[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 55 (Friday, March 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15740-15741]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06224]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9908-22-Region-6]

Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petitions for Objection
To State Operating Permits for Consolidated Environmental Management,
Inc.--Nucor Steel Louisiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final action.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 505(b)(2) and 40 CFR
70.8(d), the EPA Administrator signed an Order, dated January 30, 2014,
partially granting and partially denying three petitions asking EPA to
object to operating permits (Permit Numbers 2560-00281-V0, 2560-00281-
V1, and 3086-V0) issued by the Louisiana Department for Environmental
Quality (LDEQ) to Consolidated Environmental Management, Inc.--Nucor
Steel Louisiana (Nucor) relating to a facility located near Convent,
Saint James Parish, Louisiana. Pursuant to CAA Section 505(b)(2) and 40
CFR 70.8(d), the EPA Administrator also signed an Order, dated June 19,
2013, denying one issue (``Specific Objection I'') raised in two of
those petitions. Together, EPA's June 19, 2013 Order and January 30,
2014 Order respond to the three petitions submitted by Louisiana
Environmental Action Network and Sierra Club (collectively, the
Petitioners on June 25, 2010 (the 2010 Petition), May 3, 2011 (the 2011
Petition) and October 3, 2012 (the 2012 Petition), respectively.
Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the Act provide that a petitioner may
ask for judicial review of those portions of the Orders that deny
objections raised in the petitions by the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit. Any petition for review shall be
filed within 60 days from the date this notice appears in the Federal
Register, pursuant to section 307(b) of the Act.

ADDRESSES: You may review copies of the final Orders, the petitions,
and other supporting information at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view copies of
the final Orders, petitions, and other supporting information. You may
view the hard copies Monday through Friday, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00
p.m., excluding Federal holidays. If you wish to examine these
documents, you should make an appointment at least 24 hours before the
visiting day. Additionally, the final June 19, 2013 Order and January
30, 2014 Orders are available electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/Region7/air/title5/petitiondb/petitions/nucor_steel_partialresponse2011.pdf and http://www.epa.gov/Region7/air/title5/petitiondb/petitions/nucor_steel_response2012.pdf, respectively.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dinesh Senghani at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 6
address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CAA affords EPA a 45-day period to
review, and object, as appropriate, to a title V operating permit
proposed by a state permitting authority. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA
authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator, within 60 days
after the expiration of this review period, to object to a title V
operating permit if EPA has not done so. Petitions must be based only
on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable
specificity during the public comment period provided by the state,
unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise
these issues during the comment period or unless the grounds for the
issue arose after this period.
    EPA received three petitions from the Petitioners, dated June 25,
2010, May 3, 2011, and October 3, 2012, to object to operating permits
issued to Consolidated Environmental Management, Inc.--Nucor Steel
Louisiana relating to a facility located near Convent, Saint James
Parish, Louisiana.
    The 2010 Petition requested that the Administrator object to a
Nucor operating permit (Permit Number 2560-00281-V0) on the basis that:
(1) The permit fails to apply the appropriate maximum achievable
control technology (MACT) standards; (2) the modeling submitted by
Nucor to support its PSD analysis is flawed, and (3) the title V permit
fails to incorporate conditions sufficient to assure compliance with
PSD. The 2011 Petition requested that the Administrator object to two
Nucor operating permits (Permit Numbers 2560-00281-V1 and 3086-V0) on
the following bases: (1) LDEQ failed to aggregate PSD permitting for
emissions from the entire facility (this issue is also known as
``Specific Objection I'' in this matter); (2) the modified pig iron
permit fails to apply MACT standards for the topgas boilers; (3) LDEQ
failed to include emission limits for particulate matter less than 2.5
microns; (4) the limit for natural gas consumption is not the best
available control technology for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from
the Direct Reduced Iron (DRI) process; and (5) the DRI permits must
specify procedures estimating GHG emissions. The 2012 Petition
requested that the Administrator object to the Nucor operating permits
for the reasons expressed in the 2010 and 2011 Petitions, which were
incorporated by reference and attached to the 2012 Petition.
    On June 19, 2013, the Administrator issued a partial Order denying
Specific Objection I of the 2011 Petition and as re-raised in the 2012
Petition. On January 30, 2014, the Administrator issued an Order
partially granting and partially denying the 2010, 2011, and 2012
Petitions, (except Specific Objection I). These Orders explain the
reasons behind EPA's conclusion to grant in part and deny in part these
three petitions. Together, the June 19, 2013 Order and January 30, 2014
Order

address all the objections originally raised in the 2010 Petition and
the 2011 Petition, which were all re-raised in the 2012 Petition, as
well as addressing the claims in the 2012 Petition.

    Dated: March 7, 2014.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2014-06224 Filed 3-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 82 (Friday, April 30, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22911-22912]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08984]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 82 / Friday, April 30, 2021 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2020-0694]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway,
Madeira Beach, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating schedule that
governs the Welch Causeway (SR 699) Bridge, mile 122.8 at Madeira
Beach, Florida. A request was made by the City of Madeira Beach, FL to
place the drawbridge on a daily operating schedule to alleviate vehicle
congestion due to on demand bridge openings. This change may be
necessary to balance the needs of all modes of transportion due to the
economic growth in the vicinity of the bridge. The Coast Guard is
seeking comments from the public regarding these proposed changes.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before May 15, 2021.

ADDRESSES:  You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0694 using Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email LT Clark W. Sanford, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Saint
Petersburg Waterways Management Division; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental)
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
FL Florida
TD Test Deviation
FDOT Florida Department of Transportation

II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    On December 18, 2020 the Coast Guard published a Test Deviation
entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway,
Madeira Beach, FL in the Federal Register (85 FR 82355). The TD invited
comments on the proposed rule change. One comment was received which
was irrelevant to the test deviation.
    The Welch Causeway (SR 699) Bridge across the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway, mile 122.8, at Madeira Beach, Florida is a double-leaf
bascule bridge with a 25 foot vertical clearance at mean high water in
the closed position and a 89 foot horizontal clearance between fenders.
The normal operating schedule for the bridge is found in 33 CFR
117.287(h). Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.
    The City of Madeira Beach Florida has requested the current
operating schedule be modified due to the increased economic growth and
vehicle traffic in the area, as well as a school located in close
proximity to the bridge. The bridge owner, Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT), is in support of the proposed changes.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    Under this proposed regulation, the draw of the Welch Causeway
Bridge shall open on signal except that, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily,
except Federal holidays, the draw need only open on the hour and half
hour.
    This proposed change would still allow vessels that can transit
under the bridge, without an opening, to do so at any time while taking
into account the reasonable needs of other modes of transportation.
Vessels in distress, public vessels of the United States, and tugs with
tows must be passed at any time.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss
First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that
vessels can still transit the bridge twice an hour during the
designated time-frames and vessels that do not need an opening may pass
at any time.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A
above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact
on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it,

please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically
affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The
Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule promulgates the
operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such
actions are categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph
L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Implementation Procedures.
    Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum
for the Record are required for this rule. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in this docket
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; DHS Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  117.287 by revising paragraph (h) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.287  Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.

* * * * *
    (h) The draw of the Welch Causeway (SR 699) Bridge, mile 122.8, at
Madeira Beach, Florida, shall open on signal; except that, from 7 a.m.
to 7 p.m. daily, except Federal holidays, the draw need only open on
the hour and half hour.

    Dated: April 16, 2021.
Eric C. Jones,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2021-08984 Filed 4-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 78 (Monday, April 24, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24705-24708]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08584]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0711; FRL-10848-01-OCSPP]

[alpha]-D-Glucopyranoside, [beta]-D-Fructofuranosyl, Polymer With
Methyloxirane and Oxirane; Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of [alpha]-D-glucopyranoside, [beta]-D-
fructofuranosyl, polymer with methyloxirane and oxirane with a minimum
number average molecular weight (in amu) of 9,800 (CAS Reg. No. 26301-
10-0) when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical
formulation. Delta Analytical Corporation, on behalf of Borchers
Americas, Inc. submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of [alpha]-D-
glucopyranoside, [beta]-D-fructofuranosyl, polymer with methyloxirane
and oxirane on food or feed commodities when used in accordance with
this exemption.

DATES: This regulation is effective April 24, 2023. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 23, 2023, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0711, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room and the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For the latest
status information on EPA/DC services, docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Rosenblatt, Registration
Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

C. Can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0711 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
June 23, 2023. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b), although the Office
of the Administrative Law Judges, which houses the Hearing Clerk,
encourages parties to file objections and hearing requests
electronically. See https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/documents/2020-04-10_-_order_urging_electronic_service_and_filing.pdf.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0711, by one of
the following methods.

     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets#express.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of September 23, 2022 (87 FR 58047) (FRL-
9410-05-OSCPP), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21
U.S.C. 346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP IN-
11712) filed by Delta Analytical Corporation, 12510 Prosperity Drive,
Suite 160, Silver Spring, MD 20904 on behalf of Borchers Americas,
Inc., 811 Sharon Drive, Westlake, OH 44145. The petition requested that
40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of [alpha]-D-glucopyranoside,
[beta]-D-fructofuranosyl, polymer with methyloxirane and oxirane with a
minimum number average molecular weight (in amu) of 9,800 (CAS Reg. No.
26301-10-0). That document included a summary of the petition prepared
by the petitioner and solicited comments on the petitioner's request.
The Agency did not receive any comments.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and use in residential settings but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .'' and
specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that
are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria
to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no
risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the
exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are
described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). [alpha]-D-Glucopyranoside, [beta]-D-
fructofuranosyl, polymer with methyloxirane and oxirane conforms to the
definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the
following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.
    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably
anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic
environment.
    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition
at least two of the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen,
silicon, and sulfur.
    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its
composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed
in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably
anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize. An
available biodegradation study supports that [alpha]-D-glucopyranoside,
[beta]-D-fructofuranosyl, polymer with methyloxirane and oxirane is not
readily biodegradable (MRID 52074101).
    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or
reactants that are already included on the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable
TSCA section 5 exemption.
    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number
average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 Daltons.
    7. The polymer does not contain certain perfluoroalkyl moieties
consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length as listed in 40
CFR 723.250(d)(6). Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the
following exemption criteria: specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e):
    The polymer's minimum number average MW of 9,800 Daltons is greater
than 1,000 and less than 10,000 Daltons. The polymer contains less than
10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric
material below MW 1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive
functional groups.
    Thus, [alpha]-D-Glucopyranoside, [beta]-D-fructofuranosyl, polymer
with methyloxirane and oxirane meets the criteria for a polymer to be
considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to
the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from
dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to [alpha]-D-Glucopyranoside,
[beta]-D-fructofuranosyl, polymer with methyloxirane and oxirane.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that [alpha]-D-Glucopyranoside, [beta]-D-
fructofuranosyl, polymer with methyloxirane and oxirane could be
present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking
water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The
minimum number average MW of [alpha]-D-Glucopyranoside, [beta]-D-
fructofuranosyl, polymer with methyloxirane and oxirane is 9,800

Daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed
through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin.
Since [alpha]-D-Glucopyranoside, [beta]-D-fructofuranosyl, polymer with
methyloxirane and oxirane conforms to the criteria that identify a low-
risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any
potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The
Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the
public health.

V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of
Toxicity

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency
consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of
a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found [alpha]-D-Glucopyranoside, [beta]-D-
fructofuranosyl, polymer with methyloxirane and oxirane to share a
common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and [alpha]-D-
Glucopyranoside, [beta]-D-fructofuranosyl, polymer with methyloxirane
and oxirane does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by
other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance exemption,
therefore, EPA has assumed that [alpha]-D-Glucopyranoside, [beta]-D-
fructofuranosyl, polymer with methyloxirane and oxirane does not have a
common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information
regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common
mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such
chemicals, see EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in
the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of
safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA) Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either
retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety
factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a
different factor. Due to the expected low toxicity of [alpha]-D-
glucopyranoside, [beta]-D-fructofuranosyl, polymer with methyloxirane
and oxirane, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the
risk. For the same reasons no additional safety factor is needed for
assessing risk to infants and children.

VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-
risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of [alpha]-D-glucopyranoside, [beta]-D-
fructofuranosyl, polymer with methyloxirane and oxirane.

VIII. Other Considerations

Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of [alpha]-D-
glucopyranoside, [beta]-D-fructofuranosyl, polymer with methyloxirane
and oxirane from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section
408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance
exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed
rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government
and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action. In addition,
this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

XI. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 18, 2023.
Daniel Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.960, amend table 1 to the section by adding, in
alphabetical order, the polymer ``[alpha]-D-Glucopyranoside, [beta]-D-
fructofuranosyl, polymer with methyloxirane and oxirane with a minimum
number average molecular weight (in amu) of 9,800'' to the table to
read as follows:

Sec.  180.960  Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

* * * * *

                        Table 1 to Sec.   180.960
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Polymer                              CAS no.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
[alpha]-D-Glucopyranoside, [beta]-D-fructofuranosyl,          26301-10-0
 polymer with methyloxirane and oxirane with a minimum
 number average molecular weight (in amu) of 9,800......

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2023-08584 Filed 4-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18018-18019]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08671]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP17-40-000, CP17-40-001]

Spire STL Pipeline, LLC; Notice Granting Late Interventions

    On February 6, 2017, in Docket No. CP17-40-000, the Commission
issued public notice of Spire STL Pipeline, LLC's (Spire) application
requesting approval to construct and operate a pipeline project, which
would include: (i) The construction of approximately 59 miles of a new
greenfield, 24-inch diameter pipeline; (ii) the acquisition of
approximately seven miles of existing

Line 880, currently owned by Spire Missouri Inc. (Spire Missouri); \1\
and (iii) minor modifications to Line 880 after it is acquired. This
notice set February 27, 2017, as the deadline for motions to intervene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Spire Missouri Inc. was formerly known as Laclede Gas
Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 1, 2017, in Docket No. CP17-40-001, the Commission issued
public notice of Spire's amendment to its application to propose a
route alternative. Instead of acquiring and refurbishing Spire
Missouri's Line 880, Spire's amended application proposes to construct
a new six-mile, 24-inch diameter pipeline for the final segment of its
proposal (referred to as the North County Extension). This notice set
May 22, 2017, as the deadline for motions to intervene.
    Multiple motions to intervene out of time were filed between the
intervention deadlines and December 19, 2017. Here, because the
deadline for filing a timely intervention passed before the Commission
announced its new policy governing late interventions in Tennessee Gas
Pipeline Company, L.L.C.,\2\ the late motions to intervene are
granted.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., L.L.C., 162 FERC 61,167, at P 51
(2018).
    \3\ 18 CFR 385.214(d) (2017).

    Dated: April 19, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-08671 Filed 4-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 5, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 193)]
[Notices]
[Page 58852-58853]
[DOCID:fr05oc06-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL06-106-000]

Occidental Chemical Corporation; Carville Energy LLC; Notice of
Filing

September 28, 2006.
    Take notice that on September 18, 2006, Occidental Chemical
Corporation and Carville Energy LLC filed a Petition for Enforcement,
pursuant to Section 210(h) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies
Act of 1978 (PURPA), requesting the Commission to exercise its
authority and initiate enforcement action against the Louisiana Public
Service Commission to ensure that PURPA regulations are properly and
lawfully implemented in Louisiana.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions 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 or intervention 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 e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 9, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-16416 Filed 10-4-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 76)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 20796-20799]
[DOCID:fr21ap10-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. RM10-20-000]

Market-Based Rate Affiliate Restrictions

April 15, 2010.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes
to amend its regulations to revise its regulations governing market-
based rates for public utilities pursuant to section 205 of the Federal
Power Act (FPA). The Commission proposes to clarify that employees that
determine the timing of scheduled outages, or that engage in economic
dispatch, fuel procurement, or resource planning may not be shared
under the market-based rate affiliate restrictions codified in Order
No. 697.

DATES: Comments are due June 21, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number by any
of the following methods:
     Agency Web site: http://www.ferc.gov. Documents created
electronically using word processing software should be filed in native
applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters unable to file comments
electronically must mail or hand deliver an original and 14 copies of
their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of
the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michelle Barnaby (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Paige Bullard (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

April 15, 2010.

I. Introduction

    1. In this order, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) is proposing to revise Sec.  35.39 of its regulations
promulgated in Order No. 697 \1\ in order to reflect the clarification
provided in an order to be issued concurrently with this order in
response to the Compliance Working Group's \2\ concerns regarding
compliance with the market-based rate affiliate restrictions codified
in Order No. 697.\3\ Specifically, the Commission is proposing to
revise the separation of functions and information sharing provisions
of those affiliate restrictions to explicitly state that employees that
determine the timing of scheduled outages or that engage in economic
dispatch, fuel procurement, or resource planning may not be shared
under the Commission's market-based rate affiliate restrictions adopted
in Order No. 697.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Market-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy,
Capacity and Ancillary Services by Public Utilities, Order No. 697,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,252 (Order No. 697), clarified, 121 FERC ]
61,260 (2007), order on reh'g, Order No. 697-A, FERC Stats. & Regs.
] 31,268, clarified, 124 FERC ] 61,055, order on reh'g, Order No.
697-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,285 (2008), order on reh'g, Order
No. 697-C, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,291 (2009), order on reh'g,
Order No. 697-D, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,305 (2010).
    \2\ The Compliance Working Group states that it consists of 27
energy companies, which include integrated electric businesses,
merchant generators, marketing and trading businesses, and natural
gas distributors, and explains that the group was formed in mid-2008
``to develop a model [Commission] compliance program guide.''
Compliance Working Group Request for Clarification, Docket No. RM04-
7-007, at 2 (filed Mar. 9, 2009); Compliance Working Group Amended
Request for Clarification, Docket No. RM04-7-007, at 3 (filed Oct.
28, 2009). The members of the Compliance Working Group taking part
in its request for clarification are: Allegheny Energy, Inc.,
American Electric Power Company, Inc., Cleco Corporation, Consumers
Energy Company, Dominion Resources, Inc., Duke Energy Corporation,
Edison International, El Paso Electric Company, Energy East Corp.,
Entergy Corporation, Exelon Corporation, FirstEnergy Corp., FPL
Group, Inc., Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Progress Energy, Inc.,
Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated, and Westar Energy,
Inc.
    \3\ Market-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy,
Capacity and Ancillary Services By Public Utilities, 131 FERC ]
61,021 (2010) (April 15 Clarification Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    2. In Order No. 697, the Commission adopted affiliate restrictions
that govern the relationship between franchised public utilities with
captive customers and their ``market-regulated'' affiliates, i.e.,
affiliates whose power sales are regulated in whole or in part on a
market-based rate basis. These market-based rate affiliate restrictions
govern the separation of functions, the sharing of market information,
sales of non-power goods or services, and power brokering. The
Commission requires that, as a condition of receiving and retaining
market-based rate authority, sellers comply with these affiliate
restrictions unless explicitly permitted by Commission rule or order.
Failure to satisfy the conditions set forth in these affiliate
restrictions constitutes a violation of the market-based rate
tariff.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,252 at P 549-550.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. On March 9, 2009, the Compliance Working Group submitted a
request for clarification in the Commission's market-based rate
rulemaking proceeding regarding which employees can be shared for
purposes of compliance with the Commission's market-based rate
affiliate restrictions. On October 28, 2009, the Compliance Working
Group submitted an amended request for clarification. In response to
the Compliance Working Group's request, the Commission is providing
clarification regarding which employees may not be shared under these
affiliate restrictions.\5\ In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NOPR), we propose to revise the text of the separation of functions
and information sharing provisions of the affiliate restrictions
contained in Sec.  35.39 of the Commission's regulations in order to
reflect the clarification provided in response to the Compliance
Working Group's request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ April 15 Clarification Order, 131 FERC ] 61,021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    4. Under the separation of functions requirement in the market-
based rate affiliate restrictions, employees of market-regulated power
sales affiliates must operate separately, to the maximum extent
practical, from employees of affiliated franchised utilities with
captive customers.\6\ Order No. 697 exempts certain categories of
employees from this separation of functions requirement. Employees in
these categories are permitted to be shared, and Order No. 697 gives
examples of permissibly ``shared employees'' that are drawn from Order
No. 2004, which established the Standards of Conduct rules that were in
effect at the time that Order No. 697 was issued.\7\ In particular, the
market-based rate affiliate restrictions provide that

``Franchised public utilities with captive customers are permitted to
share support employees, and field and maintenance employees with their
market-regulated power sales affiliates. Franchised public utilities
with captive customers are also permitted to share senior officers and
boards of directors with their market-regulated power sales affiliates;
provided, however, that the shared officers and boards of directors
must not participate in directing, organizing or executing generation
or market functions.'' \8\ Moreover, under the information sharing
restriction, ``[a] franchised public utility with captive customers may
not share market information with a market-regulated power sales
affiliate if the sharing could be used to the detriment of captive
customers, unless simultaneously disclosed to the public.'' However,
``[p]ermissibly shared support employees, field and maintenance
employees and senior officers and board of directors under Sec.
35.39(c)(2)(ii) may have access to information covered by the
prohibition of Sec.  35.39(d)(1), subject to the no-conduit provision
in Sec.  35.39(g).'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 18 CFR 35.39(c)(2)(i).
    \7\ Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,252 at P 561-566
(citing Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No.
2004, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,155, at P 96, 99-101, 145-146 (2003),
order on reh'g, Order No. 2004-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,161, at P
134, order on reh'g, Order No. 2004-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,166,
order on reh'g, Order No. 2004-C, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,172
(2004), order on reh'g, Order No. 2004-D, 110 FERC ] 61,320 (2005),
vacated and remanded as it applies to natural gas pipelines sub nom.
National Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v. FERC, 468 F.3d 831 (D.C. Cir.
2006); see id. P 562 (citing 18 CFR 358.4(a)(5) (Order 2004-era
Standards of Conduct)).
    \8\ 18 CFR 35.39(c)(2)(ii); see also Order No. 697, FERC Stats.
& Regs. ] 31,252 at P 562.
    \9\ 18 CFR 35.39(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. In its request for clarification, the Compliance Working Group
asked the Commission to clarify which employees are permissibly
``shared employees'' for purposes of the Commission's market-based rate
affiliate restrictions. Specifically, it suggests that the Commission
should interpret these affiliate restrictions to permit sharing of
employees who are neither ``transmission function employees'' nor
``marketing function employees'' under the Standards of Conduct.\10\
The Compliance Working Group stated that the issue arose because shared
employees under the market-based rate affiliate restrictions are
defined by reference to shared employees under the Order No. 2004-era
Standards of Conduct, but as of the effective date of the Standards of
Conduct Final Rule, November 26, 2008, the Standards of Conduct no
longer use the concept of shared employees. The Compliance Working
Group therefore claimed that this inconsistency poses a compliance
conundrum that needs to be addressed in order to enable companies and
their employees to understand, and comply with, the market-based rate
affiliate restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No.
717, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,280 (2008) (Standards of Conduct Final
Rule), order on reh'g, Order No. 717-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,297, order on reh'g, Order No. 717-B, 129 FERC ] 61,123 (2009).
As discussed below, ``transmission function employees'' and
``marketing function employees'' are defined terms under the
Standards of Conduct. See 18 CFR 358.3(d); 358.3(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. As explained in the April 15 Clarification Order, we are denying
the Compliance Working Group's request that the Commission interpret
the market-based rate affiliate restrictions to permit the sharing of
employees who are neither transmission function employees nor marketing
function employees under the Standards of Conduct. However, in order to
address the Compliance Working Group's concerns regarding compliance
with the market-based rate affiliate restrictions, the April 15
Clarification Order provides guidance regarding which employees may not
be shared under the affiliate restrictions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ April 15 Clarification Order, 131 FERC ] 61,021 at P 39-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Specifically, in the April 15 Clarification Order the Commission
denies the Compliance Working Group's request that it interpret the
market-based rate affiliate restrictions to permit the sharing of
employees who are neither transmission function employees nor marketing
function employees under the Standards of Conduct because the Standards
of Conduct definition of ``marketing function employee'' does not
include certain employees who may not be shared under the market-based
rate affiliate restrictions (for instance, employees that make economic
dispatch decisions or that determine the timing of scheduled outages).
Thus, the Commission explains that granting the Compliance Working
Group's requested interpretation would permit market-based rate sellers
to share employees that may not currently be shared under the affiliate
restrictions.
    8. The April 15 Clarification Order explains that ``marketing
function employee'' is not a defined term in the market-based rate
regulations adopted in Order No. 697, and explains that the
restrictions on which employees may be shared under the market-based
rate affiliate restrictions are not limited to those employees who are
engaged in sales. It states that as clarified in Order No. 697-A, under
the market-based rate affiliate restrictions, ``shared employees may
not be involved in decisions regarding the marketing or sale of
electricity from the facilities, may not make economic dispatch
decisions, and may not determine the timing of scheduled outages for
facilities.'' \12\ In this regard, the April 15 Clarification Order
explains that responsibility for economic dispatch or the timing of
scheduled outages, for example, is not a ``marketing function'' under
the Standards of Conduct and, therefore, engaging in these activities
would not cause an employee to be a marketing function employee subject
to the Independent Functioning Rule under the Standards of Conduct (and
therefore, those employees could be shared). Thus, consistent with the
Commission's determinations in Order No. 697-A, the April 15
Clarification Order clarifies that, for purposes of compliance with the
market-based rate affiliate restrictions, a franchised public utility
with captive customers and its market-regulated power sales affiliates
may not share employees that make economic dispatch decisions or that
determine the timing of scheduled outages.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ April 15 Clarification Order 131 FERC ] 61,021 at P 37
(citing Order No. 697-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,268 at P 253).
    \13\ Order No. 697-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,268 at P 253.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. In addition, as explained in the April 15 Clarification Order,
franchised public utilities with captive customers should be prohibited
from sharing employees that engage in resource planning or fuel
procurement with their market-regulated power sales affiliates. If the
franchised public utility and its market-regulated power sales
affiliate are permitted to share employees that make strategic
decisions about future generation supply, such as deciding when and/or
where to build or acquire generating capacity, such strategic decision
making by a shared employee could result in generation being built or
acquired for the benefit of the market-regulated power sales affiliate,
and at the expense of the captive customers of the franchised public
utility. In this regard, the Commission notes that the corporate entity
has an inherent incentive to decrease its market-regulated power sales
affiliate's costs in order to maximize profits for shareholders.
    10. Similarly, a shared employee that procures fuel for both the
franchised public utility and the market-regulated power sales
affiliate may have the incentive to allocate purchases of lower priced
fuel supplies to the market regulated power sales affiliate while
allocating purchases of higher priced fuel supplies to the franchised
public utility. By contrast, if the two entities are required to
independently procure fuel, they would compete for the market's best
priced fuel.
    11. Therefore, given that the definition of marketing function
employee under the Standards of Conduct does not specifically address

employees that determine the timing of scheduled outages or that engage
in economic dispatch, fuel procurement, or resource planning, the April
15 Clarification Order clarifies that employees engaging in these
activities \14\ are prohibited from being shared under the market-based
rate affiliate restrictions, absent an explicit waiver from the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The prohibition on sharing employees that engage in
resource planning applies only to the sharing of employees between a
franchised public utility and its market-regulated power sales
affiliate, and is not intended to alter resource planning activities
by transmission providers that are permitted under the Standards of
Conduct Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. In order to reflect this clarification, we propose to revise
Sec.  35.39 of our regulations in order to clarify that employees that
determine the timing of scheduled outages or that engage in economic
dispatch, fuel procurement, or resource planning may not be shared
under the market-based rate affiliate restrictions. Accordingly, we
propose to revise the separation of functions provision contained in
Sec.  35.39(c)(2)(ii) of the regulations to include the provision that
franchised public utilities with captive customers are prohibited from
sharing employees that determine the timing of scheduled outages or
that engage in economic dispatch, fuel procurement, or resource
planning with their market-regulated power sales affiliates.
    13. We also propose to revise the information sharing provision
contained in Sec.  35.39(d)(2) of the regulations to include the
provision that employees that determine the timing of scheduled outages
or that engage in economic dispatch, fuel procurement, or resource
planning may not have access to information covered by the prohibition
of Sec.  35.39(d)(1).

IV. Information Collection Statement

    14. The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulations require
that OMB approve certain information collection and data retention
requirements imposed by an agency.\15\ Order No. 697's revisions to the
information collection requirements for market-based rate sellers were
approved under FERC-919 ``Market-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of
Electric Energy, Capacity and Ancillary Services by Public Utilities''
OMB Control Nos. 1902-0234. While this order proposes to revise the
regulations for the market-based rate program in order to provide
clarification, it does not add to the existing information collection
requirements. Accordingly, a copy of this order will be sent to OMB for
informational purposes only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Environmental Analysis

    15. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\16\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human
environment.\17\ The actions proposed here fall within the categorical
exclusions in the Commission's regulations for rules that are
clarifying, corrective, or procedural, or do not substantially change
the effect of legislation or regulations being amended.\18\ In
addition, the proposed rule is categorically excluded as an electric
rate filing submitted by a public utility under sections 205 and 206 of
the FPA.\19\ As explained above, this proposed rule revises the
regulations for the market-based rate program in order to provide
clarification. Accordingly, no environmental assessment is necessary
and none has been prepared in this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations
Preambles July 1996-December 2000 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \17\ 18 CFR 380.4.
    \18\ See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
    \19\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    16. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \20\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that
accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and that minimize
any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Most filing companies regulated by the Commission do not fall
within the RFA's definition of small entity.\21\ Moreover, as noted
above, this proposed rule revises the regulations for the market-based
rate program in order to provide clarification of an existing
requirement that affected entities, including small entities, are
currently required to comply with. Because the proposed revisions
clarify an existing requirement, and do not add to the existing
information collection or filing requirements, the Commission concludes
that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As a result, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 5 U.S.C. 601-12.
    \21\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3), citing to section 3 of the Small Business
Act, 15 U.S.C. 632. Section 3 of the Small Business Act defines a
``small-business concern'' as a business which is independently
owned and operated and which is not dominant in its field of
operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Comment Procedures

    17. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including
any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish
to discuss. Comments are due June 21, 2010. Comments must refer to
Docket No. RM10-20-000, and must include the commenters' name, the
organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their
comments.
    18. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
    19. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission; 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    20. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

VIII. Document Availability

    21. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    22. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary,

type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document
in the docket number field.
    23. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202)
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of subjects in 18 CFR Part 35

    Electric power rates, Electric utilities, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    By direction of the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend
part 35, Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 35--FILING OF RATE SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS

    1. The authority citation for part 35 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42
U.S.C. 7101-7352.

    2. In Sec.  35.39, paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and (d)(2) are revised to
read as follows:

Sec.  35.39  Affiliate restrictions.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Franchised public utilities with captive customers are
permitted to share support employees, and field and maintenance
employees with their market-regulated power sales affiliates.
Franchised public utilities with captive customers are also permitted
to share senior officers and boards of directors with their market-
regulated power sales affiliates; provided, however, that the shared
officers and boards of directors must not participate in directing,
organizing or executing generation or market functions. Franchised
public utilities with captive customers are prohibited from sharing
employees that determine the timing of scheduled outages or that engage
in economic dispatch, fuel procurement, or resource planning with their
market-regulated power sales affiliates.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Permissibly shared support employees, field and maintenance
employees and senior officers and board of directors under Sec.
35.39(c)(2)(ii) may have access to information covered by the
prohibition of Sec.  35.39(d)(1), subject to the no-conduit provision
in Sec.  35.39(g). Employees that determine the timing of scheduled
outages or that engage in economic dispatch, fuel procurement, or
resource planning may not have access to information covered by the
prohibition of Sec.  35.39(d)(1).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-9083 Filed 4-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 101)]
[Notices]
[Page 25608]
[DOCID:fr28my09-110]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) has received a request for a waiver of compliance from certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

Terminal Railroad Association of Saint Louis

(Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2009-0026)

    The Terminal Railroad Association of Saint Louis (TRRA) seeks a
permanent waiver of compliance with the Locomotive Safety Standards, 49
CFR 229.21(a), as it pertains to the record keeping requirement for
locomotive daily inspection reports. If their request is granted, TRRA
will file the required report electronically in a secure centralized
database that would be set up to track and store the daily inspection
records for the required 92 days. The railroad states that each
employee performing the inspections would be provided a unique
electronic identification which will be utilized in place of the
signature. All requirements, date, time location, person conducting
inspection, and any non-complying conditions will be reported
electronically. TRRA utilizes an onboard record of daily inspection and
will continue to do so if their request is granted.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2009-0026) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 20, 2009.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. E9-12327 Filed 5-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12781-12782]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5140]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64006; File No. SR-MSRB-2011-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Amended and
Restated Articles of Incorporation of Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board

March 2, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that on
February 18, 2011, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (``Board''
or ``MSRB'') 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 MSRB. The MSRB
has filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' rule change pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii),\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The MSRB is filing with the SEC a proposed rule change consisting
of an Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web
site at http://www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2011-Filings.aspx, at the MSRB's principal office, and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to make changes to the
Articles of Incorporation as are necessary and appropriate in order to
comply with Section 15B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15
U.S.C. 78o-4, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, Sec.  975, 124 Stat. 1376
(2010) (the ``Dodd-Frank Act''), and MSRB transitional Rule A-3(i). The
MSRB established transitional Rule A-3(i) in order to comply with the
Dodd-Frank Act. The transitional rule sets forth a two-year
transitional period, commencing on October 1, 2010 and concluding on
September 30, 2012. During this transitional period, the MSRB will
maintain a Board of Directors of 21 members, including 11 public
members and 10 members representing MSRB-regulated entities. The
proposed amendments to the Articles of Incorporation provide that the
new Board of Director class that will commence service on October 1,
2011,

shall consist of five members who will serve three-year terms.
2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\5\
as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, in that it conforms the Articles of
Incorporation of the Board to the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act
and MSRB transitional Rule A-3(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The MSRB 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, since the proposed rule change simply
amends the Articles of Incorporation of the Board to comply with the
requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act and MSRB transitional Rule A-3(i),
and solely concerns the administration of the organization.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The MSRB represented that the proposed rule change qualifies for
immediate effectiveness pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
\6\ because it: (i) Does not significantly affect the protection of
investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose any significant
burden on competition; and (iii) does not become operative for 30 days
after filing or such shorter time as the Commission may designate
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.\7\
The MSRB provided the required written notice of its intention to file
the proposed rule change to the Commission on February 10, 2011, and
the proposed rule change will become operative on April 1, 2011, which
is more than 30 days after the filing of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \7\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-
regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days
prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such
shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MSRB-2011-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2011-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies
of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements
with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the MSRB's offices.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2011-01
and should be submitted on or before March 29, 2011.

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

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

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-5140 Filed 3-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6912-6913]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02441]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77047; File Nos. SR-NYSE-2015-31 and SR-NYSEMKT-2015-
56]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE
MKT LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Changes Amending the
NYSE Trades Market Data and NYSE MKT Trades Market Data Product
Offerings

February 3, 2016.
    On July 16, 2015, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') and, on
July 24, 2015, NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'') (together with NYSE, the
``Exchanges'') each 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\
proposed rule changes to amend, respectively, the NYSE Trades market
data and NYSE MKT Trades market data product offerings. The proposed
rule changes were published for comment in the Federal Register on
August 5, 2015.\3\ Six comments on the proposals were received.\4\ On
September 17, 2015, the Commission issued an order instituting
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
changes.\5\ On November 16, 2015, the Exchanges withdrew the

proposals (SR-NYSE-2015-31 and SR-NYSEMKT-2015-56).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 75556 (July 30,
2015), 80 FR 46628 (SR-NYSE-2015-31) and 75559 (July 30, 2015), 80
FR 46642 (SR-NYSEMKT-2015-56).
    \4\ Letter from Eric S. Hunsader, Nanex, LLC, dated August 14,
2015; Letter from John Ramsay, Chief Market Policy Officer, IEX
Group, Inc., to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated August
20, 2015; Letter from Lorenzo Ferlazzo, Acquaequity to the
Commission, dated October 1, 2015; Elliot Grossman, Managing
Director, Dinosaur Securities, LLC, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary,
Commission, dated October 13, 2015; Melissa MacGregor, Managing
Director and Associate General Counsel, SIFMA, to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Commission, dated October 14, 2015; Elizabeth K. King,
General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, NYSE, to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Commission, dated November 12, 2015.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75937, 80 FR 57408
(Sept. 23, 2015).
    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-02441 Filed 2-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P