[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 206 (Thursday, October 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59763-59766]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23438]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93405; File No. SR-BX-2021-047]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Equity 7,
Section 118 To Establish an Enhanced Market Quality Program

October 22, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 12, 2021, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Equity 7, Section 118 to establish
an Enhanced Market Quality Program, as described further below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/bx/rules, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to establish an Enhanced Market Quality
Program that is similar to a program that exists (with proposed
amendments) on its sister exchange, Nasdaq PHLX, LLC.\3\ The Enhanced
Market Quality Program is intended to provide supplemental incentives
to members that meet certain quality standards in acting as market
makers for securities on the Exchange. It rewards members that make a
significant contribution to market quality by providing liquidity at
the national best bid and offer (``NBBO'') in a large number of
securities for a significant portion of the day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-92754 (August 25,
2021), 86 FR 48789 (August 31, 2021) (SR-Phlx-2021-47). The proposal
reflects changes to this program that Nasdaq PHLX, LLC is proposing
concurrently with this rule filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to make a lump sum payment at
the end of each month (a ``Fixed Payment'') to a member to the extent
that the member, through one or more of its MPIDs, quotes at the NBBO
for at least a threshold percentage of the time during Market Hours in
an average number of securities per day during the month (satisfying
the ``NBBO requirement''), as specified below.\4\ On a daily basis, the
Exchange will determine the number of securities in which each of a
member's MPIDs satisfied the NBBO requirement. The Exchange will
aggregate all of a member's MPIDs to determine the number of securities
for purposes of the NBBO requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For purposes of the Enhanced Market Quality Program, a
member will be deemed to quote at the NBBO in a security if it
quotes a displayed order of at least 100 shares in the security and
prices the order at either the national best bid or the national
best offer or both the national best bid and offer for the security.
Additionally, for a particular Tape A security to count towards the
threshold for qualifying for the Fixed Payment on a particular day,
and receiving the Fixed Payment, a member has to quote such security
at the NBBO for at least 30% of the time during Market Hours on that
day. For a particular Tape B security to count towards the threshold
for qualifying for the Fixed Payment on a particular day, and
receiving the Fixed Payment, a member has to quote such security at
the NBBO for at least 50% of the time during Market Hours on that
day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to limit the applicability of the Program to
the top 1,500 securities in each of Tapes A and B, as determined by
their total value traded during the second month prior to the current
month (e.g., for October 2021, the measurement period for determining
the list will be August 2021).\5\ In doing so, the Exchange seeks to
target the Program at securities in Tapes A and B that are most in
demand among market participants and which trade extensively, so that
an improvement in quoting in those securities would, in turn, stand
improve the attractiveness of the Exchange to participants. The
Exchange would divide the 1,500 securities into three equal groups (or
``Classes'') for each Tape, with the top 500 ranked securities placed
in Class 3, the middle 500 ranked securities placed in Class 2, and the
lowest ranked 500 securities placed in Class 1. The Exchange would
assign Fixed Payment amounts to each of the three Classes in each Tape
and in each of the five Tiers, with these amounts generally increasing
from Class 1 to Class 3, and from Tiers 1-5. Generally speaking (with
exceptions set forth in the schedules below), this proposed structure
would provide the largest Fixed Payments to those members that meet the
NBBO requirement in the greatest number of qualifying securities and
those that trade most extensively, and the lowest incentives to those
members that meet the NBBO requirement in the fewest number of
qualifying securities and those that trade least extensively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes that a symbol that did not trade during
the measurement month will not be eligible for inclusion in the
list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Program will be open to all members. A member may but is not

required to be, a registered market maker in any security; thus, the
Program will not by itself impose a two-sided quotation obligation or
convey any of the benefits associated with being a registered market
maker. Accordingly, the Program is designed to attract liquidity both
from traditional market makers and from other firms that are willing to
commit capital to support liquidity at the NBBO.
    For securities in each of the three Classes, the Exchange will
determine the amount of the Fixed Payment that it pays to a qualifying
member as follows. First, the Exchange will determine the number of
securities in each Class for which a member has met the NBBO
requirement during the month. The Exchange will then determine whether
the number of securities in a particular Class for which a member has
satisfied the NBBO requirement during the month is sufficient to
qualify it for a Tier, and if so, it will determine the highest Tier
applicable to the member with respect to that Class of securities.
Next, the Exchange will multiply the average daily number of its
qualifying securities in the Class and Tier by the applicable amounts
applicable to that Class and Tier, and [sic] the specified lump sum, if
applicable.
    Under the proposal, a member that qualifies for a Fixed Payment for
securities in each of Tapes A and B and in multiple Classes within each
Tape will receive Fixed Payments covering qualifying securities in both
Tapes, and within each Tape, each of the applicable Classes, but within
each Tape and Class, a member may only qualify for one Tier during a
month.
    The Exchange will pay the Fixed Payment in addition to other
rebates or fees provided under Equity 7, Sections 118(a)-(f).
    As of the outset of every month, the Exchange will reevaluate and,
as applicable, update its lists of the securities that it places in
each Class, and it will publish its updated lists on its website as of
the outset of the month in which they will apply.
    The Exchange proposes to set the Tiers, Classes, and the Fixed
Payments as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Tape A Securities
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Average daily
                                       number of
                                   securities quoted
                                  at the NBBO for at   Fixed payment for   Fixed payment for   Fixed payment for
              Tiers                least 30% of the   securities in Tape  securities in Tape  securities in Tape
                                  time during Market     A in Class 1        A in Class 2        A in Class 3
                                   Hours during the
                                         month
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................  0-24..............  $0 per qualified    $0 per qualified    $0 per qualified
                                                       security per        security per        security per
                                                       month.              month.              month.
2...............................  25-49.............  $0 per qualified    $0 per qualified    $200 per qualified
                                                       security per        security per        security over 24
                                                       month.              month.              per month.
3...............................  50-149............  $50 per qualified   $200 per qualified  $5,000 + ($450 per
                                                       security per        security over 49    qualified
                                                       month [sic].        per month.          security over 49)
                                                                                per month.
4...............................  150-249...........  $5,000 + ($100 per  $20,000 + ($300     $50,000 + ($600
                                                       qualified           per qualified       per qualified
                                                       security over       security over       security over
                                                       149) per month.     149) per month.     149) per month.
5...............................  250 or greater....  $15,000 + ($150     $50,000 + ($350     $50,000 + ($600
                                                       per qualified       per qualified       per qualified
                                                       security over       security over       security over
                                                       249) per month.     249) per month.     149) per month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Tape B Securities
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Average daily
                                       number of
                                   securities quoted
                                  at the NBBO for at   Fixed payment for   Fixed payment for   Fixed payment for
              Tiers                least 50% of the   securities in Tape  securities in Tape  securities in Tape
                                  time during Market     B in Class 1        B in Class 2        B in Class 3
                                   Hours during the
                                         month
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................  0-24..............  $0 per qualified    $0 per qualified    $0 per qualified
                                                       security per        security per        security per
                                                       month.              month.              month.
2...............................  25-49.............  $0 per qualified    $0 per qualified    $100 per qualified
                                                       security per        security per        security over 24
                                                       month.              month.              per month.
3...............................  50-149............  $0 per qualified    $25 per qualified   $2,500 + ($150 per
                                                       security per        security over 49    qualified
                                                       month.              per month.          security over 49)
                                                                                per month.
4...............................  150-249...........  $50 per qualified   $2,500 + ($50 per   $17,500 + ($300
                                                       security over 149   qualified           per qualified
                                                       per month.          security over       security over
                                                                           149) per month.     149) per month.
5...............................  250 or greater....  $5,000 + ($75 per   $7,500 + ($150 per  $17,500 + ($300
                                                       qualified           qualified           per qualified
                                                       security over       security over       security over
                                                       249) per month.     249) per month.     149) per month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following are examples of the operation of the proposed
Enhanced Market Quality Program.
    Example 1: A member quotes an average of 200 symbols a day in Tape
A, Class 2 in excess of the 30% NBBO requirement to qualify for a Tier
during the month. Under the proposal, the member would qualify for a
Fixed Payment equal to the combination of Tier 4, Class 2. The Fixed
Payment due to such member is calculated as follows: 51 (the number of
symbols over 149) times $300, which equals $15,300, plus $20,000, for a
total of $35,300 for the month.
    Example 2: A member meets the NBBO requirements for an average of
200 symbols a day in Tape A, Class 2, 26 symbols a day in securities in
Tape A, Class 3, and 51 securities in Tape B,

Class 2. In this scenario, the member would qualify for three Fixed
Payments.
     First, for the 200 Tape A, Class 2 securities for which
the member meets the NBBO requirement during the month, the member
would receive a Fixed Payment equal to the combination of Tier 4, Class
2. The Fixed Payment due to such member is calculated as follows: 51
(the number of symbols over 149) times $300, which equals $15,300, plus
$20,000, for a total of $35,300 for the month.
     Second, for the 26 Tape A, Class 3 securities for which
the member meets the NBBO requirement during the month, the member
would receive a Fixed Payment equal to the combination of Tier 2, Class
3. The Fixed Payment due to such member is calculated as follows: 2
(the number of symbols over 24) times $200, which equals $400 for the
month.
     Third, for the 51 Tape B, Class 2 securities for which the
member meets the NBBO requirement during the month, the member would
receive a Fixed Payment equal to the combination of Tier 3, Class 2.
The Fixed Payment due to such member is calculated as follows: 2 (the
number of symbols over 49) times $25, which equals $50 for the month.
     The total of all Fixed Payments due to the member for the
month will be $35,750 ($35,300 + $400 + $50).
    Through the use of this incentive Program, the Exchange hopes to
provide improved trading conditions for all market participants through
narrower bid-ask spreads and increased depth of liquidity available at
the inside market. In addition, the Program reflects an effort to use
financial incentives to encourage a wider variety of members to make
positive commitments to promote market quality. The Exchange believes
that different members may respond to different incentives, and
therefore the Enhanced Market Quality Program is designed to promote
market quality through quoting activity. The Exchange recognizes that
while generally market participants will provide quotes with the
intention of trading, market makers and liquidity providers cannot
control when counter parties choose to interact with those quotes and
therefore the Exchange believes it is beneficial to the market to offer
this incentive based on quoting activity directly.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission \9\
(``NetCoalition'') the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \10\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008)
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Enhanced Market Quality
Program is reasonable because it is similar to other incentive programs
offered by the Exchange for displayed orders that provide liquidity,
like the Qualified Market Maker Program set forth in Equity 7, Sections
118(f). The proposed Fixed Payment will provide an opportunity to
members to receive an additional credit in return for certain levels of
participation on the Exchange as measured by quoting at the NBBO for a
significant portion of the day each month. The proposed Fixed Payment
is set at a level that reflects the beneficial contributions of market
participants that quote significantly at the NBBO in certain qualifying
securities. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to limit the
universe of qualifying securities to a list of 1,500 symbols that
traded most extensively on the Exchange in Tapes A and B during second
month prior to the current month, and to vary the amount of Fixed
Payments in relation to the relative extent to which symbols on that
list trade, because improving the quality of quotes for more popular
symbols will do more to enhance the attractiveness of the Exchange than
will improving quote quality for thinly-traded symbols. Given that the
Exchange has finite resources to allocate to incentive programs, it is
reasonable to allocate those resources in a manner that is most likely
to achieve its intended objectives. The Exchange notes that a competing
exchange which operates a similar incentive program also targets its
incentives to a select list of symbols.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-92150 (June 10,
2021), 86 FR 32090, 32091 n.9 (June 16, 2021) (``SR-MEMX-2021-07'')
(``As proposed, the term `DLI Target Securities' means a list of
securities designated as such, the universe of which will be
determined by the Exchange and published on the Exchange's website.
The Exchange anticipates that the initial DLI Target Securities list
will include between 275 and 300 securities. The DLI Target
Securities list will always include at least 75 securities and may
be periodically updated by the Exchange, provided that the Exchange
will not remove a security from the DLI Target Securities list
without at least 30 days' prior notice to Members as published on
the Exchange's website (unless the security is no longer eligible
for trading on the Exchange).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to limit applicability
of the proposed Fixed Payments to securities in Tapes A and B, and to
set the credits higher for the Tape A securities, insofar as the
Exchange seeks to incentivize members to quote at the NBBO on the
Exchange in such securities and improve the market therefor.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Fixed Payments set forth by
the Enhanced Market Quality Program are an equitable allocation and are
not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will offer the same
Fixed Payment rates to all similarly situated members. Moreover, the
proposed qualification criteria requires a member to quote
significantly at the NBBO in securities that trade extensively,
therefore contributing to market quality in a meaningful way on the
Exchange. Any member may quote at the NBBO at the level required by the
qualification criteria of the Enhanced Market Quality Program. The
Exchange notes that it has a similar Qualified Market Maker Program in
which members are required to quote at the NBBO more than a certain
amount of time during regular

market hours.\12\ For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the
proposed Enhanced Market Quality Program Fixed Payments and
qualification criteria are an equitable allocation and are not unfairly
discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Qualified Market Maker Program, Equity 7, Section
118(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to apply the Enhanced Market Quality Program only to
Tape A and Tape B securities, and then only to the top 1,500 symbols in
each Tape by total value traded during the second month prior to the
current month, and to set the Fixed Payment rates higher for the Tape A
securities than Tape B securities, because the Exchange has limited
resources available to it for incentive programs and the Exchange
believes that the most effective application of such limited resources
is to improve the market quality for the most actively traded Tape A
and Tape B securities, as proposed.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
    In this instance, the proposed Program will not impose a burden on
competition because the Exchange's execution services are completely
voluntary and subject to extensive competition both from other
exchanges and from off-exchange venues. The proposed Program will
provide members with the opportunity to receive incentive payments if
they improve the market by providing significant quoting at the NBBO in
a large number of securities, while limiting the universe of such
securities to those which the Exchange believes will do most to improve
market quality.
    In terms of intra-market competition, the Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act
because the Program is open to all members on the same terms.
    In sum, the proposed Program is designed to improve the quality of
the Exchange for securities that are likely to attract the greatest
trading interest; however, if the changes proposed herein are
unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange
will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not
believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or
competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing
in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BX-2021-047 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-BX-2021-047. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BX-2021-047 and should be submitted on
or before November 18, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-23438 Filed 10-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Reader’s Guide: Tetrachlorvinphos

CRM:  James Parker

EPA/OPPTS/OPP/SRRD

Reader’s Guide to the Tetrachlorvinphos Docket # EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0316

Publication Date: June 25, 2008

EPA has created this document to provide an organizational structure to
the tetrachlorvinphos docket.  The docket index lists the caption
entries sequentially, while this document lists them by subject matter.
The Agency is providing the “Readers Guide” to allow the reader to
more easily access and navigate the various entries contained in the
tetrachlorvinphos docket.

Federal Register and Docket Organization Documents:

Docket Entry 1.	Federal Register Notice:  Tetrachlorvinphos Registration
Review document, Risk Assessments and Related documents; Notice of
Availability (June 25, 2008)

This notice announces that the risk assessments are available for public
review and comment.

Docket Entry 2.	Reader’s Guide to the Tetrachlorvinphos Docket#
EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0316 (June 25, 2008)

This document is an index which lists all documents available in the
docket to assist the readers in locating information related
tetrachlorvinphos.

Docket Entry 3.	Tetrachlorvinphos: Registration Review Summary document

(June 11, 2008)

This document discusses the Agency’s Preliminary Work Plan for
tetrachlorvinphos and summarizes the uses, health effects, and
ecological effects.

Docket Entry 4.	Tetrachlorvinphos: Environmental Fate and Effects
Problem Formulation Document   (June 05, 2008)

This document summarizes the ecological effects of tetrachlorvinphos and
indicates data which will be necessary for risk assessment in order to
create a complete ecological risk assessment.

Docket Entry 5.	Tetrachlorvinphos: Human Heath Effects Scoping Document

(May 09, 2008)

This document summarizes the human health effects of tetrachlorvinphos
and indicates data which will be necessary in order to create a complete
health effects risk assessment.

Usage

Docket Entry 6.	Tetrachlorvinphos: California Department of Pesticide
Regulation usage data (August 08, 2007)

This document provides recent tetrachlorvinphos usage data for
California.

Ecological Risk Assessment Documents

Docket Entry 7. 	EEB RED Science Chapter for Tetrachlorvinphos

(July 19, 1994)

This document is an Ecological Effects assessment for tetrachlorvinphos.

Docket Entry 8. 	Tetrachlorvinphos RED Candidate - EFGWB Science Chapter
(June 27, 1994)

This document is an Environmental Fate and Groundwater assessment for
tetrachlorvinphos.

Human Health Risk Assessment Documents

Docket Entry 9.	Addendum to the HED Human Health Risk Assessment for the
IRED (April 05, 2002)

This document provides the revised Human Health Risk assessment for the
tetrachlorvinphos Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision document.

Docket Entry 10.	Revised HED Risk Assessment (December 08, 1999)

This document is a revision of the complete HED risk assessment which
now incorporates updated residential handler and post-application
exposure and risk assessments submitted by Hartz Mountain Corporation.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79440-79442]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28061]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket Nos. NHTSA-2021-0056, NHTSA-2021-0057; Notice 1]

Vee Rubber Corporation Ltd. and American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
Receipt of Petitions for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petitions.

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

SUMMARY: Vee Rubber Corporation Ltd. (VRC) and American Honda Motor
Co., Inc., (Honda) have determined that certain Vee Rubber VRM133
motorcycle tires sold as replacement equipment and as original
equipment for installation on certain model year (MY) 2019-2021 Honda
Monkey motorcycles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles
with a GVWR of More Than 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds), Specialty
Tires, and Tires for Motorcycles. VRC filed a noncompliance report
dated June 7, 2021, and Honda filed a noncompliance report dated June
22, 2021. Subsequently, VRC petitioned NHTSA on June 22, 2021, and
Honda petitioned NHTSA on July 14, 2021, for a decision that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety. This notice announces receipt of VRC and Honda's petitions.

DATES: Send comments on or before January 26, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on these petitions. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petitions are granted or denied, notice of the decision
will also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the
authority indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the docket. The docket ID numbers for these petitions are
shown in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
194772012;78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayton Lindley, General Engineer,
NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    VRC and Honda have determined that certain Vee Rubber VRM133
motorcycle tires sold as replacement equipment and as original
equipment for installation on certain 2019-2021 Honda Monkey
motorcycles do not fully comply with the requirements of paragraph
S6.5(b) of FMVSS No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles with a
GVWR of More Than 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds), Specialty Tires, and
Tires for Motorcycles (49 CFR 571.119).

    VRC filed a noncompliance report dated June 7, 2021, pursuant to 49
CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. VRC
subsequently petitioned NHTSA on June 22, 2021, for an exemption from
the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on
the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and
49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    Honda filed a noncompliance report dated June 22, 2021, pursuant to
49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
Honda subsequently petitioned NHTSA on July 14, 2021, for an exemption
from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301
on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates
to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)
and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or
Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of VRC and Honda's petitions is published
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any Agency
decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the
petitions.

II. Tires Involved

    Approximately 29,018 Vee Rubber VRM133 motorcycle tires sizes 120/
80-12 and 130/80-12, sold as replacement equipment and to Honda for
installation in certain Honda motorcycles, and manufactured between
March 5, 2018, and May 27, 2021, are potentially involved.
    The subject tires were installed as original equipment on
approximately 13,328 MY 2019-2021 Honda Monkey motorcycles manufactured
between July 4, 2018, and April 2, 2021, and therefore these vehicles
are also potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    VRC and Honda explain that the noncompliance is that the subject
tires contain extra markings between the manufacturer's code and
production week mark within the tire identification number (TIN), and,
therefore, do not comply with the requirements specified in paragraph
S6.5(b) of FMVSS No. 119. Specifically, the tires included an extra
grouping of characters, beginning with the letter ``V'' followed by
numbers between the second and third grouping of characters. For
example, the tires were marked ``DOT 15A BCN133 Vxxxxxx xxxx'' or ``DOT
15A BBN133 Vxxxxxx xxxx'' when they should have been marked ``DOT 15A
BCN133 xxxx'' or ``DOT 15A BBN133 xxxx,'' with ``x'' representing the
number present on a specific tire.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S6.5(b) of FMVSS No. 119 includes the requirements
relevant to these petitions. S6.5(b) provides that the TIN must meet
the requirements as stated in 49 CFR 574 and may be marked on only one
sidewall. 49 CFR 574.5(a) requires, in relevant part, that each new
tire manufacturer must conspicuously label on one sidewall of each tire
it manufactures, by permanently molding into or onto the sidewall, a
TIN consisting of 13 symbols that contains the plant code,
manufacturer's code, and date code, as described in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (b)(3) of 49 CFR 574.5.
    V. Summary of VRC and Honda's Petitions
    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of VRC and Honda's Petitions,'' are the views and arguments
provided by VRC and Honda. They have not been evaluated by the Agency
and do not reflect the views of the Agency. VRC and Honda describe the
subject noncompliance and contend that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of their petitions, VRC and Honda submitted the
following reasoning:
    VRC claims that the subject tires meet the performance requirements
of FMVSS No. 119 and, therefore, the ``markings have no impact on the
operational performance of the tires or on the safety of motorcycles on
which these tires are installed.'' VRC also claims that the subject
tires contain ``a complete and identifiable TIN which is accessible
while mounted'' and that in the event of a recall, a consumer would
have access to all the necessary information required to determine
whether their tires are subject to a recall.
    In Honda's petition, they state that they support VRC's petition
and believe that the extra markings on the tires do not pose a safety
risk to riders or affect the performance of the subject motorcycle
tires. Honda added that the subject tires are both identifiable and
traceable since the extra markings ``do not alter or remove any
required identifying characters of the TIN.''
    The petitioners referred to the following inconsequential
noncompliance petitions granted by NHTSA that they believe support the
granting of their petitions for the subject noncompliance:
     Michelin North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 85 FR 37495, June 22, 2020.
     Bridgestone Firestone North America Tire, LLC, Grant of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 71 FR 4396,
January 26, 2006.
     Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 71 FR 4396, January 26,
2006.
     Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 82 FR 17075, April 7, 2017.
     Nitto Tire USA., Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 81 FR 17764, March 30, 2016.
     Hankook Tire America, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 79 FR 30688, May 28, 2014.
    The petitioners state that they are not aware of any customer
claims, complaints, injuries, incidents, or field reports associated
with the extra markings in the TIN on the affected tires.
    VRC states that they have already corrected the error at its plant
so that the TIN on all new Model VRM133 tires in the affected sizes
will be marked according to S6.5(b) of FMVSS No. 119. VRC also states
that they have recovered all affected tires in possession of United
States distributors or retailers that have not yet reached end-users.
    The petitioners conclude their petitions by contending that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety and that their petitions to be exempted from providing
notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and
a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should
be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
these petitions only applies to the subject tires and vehicles that the
petitioners no longer controlled at the time it determined that the
noncompliance existed. However, any decision on these petitions does
not relieve tire and vehicle distributors and dealers of the
prohibitions on the sale,

offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of the noncompliant tires and vehicles under their
control after VRC and Honda notified them that the subject
noncompliance existed.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-28061 Filed 12-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8967-8968]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02693]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9906-27-OARM]

Availability of Guidance Documents; Permit Appeals; Citizens'
Guide to the Environmental Appeals Board; Superfund Program; Consent
Agreements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability of guidance documents.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing
the availability of four revised guidance documents: A Citizens' Guide
to EPA's Environmental Appeals Board; The Environmental Appeals Board
Practice Manual; Revised Guidance on Procedures for Submission and
Review of CERCLA Section 106(b) Reimbursement Petitions; and
Environmental Appeals Board Consent Agreement and Final Order
Procedures. EPA's Environmental Appeals Board is the final decision
maker on administrative appeals under all major environmental statutes
the EPA administers. The EPA issued these guidance documents to provide
guidance to citizens and practitioners on procedures and practice
before the Board. The EPA revised the first two documents to reflect
amendments to an EPA rule governing the Agency's permit appeal
procedures, which EPA published in the Federal Register on January 25,
2013, and which became effective on March 26, 2013. The EPA revised the
third document in February 2012 to streamline the procedures to
petition for reimbursement of response costs under section 106(b) of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA). The EPA has removed the fourth document as an appendix to
the Board's Practice Manual, and it now is available as a freestanding
document

with minor revisions to make it easier for stakeholders to locate it.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eurika Durr, Clerk of the
Environmental Appeals Board, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code: 1103M, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
particular interest to anyone who seeks review by the Environmental
Appeals Board of a permit decision issued pursuant to the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments to the Resource Conservation Recovery Act
(RCRA), Underground Injection Control (UIC), National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD), or other final permit decision under 40 CFR 124.19
or who seeks reimbursement of response costs under section 106(b) of
CERCLA. Because these guidance documents may be of interest to
everyone, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be interested in this action. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this information to the
particular petition, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    Electronic copies of these four guidance documents and other
related documents, including a copy of the recent rule revising part
124, are available at http://www.epa.gov/eab/. The public also may view
these documents on site at the Environmental Appeals Board, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1201 Constitution Avenue NW., U.S. EPA
East Building, Room 3332, Washington, DC 20460. The Clerk of the
Board's hours are 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding federal holidays. The Clerk of the Board's
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For security reasons, advance
notice is required to access the EPA building where the Board is
located.

II. Background

    The EPA announces the availability of four guidance documents that
the Agency's Environmental Appeals Board (Board) has issued: (1) A
Citizens' Guide to EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (Citizens' Guide);
(2) The Environmental Appeals Board Practice Manual (Practice Manual);
(3) Revised Guidance on Procedures for Submission and Review of CERCLA
Section 106(b) Reimbursement Petitions (CERCLA Section 106(b)
Reimbursement Guidance); and (4) Environmental Appeals Board Consent
Agreement and Final Order Procedures (CAFO Procedures). The EPA revised
the Citizens' Guide and Practice Manual to reflect changes to the
Agency's permit appeal procedures under 40 CFR 124.19. The amendments
to 40 CFR 124.19 were published in the Federal Register on January 25,
2013, and became effective on March 26, 2013.
    The Citizens' Guide provides general guidance about the Board and
its procedures and is intended principally to assist stakeholders
without legal training involved with matters pending before the Board.
Because the Citizens' Guide contains information about the part 124
permit appeals process, the EPA revised this guidance document to
reflect the recent changes to 40 CFR part 124.
    The Practice Manual provides general descriptions of the regulatory
framework for Board proceedings and provides guidance to litigants on
matters related to practice before the Board. Because it too contains
information about the part 124 permit appeals process, it also was
revised to reflect the recent changes to 40 CFR part 124.
    The EPA issued the CERCLA Section 106(b) Reimbursement Guidance on
February 23, 2012. Section 106(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 USC
9606(b), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1986, allows any person who complies with an EPA order issued under
section 106(a) of the statute to petition for reimbursement of the
reasonable costs incurred in complying with the order, plus interest.
Reimbursement is authorized if a petitioner can establish that it was
not liable for response costs or that the Agency's selection of a
response action was arbitrary or capricious or otherwise not in
accordance with law. The CERCLA Section 106(b) Reimbursement Guidance
details both the information a petitioner is expected to submit as part
of a petition for reimbursement under CERCLA section 106(b) and the
procedures the Board intends to follow in evaluating petitions. The EPA
initially issued procedural guidance regarding the procedures for
submission and review of petitions for reimbursement in June 1994.
Based on its experience with reimbursement petitions after that date,
the EPA issued revised CERCLA 106(b) guidance on October 9, 1996, and
then again on November 10, 2004. The February 23, 2012 CERCLA Section
106(b) Reimbursement Guidance supersedes the previous CERCLA 106(b)
guidance and is applicable to all petitions submitted on or after
February 23, 2012.
    The CAFO Procedures document was formerly included as an appendix
to the Practice Manual. For convenience to practitioners, the EPA has
removed the document from the Practice Manual and has made it available
as its own separate document as of January 2014.

    Authority:  Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act,
7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.; Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean
Water Act), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq.; Safe Drinking Water Act, 42
U.S.C. 300f et. seq.; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42
U.S.C. 6901 et. seq.; Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et. seq.;
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.; 40 CFR 1.25(e), 22.4, 124.19)

    Dated: January 29, 2014.
Craig E. Hooks,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Administration and Resources
Management.
[FR Doc. 2014-02693 Filed 2-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 63056]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22602]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2452-236]

Consumers Energy Company; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-capacity Amendment of License and Request
for Temporary Variance.
    b. Project No: 2452-236.
    c. Date Filed: September 2, 2022, as supplemented on September 16,
2022.
    d. Applicant: Consumers Energy Company.
    e. Name of Project: Hardy Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Muskegon River in
Newaygo County, Michigan.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: David McIntosh, Senior Licensing Engineer,
Consumers Energy Company, 330 Chestnut Street, Cadillac, MI 49601,
[email protected], Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Elizabeth Moats,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: November 11, 2022.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should
include the docket number P-2452-236. Comments emailed to Commission
staff are not considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee requests a non-capacity
amendment of its license to upgrade the project's auxiliary spillway
with: (1) a new 320-foot-wide labyrinth crested control section; (2) a
new converging chute section; (3) a stilling basin; (4) a section of
articulated concrete blocks; and (5) a terminal structure that extends
to the Muskegon River. The licensee proposes to begin construction
during summer 2023 and construction activities would last approximately
3 years. The licensee's proposal would require replacing and widening
the road on the dam crest and temporary closure of several recreation
sites (e.g., Hardy Dam Nature Trail, Hardy Dam Marina, and Operator's
Village Fishing Pier).
    To complete the construction described above, the licensee proposes
to extend the already permitted temporary variance from Article 401,
approved by the Commission on September 6, 2022. Article 401 allows the
licensee to, among other things, drawdown the reservoir elevation 12
feet below the normal operating elevation from January 1 to April 30.
The temporary variance approved on September 6, 2022, allows the winter
drawdown to occur from November 1 until the Friday before Memorial Day
from September 2022 through December 10, 2025. On September 16, 2022,
the licensee requested to extend the temporary variance to incorporate
drawdown periods from September 1, 2023, to July 31, 2024; from
November 1, 2024, to the end of May 2025; and from November 1, 2025, to
July 31, 2026; and resume the licensed winter drawdown period on
January 1, 2027.
    l. Locations of the Application: This application may be viewed on
the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
[email protected], for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. Agencies may
obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.

    Dated: October 12, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-22602 Filed 10-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 53 (Monday, March 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12061-12062]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05530]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services,

100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-2736

Extension:
    Form 10-D, SEC File No. 270-544, OMB Control No. 3235-0604

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Form 10-D is a periodic report used by asset-backed issuers to file
distribution and pool performance information pursuant to Rule 13a-17
(17 CFR 240.13a-17) or Rule 15d-17 (17 CFR 240.15d-17) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') (15 U.S.C. 78a et
seq.). The form is required to be filed within 15 days after each
required distribution date on the asset-backed securities, as specified
in the governing documents for such securities. The information
provided by Form 10-D is mandatory and all information is made
available to the public upon request. Form 10-D takes approximately 30
hours per response to prepare and is filed by approximately 2,169
respondents. Each respondent files an estimated 3.8073 Form 10-Ds per
year for a total of 8,258 responses. We estimate that 75% of the 30
hours per response (22.5 hours) is prepared by the company for a total
annual reporting burden of 185,805 hours (22.5 hours per response x
8,258 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following website, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
[email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to: [email protected]. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: March 14, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-05530 Filed 3-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 95)]
[Notices]
[Page 28678]
[DOCID:fr17my06-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 2698-033, 2686-032, 2602-007, and 2601-007]

Duke Power Company, LLC; North Carolina; Notice of Availability
of Draft Environmental Assessment

May 10, 2006.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
as amended, and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)
regulations (18 CFR part 380), Commission staff reviewed the
applications for new major licenses for the East and West Fork
projects, a subsequent license for the Bryson Project, and the
application for license surrender for the Dillsboro Project. We
prepared a draft combined environmental assessment (EA) on the proposed
actions. The East and West Fork and Dillsboro projects are located on
the Tuckasegee River in Jackson County, North Carolina. The Bryson
Project is located on the Oconaluftee River (a tributary to the
Tuckasegee River) in Swain County, North Carolina.
    In this draft EA, Commission staff analyze the probable
environmental effects of implementing the projects and conclude that
approval of the projects, with appropriate staff-recommended
environmental measures, would not constitute a major federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    Copies of the draft EA are available for review in Public Reference
Room 2-A of the Commission's offices at 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC. The draft EA also may be viewed on the Commission's
Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary'' link.

Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or on the
Commission's Web site using the eLibrary link. For assistance with
eLibrary, contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free at (866)
208-3676; for TTY call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any comments on the draft EA should be filed within 30 days of the
date of this notice and should be addressed to Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Please reference the specific project and FERC
Project No. on all comments. Comments may be filed electronically via
the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    For further information, please contact Carolyn Holsopple at (202)
502-6407 or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-7487 Filed 5-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION 10

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

NOTICE OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

The EPA Region 10 is proposing to approve a correction to the State of
Oregon’s federally authorized RCRA Hazardous Waste Management Program.
 On January 7, 2010, EPA published a final rule, under docket
EPA-R10-RCRA 2009-0766, granting final authorization for changes the
State of Oregon made to its federally authorized RCRA Hazardous Waste
Management Program. These authorized changes included, among others, the
federal Recycled Used Oil Management Standards; Clarification rule,
promulgated on July 30, 2003.  During a post-authorization review of the
State of Oregon’s regulations, EPA identified that the Oregon
Administrative Rules (OAR), related to the federal used oil management
requirements (OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>), had not been updated to include the
adoption of the federal Recycled Used Oil Management Standards;
Clarification rule.  Therefore, the State did not have an effective
state rule and EPA inaccurately referenced this rule in the State’s
Final Authorization Action published and effective on January 7, 2010.
This action will correct the State of Oregon’s federally authorized
program, by removing the inaccurate authorization reference to the
federal Recycled Used Oil Management Standards; Clarification rule.

The public may submit written comments on this correction during the
public comment period which ends 30 days after the date of the
publication of both the proposed and direct final rules in the Federal
Register.   We expect the Federal Register to be published on or about
December 9, 2010.

Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:

On line to:    HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
www.regulations.gov  - Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

E-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Or post-mail to:  Nina Kocourek, Mail Stop AWT-122, U.S. EPA Region 10,
Suite 900, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101-1128

You may examine the supporting documents online at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  under Docket Number
EPA-R10-RCRA-2009-0947 for this correction.  Alternatively, these
documents are also available for viewing and copying Monday through
Friday, during normal business hours, at the following locations: U.S.
EPA, Region 10, Suite 900, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101,
contact: Nina Kocourek, phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; and the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, 811 SW Sixth Avenue, Portland,
Oregon 97204, contact: David Livengood at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

This is a noncontroversial action and EPA does not anticipate any
adverse comments on this correction. If EPA receives written adverse
comments, during the public comment period, EPA will withdraw the direct
final rule and will address all public comments in a subsequent final
rule.   For additional information, see the proposed and direct final
rules which are located in the Rules section of the Federal Register.

This notice is issued under the authority of sections 2002 (a), 3006,
and 7004 (b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42  U.S.C.
6912 (a), 6926, and 6974 (b).

/s/								December 1, 2010

____       _______________________________		___________________________

Dennis J. McLerran, Regional Administrator		Dated


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 4 (Friday, January 6, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 981-983]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00007]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 890

[Docket No. FDA-2022-N-3131]

Medical Devices; Physical Medicine Devices; Classification of the
Electroencephalography-Driven Upper Extremity Powered Exerciser

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).

ACTION: Final amendment; final order.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is
classifying the electroencephalography (EEG)-driven upper extremity
powered exerciser into class II (special controls). The special
controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and
will be part of the codified language for the electroencephalography
(EEG)-driven upper extremity powered exerciser's classification. We are
taking this action because we have determined that classifying the
device into class II (special controls) will provide a reasonable
assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this
action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative
devices.

DATES: This order is effective January 6, 2023. The classification was
applicable on April 23, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Dean, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4214, Silver Spring, MD, 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Upon request, FDA has classified the electroencephalography (EEG)-
driven upper extremity powered exerciser as class II (special
controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance
of safety and effectiveness. In addition, we believe this action will
enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by placing
the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III
assignment.
    The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law
and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by
the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution
before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified as, and remains
within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA
takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (see 21 U.S.C.
360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as ``postamendments devices''
because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of
enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
    FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to
classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an
order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section
513(i) of the FD&C Act (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device
that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new
device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device by means of
the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the
FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807).
    FDA may also classify a device through ``De Novo'' classification,
a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the
FD&C Act. Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization
Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-115) established the first procedure for De
Novo

classification. Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety
and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144) modified the De Novo application
process by adding a second procedure. A device sponsor may utilize
either procedure for De Novo classification.
    Under the first procedure, the person submits a 510(k) for a device
that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from
FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of
the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section
513(f)(2).
    Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k)
and then a request for classification, if the person determines that
there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination
of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under
section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
    Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA is required
to classify the device by written order within 120 days. The
classification will be according to the criteria under section
513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed
within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the
initial classification of the device.
    When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo
process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that
type, including for 510(k)s (see section 513(f)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C
Act). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De
Novo request or premarket approval application to market a
substantially equivalent device (see section 513(i) of the FD&C Act,
defining ``substantial equivalence''). Instead, sponsors can use the
less-burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.

II. De Novo Classification

    On July 23, 2020, FDA received Neurolutions, Inc.'s request for De
Novo classification of the Neurolutions IpsiHand Upper Extremity
Rehabilitation System. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify
the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section
513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
    We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves
are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and
effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special
controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide
reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for
its intended use (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)(B)). After review of the
information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can
be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls.
FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the
general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and
effectiveness of the device.
    Therefore, on April 23, 2021, FDA issued an order to the requester
classifying the device into class II. In this final order, FDA is
codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR
890.5420.\1\ We have named the generic type of device
electroencephalography (EEG)-driven upper extremity powered exerciser,
and it is identified as a non-invasive prescription device intended for
rehabilitation by driving movement or exercise of an impaired upper
extremity in response to the detection of purpose oriented electrical
activity produced by the patient's brain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FDA notes that the ``ACTION'' caption for this final order
is styled as ``Final amendment; final order,'' rather than ``Final
order.'' Beginning in December 2019, this editorial change was made
to indicate that the document ``amends'' the Code of Federal
Regulations. The change was made in accordance with the Office of
Federal Register's (OFR) interpretations of the Federal Register Act
(44 U.S.C. chapter 15), its implementing regulations (1 CFR 5.9 and
parts 21 and 22), and the Document Drafting Handbook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDA has identified the following risks to health associated
specifically with this type of device and the measures required to
mitigate these risks in table 1.

  Table 1--Electroencephalography (EEG)-Driven Upper Extremity Powered
                 Exerciser Risks and Mitigation Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Identified risks                   Mitigation measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Device provides ineffective treatment,   Clinical performance testing,
 leading to worsening condition.          Software verification,
                                          validation, and hazard
                                          analysis, and Wireless
                                          compatibility testing.
Unintended motion leading to injury....  Software verification,
                                          validation, and hazard
                                          analysis.
Thermal injury including burns and       Electromagnetic compatibility
 shock.                                   testing, Electrical safety
                                          testing, Battery safety
                                          testing, and Labeling.
Adverse tissue reaction................  Biocompatibility evaluation,
                                          and Labeling.
Cross contamination, leading to          Reprocessing validation, and
 infection or adverse tissue reaction.    Labeling.
Pain or discomfort including:            Labeling, and Clinical
                                          performance testing.
     Headache..................
     Fatigue...................
     Skin redness..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the
general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable
assurance of safety and effectiveness. For a device to fall within this
classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III,
it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final
order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified
by this order. This device is subject to premarket notification
requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act.
    At the time of classification, the electroencephalography (EEG)-
driven upper extremity powered exerciser is for prescription use only.
Prescription devices are exempt from the requirement for adequate
directions for use for the layperson under section 502(f)(1) of the
FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)) and 21 CFR 801.5, as long as the
conditions of 21 CFR 801.109 are met.

III. Analysis of Environmental Impact

    The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is
of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This final order establishes special controls that refer to
previously approved collections of information found in other FDA
regulations and guidance. These collections of information are subject
to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections
of information in 21 CFR part 860, subpart D, regarding De Novo
classification have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844;
the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through
E, regarding premarket approval, have been approved under OMB control
number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart
E, regarding premarket notification submissions, have been approved
under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in
21 CFR part 820, regarding quality system regulation, have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; and the collections of
information in 21 CFR part 801 regarding labeling, have been approved
under OMB control number 0910-0485.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 890

    Medical devices.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part
890 is amended as follows:

PART 890--PHYSICAL MEDICINE DEVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 890 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.

0
2. Add Sec.  890.5420 to subpart F to read as follows:

Sec.  890.5420  Electroencephalography (EEG)-driven upper extremity
powered exerciser.

    (a) Identification. An EEG-driven upper extremity powered exerciser
is a non-invasive prescription device intended for rehabilitation by
driving movement or exercise of an impaired upper extremity in response
to the detection of purpose oriented electrical activity produced by
the patient's brain.
    (b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The special
controls for this device are:
    (1) Clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device
performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. Testing must
capture any adverse events observed during clinical use and must
demonstrate that the EEG signal can be translated into intended motion.
    (2) Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be
performed.
    (3) Performance data must demonstrate the electromagnetic
compatibility, electrical safety, battery safety, and wireless
compatibility of the device.
    (4) The device components that contact the patient must be
demonstrated to be biocompatible.
    (5) Performance data must validate the reprocessing instructions
for the reusable components of the device.
    (6) Labeling must include:
    (i) Instructions on fitting the device to the patient;
    (ii) Information on how the device operates and the typical
sensations experienced during treatment; and
    (iii) Reprocessing instructions.

    Dated: January 3, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-00007 Filed 1-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 14259]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05328]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-679-000.
    Applicants: Discovery Gas Transmission LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Discovery Gas Transmission LLC
Housekeeping Tariff Filing to be effective 4/8/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220308-5007.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/22.
    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 8, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-05328 Filed 3-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P