[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12470-12471]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04578]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0110]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0071

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of
its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0071,
Recreational Boat Potential Safety Defect Report; without change.
    Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the
public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting
comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 3, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2022-0110] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: Commandant (CG-6P), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S.
Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7710,
Washington, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy
Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions
on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995;

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an
application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a
Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains
information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's
likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity
of the Collection, and other important information describing the
Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not
to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider
all comments and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2022-0110], and
must be received by May 3, 2022.

Submitting Comments

    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. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are 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.
    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).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Recreational Boat Potential Safety Defect Report.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0071.
    Summary: The collection of information provides a means for
consumers and public (recreational boat owners, law enforcement,
boating law administrators, marine inspectors, passengers/occupants,
general public) who believe a recreational boat or designated
associated equipment contain substantial risk defects or fail to comply
with Federal safety standards to report the deficiencies to the Coast
Guard for investigation and possible remedy.
    Need: 46 U.S.C. 4310 gives the Coast Guard the authority to require
manufacturers of recreational boats and certain items of designated
associated equipment to notify owners and remedy: (1) Defects that
create a substantial risk of personal injury to the public; and (2)
failures to comply with applicable Federal safety standards.
    Forms: CG-5578, Recreational Boat Potential Safety Defect Report.
    Respondents: Owners and users of recreational boats and items of
designated associated equipment.
    Frequency: One time.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decrease from 12.04
hours to 7.84 hours a year, this is due to a decrease in the estimated
annual number of responses.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter
35, as amended.

    Dated: February 24, 2022.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2022-04578 Filed 3-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


ESA STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP (JUNE 29  -  30, 2016):

Breakout Session: Refinements to Steps 1 and 2 (Ideas for `streamlining' and/or improving the analyses used to make effects determinations in future BEs)

In accordance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Biological Evaluation (BE) determines whether there is a potential for a single individual of a listed species, or its designated critical habitat, to be adversely affected (directly or indirectly) by a federal agency's proposed action (in this case registering pesticide labels).  This is accomplished by first identifying which species ranges/critical habitats overlap with the `action area' (from the BE Step 1: `May Affect'/'No Effect' determinations).  Once a determination is made for each listed species and critical habitat, species- and critical habitat-specific analyses for all listed resources that have `May Affect' determinations are conducted to evaluate whether there is a potential for a single individual (or essential critical habitat feature) to be adversely affected by the use of a pesticide (BE Step 2: `Likely to Adversely Affect'/Not Likely to Adversely Affect' determinations).  Therefore, Step 1 is intended to identify those species/critical habitats that require species-specific analyses (i.e., those that need to proceed to Step 2) and Step 2 is intended to identify the potential for adversely affecting a single individual or critical habitat feature. Key to these processes is the ability to identify areas of overlap among potential use sites, areas of potential effects, and species range/critical habitat areas over the duration of the proposed action (in some cases this may be 15 years or more).

 Breakout Group: REFINEMENTS 1 (Refinements to Steps 1 and 2: Spatial analysis):

 For agricultural uses, the interim process identifies potential use sites by collapsing >100 Cropland Data Layer (CDL) classes into 11 agricultural use categories, some of which are unambiguous major crops (corn, cotton, etc.), and some of which are aggregated "minor" crops, e.g., orchards and vineyards, or ground fruit and vegetables. (These minor crops were aggregated to address uncertainties in crop identification in the CDL, and to anticipate future use areas for pesticides, based on current uses.)  Therefore, in some cases, specific crop uses are being identified in areas where the specific crop likely does not occur.  For example, the orchard-vineyard layer is used for all orchard crops, including citrus.  Diazinon is registered for some orchard crops, but not citrus  -  the spatial analysis is showing orchard use sites for diazinon in Florida  -  but most of those use sites are likely citrus.

 CHARGE QUESTION 1a: Is there a better way to accurately identify potential agricultural use sites, while still addressing concerns for future use for the duration of the proposed action?
 Are there some CDL classes that we have more confidence in than others?
 Is using the Census of Agriculture to eliminate counties where labeled uses do not occur a viable option for both current uses and future uses (within the duration of the proposed action)?  If so,
 How should we deal with "undisclosed" census values?
  Do these data (or other suitable data) reflect "no usage" or "low" levels of usage over the duration of the proposed action?

 Non-agricultural label uses include a wide range of land cover and land use categories. In the BEs, each label use is considered and represented by the best available land cover data. Generally, the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) is used to represent non-agricultural label uses. When the NLCD is inadequate, other data sources are used as appropriate.

 CHARGE QUESTION 2a: Is there a better way to accurately identify potential non-agricultural use sites, while still addressing concerns for future use for the duration of the proposed action?
 Are there additional data not considered in the BEs that may be useful for geographically identifying non-agricultural use sites?
 Are there surrogate data (those that could be used to help inform potential use sites) that could be used for non-ag categories that we have not considered?

 Some uses do not have clear geographic boundaries (i.e., they are difficult to limit geographically via label language).  For some chemicals, this can result in an action area that encompasses the entire US and its territories.

 CHARGE QUESTION 3a:  How can we better identify potential use sites for pesticide uses that do not have clear geographic boundaries? How could these potential use sites be better identified spatially?
 Could a process to modify labels (to clarify potential use sites) be developed during the BE process? If so, what would that process look like?
 For example, when in the BE process would label clarifications be most useful?  Could label modifications be in the form of a registrant commitment to modify a label as part of the final decision?  How could Bulletins Live Two be best used in the process?
 For uses such as mosquito adulticide use, what other information could be pulled in to the analyses to help accurately limit the spatial extent (for example census information, or protected/managed lands) for the duration of the proposed action?  Is there a human population density threshold where the cost of applying a pesticide would be too high?
 If it is not possible to geographically define a use site, can we geographically define where the pesticide isn't (or wont' be) applied that would provide spatial refinement (i.e., it will not be applied to open water, or urban areas, etc.).

 The range data currently available for listed species are geospatially represented using polygons and they are used in the BEs with the assumption that the species use all areas of their polygon equally throughout the year.

 CHARGE QUESTION 4a: Are there methods available that would allow for a refined understanding of the distribution of individuals within the range polygons?
 Are there methods that can be used to help identify areas of concern within a species' range to better estimate the likelihood of exposure  -  preferred habitat, distribution of individuals (do they cluster, are they territorial,  min patches requirements for a home range, fragmentation indices)?
 Is there biological information that could be used to help identify areas of the range where exposure is unlikely (e.g., due to elevation restrictions) or very likely (e.g., preferred habitat)?
 How can the effects on timing be better captured (considering both direct and indirect effects)?  For example, for direct effects, at the time of year when a pesticide can be applied, is the species there at that time (e.g., is it only there for part of the year because it is migratory?) or at a life-stage when exposure is or is not likely (e.g., is it at an egg stage, subterranean, or in diapause at that time)? What about the resources it depends on (indirect effects)?
 Should less refined species ranges (e.g., county-level) be treated differently than those that are more refined [keeping in mind that in many cases a species range is not at a sub-county level for various reasons (e.g., no survey data on private lands, wide-ranging species)]? Is the precision of the analysis equal?
 Can we incorporate this information to apply a weighting to the overlap analysis (see charge question 5a below)?

 In the pilot BEs, any overlap of the action area with a species range or critical habitat is considered a `May Affect'.

 CHARGE QUESTION 5a:  Does the overlap approach used in the pilot BEs to determine a `May Affect/No Effect' determination provide an adequate screening process (one that is protective but not unrealistically conservative)?
 When conducting a GIS overlap analysis using datasets with different levels of resolution, what are methods that could be used to ensure that decisions are made based on the datasets' limits of precision (e.g., how can we best avoid `false positives' and `false negatives' in the overlap analyses when considering the limits of precision of the datasets used)?
 Would using a weighting approach for the likelihood of an overlap be useful when making the Step 1 determinations (instead of using only an overlap of the species range/critical habitat and the action area)? For example, for agriculture uses could we incorporate the number of years a cell was classified as the crop in a weighting approach (while still accounting for the duration of the action)?
 Are there approaches that could be used to screen out species from further analyses besides solely an overlap of the species range/critical habitat and the action area (e.g., if no Step 1 thresholds for plants are exceeded, can plants that are not biologically pollinated be considered `No Effect', if no other indirect effects are anticipated)?

 Breakout Group: REFINEMENTS 2 (Refinements to Steps 1 and 2: Non-spatial analysis):

 There are a multitude of use patterns on currently registered labels, some which result in potentially higher exposures to non-target organisms than others.  For example, although somewhat dependent on chemical fate properties, pesticides applied to large agricultural fields by air are expected to result in higher offsite exposure than pesticides applied to a small area via a ready-to-use spray can.

 CHARGE QUESTION 1b:  Is there a way to identify use patterns that would result in minimal exposures, such as spot treatments, that may not always need to be fully re-assessed for each pesticide going through the consultation process (i.e., by applying what we have learned from an analysis with another pesticide with a similar use pattern)?
 What type of things regarding the pesticide and use site would need to be considered [e.g., the fate properties of the pesticide, the amount of pesticide applied (e.g., per the label and/or based on usage information), the application method used, potential application sites (e.g., ready-to-use spray can)]?
 Of these fate properties, how could they be considered - keeping in mind use site parameters?
 Of these use site parameters, how could they be considered (e.g., personal ready-to-use spray can for mosquitos)?

 There are a subset of listed species that are found in places or environments not expected to result in appreciable exposure to most pesticides (those that are not persistent and do not bioaccumulate) (e.g., species that live wholly or primarily in the open ocean, species only found on non-inhabited islands, and species found only in the arctic regions of Alaska).

 CHARGE QUESTION 2b:  Is there a way to identify species that may not always need to be fully re-assessed for each pesticide going through the consultation process (i.e., by applying what we have learned from an analysis with another pesticides)?
 Once a species characteristics (e.g., habitat) has been considered, what type of things regarding the fate properties of the pesticide would need to be considered (e.g., aquatic half-life, mobility, bioaccumulation potential, etc.)?
 Of these fate properties, how could they be considered (e.g., a full assessment might not be needed for pesticides that have a log Kow <4)?
 What types of biological/ecological attributes of the species would need to be considered (e.g., its habitat)?
 Of these species characteristics, how can they be considered (this may be different for species and designated critical habitats) (e.g., a full assessment might not be needed for species that live wholly or primarily in the open ocean, species only found on non-inhabited islands, and species found only in the arctic regions of Alaska, not present during windows of application; this may not apply to designated)?

 The pilot BE process relies on thresholds for mortality that are based on probabilistic effects endpoints (e.g., 1-in-a-million chance of mortality based on the HC05 of a SSD or the lowest LC50/LD50 values) compared to deterministic estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) (e.g., 1-in-15 year peak EEC value).  Additionally, sublethal thresholds are assessed using deterministic sublethal thresholds (e.g., NOAECs or LOAECs) and deterministic estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) (e.g., 1-in-15 year peak EEC value). The current approach in the BEs is comparing an exposure value to a threshold for possible exceedances [similar to a risk quotient approach (i.e., exposure/effect)].

 CHARGE QUESTION 3b: Is there a way to utilize the thresholds that is more informative (for example, in the weight of evidence) and goes beyond a deterministic approach (moving towards a more probabilistic approach for assessing risks as recommended by NAS)?
 How could joint probability distributions of effects (the thresholds) and exposures (the EECs) be used to help inform the potential for risk?
 Are there other probabilistic approaches that can help better inform risk at the individual and field levels?
 When making a "May Affect/No effect' determination, what are some practicable methods to better determine where both direct and indirect effects are either `no effect' or `discountable' (extremely unlikely to occur)?
 For example, could an action be "discountable" for certain species (e.g., when there is no direct exposure or effects expected and no or insignificant/discountable effects to prey, pollinators, etc.).

 CHARGE QUESTION 4b: Is there an efficient way to incorporate exposure durations into the analysis of potential effects?
 The pilot BEs currently compare all effects thresholds to peak EEC values.  How can other durations of potential exposure be utilized and related to available toxicity studies (which are conducted under a range of exposure durations)?
 Are there factors, other than duration, that should be considered when comparing the effects data to the EECs?


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 74216]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29529]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Guar Global Ltd.; Order of Suspension of Trading

December 6, 2013.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that the
public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of
trading in the securities of Guar Global Ltd. (``Guar Global'') because
of concerns regarding the accuracy and adequacy of information in the
marketplace and potentially manipulative transactions in Guar Global's
common stock. Guar Global is a Nevada corporation based in McKinney,
Texas. It is quoted on OTC Link under the symbol GGBL.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on
December 6, 2013 through 11:59 p.m. EST on December 19, 2013.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-29529 Filed 12-6-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 818-820]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31586]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. Ic14-2-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (Ferc-919); Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Comment request.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting the information
collection FERC-919 (Market Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric
Energy) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the
information collection requirements. Any interested person may file
comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments
to the Commission as explained below. The Commission issued a Notice in
the Federal Register (78 FR 62006, 10/11/2013) requesting public
comments. FERC received no comments on the FERC-919 and is making this
notation in its submittal to OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by February 6,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No.
1902-0234, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be
reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, identified by the Docket No. IC14-2-000, by
either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by fax at
(202) 273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Market Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0234
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-919 information
collection requirements with no changes to the reporting requirements.
    Abstract: The FERC-919 is necessary to ensure that market-based
rates charged by public utilities are just and reasonable as mandated
by Federal Power Act (FPA) sections 205 and 206. Section 205 of the FPA
requires just and reasonable rates and charges. Section 206 allows the
Commission to revoke a seller's market-based rate authorization if it
determines that the seller may have gained market power since it was
originally granted market-based rate authorization by the Commission.
    In 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 35 Subpart H \1\, the
Commission codifies standards for use in the Commission's determination
of whether a wholesale seller of electric energy, capacity, or
ancillary services qualifies for obtaining and retaining market-based
rate authority. Subpart H mandates that sellers submit market power
analyses and related filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Market-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy,
Capacity and Ancillary Services by Public Utilities, Order No. 697,
72 FR 39,904 (Jul. 20, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,252 (2007)
(Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Horizontal Market Power Analysis

    Market power analyses must address both horizontal and vertical
market power. To demonstrate lack of horizontal market power, the
Commission requires two indicative market power screens: the
uncommitted pivotal supplier screen (which is based on the annual peak
demand of the relevant market) and the uncommitted market share screen
applied on a seasonal basis. The Commission presumes sellers that fail
either screen to have market power and such sellers may submit a
delivered price test analysis to rebut the presumption of horizontal
market power. If a seller fails to rebut the presumption of horizontal
market power, the Commission sets the just and reasonable rate at the
default cost-based rate unless it approves different mitigation based
on case-specific circumstances. When submitting horizontal market power
analyses, a seller must use the form provided in Appendix A of Subpart
H and include all materials referenced.

Vertical Market Power Analysis

    To demonstrate a lack of vertical market power to the extent that a
public utility with market-based rates, or any of its affiliates, owns,
operates or controls transmission facilities, it must:
     Have on file a Commission-approved Open Access
Transmission Tariff \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Burden reported separately in information collections FERC-
516 (OMB Control Number: 1902-0096) & FERC-917 (OMB Control Number:
1902-0233).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Demonstrate that neither it nor its affiliates can erect
other barriers to entry
     Submit a description of its ownership or control of, or
affiliation with an entity that owns or controls:
    [cir] Intrastate natural gas transportation, intrastate natural gas
storage or distribution facilities
    [cir] Sites for generation capacity development; and physical coal
supply sources and ownership or control over who may access
transportation of coal supplies
     Make an affirmative statement that it has not erected and
will not erect barriers to entry into the relevant market

Asset Appendix

    In addition to the market power analyses, a seller must submit an
asset appendix with its initial application for market-based rate
authorization or updated market power analysis, and all relevant change
in status filings. The asset appendix must:
     List, among other things, all affiliates that have market-
based rate authority and identify any generation assets owned or
controlled by the seller and any such affiliate
     List all generation assets owned (clearly identifying
which affiliate owns which asset) or controlled (clearly identifying
which affiliate controls which asset) by the corporate family by
balancing authority area, and by geographic region, and provide the in-
service date and nameplate and/or seasonal ratings by unit
     Must reflect all electric transmission and natural gas
intrastate pipelines and/or gas storage facilities owned or controlled
by the corporate family and the location of such facilities.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Subpart H, Appendix B for standard form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Triennial Market Power Analysis Update

    Sellers that own or control more than 500 megawatts of generation
and/or that own, operate or control transmission facilities, are
affiliated with any entity that owns, operates or controls transmission
facilities in the same region as the seller's generation assets, or
with a franchised public utility in the same region as the seller's
generation assets, are required to file updated market power analyses
every three years. The updated market power analyses must demonstrate
that a seller does not possess horizontal market power.

Change in Status Filings

    The Commission requires authorized market-based rate sellers to
file any change in status that would reflect a departure from the
characteristics the Commission relied upon in granting market-rate
authority.\4\ Notices of change in status must be filed no later than
30 days after the change in status occurs. The Commission requires that
each seller include an appendix identifying specified assets with each
pertinent change in status filing. Change in status filings include,
but are not limited to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 35.42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (1) A net increase of 100 MW or more in ownership or
control of generation capacity;
     (2) affiliation with an entity not disclosed in the
application for market-based rate authority that owns or controls
generation, transmission, or has a franchised service area; or
     (3) the acquisition of control of any site(s) for new
generation capacity (described in the Quarterly Land Acquisition
section below).

Exemptions From Submitting Updated Market Power Analyses

    Wholesale power marketers and wholesale power producers that are
not affiliated with franchised public utilities or transmission owners,
that do not own transmission, and that do not, together with all of
their affiliates, own or control more than 500 MW of generation in the
relevant region are not required to submit updated market power
analyses. The Commission determines which sellers are in this category
through information filed by the utility either when the seller files
its initial application for market-based rate authorization or through
a separate filing made to request such a determination.

Quarterly Land Acquisition Reports

    FERC also requires that all entities with market-based rate
authorization report on a quarterly basis,\5\ the acquisition of
control of any site(s) for new generation capacity development for
which site control has been demonstrated in the interconnection process
and for which the potential number of megawatts that are reasonably
commercially feasible on the site(s) for which new generation capacity
development is equal to 100 megawatts or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ All other change in status reports must be filed no later
than 30 days after the change in status occurs. (18 CFR 35.42).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The market power analyses help to inform the Commission as to
whether entities have market power and whether sellers with market-
based rate authority are only able to charge rates that are just and
reasonable.
    Type of Respondents: Public utilities, wholesale electricity
sellers.
    Estimate of Annual Burden 6: The Commission estimates the total
Public Reporting Burden for this information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

                       FERC-919--Market Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Total number                      Estimated
                                     Number of       Number of     of responses   Average burden   total annual
          Requirements              respondents    responses per    (A) x (B) =      hours per     burden (C) x
                                        (A)       respondent (B)        (C)        response (D)         (D)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market Power Analysis in New                 213               1             213             250          53,250
 Applications for Market-based
 Rates [18 CFR 35.37(a)]........
Triennial market power analysis               83               1              83             250          20,750
 in seller updates [18 CFR
 35.37(a)]......................
Quarterly land acquisition                   373            2.15             802               4           3,208
 reports [18 CFR 35.42(d)]......
Change in status reports [18 CFR             237               1             237           34.75           8,236
 35.42].........................
                                                                                -------------------------------
    TOTAL.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............          85,444
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $7,268,721
[85,444 hours * $85.07 \7\) = $7,268,721]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Commission staff calculated this figure using an average
of salaries (including benefits: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm) between three occupational categories (http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm):
     Economist: $67.57/hour
     Electrical Engineer: $59.62/hour
     Lawyer: $128.02/hour
    ($67.57+$59.62+$128.02) / 3 = $85.07/hour
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: December 30, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-31586 Filed 1-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P[FEDREG][VOL]*[/VOL][NO]*[/NO][DATE]*[/
DATE][NOTICES]


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 245 (Thursday, December 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78679-78680]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27854]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Docket No. ER23-645-000]

Wagon Wheel Wind Project, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Wagon Wheel Wind Project, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is January 5, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 16, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-27854 Filed 12-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 176 (Thursday, September 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54322-54325]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21651]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73013; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2014-95]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE
Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services To (i)
Change the Pricing for the Retail Liquidity Program and the
Qualification Requirement for the Existing Retail Order Tier, and To
Add a New Retail Order Credit Under Basic Rates, and (ii) Eliminate
Obsolete Pricing Tiers

September 5, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on August 26, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of
Fees and Charges for Exchange Services (``Fee Schedule'') to (i) change
the pricing for the Retail Liquidity Program and the qualification
requirement for the existing Retail Order Tier, and to add a new Retail
Order credit under Basic Rates, and (ii) eliminate obsolete pricing
tiers. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective
September 1, 2014. The text of the proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, 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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to (i) change the
pricing for the Retail Liquidity Program and the qualification
requirement for the existing Retail Order Tier, and to add a new Retail
Order credit under Basic Rates, and (ii) eliminate obsolete pricing
tiers. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective
September 1, 2014.
Retail Liquidity Program
    The Retail Liquidity Program is a pilot program that is designed to
attract additional retail order flow to the Exchange for NYSE Arca-
listed securities and securities traded pursuant to unlisted trading
privileges (``UTP Securities'') while also providing the potential for
price improvement to such order flow.\4\ Retail order flow is submitted
through the Retail Liquidity Program as a distinct order type called a
``Retail Order,'' which is defined in Rule 7.44(a)(3) as an agency
order or a riskless principal order that meets the criteria of
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. Rule 5320.03 that
originates from a natural person and is submitted to the Exchange by a
Retail Member Organization (``RMO''), provided that no change is made
to the terms of the order with respect to price or side of market and
the order does not originate from a trading algorithm or any other
computerized methodology.\5\ In addition to RMOs, Retail Liquidity
Providers (``RLPs'') were created as an additional class of market
participant under the Retail Liquidity Program. RLPs are required to
provide potential price improvement for Retail Orders in the form of
``Retail Price Improvement Orders'' (``RPIs''), which are non-displayed
interest that is better than the best protected bid (``PBB'') or best
protected offer (``PBO''), as such terms are defined in Regulation NMS
Rule

600(b)(57) (together, ``PBBO'').\6\ ETP Holders other than RLPs are
also permitted, but not required, to submit RPIs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rule 7.44. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71176
(December 23, 2013), 78 FR 79524 (December 30, 2013) (SR-NYSEArca-
2013-107).
    \5\ RMO is defined in Rule 7.44(a)(2) as an ETP Holder that is
approved by the Exchange under Rule 7.44 to submit Retail Orders.
    \6\ See 17 CFR 242.600(b)(57). RLP is defined in Rule 7.44(a)(1)
as an ETP Holder that is approved by the Exchange to act as such and
that is required to submit RPIs in accordance with Rule 7.44. RPI is
defined in Rule 7.44(a)(4) and consists of non-displayed interest in
NYSE Arca-Alisted securities and UTP Securities, excluding NYSE-
listed (Tape A) securities, that is priced better than the PBBO by
at least $0.001 and that is identified as such.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RLP executions of RPIs against Retail Orders in Tape B and Tape C
securities are not currently charged or provided with a credit (i.e.,
they are free). The Exchange proposes to instead provide a credit of
$0.0003 per share. RMOs currently receive a credit of $0.0005 per share
for executions of Retail Orders in Tape B and Tape C securities if
executed against RPIs and other price-improving interest. The Exchange
proposes to eliminate this credit so that such Retail Order executions
would be free (i.e., no credit or charge).
Retail Order Tier and New Retail Order Basic Rate Credit
    The Exchange currently provides a credit of $0.0033 per share under
the Retail Order Tier for Retail Orders that provide liquidity on the
Exchange in Tape A, Tape B and Tape C securities if the ETP Holder
executes an average daily volume (``ADV'') of Retail Orders during the
month that is 0.20% or more of U.S. consolidated ADV (``CADV'').\7\ The
Retail Order Tier credit is available only to Retail Orders that
provide liquidity on the Exchange, but an ETP Holder currently may
qualify for the Retail Order Tier based on its ADV of Retail Orders
that both provide and remove liquidity from the Exchange. The Exchange
proposes that only Retail Orders that provide liquidity would count
toward qualifying for the Retail Order Tier; Retail Orders that remove
liquidity would no longer count. The Exchange also proposes to decrease
the CADV threshold for qualification from 0.20% to 0.15%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ An ETP Holder is able to designate an order as a Retail
Order for purposes of the non-Retail Liquidity Program pricing
(i.e., the Retail Order Tier and, as described herein, the proposed
Retail Order Basic Rate credit) without designating the order as a
Retail Order for purposes of the Retail Liquidity Program pricing.
An order designated only for non-Retail Liquidity Program pricing
would not be eligible to execute in the Retail Liquidity Program or
be subject to Retail Liquidity Program pricing. However, an ETP
Holder could choose to designate an order for purposes of both the
Retail Liquidity Program and otherwise, in which case the Exchange
would consider the order to be a Retail Order for purposes of
executions within the Retail Liquidity Program, and apply Retail
Liquidity Program pricing for any such executions, and also then as
a Retail Order for purposes of the Retail Order Tier and the
proposed Retail Order Basic Rate credit for any executions outside
of the Retail Liquidity Program. The same requirements of Rule
7.44(a)(3) applies with respect to Retail Orders, whether within or
outside of the Retail Liquidity Program. The Exchange described
these details in a prior rule change that introduced the Retail
Liquidity Program pricing, including that the manner in which an
order was designated (i.e., either within or outside of the Retail
Liquidity Program, or both) would determine the applicable pricing.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71722 (March 13, 2014), 79
FR 15376 (March 19, 2014) (SR-NYSEArca-2014-22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, an ETP Holder that submits Retail Orders that provide
liquidity, but that does not qualify for the Retail Order Tier or a
separate Tiered rate in the Fee Schedule, is subject to the Basic Rate
credit of $0.0020 per share for such executions. The Exchange proposes
to add a new Basic Rate credit of $0.0030 per share for Retail Orders
that provide liquidity.
Elimination of Obsolete Pricing
    The Fee Schedule currently includes several pricing tiers that have
not encouraged ETP Holders to increase their activity to qualify for
the tiers as significantly as the Exchange anticipated they would.
These tiers are as follows: (i) Investor Tiers 1-4, (ii) Retail Order
Cross Asset Tier, and (iii) Routable Order Cross Asset Tier. The
Exchange proposes to remove these pricing tiers from the Fee Schedule
as well as any related cross references.
    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other
issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that ETP Holders
would have in complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Retail Liquidity Program
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the rates under
the Retail Liquidity Program are reasonable. The Exchange originally
introduced the existing rates approximately five months ago.\10\ At
that time, the Exchange stated that, because the Retail Liquidity
Program was a pilot program, the Exchange anticipated that it would
periodically review applicable pricing to seek to ensure that it
contributes to the goal of the Retail Liquidity Program, which is
designed to attract additional retail order flow to the Exchange for
NYSE Arca-listed securities and UTP Securities while also providing the
potential for price improvement to such order flow. The proposed new
rates are a result of this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71722 (March 13,
2014), 79 FR 15376 (March 19, 2014) (SR-NYSEArca-2014-22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that providing a credit of $0.0003 per share
for RLP and Non-RLP executions of RPIs against Retail Orders is
reasonable because it would further incentivize submission of RPIs for
interaction with Retail Orders and therefore could result in greater
price improvement for Retail Orders. The Retail Order credit was
designed to create a financial incentive for RMOs to bring additional
retail order flow to a public market during the initial implementation
of the Retail Liquidity Program. The proposed change also is reasonable
because, despite the elimination of the credit, RMOs, and indirectly
their customers, would continue to receive significant benefits in the
form of price improvement by interacting with RPIs.
    The Exchange notes that a significant percentage of the orders of
individual investors are executed over-the-counter.\11\ While the
Exchange believes that markets and price discovery optimally function
through the interactions of diverse flow types, it also believes that
growth in internalization has required differentiation of retail order
flow from other order flow types. The proposed new rates would be set
at levels that would continue to reasonably incentivize RMOs to direct
Retail Orders to the Exchange and would contribute to robust amounts of
RPI liquidity submitted by RLPs and non-RLPs being available for
interaction with the Retail Orders. Together, this would increase

the pool of robust liquidity available on the Exchange, thereby
contributing to the quality of the Exchange's market and to the
Exchange's status as a premier destination for liquidity and order
execution. The Exchange believes that, because Retail Orders are likely
to reflect long-term investment intentions, they promote price
discovery and dampen volatility. Accordingly, the presence of Retail
Orders on the Exchange has the potential to benefit all market
participants. For this reason, the Exchange believes that the proposed
pricing is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory and would continue
to encourage greater retail participation on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Concept Release on Equity Market Structure, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (January 14, 2010), 75 FR 3594
(January 21, 2010) (``Concept Release'') (noting that dark pools and
internalizing broker-dealers executed approximately 25.4% of share
volume in September 2009). See also Mary Jo White, Focusing on
Fundamentals: The Path to Address Equity Market Structure (Speech at
the Security Traders Association 80th Annual Market Structure
Conference, Oct. 2, 2013) (available on the Commission's Web site)
(``White Speech''); Mary L. Schapiro, Strengthening Our Equity
Market Structure (Speech at the Economic Club of New York, Sept. 7,
2010) (available on the Commission's Web site) (``Schapiro
Speech''). In her speech, Chair White noted a steadily increasing
percentage of trading that occurs in ``dark'' venues, which appear
to execute more than half of the orders of long-term investors.
Similarly, in her speech, only three years earlier, Chair Schapiro
noted that nearly 30 percent of volume in U.S.-listed equities was
executed in venues that do not display their liquidity or make it
generally available to the public and the percentage was increasing
nearly every month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The pricing proposed herein, like the Retail Liquidity Program
itself, is not designed to permit unfair discrimination, but instead to
promote a competitive process around retail executions such that retail
investors would receive better prices than they currently do through
bilateral internalization arrangements. The Exchange believes that the
transparency and competitiveness of operating a program such as the
Retail Liquidity Program on an exchange market, and the pricing related
thereto, would result in better prices for retail investors. The
proposed change is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it would contribute to investors' confidence in the fairness of
their transactions and because it would benefit all investors by
deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, supporting the quality of
price discovery, promoting market transparency and improving investor
protection.
Retail Order Tier and New Retail Order Basic Rate Credit
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable that only Retail Orders
that provide liquidity would count toward qualifying for the Retail
Order Tier. This would result in the type of volume to which the
corresponding credit applies being the same as the volume that counts
toward qualification--i.e., only Retail Orders that provide liquidity
for both. The Exchange also believes that the proposed change is
reasonable because, while Retail Orders that remove liquidity would no
longer count toward qualifying for the Retail Order Tier, the
qualifying threshold would be decreased from 0.20% to 0.15%. The
Exchange believes that the decreased threshold may balance the effect
of the more narrow activity that would count toward qualifying. The
Exchange believes that the proposed threshold of 0.15% is reasonable
because it would remain within a range that the Exchange believes would
continue to incentivize ETP Holders to submit Retail Orders to the
Exchange in order to qualify for the applicable credit of $0.0033 per
share. This would continue to contribute to increasing liquidity
available on the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to add a new Basic Rate
credit of $0.0030 per share for Retail Orders that provide liquidity.
The Exchange believes that the proposed new credit would contribute
further to balancing the effect of the more narrow activity that would
count toward qualifying for the Retail Order Tier, as described above.
In this regard, an ETP Holder that does not qualify for the Retail
Order Tier would still be eligible for a credit for its Retail Orders
that provide liquidity that is higher than the standard $0.0020 per
share Basic Rate credit for providing liquidity, which the Exchange
believes may be below the level that would continue to encourage
submission of Retail Orders on the Exchange. The proposed new $0.0030
Basic Rate credit would be set at a level that would reasonably
contribute to encouraging ETP Holders to submit Retail Orders. Retail
Orders that provide liquidity would receive the new Basic Rate credit
of $0.0030 per share if the ETP Holder does not qualify for the Retail
Order Tier or another Tiered rate in the Fee Schedule.
    The proposed new Retail Order Basic Rate credit would create an
added financial incentive for ETP Holders to bring additional retail
flow to a public market. The proposed new credit also is reasonable
because it would reduce the costs of ETP Holders that represent retail
flow and potentially also reduce costs to their customers. The Exchange
also believes that the proposed $0.0030 credit is reasonable because it
would be identical to the credit on New York Stock Exchange LLC for
transactions in orders designated as ``retail'' that provide liquidity.
The proposed credit also would be similar to the manner in which The
Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC provides a $0.0033 credit for ``Designated
Retail Orders'' that provide liquidity.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See NASDAQ Rule 7018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because maintaining or increasing the
proportion of Retail Orders in exchange-listed securities that are
executed on a registered national securities exchange (rather than
relying on certain available off-exchange execution methods) would
contribute to investors' confidence in the fairness of their
transactions and would benefit all investors by deepening the
Exchange's liquidity pool, supporting the quality of price discovery,
promoting market transparency and improving investor protection. This
aspect of the proposed change also is consistent with the Act because
all similarly situated ETP Holders would pay the same rate, as is
currently the case, and because all ETP Holders would be eligible to
qualify for the rates by satisfying the related thresholds, where
applicable. Furthermore, the submission of Retail Orders is optional
for ETP Holders, in that an ETP Holder could choose whether to submit
Retail Orders and, if it does, the extent of its activity in this
regard.
Elimination of Obsolete Pricing
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to eliminate the
obsolete pricing tiers from the Fee Schedule because ETP Holders have
not increased their activity to qualify for these tiers as
significantly as the Exchange anticipated they would. The Exchange
believes that this is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
the tiers would be eliminated entirely--no ETP Holders would remain
able to qualify for the eliminated tiers. This aspect of the proposed
change would therefore result in a more streamlined Fee Schedule,
including with respect to removal of related cross references.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\13\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change would encourage the submission of additional liquidity to a
public exchange, thereby promoting price discovery and transparency and
enhancing order execution opportunities for ETP Holders. The Exchange
believes that this could promote competition between the Exchange and
other execution venues, including those that currently offer similar
order types and comparable transaction pricing, by encouraging

additional orders to be sent to the Exchange for execution. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act in this regard, because it strikes an appropriate balance
between fees and credits, which will encourage submission of orders to
the Exchange, thereby promoting competition. The removal of obsolete
pricing tiers is not competitive in nature, but would result in a more
streamlined Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, 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 and rebates 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 and credits 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. As a result of all of these considerations, the
Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the
ability of ETP Holders 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 solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \14\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \15\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \16\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2014-95 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-NYSEARCA-2014-95. 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 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 Section, 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 will also be available
for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2014-95 and should be submitted on or before
October 2, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-21651 Filed 9-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 138 (Friday, July 18, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 41949]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16825]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0919; FRL-9913-91-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;
Conformity of General Federal Actions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of Texas on October 28, 2011. These revisions remove the State
general conformity provisions from the SIP so that Federal rules will
govern conformity of general Federal actions within the State of Texas.
The revisions also update the narrative portion of the SIP. This action
is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before August 18,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be
submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following
the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final
rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Riley,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct rule
without prior proposal because the Agency views this as
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no relevant adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the
direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in
response to this action no further activity is contemplated. If EPA
receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be
withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a
subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is
located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: July 7, 2014.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2014-16825 Filed 7-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 84 (Friday, May 1, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24791-24793]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10075]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0766; Directorate Identifier 2013-NE-26-AD;
Amendment 39-18149; AD 2014-17-08R1]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Turboprop
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising airworthiness directive (AD) 2014-17-08 for
all Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC) PT6A-114 and PT6A-114A
turboprop engines. AD 2014-17-08 required initial and repetitive
borescope inspections (BSIs) of compressor turbine (CT) blades, and the
removal from service of blades that fail inspection. This new AD adds
an additional single crystal CT blade, reduces the affected population,
and corrects the Credit for Previous Action paragraph. This AD was
prompted by P&WC development of an additional single crystal CT blade
that corrects the unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to prevent
failure of CT blades, which could result in damage to the engine and
damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective June 5, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publications listed in this AD as of
October 8, 2014 (79 FR 52172, September 3, 2014).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt
& Whitney Canada Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada,
J4G 1A1; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: www.pwc.ca.
You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-
238-7125. Certain service information is also available on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2013-0766.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-
0766; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Caufield, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to revise AD 2014-17-08, Amendment 39-17961 (79 FR 52172,
September 3, 2014), (``AD 2014-17-08''). AD 2014-17-08 applied to all
P&WC PT6A-114 and PT6A-114A turboprop engines. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on December 1, 2014 (79 FR 71031). The NPRM was
prompted by P&WC development of an additional single crystal CT blade
that corrects the unsafe condition. The addition of this new part
number (P/N) reduces the affected population. The NPRM proposed to
retain all the requirements of AD 2014-17-08. The NPRM also proposed to
add

the additional single crystal CT blade that corrects the unsafe
condition, reduce the affected population, and correct the Credit for
Previous Action paragraph. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of
CT blades, which could result in damage to the engine and damage to the
airplane.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79
FR 71031, December 1, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Clarify Disposition of Removed CT Blades

    Hawkins Aero Engineering, Inc. and another commenter requested that
we state more clearly whether pre-SB (service bulletin) PT6A-72-1669 CT
blades removed as a result of this AD can be reinstalled in the same
engine, the same model engine, or a different model engine.
    We disagree. Paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(B) of this AD clearly states
that to re-install removed pre-SB PT6A-72-1669 CT blades, the blades
must pass a two-blade metallurgical inspection to determine
airworthiness in accordance with paragraph 3.B., Accomplishment
Instructions, of P&WC Service Bulletin (SB) No. PT6A-72-1669, Revision
9, dated June 28, 2013. We did not change this AD.

Request To Not Mandate Installation of Single Crystal CT Blades

    One commenter requested that we not mandate the installation of
single crystal CT blades because two of the P/Ns cited as replacement
blades have experienced low-time failures, indicating a design or
manufacturing flaw.
    We disagree. While there have been some failures of single crystal
CT blades on a different engine model, that failure mode is well
understood and does not affect the engines that are the subject of this
AD. For the engines that are subject to this AD, single crystal blades
provide a significant improvement in durability and a significant
reduction in CT blade failures overall. We did not change this AD.

Request To Reference Two Additional SBs

    One commenter requested that we reference P&WC SBs No. PT6A-72-1727
and No. PT6A-72-1749 in addition to P&WC SB No. PT6A-72-1669 because
each one of these SBs references one of the three single crystal CT
blades that can be installed as terminating action to this AD. P&WC SB
No. PT6A-72-1669 alone only references one of the three blades listed
as terminating action in paragraph (e)(2) of this AD.
    We agree. We added references to the two additional SBs in
paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.

Request To Include Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC) for
Inspections

    Hawkins Aero Engineering, Inc. requested that we include in the AD
an AMOC to allow a visual inspection, accomplished by splitting the
engine at the C-flange, as an alternative method to the required
periodic borescope inspection of pre-SB PT6A-72-1669 CT blades. The
commenter states that this suggested visual method would provide easier
detection of cracks.
    We disagree. This AD contains the required method for resolving the
unsafe condition. If an operator can accomplish required actions in a
better way, or a way that better suits the operator's business
processes, and the alternative method provides an acceptable level of
safety, then the operator can apply for an AMOC to use that method to
address the unsafe condition in accordance with paragraph (g)(2) of
this AD. We did not change this AD.

Request That We Address Failures in Additional Blades

    Hawkins Aero Engineering, Inc. requested that we address single
crystal CT blade failures either in this or in another AD because there
have been several low-time single crystal CT blade failures in several
different PT6 engine models, some of which are single engine
installations.
    We disagree. Low-time failures that occurred on engine models not
affected by this AD are due to a failure mode that is well understood.
That failure mode does not occur in the engine models that are the
subject of this AD. We did not change this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that
these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 71031, December 1, 2014) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in NPRM (79 FR 71031, December 1, 2014).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 300 engines installed on airplanes
of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 4 hours per
engine to perform the required inspection and 8 hours to replace the
blades. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Required parts cost
about $59,334 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost
of this AD on U.S. operators to be $18,106,200.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2014-17-08, Amendment 39-17961 (79 FR 52172, September 3, 2014), and
adding the following new AD:

2014-17-08R1 Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp.: Amendment 39-18149;
Docket No. FAA-2013-0766; Directorate Identifier 2013-NE-26-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 5, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2014-17-08, Amendment 39-17961 (79 FR 52172,
September 3, 2014).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC) PT6A-
114 and PT6A-114A turboprop engines.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by several incidents of compressor turbine
(CT) blade failure, causing power loss, and engine failure. We are
issuing this AD to prevent failure of CT blades, which could lead to
damage to the engine and damage to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (1) For engines installed with CT blades other than P&WC single
crystal CT blades, part numbers (P/Ns) 3072791-01, 3072791-02, or
3079351-01, do the following:
    (i) Until removed, per the requirements of this AD, borescope
inspect the CT blade leading and trailing edges, within the
following intervals, whichever occurs later:
    (A) 150 operating hours after October 8, 2014; or
    (B) 500 operating hours since new; or
    (C) 500 operating hours since last borescope inspection (BSI) of
the CT blades; or
    (D) Before next flight after the effective date of this AD.
    (ii) Thereafter, repeat the inspection required by paragraph
(e)(1)(i) of this AD every 500 flight hours time since last
inspection.
    (iii) At the next hot section inspection (HSI) after the
effective date of this AD, and each HSI thereafter, replace the
complete set of CT blades with any of the following:
    (A) New CT blades;
    (B) CT blades that have passed a two-blade metallurgical
inspection. Use paragraph 3.B., Accomplishment Instructions, of P&WC
Service Bulletin (SB) No. PT6A-72-1669, Revision 9, dated June 28,
2013, to do the inspection; or
    (C) P&WC single crystal CT blades, P/N 3072791-01, 3072791-02,
or 3079351-01.
    (2) Replacement of the complete set of CT blades with single
crystal CT blades, P/N 3072791-01, 3072791-02, or 3079351-01 is
terminating action for the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this
AD.
    (3) By October 8, 2017, replace the complete set of CT blades
with P&WC single crystal CT blades, P/N 3072791-01, 3072791-02, or
3079351-01.

(f) Credit for Previous Action

    Performance of the metallurgical examination specified in
paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(B) of this AD on CT blades other than P&WC
single crystal CT blades, P/N 3072791-01, 3072791-02, or 3079351-01,
before the effective date of this AD fulfills the initial inspection
requirements of paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this AD. However, you must
still comply with the repetitive BSI requirement of paragraph
(e)(1)(ii) of this AD until you complete the mandatory terminating
action of paragraph (e)(3) of this AD.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) AMOCs previously approved for AD 2014-17-08, Amendment 39-
17961 (79 FR 52172, September 3, 2014) are approved for this AD.
    (2) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve
AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make
your request. You may email your request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(h) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Barbara
Caufield, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) P&WC SB No. PT6A-72-1727, dated August 23, 2013, and SB No.
PT6A-72-1749, dated September 23, 2014, which are not incorporated
by reference in this AD, can be obtained from P&WC using the contact
information in paragraph (i)(4) of this AD.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
October 8, 2014 (79 FR 52172, September 3, 2014).
    (i) Pratt & Whitney Canada Service Bulletin No. PT6A-72-1669,
Revision 9, dated June 28, 2013.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (4) For P&WC service information identified in this AD, contact
Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil,
Quebec, Canada, J4G 1A1; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Internet: www.pwc.ca.
    (5) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (6) You may view this service information at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 17, 2015.
Thomas A. Boudreau,
Acting Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-10075 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 11)]
[Notices]
[Page 2924]
[DOCID:fr16ja08-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. 2007N-0390]

User Fee Program for Advisory Review of Direct-to-Consumer
Television Advertisements for Prescription Drug and Biological
Products; Program Will Not Be Implemented

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing this notice
to inform companies that the Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) television
advertisement user fee program will not commence because the necessary
user fees for the program were not ``provided in advance in
appropriations Acts'' as required by the Food and Drug Administration
Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA) and the previously issued notice
establishing user fee rates for the program for fiscal year (FY) 2008
is being withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Amchin, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, rm. 1454, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-1200, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 27, 2007, the President signed
into law FDAAA (Public Law 110-85). Title I of FDAAA reauthorized the
Prescription Drug User Fee Act for FYs 2008 to 2012. In addition, Title
I created new section 736A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the act) (21 U.S.C. 379h-1), which authorized a new and separate user
fee program for the advisory review of DTC prescription drug television
advertisements. The DTC user fee program would have been available to
companies interested in voluntarily submitting to FDA for advisory
review a DTC television advertisement, as defined in section 736A(h)(4)
of the act. FDAAA provided, however, that if FDA fails to receive at
least $11,250,000 in advisory review fees and operating reserve fees
combined by 120 days after the legislation is enacted (i.e., by January
25, 2008), the program shall not commence (section 736A(f)(1) of the
act). FDAAA also provided that the fees authorized for the DTC program
``shall be collected and available for obligation only to the extent
and in the amount provided in advance in appropriations Acts.''
(section 736A(g)(1) of the act).
    On December 26, 2007, the President signed the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-161). The law does not
appropriate user fee funds for the voluntary review of DTC television
advertisements. As a result, under section 736A(g)(1) of the act, FDA
does not have the authority to collect and spend user fees for this
purpose. Furthermore, as noted previously, section 736A(f)(1) of the
act provides that if FDA has not collected at least $11,250,000 in
advisory review fees and operating reserve fees combined by 120 days
after the legislation is enacted (i.e., by January 25, 2008), the
program shall not commence. Therefore, no invoices will be sent.
Advertisements voluntarily submitted for FDA review will be reviewed in
as timely a manner as resources permit. In addition, FDA is withdrawing
the previously issued Federal Register notice establishing the user fee
rates for this program for FY 2008 (72 FR 70334, December 11, 2007).

    Dated: January 10, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-740 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74196-74197]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29474]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday,
December 12, 2013 at 2:00 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:

    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; an
opinion; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Dated: December 5, 2013.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-29474 Filed 12-6-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 70067]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28776]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

 Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2010-0025]

Notice of Request for Reinstatement of Previously Approved
Information Collection

ACTION: Notice; Correction

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Department published a 60-Day notice on
February 2, 2010 (75 FR 5369) and a subsequent notice (``30-Day
notice'') on June 25, 2010 (75 FR 36463). As noted in both notices, the
Department incorrectly estimated a total of 1,057 respondents and
annual burden of 1,311,000 hours. The Department also provided the
incorrect address for which the public should request further
information related to the relevant Information Collection Request. The
Department is correcting the documents as set forth below.

Correction

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Ashby, Office of the
Secretary, Office of Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and
Enforcement, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER> (voice)<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax) or at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Number of Respondents: 1,250.
    Frequency of Response: Once/twice a year.
    Estimated Total Burden on Respondents: 9,000 hours.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 10, 2010.
Patricia Lawton,
Department PRA Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-28776 Filed 11-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 168 (Tuesday, August 30, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 53851]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22107]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 870

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0505]

Effective Date of Requirement for Premarket Approval for
Cardiovascular Permanent Pacemaker Electrode; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a
proposed rule that appeared in the Federal Register of August 8, 2011
(76 FR 48058). The document proposed to require the filing of a
premarket approval application or a notice of completion of a product
development protocol for the class III preamendments device:
Cardiovascular permanent pacemaker electrode. The document was
published with an incorrect Internet address for the first reference in
the References section. This document corrects that error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elias Mallis, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4622, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2011-19959, appearing on page
48058, in the Federal Register of Monday, August 8, 2011, the following
correction is made:
    1. On page 48062, in the first column, under ``XIII. References,''
the first reference is corrected to read ``1. Geiger, D.R., ``FY 2003
and 2004 Unit Costs for the Process of Medical Device Review,''
September 2005, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Overview/MedicalDeviceUserFeeandModernizationActMDUFMA/ucm109216.''

    Dated: August 24, 2011.
Nancy K. Stade,
Deputy Director for Policy, Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
[FR Doc. 2011-22107 Filed 8-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 197 (Friday, October 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 64137]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22415]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL21-2-000]

Public Citizen, Inc. and Citizens Action Coalition v. CenterPoint
Energy, Inc. and Its Wholly-Owned Affiliate Southern Indiana Gas and
Electric Company; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on October 5, 2020, pursuant to sections 306, and
309 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825e, and 825h, and Rule 206 of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, Public Citizen, Inc. and
Citizens Action Coalition (Complainants) filed a formal complaint
against CenterPoint Energy, Inc. (Respondent), alleging that the
Respondent failed to report a change in status of its market-based rate
authority seller, Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company, all as
more fully explained in the complaint.
    The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served
on the contacts listed for Respondents in the Commission's list of
Corporate Officials.
    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. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. At this time, the
Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free, (886) 208-
3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 26, 2020.

    Dated: October 5, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-22415 Filed 10-8-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P