1032
                                          downstream of Highland
                                          Drive.
Milwaukee River........................  Approximately 225 feet                  +887  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          upstream of River Road.                       Washington County, City
                                                                                of West Bend.
                                         Downstream side of Barton               +902
                                          Avenue.
                                         Upstream side of Hickory                +835  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Road.                                         Washington County,
                                                                                Village of Newburg.
                                         Approximately 2,900 feet                +850
                                          upstream of Main Street.
North Creek............................  At the confluence with                  +938  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          the Milwaukee River.                          Washington County,
                                                                                Village of Kewaskum.
                                         Approximately 100 feet                 +1042
                                          downstream of Highland
                                          Drive.
Quaas Creek............................  Just upstream of County                 +875  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Highway I.                                    Washington County, City
                                                                                of West Bend.
                                         Approximately 285 feet                  +979
                                          downstream of Paradise
                                          Drive.
Unnamed Tributary to Kewaskum Creek....  At the confluence with                  +955  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Kewaskum Creek.                               Washington County.
                                         Approximately 350 feet                  +979
                                          downstream of Kettleview
                                          Drive.
Wingate Creek..........................  Just downstream of State                +870  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Highway 33.                                   Washington County, City
                                                                                of West Bend.
                                         Approximately 420 feet                  +904
                                          downstream of Wallace
                                          Lake Road.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

                                                    ADDRESSES
City of West Bend
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 1115 South Main Street, West Bend, WI 53095.

                                    Unincorporated Areas of Washington County
Maps are available for inspection at County Building, 432 East Washington Street, West Bend, WI 53095.

Village of Kewaskum
Maps are available for inspection at Village Hall, 204 First Street, Kewaskum, WI 53040.

Village of Newburg
Maps are available for inspection at Village Hall, 614 Main Street, Newburg, WI 53060.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Date: June 28, 2013.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-17443 Filed 7-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 142 (Thursday, July 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44559-44561]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15903]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 33929, File No. 812-15122]

Spinnaker ETF Series, et al.

July 17, 2020.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the
Investment

Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32),
5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under
sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections
17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the
Act for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(B) of the
Act.
    Applicants: Spinnaker ETF Series (the ``Trust''), OBP Capital LLC
(the ``Adviser'') and Capital Investment Group, Inc. (the
``Distributor'').
    Summary of Application: Applicants request an order (``Order'')
that permits: (a) Shielded Alpha ETFs (as described in the Reference
Order (defined below)) to issue shares (``Shares'') redeemable in large
aggregations only (``creation units''); (b) secondary market
transactions in Shares to occur at negotiated market prices rather than
at net asset value; (c) certain Shielded Alpha ETFs to pay redemption
proceeds, under certain circumstances, more than seven days after the
tender of Shares for redemption; (d) certain affiliated persons of a
Shielded Alpha ETF to deposit securities into, and receive securities
from, the Shielded Alpha ETF in connection with the purchase and
redemption of creation units; and (e) certain registered management
investment companies and unit investment trusts outside of the same
group of investment companies as the Shielded Alpha ETFs to acquire
Shares of the Shielded Alpha ETFs. The Order would incorporate by
reference terms and conditions of a previous order granting the same
relief sought by applicants, as that order may be amended from time to
time (``Reference Order'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Blue Tractor ETF Trust and Blue Tractor Group, LLC,
Investment Company Act Rel. Nos. 33682 (Nov. 14, 2019) (notice) and
33710 (Dec. 10, 2019) (order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Filing Date: The application was filed on April 16, 2020.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by emailing the Commission's
Secretary at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and serving applicants with a
copy of the request by email. Hearing requests should be received by
the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on August 11, 2020, and should be
accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an
affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule
0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing
on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested.
Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification
by emailing the Commission's Secretary at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Applicants: c/o Tracie Coop, Secretary,
Spinnaker ETF Series<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kay M. Vobis, Senior Counsel, at (202)
551-6728 or Trace W. Rakestraw, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants

    1. The Trust is a statutory trust organized under the laws of
Delaware and will consist of one or more series operating as a Shielded
Alpha ETFs. The Trust is registered as an open-end management
investment company under the Act. Applicants seek relief with respect
to Funds (as defined below), including an initial Fund (the ``Initial
Fund''). The Funds will operate as Shielded Alpha ETFs as described in
the Reference Order.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ To facilitate arbitrage, among other things, each day a Fund
would publish a basket of securities and cash that, while different
from the Fund's portfolio, is designed to closely track its daily
performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Adviser, a North Carolina limited liability company, will be
the investment adviser to the Initial Fund. Subject to approval by the
Fund's board of trustees, the Adviser (as defined below) will serve as
investment adviser to each Fund. The Adviser is, and any other Adviser
will be, registered as an investment adviser under the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers Act''). The Adviser may enter into
sub-advisory agreements with other investment advisers to act as sub-
advisers with respect to the Funds (each a ``Sub-Adviser''). Any Sub-
Adviser to a Fund will be registered under the Advisers Act.
    3. The Distributor is a North Carolina corporation and a broker-
dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and will act as the principal underwriter of Shares of the
Funds. Applicants request that the requested relief apply to any
distributor of Shares, whether affiliated or unaffiliated with the
Adviser and/or Sub-Adviser (included in the term ``Distributor''). Any
Distributor will comply with the terms and conditions of the Order.

Applicants' Requested Exemptive Relief

    4. Applicants seek the requested Order under section 6(c) of the
Act for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e)
of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b)
of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the
Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from
sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The requested Order
would permit applicants to offer Funds that operate as Shielded Alpha
ETFs. Because the relief requested is the same as the relief granted by
the Commission under the Reference Order and because the Adviser has
entered into a licensing agreement with Blue Tractor Group LLC, or an
affiliate thereof, in order to offer Funds that operate as Shielded
Alpha ETFs, the Order would incorporate by reference the terms and
conditions of the Reference Order.
    5. Applicants request that the Order apply to the Initial Fund and
to any other existing or future registered open-end management
investment company or series thereof that: (a) Is advised by the
Adviser or any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common
control with the Adviser (any such entity included in the term
``Adviser''); (b) operates as a Shielded Alpha ETF as described by the
Reference Order; and (c) complies with the terms and conditions of the
Order and of the Reference Order, which is incorporated by reference
into the Order (each such company or series and the Initial Fund, a
``Fund'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ All entities that currently intend to rely on the Order are
named as applicants. Any other entity that relies on the Order in
the future will comply with the terms and conditions of the Order
and of the Reference Order, which is incorporated by reference into
the Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security or transaction, or any class of persons,
securities or transactions, from any provisions of the Act, if and to
the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed
transaction from section 17(a) of the Act if evidence

establishes that the terms of the transaction, including the
consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do
not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and the
transaction is consistent with the policies of the registered
investment company and the general purposes of the Act. Section
12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any
person, security, or transaction, or any class of persons, securities
or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the
exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of
investors. Applicants submit that for the reasons stated in the
Reference Order the requested relief meets the exemptive standards
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
under sections 6(c), 17(b) and 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-15903 Filed 7-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Southeast Regional Office 9721 Executive Center Drive N. St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 February 20, 2004 Philip E. Brinkmann Project Management & Controls Regulatory Advisor ExxonMobil Development Company P. O. Box 4876 Houston, TX 77210 4876 Dear Mr. Brinkmann:

The National Marine Fisheries Service ( NOAA Fisheries) appreciates the opportunity for staff of the Habitat Conservation and the Protected Resources Divisions to meet with representatives from the ExxonMobil Development Company ( ExxonMobil) to discuss project proposals as a part of the National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA) pre filing process. To date, ExxonMobil has presented proposals to build Liquefied Natural Gas ( LNG) receiving terminals at three locations along the Gulf of Mexico: Mobile Bay, Alabama; Sabine Pass, Texas and Corpus Christi, Texas. The regasification facilities to be located in Texas are proposing to use approximately 100 million gallons of seawater per day as a heating medium in an open rack vaporizing system. The intake for the seawater will be located at the head of the berth area for the LNG tanker ships. An aquatic filter barrier system engineered by Gunderboom would be placed as a curtain in front of the intake in an attempt to exclude eggs and larval fish from entrainment in the regasification system.

All of these proposed project sites include or are adjacent to areas identified as essential fish habitat ( EFH) for postlarval, juvenile, and adult red drum ( Sciaenops ocellatus), juvenile Spanish mackerel ( Scomberomorus maculatus), and juvenile and subadult white ( Litopenaeus setiferus) and brown shrimp ( Farfantepenaeus aztecus). The estuarine water column, unvegetated benthic habitats, and intertidal wetlands are categories of EFH that could be impacted by the proposed project. The designations by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council in its EFH amendment, as approved by NOAA Fisheries, were specified consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ( Magnuson Stevens Act) ( P. L. 104 297) and implementing regulations. As the proposed facilities would have an impact on EFH and associated managed species, the federal permitting agencies, such as Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( FERC), U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) will be required to consult with NOAA Fisheries pursuant to the provisions of the Magnuson Stevens Act and implementing regulations prior to any final federal action on the proposed LNG projects. In addition to EFH designated for white and brown shrimp, red drum, and Spanish mackerel, the project areas provide nursery and foraging habitat that supports various forage species and economically important marine fishery species, such as spotted seatrout ( Cynoscion nebulosus), flounder ( Paralichthys spp.), Atlantic croaker ( Micropogonias undulatus), black drum ( Pogonias cromis), gulf menhaden ( Brevoortia patronus), striped mullet ( Mugil cephalus), and blue crab ( Callinectes sapidus). These estuarine dependent organisms serve as prey for other fisheries managed under the Magnuson Stevens Act by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council ( e. g., dolphin, snappers, and groupers) and highly migratory species managed by NOAA Fisheries ( e. g., billfishes and sharks).

Because of the potential for adverse impacts to EFH and managed fish species, NOAA Fisheries is very concerned that ExxonMobil proposes to construct one of these facilities in an estuarine tidal pass and the other two facilities in shallow estuarine bays. Many species spawn offshore of or near estuarine tidal passes, and larvae of estuarine dependent species are seasonally concentrated in the passes. Approximately 95 percent of all Gulf coast fishery landings are of estuarinedependent species ( U. S. EPA, 1999). Natural mortality of fish eggs and larvae is already high, and stock success can depend on survival and transport of relatively few recruits to their estuarine nursery habitats ( Houde 1987, 1989). NOAA Fisheries views mortality caused by the proposed LNG facilities as a significant additional mortality factor to the natural conditions that affect the sustainability of these fisheries. If it is determined that the proposed LNG facilities kill the few recruits destined for survival, they may have a dramatic negative effect on economically important fish stocks. To date, ExxonMobil has not provided information on the impact of the proposed once through seawater system on mortality in fish stocks to NOAA Fisheries for our assessment. Information typically required to complete a traditional stock assessment approach to determine impacts from impingement and entrainment includes:

a) Numbers of eggs, larvae, and juveniles that are expected to be entrained or impinged ( and killed) by species.

b) Daily natural mortality estimates by life stage during the first year of life by species, including hatching success. This allows an estimation of survival from viable egg to age of entrainment.

c) Age structured population model estimates of recruits to age 1 and population fecundity ( need maturity schedule and fecundity relationship). This allows stock level estimates of egg production ( viable eggs) and overall survival from viable egg to recruitment at age 1.

Although NOAA Fisheries is very concerned about all facilities that propose to use once through seawater systems in an estuary, the proposed Sabine Pass, Texas, facility merits particular scrutiny. Crustacean and fish larvae and eggs are often concentrated in estuarine passes, and densities can be extremely high during some periods of the year. The temporal and spatial distributions of these organisms, however, are extremely patchy. The concentration of early life stages and the patchy density patterns indicate an enormous potential for extensive entrainment and impingement mortality in and near estuarine passes. For example, in one study very near the proposed Sabine Pass facility, Hartman et al. ( 1987) identified 71 fish and 11 crustacean taxa from zooplankton samples taken in Keith Lake Pass using 0.505 mm mesh nets. In their study, overall mean densities were reported for gulf menhaden ( 1.0 m3 ), blue crab ( 0.34 m3), white shrimp ( 0.2 m3), and brown shrimp ( 0.08 m3); but seasonal and interannual variation in the densities for most species was high. Using seasonal densities and flow data, they estimated that Keith Lake Pass served as an immigration route for approximately 40 million brown shrimp, 116 million white shrimp, 314 million blue crab, 900 million gulf menhaden and 27 million Atlantic croaker annually. We also are concerned about the possibility of a LNG facility being located near a spawning aggregation ( e. g., red drum), because under these conditions a large portion of an entire cohort may be killed.

In addition to direct fish and crustacean impacts, all zooplankton passing through the LNG facilities are likely to be killed. Zooplankton are microscopic drifting animals that are important components of the marine and estuarine food webs, consuming phytoplankton and smaller zooplankton and providing food for higher level predators, such as larvae of fish and crustaceans. A rough estimate from Minello ( 1980) indicates that average annual mesozooplankton densities ( mostly copepods) are around 2000 per m3 ( 0.200 mm mesh) in coastal waters off Texas and Louisiana.

NOAA Fisheries also questions whether the design of the Gunderboom Marine Life Exclusion System will adequately address the potential problem of impingement and entrainment of larval fish and eggs. From internet searches, it appears that this technology has been used mainly in riverine systems and is unproven in eutrophic and often turbid estuarine systems, such as those found on the Gulf coast. Studies conducted by P. A. Henderson et al. ( 2001) found that the Gunderboom systems became bio fouled very quickly and resulted in organisms becoming impinged on the curtain. The air jets were found to injure impinged organisms and actually increased the amount of colonization by other organisms within the curtain's mesh. Seaby et al. ( 2002) concluded that fouling was likely to cause a failure of the system and result in entrainment of organisms. Fouling may be even greater in the Gulf estuarine systems currently proposed for ExxonMobil's three LNG facilities. Riverkeeper, Inc. ( 2003), an independent environmental organization which has tested the Gunderboom product, recognized that existing facilities utilizing open systems could be upgraded to use the new filter screen technology but that new facilities should reduce aquatic mortality by using dry or closed systems. After reviewing information on Gunderboom systems, NOAA Fisheries also is concerned that even if a small mesh size were used and filtration efficiency could be maintained ( i. e., no clogging), planktonic eggs and larvae would be impinged on the mesh surface and likely suffer mortality due to predation, starvation, or physical damage. Aggregating predators are likely to feed upon impinged organisms, and air burst cleaning may damage any survivors. Therefore, before this system would be considered an acceptable impact reduction technology by NOAA Fisheries, ExxonMobil should conduct a scientifically based demonstration project in the Sabine Lake, Corpus Christi Bay and Mobile Bay estuaries to test the efficacy of the proposed Gunderboom system. In order to ensure the scientific integrity of the results, the scientific design of any such demonstration should be approved by the NOAA Fisheries Southeast Science Center prior to implementation. We also are concerned that the proposed facilities would add significantly to the cumulative loss of living marine resources from existing once through seawater cooling systems. For example, Palafox and Wolford ( 1993) conducted a study to gauge the relative importance of impingement from five power plants in Galveston Bay, Texas, on commercially and recreationally important species. They reported that from 1978 1979, the time period with the most extensive data set, the weight of impinged shrimp and crabs on power plant intake screens was nearly 11 and 17 percent respectively of the commercial bay landings. Impingement of red drum, sand seatrout ( Cynoscion arenarius) and spotted seatrout also accounted for almost three percent of the recreational landings. EPA ( 2002) also conducted several case study analyses of the impact of cooling water intakes for power plants on fisheries as part of their proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities rulemaking process. In their study of Tampa Bay, Florida, the only Gulf coast estuary studied, EPA found that the economic impacts from entrainment and impingement ranged between $ 20.39 million to $ 21.75 million dollars annually in year 2000 dollars. To adequately address such issues, ExxonMobil should provide NOAA Fisheries with a detailed cumulative impacts assessment of the proposed projects which takes into account the proposed projects' impacts in conjunction with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, as required by the NEPA.

NOAA Fisheries believes that the potential loss of fishery productivity in Gulf coast estuarine systems from the proposed LNG facilities is not acceptable when alternative technologies are available. Therefore, ExxonMobil also should provide NOAA Fisheries with a detailed alternatives analysis of regasification systems, as required by NEPA. Alternative systems which we believe avoid and minimize impacts to EFH and associated managed species are proposed for use at other LNG facilities,. We note that closed loop systems utilizing a water/ glycol solution and natural gas boilers to vaporize LNG are proposed for use at both the Sabine Pass and Corpus Christi Bay facilities. This closed loop system is proposed for use during the late fall to late winter months when seawater temperatures are not suitable for efficient regasification. Since the system would already be in place, one alternative would be to run the closed loop system year round and not construct the once through seawater system. We believe this technology should be considered a Best Available Technology.

We also note that the EPA is considering revising the Clean Water Act Section 316( b) regulations concerning entrainment and impingement impacts from once through water systems. Although EPA has not made a decision whether LNG facilities will be covered under the proposed Phase III regulations, NOAA Fisheries believes that the federal agencies responsible for project approval should hold new LNG facilities to the same standards as new power plants, since the impacts on fisheries from the once through seawater systems with similar intake volumes would be the same. As mentioned earlier, the subject facilities will employ a closed loop system on a seasonal basis. Therefore, we believe that the Tract I standards set in section 125.84 ( b)( 1) of the Section 316( b) Phase I Regulations for new electric generation facilities that withdraw more than 10 mgd should be the required standard for these LNG facilities. The cited standard requires that:

" You must reduce your intake flow, at a minimum, to a level commensurate with that which can be attained by a closed cycle recirculating cooling water system." Please bear in mind that if these proposed actions may affect species listed as threatened or endangered, or destroy or adversely modify their designated critical habitat, pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act ( ESA), such actions would be subject to consultation with NOAA Fisheries' Protected Resources Division ( PRD) pursuant to section 7 of the ESA, prior to authorizing the proposed action. As you know, ESA consultation is a separate and distinct process, guided by unique consultative requirements. Accordingly, the federal action agency may receive separate correspondence from PRD on NOAA Fisheries letterhead regarding ESA concerns and/ or finalizing ESA consultation.

In closing, we would like to thank you and other representatives from ExxonMobil for early coordination with NOAA Fisheries concerning your proposed construction of three LNG facilities. While we strongly urge you to consider the use of a closed loop heating system on a year round basis, we are including a list of information needs to allow us to fully assess the impacts of the projects as currently proposed.

If we may be of further assistance, please contact Kay Davy of my Southeast Regional staff at ( 727) 570 5317 or Rusty Swafford in our Galveston, Texas, Facility at ( 409) 766 3699.

Sincerely,

Miles M. Croom Assistant Regional Administrator Habitat Conservation Division Enclosure cc: PRD SER 4  Davy SER 42 SER 43 SER 44 SEFSC Minello References Cited Hartman, R. D., C. F. Bryan, and J. W. Korth 1987. Community structure and dynamics of fishes in a Southeast Texas estuary. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque. 116 p.

Houde, E. D. 1987. Fish early life dynamics and recruitment variability. p. 17 29 In Hoyt, R. D.( ed.). Proceedings of the10th Annul Larval Fish Conference held in Miami, FL May 18 23, 1986. American Fisheries Society Symposium 2. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Houde, E. 1989. Subtleties and episodes in the early life of fishes. J. Fish. Biol. 35 Supplement A: 29 38.

P. A. Henderson, R. M. Seaby, C. Cailes, and J. R. Somes, 2001. Gunderboom Fouling Studies in Bowline Pond, July 2001. Pisces Conservation Ltd. IRC House, Pennington, Lymington, England.

Minello, T. J. 1980. The neritic zooplankton of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Texas A& M University, College Station, 240 p.

Palafox, S. D., and E. D. Wolford. 1993. Non fishing/ human induced mortality in fisheries. Galveston bay National Estuary Program. Pub. GBNEP 29. Webster, TX Riverkeeper, Inc. 2003. Comprehensive survey and investigation of dry cooling systems to reduce impingement and entrainment. Riverkeeper, Inc. ( http:// riverkeeper. org/ campaign. php/ fishkills/ we_ are_ doing/ 622),

Seaby, R. M., P. A. Henderson, C. Cailes, and J. R. Somes 2002. Gunderboom fouling studies. ( http:// riverkeeper. org/ document. php/ 138/ Appendix_ C__ Pis. pdf). Pisces Conservation Ltd ( www. irchouse. demon. co. uk), England.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Ecological considerations of estuaries in the Gulf of Mexico. EPA 620 R 98 004. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Case study analysis for the proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities rule. EPA 821 R 02 002. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.


[Federal Register: March 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 56)]
[Notices]
[Page 14147-14148]
[DOCID:fr24mr10-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

March 12, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP08-463-002.
    Applicants: Enbridge Offshore Pipelines (UTOS) LLC.
    Description: Request of Enbridge Offshore Pipelines (UTOS) LLC for
an extension of time.
    Filed Date: 02/02/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100202-5163.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 17, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-464-002.
    Applicants: Stingray Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Request for an extension of time of Stingray Pipeline
Company, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 02/02/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100202-5164.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 17, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-465-002.
    Applicants: Nautilus Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Request for an extension of time of Nautilus Pipeline
Company, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 02/02/2010.

    Accession Number: 20100202-5162.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 17, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-461-001.
    Applicants: Garden Banks Gas Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Request of Garden Banks Gas Pipeline, LLC for an
extension of time to implement an electronic short-term capacity
release posting and bidding system pursuant to Order 712.
    Filed Date: 02/04/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100204-5093.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 17, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-466-001.
    Applicants: Mississippi Canyon Gas Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Request of Mississippi Canyon Gas Pipeline, LLC for an
extension of time to implement an electronic short-term capacity
release posting and bidding system pursuant to Order 712.
    Filed Date: 02/04/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100204-5094.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 17, 2010.

    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the specified comment
date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all
the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-6484 Filed 3-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P