[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8235-8238]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01467]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79812; File No. SR-BX-2016-063]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Order Granting
Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the PRISM Price Improvement
Auction in BX Chapter VI, Section 9 and To Make Pilot Program Permanent

January 17, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On November 21, 2016, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend the eligibility requirements for its
Price Improvement Auction mechanism (``PRISM'' or ``Auction'') and make
permanent those aspects of the PRISM auction that are currently
operating on a pilot basis. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on December 9, 2016.\3\ The Commission
received no comments regarding the proposal. This order approves the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79465 (December 5,
2016), 81 FR 89167 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange established PRISM in November 2015 as a price
improvement mechanism.\4\ Pursuant to Chapter VI, Section 9 of the BX
Options Rules, a Participant (an ``Initiating Participant'') may
electronically submit for execution an order it represents as agent on
behalf of a Public Customer,\5\ Professional customer, broker dealer,
or any other entity (``PRISM Order'') against principal interest or
against any other order it represents as agent (an ``Initiating
Order''), provided it submits the PRISM Order for electronic execution
into the Auction. Parts of PRISM are currently operating on a pilot
basis (``Pilot''),\6\ which is set to expire on January 18, 2017.\7\
The Exchange proposes to make the Pilot permanent, and also proposes to
amend the Auction eligibility requirements for certain PRISM Orders of
less than 50 option contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 76301 (October 29,
2015), 80 FR 68347 (November 4, 2015) (SR-BX-2015-032) (``PRISM
Approval Order'').
    \5\ A Public Customer means a person that is not a broker or
dealer in securities. See Chapter I, Section 1(a)(50) of the BX
Options Rules. A ``Professional'' means any person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). A Participant or a
Public Customer may, without limitation, be a Professional. All
Professional orders shall be appropriately marked by Participants.
See Chapter I, Section 1(a)(49) of the BX Options Rules. For
purposes of PRISM rule, a Public Customer order does not include a
Professional order. See Chapter VI, Section 9 of the BX Options
Rules.
    \6\ Three components of PRISM were approved by the Commission on
a pilot basis: (1) The early conclusion of the PRISM Auction; (2)
the provision that an unrelated market or marketable limit order
(against the BX BBO) on the opposite side of the market from the
PRISM Order received during the Auction will not cause the Auction
to end early and will execute against interest outside of the
Auction; and (3) no minimum size requirement of orders.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78249 (July 7,
2016), 81 FR 45334 (July 13, 2016) (SR-BX-2016-038).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. PRISM Eligibility Requirements for PRISM Orders of Fewer Than 50
Contracts

    Currently, a PRISM Auction may be initiated if certain conditions
are met. If the PRISM Order is for the account of a Public Customer,
the Initiating Participant must stop the entire PRISM Order at a price
that is equal to or better than the National Best Bid/Offer (``NBBO'')
on the opposite side of the market from the PRISM Order, provided that
such price must be at least one minimum trading increment (specified in
Chapter VI, Section 5 of the BX Options Rules) better than any limit
order on the limit order book on the same side of the market as the
PRISM Order.\8\ If the PRISM Order is for the account of a broker
dealer or any other person or entity that is not a Public Customer, the
Initiating Participant must stop the entire PRISM Order at a price that
is the better of: (i) The BX BBO price improved by at least the minimum
trading increment on the same side of the market as the PRISM Order, or
(ii) the PRISM Order's limit price (if the order is a limit order),
provided in either case that such price is at or better than the
NBBO.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Chapter VI, Section 9(i)(A) of the BX Options Rules.
    \9\ See Chapter VI, Section 9(i)(B) of the BX Options Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BX proposes to amend the Auction eligibility requirements to
require that, if the PRISM Order is for less than 50 option contracts,
and if the difference between the NBBO is $0.01, the Initiating
Participant must stop the entire PRISM Order at one minimum price
improvement increment better than the NBBO on the opposite side of the
market from the PRISM Order, and better than any limit order on the
limit order book on the same side of the market as the PRISM Order.
Thus, BX would require that the PRISM Order receive at least $0.01
price improvement if that PRISM Order is for less than 50 contracts and
if the difference between the NBBO is $0.01. This requirement will
apply regardless of whether the PRISM Order is for the account of a
Public Customer, or where the PRISM Order is for the account of a
broker dealer or any other person or entity that is not a Public
Customer.
    The Exchange will retain the current requirements for Auction
eligibility in all other instances. Accordingly, if the PRISM Order is
for the account of a Public Customer and such order is for 50 option
contracts or more or if the difference between the NBBO is greater than
$0.01, the Initiating Participant must stop the entire PRISM Order at a
price that is equal to or better than the NBBO on the opposite side of
the market from the PRISM Order, provided that such price must be at
least one minimum trading increment better than any limit order on the
limit order book on the same side of the market as the PRISM Order. If
the PRISM Order is for the account of a broker dealer or any other
person or entity that is not a Public Customer and such order is for 50
option contracts or more, or if the difference between the NBBO is
greater than $0.01, the Initiating Participant must stop the entire
PRISM Order at a price that is the better of: (i) The BX BBO price
improved by at least the Minimum Increment on the same side of the
market as the PRISM Order, or (ii) the PRISM Order's limit price (if
the order is a limit order), provided in

either case that such price is at or better than the NBBO.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange also proposes to add language to Chapter VI,
Section 9(i) of the BX Options Rules to clarify that, if any of the
auction eligibility criteria are not met, the PRISM Order will be
rejected. The Exchange will also add language to Chapter VI, Section
9(i) to clarify the treatment of paired Public Customer-to-Public
Customer orders pursuant to subparagraph (vi) as a result of these
proposed changes. Specifically, Exchange will allow a PRISM Order to
trade on either the bid or offer, pursuant to subparagraph (vi), if
the NBBO is $0.01 wide, provided (1) the execution price is equal to
or within the NBBO, (2) there is no resting customer at the
execution price, and (3) $0.01 is the Minimum Price Variation (MPV)
of the option. The Exchange also proposes to add language that it
will continue to reject a PRISM Order to buy (sell) if the NBBO is
only $0.01 wide and the Agency order is stopped on the bid (offer)
if there is a resting order on the bid (offer). These requirements
are unchanged from the Exchange's current handling practices of
paired Public Customer-to-Public Customer PRISM Orders per
subparagraph (vi), and the Exchange's current practice of rejecting
PRISM Orders to buy (sell) if the NBBO is only $0.01 wide and the
Agency order is stopped on the bid (offer) if there is a resting
order on the bid (offer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that these changes to PRISM may provide
additional opportunities for PRISM Orders of fewer than 50 option
contracts to receive price improvement over the NBBO where the
difference in the NBBO is $0.01 and therefore encourage the increased
submission of orders of fewer than 50 option contracts.\11\ The
Exchange notes that the statistics for the current pilot, which
include, among other things, price improvement for orders of fewer than
50 option contracts under the current auction eligibility requirements,
show relatively small amounts of price improvement for such orders.\12\
BX believes that the proposed requirements will therefore increase the
price improvement that orders of fewer than 50 option contracts may
receive in PRISM.\13\ The Exchange also notes that NASDAQ PHLX LLC
(``Phlx'') operates a similar price improvement mechanism, PIXL, which
has been operating for a longer period of time and has generated
similar pilot data.\14\ Given the similarly between the two mechanisms,
the Exchange expects that PRISM, if operated on a pilot basis over a
longer period of time, would continue to generate data that is
comparable to PIXL.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 89169.
    \12\ See id.
    \13\ See id.
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63027 (October 1,
2010), 75 FR 62160 (October 7, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-108).
    \15\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 89169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Pilot Program

    Three components of PRISM were approved by the Commission on a
pilot basis: (1) The early conclusion of the PRISM Auction; \16\ (2)
the provision that an unrelated market or marketable limit order
(against the BX BBO) on the opposite side of the market from the PRISM
Order received during the Auction will not cause the Auction to end
early and will execute against interest outside of the Auction; \17\
and (3) no minimum size requirement of orders. The provisions were
approved for a pilot period that currently expires on January 18,
2017.\18\ The Exchange proposes to have the Pilot approved on a
permanent basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Chapter VI, Section 9(ii)(B)(4) of the BX Options
Rules.
    \17\ See Chapter VI, Section 9(ii)(D) of the BX Options Rules.
    \18\ See PRISM Approval Order, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the Pilot period, the Exchange submitted certain data
periodically as required by the Commission, to provide supporting
evidence that, among other things, there is meaningful competition for
all size orders, there is significant price improvement available
through PRISM, and that there is an active and liquid market
functioning on the Exchange outside of the Auction mechanism.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Chapter VI, Section 9(vii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. No Minimum Size Requirement
    Chapter VI, Section 9(vii) provides that, as part of the current
Pilot, there will be no minimum size requirement for orders to be
eligible for the Auction. The Exchange believes that the data gathered
since the approval of the Pilot, which it discussed in the Notice,
establishes that there is liquidity and competition both within PRISM
and outside of PRISM, and that there are opportunities for significant
price improvement within PRISM.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 89169. See also Exhibit 3 to
SR-BX-2016-063.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also has gathered information about activity in orders
for less than 50 and 50 contracts or greater for PRISM auctions between
January and June 2016. For auctions occurring during that period, 87.8%
of auctions were for orders for less than 50 contracts, a percentage
that remained stable over that time period. Auctions for orders of less
than 50 contracts accounted for 30.0% of the contract volume traded in
PRISM. Auctions of 50 contracts or more made up 12.2% of all PRISM
auctions and accounted for 70.0% of contracts traded in PRISM.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 89369.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to price improvement, 60.5% of PRISM auctions between
January and June 2016 executed at a price that was better than the NBBO
at the time the auction began.\22\ For auctions of less than 50
contracts, 64.7% received price improvement, while 30.5% of auctions
for 50 contracts or more received price improvement.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See id.
    \23\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 89170.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BX believes that the data gathered during the Pilot period
indicates that there is meaningful competition in PRISM auctions for
all size orders, there is an active and liquid market functioning on
the Exchange outside of the auction mechanism, and that there are
opportunities for price improvement for orders executed through
PRISM.\24\ The Exchange therefore has requested that the Commission
approve the no minimum size requirement on a permanent basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Early Conclusion of the PRISM Auction
    Chapter VI, Section 9(ii)(B)(4) of the BX Options Rules provides
that the PRISM Auction shall conclude at the earlier of (1) the end of
the Auction period; (2) any time the BX BBO crosses the PRISM Order
stop price on the same side of the market as the PRISM Order; or (3)
any time there is a trading halt on the Exchange in the affected
series.\25\ The latter two conditions are operating as part of the
current Pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ If the situations described in either of the two latter
conditions occur, the entire PRISM Order will be executed at: (1) In
the case of the BX BBO crossing the PRISM Order stop price, the best
response price(s) or, if the stop price is the best price in the
Auction, at the stop price, unless the best response price is equal
to or better than the price of a limit order resting on the Order
Book on the same side of the market as the PRISM Order, in which
case the PRISM Order will be executed against that response, but at
a price that is at least the Minimum Increment better than the price
of such limit order at the time of the conclusion of the Auction; or
(2) in the case of a trading halt on the Exchange in the affected
series, the stop price, in which case the PRISM Order will be
executed solely against the Initiating Order. Any unexecuted PAN
responses will be cancelled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with the no minimum size requirement, the Exchange has gathered
data on these latter two conditions. Between January and June 2016, one
auction terminated early because the BX BBO crossed the PRISM Order
stop price. No auctions terminated early because of halts. The number
of auctions that terminated early was less than 1/100th of 1% of all
PRISM auctions over the period. The auctions that terminated early were
less than 1/100th of 1% of contracts traded in PRISM auctions.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 89170.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the data gathered during the pilot, the Exchange does not
anticipate that either of these conditions will occur with significant
frequency, or will otherwise disrupt the functioning of

PRISM auctions.\27\ The Exchange therefore has requested that the
Commission approve this aspect of the Pilot on a permanent basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Unrelated Market or Marketable Limit Order
    Chapter VI, Section 9(ii)(D) of the BX Options Rules provides that
an unrelated market or marketable limit order (against the BX BBO) on
the opposite side of the market from the PRISM Order received during
the Auction will not cause the Auction to end early and will execute
against interest outside of the Auction. If contracts remain from such
unrelated order at the time the auction ends, they will be considered
for participation in the order allocation process described elsewhere
in the Rule.
    The Exchange states that the provision is based on a similar
provision in the Phlx PIXL mechanism.\28\ In approving this feature on
PIXL, also on a pilot basis, the Commission found that ``allowing the
PIXL auction to continue for the full auction period despite receipt of
unrelated orders outside the Auction would allow the auction to run its
full course and, in so doing, will provide a full opportunity for price
improvement to the PIXL Order. Further, the unrelated order would be
available to participate in the PIXL order allocation.'' \29\ The
Exchange does not believe that this provision has had a significant
impact on either the unrelated order or the PRISM auction process.\30\
The Exchange therefore has requested that the Commission approve this
aspect of the Pilot on a permanent basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Phlx Rule 1080(n)(ii)(D).
    \29\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63027 (October 1,
2010), 75 FR 62160 (October 7, 2010) (SR-PHLX-2010-108).
    \30\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 89170.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange
and, in particular, with Section 6(b) of the Act.\31\ In particular,
the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\32\ which requires, among other things,
that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect customers, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). In approving this proposed rule change,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of its proposal, the Exchange provided summary data on
Exhibit 3 of its filing for the period January through June 2016, which
the Exchange and Commission both publicly posted on their respective
Web sites. Among other things, this data is useful in assessing the
level of price improvement in the auction, in particular for orders for
fewer than 50 contracts; the degree of competition for order flow in
such auctions; and a comparison of liquidity in the auctions with
liquidity on the Exchange generally.\33\ Based on the data provided by
the Exchange, the Commission believes that the Exchange's price
improvement auction generally delivers a meaningful opportunity for
price improvement to orders, including orders for fewer than 50
contracts, when the spread in the option is $0.02 or more. At the same
time, as the Exchange has recognized, the data do not demonstrate that
such orders have realized significant price improvement when the NBBO
has a bid/ask differential of $0.01.\34\ Recognizing this, the Exchange
has proposed to amend the auction eligibility requirements to require
price improvement of at least one minimum price improvement increment
over the NBBO for PRISM Orders of less than 50 option contracts where
the difference in the NBBO is $0.01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Exhibit 3 to SR-BX-2016-063.
    \34\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 89169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to modify the auction eligibility
requirements for orders of fewer than 50 contracts and seek permanent
approval of the Pilot, as amended with the new provision, will, in the
Commission's view, promote opportunities for price improvement for such
orders when the NBBO is $0.01 wide, while continuing to provide
opportunities for price improvement when spreads are wider than $0.01.
    In addition, the Commission has carefully evaluated the PRIME Pilot
data and has determined that it would be beneficial to customers and to
the options market as a whole to approve on a permanent basis the
provisions concerning early conclusion of the PRISM Auction, and the
receipt of an unrelated market or marketable limit order (against the
BX BBO) on the opposite side of the market from the PRISM Order during
the Auction. The Commission notes that there have been few instances of
early termination of the PRISM. The Commission further notes that
permitting the PRISM Auction to continue despite receipt of unrelated
orders outside the Auction would allow the Auction to run its full
course and provide a full opportunity for price improvement to the
PRISM Order, while allowing the unrelated order to seek an execution,
including in the Auction's order allocation.
    The Commission believes that, particularly for auctions for fewer
than 50 contracts when the bid/ask differential is wider than $0.01,
the data provided by the Exchange support its proposal to make the
Pilot permanent. The data demonstrate that the auction generally
provides price improvement opportunities to orders, including orders of
retail customers and particularly when the bid/ask differential is
wider than $0.01, that there is meaningful competition for orders on
the Exchange; and that there exists an active and liquid market
functioning on the Exchange outside of the auction.\35\ The Commission
further believes that the proposed revisions to the eligibility
requirements for PRISM Orders of fewer than 50 contracts with respect
to circumstances when the NBBO is $0.01 wide should help to enhance the
operation of the auction by providing meaningful opportunities for
price improvement in such circumstances, and should benefit investors
and others in a manner that is consistent with the Act. Thus, the
Commission has determined to approve the Exchange's proposed revisions
to Chapter VI, Section 9(i) of the BX Options Rules and to approve the
Pilot, as proposed to be modified, on a permanent basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Exhibit 3 to SR-BX-2016-063.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\36\ that the proposed rule change (SR-BX-2016-063), be and hereby
is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-01467 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 49 (Friday, March 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 13361]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05684]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-89-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of
Application

    Take notice that on February 18, 2015, Transcontinental Gas Pipe
Line Company, LLC (Transco), PO Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251, filed
an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA)
for authorization to construct its Garden State Expansion Project in
two phases. In Phase 1, Transco proposes to: (i) Construct a new meter
and regulating station in Burlington County, New Jersey; (ii) uprate an
existing electric motor drive to 25,000 horsepower (hp) at Compressor
Station 205 in Mercer County, New Jersey; and (iii) construct related
appurtenances. In Phase 2, Transco proposes to: (i) Construct a new
30,500 hp, electric-driven compressor station and appurtenances in
Burlington County, New Jersey; (ii) uprate two existing electric-driven
motors to 16,000 hp each at Compressor Station 205 in Mercer County,
New Jersey; and (iii) construct related appurtenances. Transco states
that the Garden State Expansion Project will provide 180,000 dekatherms
per day of firm capacity to a new delivery point with New Jersey
Natural Gas Company. Transco estimates the cost of the proposed project
to be approximately $116 million, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding the application may be directed to Marg
Camardello, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, PO Box 1396,
Houston, Texas 77251, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's
public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and
state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of
Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    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 should
submit an original and five copies of the protest or intervention to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Comment Date: March 25, 2015.

    Dated: March 4, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-05684 Filed 3-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 167 (Thursday, August 27, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52934-52935]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18910]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Parts 742 and 774

[Docket No.<PHONE_NUMBER>]
RIN 0694-AH80

Identification and Review of Controls for Certain Foundational
Technologies

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) controls the export,
reexport, and transfer (in-country) of dual-use and certain military
items through the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), including
the Commerce Control List (CCL). Many items (commodities, software, and
technology) subject to the jurisdiction of the EAR are listed on the
CCL. Pursuant to the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, BIS and its
interagency partners are engaged in a process to identify emerging and
foundational technologies that are essential to the national security
of the United States. Foundational technologies essential to the
national security are those that may warrant stricter controls if a
present or potential application or capability of that technology poses
a national security threat to the United States. In order to determine
if technologies are foundational, BIS will evaluate specific items,
including items currently subject only to anti-terrorism (AT) controls
on the CCL or those designated as EAR99. This ANPRM seeks public
comment on the definition of, and criteria for, identifying
foundational technologies. Comments on this ANPRM will help inform the
interagency process to identify and describe such foundational
technologies.

DATES: Submit comments on or before October 26, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments through either of the following:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
The identification number for this rulemaking is BIS-2020-0029.
     Address: By mail or delivery to Regulatory Policy
Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Room 2099B, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC
20230. Refer to RIN 0694-AH80.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tongele Tongele, Office of
Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance, Bureau of Industry and
Security, Department of Commerce by: phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (202)
482-3355; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 1758 (50 U.S.C. 4801) of the Export Control Reform Act of
2018 (ECRA) requires the Department of Commerce to establish
appropriate controls on the export, reexport, or transfer (in country)
of emerging and foundational technologies. Under ECRA, emerging and
foundational technologies are those technologies that are essential to
the national security of the United States and are not critical
technologies described in Section 721(a)(6)(A)(i)-(v) of the Defense
Production Act of 1950, as amended (DPA). ECRA notes the national
security importance of U.S. leadership in science, technology,
engineering, and manufacturing, including foundational technology that
is essential to innovation. Items subject to the Export Administration
Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR parts 730-774) that are not covered by the
DPA's definition of critical technologies are items controlled only for
anti-terrorism (AT), crime control (CC), or short supply (SS) reasons,
subject to United Nations (UN) embargoes, or designated as EAR99.
    Section 1758 of ECRA requires that foundational technologies be
identified, and that BIS establish appropriate controls for that
technology under the EAR. At a minimum, such controls would apply to
countries subject to an embargo, including an arms embargo, imposed by
the United States.
    ECRA also requires that the interagency process is to take into
account:
     The development of foundational technologies in foreign
countries;
     The effect export controls may have on the development of
such technologies in the United States; and
     The effectiveness of export controls imposed pursuant to
ECRA on limiting the proliferation of foundational technologies to
foreign countries.
    For purposes of this ANPRM, the term foundational technologies
includes not only ``technology'' but also ``commodities'' and
``software'' as used in the EAR.
    BIS now seeks public comment to inform the interagency process to
identify and describe foundational technologies. For example,
foundational technologies could include items that are currently
subject to control for military end use or military end user reasons
under Supplement No. 2 to part 744 of the EAR. Many of these items,
including semiconductor manufacturing equipment and associated software
tools, lasers, sensors, and underwater systems, can be tied to
indigenous military innovation efforts in China, Russia or Venezuela.
Accordingly, they may pose a national security threat.
    There may be additional items, classified on the CCL at the AT
level or as EAR99 for which an export license is not required for
countries subject to a U.S. arms embargo that also warrant review to
determine if they are foundational technologies essential to the
national security. For example, such controls may be reviewed if the
items are being utilized or required for innovation in developing
conventional weapons, enabling foreign intelligence collection
activities, or weapons of mass destruction applications.
    BIS, through an interagency process, seeks to determine whether
there are specific foundational technologies that warrant more
restrictive controls, including technologies that have been the subject
of illicit procurement attempts which may demonstrate some level of
dependency on U.S. technologies to further foreign military or
intelligence capabilities in countries of concern or development of
weapons of mass destruction.
    BIS welcomes comments on: (1) How to further define foundational
technology to assist in identification of such items; (2) sources to
identify such items; (3) criteria to determine whether controlled items
identified in AT level Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs),
in whole or in part, or covered by EAR99 categories, for which a
license is not required to countries subject to a U.S. arms embargo,
are essential to U.S. national security; (4) the status of development
of foundational technologies in the United States and other countries;
(5) the impact specific foundational technology controls may have on
the development of such technologies in the U.S.; (6) examples of
implementing controls based on end-use and/or end-user rather than, or
in addition to, technology based controls; (7) any enabling
technologies, including tooling, testing, and certification equipment,
that should be included within the scope of a foundational technology;
and (8) any other approaches to the issue of identifying foundational
technologies important to U.S. national security, including the stage
of development or maturity level of an foundational technology that
would warrant consideration for export control.

    BIS does not seek to expand jurisdiction over technologies that are
not currently subject to the EAR, such as ``fundamental research''
described in Sec.  734.8 of the EAR.
    BIS will review public comments submitted in response to this ANPRM
to help inform BIS and its interagency partners' efforts to identify,
reevaluate and subsequently control foundational technologies. This
interagency process is expected to result in rules and comment periods
with new control levels for items currently controlled for AT reasons
on the CCL or new ECCNs on the CCL for technologies currently
classified as EAR99.
    OMB has determined that this action is significant under Executive
Order 12866.

Submission of Comments

    Comments should be submitted to BIS as described in the ADDRESSES
section of this ANPRM by October 26, 2020.

Matthew S. Borman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.

[FR Doc. 2020-18910 Filed 8-26-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 105 (Thursday, June 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35869-35871]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11664]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0374; FRL-10959-01-OCSPP]

DCPA Registration Review; Draft Occupational and Residential Risk
Assessment; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's draft human
health occupational and residential risk assessment for the
registration review of Dimethyl Tetrachloroterephthalate (DCPA) for the
registered uses of DCPA and opens a public comment period on the
assessment. The risk assessment is accompanied by several related
documents, including an assessment of the benefits associated with the
use of DCPA and a companion document to aid in interpretation of the
risk assessment and provide an explanation of the approach being
considered by EPA to address the potential risks.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 3, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0374, through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Additional
instructions on commenting and visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Douglass, Chemical Review
Manager, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508M), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the

Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may
be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
Chemical Review Manager listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. Background

    Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide
registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the
statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform
its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human
health or the environment. Through this program, required by FIFRA
section 3(g), 7 U.S.C. 136a(g), EPA must ensure that each pesticide's
registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge,
including its effects on human health and the environment. As part of
the registration review process, the Agency has completed a draft
occupational and residential risk assessment for the registered uses of
DCPA. DCPA is an herbicide used to control grassy and broadleaf weeds
on a variety of use sites including cole crops, onions, and turf. The
Agency is taking the unusual step of publishing the DCPA occupational
and residential risk assessment in advance of other pieces of the human
health risk assessment and the ecological risk assessment because of
newly submitted data on the toxicity of DCPA. These data, from a
Comparative Thyroid Assay conducted in rats, suggest that there are
potential risks for people exposed to DCPA during their work and
leisure activities. The Agency anticipates that there is the potential
for some pregnant workers to be exposed to levels of DCPA that are
sufficient to cause thyroid hormone perturbations in the fetuses they
are carrying. In order to determine the best path forward, the Agency
is seeking comments on the draft occupational and residential risk
assessment. The assessment is accompanied by several related documents,
including an assessment of the benefits associated with the use of DCPA
and a companion document to aid in interpretation of the risk
assessment and to explain the approach being considered by EPA to
address the potential risks. After reviewing comments received during
the public comment period, EPA plans to respond to those comments and,
if warranted, will issue a revised risk assessment. EPA encourages
public input on all aspects of the assessment and mitigation of the
potential occupational and residential risks for DCPA. The Agency will
also keep the public advised on aspects related to risk mitigation as
warranted.

III. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of DCPA pursuant to
section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at 40
CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other
things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every
15 years. Under FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain
registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration
given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in
accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the
pesticide product must perform its intended function without
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is, without any
unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human dietary risk
from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in or on food.

IV. What action is the Agency taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.53(c), this notice announces the
availability of EPA's draft human health occupational and residential
risk assessment for the pesticide DCPA and opens a 30-day public
comment period on the risk assessment. In order to expedite Agency
action to address the risks posed by DCPA, the comment period will not
be extended. The Agency will consider all comments received during the
public comment period and make changes, as appropriate, to the draft
risk assessment. After the close of the public comment period, EPA may,
as needed, issue a revised occupational and residential risk
assessment, explain any changes to the draft risk assessment, and
respond to comments. Public comments received during the 30-day comment
period will help inform the Agency's next steps. Unless any new
information comes to light during this time that significantly changes
the risk conclusions, the Agency is considering if cancellation of all
DCPA product registrations is necessary.
Information Submission Requirements
    Anyone may submit data or information in response to this document.
To be considered during a pesticide's registration review, the
submitted data or information must meet the following requirements:
     To ensure that EPA will consider data or information
submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information
during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider
data or information submitted at a later date.
     The data or information submitted must be presented in a
legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must
accompany any material that is not in English, and a written transcript
must accompany any information submitted as an audio graphic or
videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or
electronic form.
     Submitters must clearly identify the source of any
submitted data or information.
     Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or
information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However,
submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider
the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.

    As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for
DCPA will remain publicly accessible through the duration of the
registration review process; that is, until all actions required in the
final decision on the registration review case have been completed.
    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: May 25, 2023.
Mary Elissa Reaves,
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2023-11664 Filed 5-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 192 (Thursday, October 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55838-55840]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21945]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. CP21-463-000]

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Scoping Period
Requesting Comments on Environmental Issues for the Proposed Holbrook
Compressor Units Replacement Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental document, that will discuss
the environmental impacts of the Holbrook Compressor Units Replacement
Project (Project) involving abandonment, construction, and operation of
facilities by Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) in Greene
County, Pennsylvania. The Commission will use this environmental
document in its decision-making process to determine whether the
project is in the public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies regarding the project. As part of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) review process, the Commission takes into account
concerns the public may have about proposals and the environmental
impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the
issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. This
gathering of public input is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal
of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the environmental
document on the important environmental issues. Additional information
about the Commission's NEPA process is described below in the NEPA
Process and Environmental Document section of this notice.
    By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the
scope of issues to address in the environmental document. To ensure
that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your
comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 1, 2021. Comments should be
submitted in written form. Further details on how to submit comments
are provided in the Public Participation section of this notice.
    Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects,
reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental
impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what
issues they need to evaluate in the environmental document. Commission
staff will consider all comments during the preparation of the
environmental document.
    If you submitted comments on this Project to the Commission before
the opening of this docket on June 17, 2021, you will need to file
those comments in Docket No. CP21-463-000 to ensure they are considered
as part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this Project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
Project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable

easement agreement. You are not required to enter into an agreement.
However, if the Commission approves the Project, the Natural Gas Act
conveys the right of eminent domain to the company. Therefore, if you
and the company do not reach an easement agreement, the pipeline
company could initiate condemnation proceedings in court. In such
instances, compensation would be determined by a judge in accordance
with state law. The Commission does not subsequently grant, exercise,
or oversee the exercise of that eminent domain authority. The courts
have exclusive authority to handle eminent domain cases; the Commission
has no jurisdiction over these matters.
    Texas Eastern provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the
FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do
I Need To Know?'' which addresses typically asked questions, including
the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's
proceedings. This fact sheet along with other landowner topics of
interest are available for viewing on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov)
under the Natural Gas Questions or Landowner Topics link.

Public Participation

    There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the
Commission. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your
comments are properly recorded. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. Using eComment is an easy method for
submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making; a comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment
on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the Commission. Be sure to reference the Project docket number (CP21-
463-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service
must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and
submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These
instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification
and provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of
time you spend researching proceedings. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register for eSubscription.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Texas Eastern proposes to abandon 12 existing reciprocating
compressor units dating from the 1950s, and replace them with 2 new
units, at its existing Holbrook Compressor Station (Station). Texas
Eastern's stated purpose for this Project is to ensure the continued
safe and reliable operation of the Station, while meeting all current
air emissions requirements. Texas Eastern states that the 12 existing
reciprocating units are outdated and seeks to replace them with two
new, more efficient units. The two new compressor units proposed for
this Project would utilize Solar's SoLoNOX dry low emissions
technology for the control of oxides of nitrogen; and the new units
would be equipped with oxidation catalysts for the control of carbon
monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and organic hazardous air
pollutants.
    The general location of the Project is shown in appendix 1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary''. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice. 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
FERC at [email protected] or call toll free,<PHONE_NUMBER>
or TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Constructing the Project would require the temporary use of a total
of about 39.8 acres of land. About 33.5 acres of workspace would be
within the existing fence line of the Station. About 1.4 acres would be
outside of the Station fence line. Texas Eastern also proposes to use
about 4.8 acres at a temporary construction yard, the Bristoria
Wareyard, for staging of materials and equipment. This yard is owned by
Texas Eastern.

NEPA Process and the Environmental Document

    Any environmental document issued by the Commission will discuss
impacts that could occur as a result of the abandonment, construction,
and operation of the proposed Project under the relevant general
resource areas:
     Geology and soils;
     water resources and wetlands;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     protected species;
     cultural resources;
     land use;
     air quality and noise; and
     reliability and safety.
    Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the
proposed Project or portions of the Project and make recommendations on
how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your
comments will help Commission staff identify and focus on the issues
that might have an effect on the human environment and potentially
eliminate others from further study and discussion in the environmental
document.
    Following this scoping period, Commission staff will determine
whether to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). The EA or the EIS will present Commission
staff's independent analysis of the issues. If Commission staff
prepares an EA, a Notice of Schedule for the Preparation of an
Environmental Assessment will be issued. The EA may be issued for an
allotted public comment period. The Commission would consider timely
comments on the EA before making its decision regarding the proposed
project. If Commission staff prepares an EIS, a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an EIS/Notice of Schedule will be issued, which will open up an
additional comment period. Staff will then prepare a draft EIS which
will be issued for public comment. Commission staff will consider all
timely comments received during the comment period on the draft EIS and
revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. Any EA
or draft and final EIS will be available in electronic format in the
public record through eLibrary \2\ and the

Commission's natural gas environmental documents web page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). If eSubscribed, you will receive instant email notification
when the environmental document is issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with
jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the
environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the
preparation of the environmental document.\3\ Agencies that would like
to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for
filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), Part 1501.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate
consultation with the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office,
and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies,
interested Indian tribes, and the public on the Project's potential
effects on historic properties.\4\ The environmental document for this
Project will document findings on the impacts on historic properties
and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at 36 CFR 800. Those regulations define historic properties as
any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or
object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Indian tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the Project and includes a mailing address with their
comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to
this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations,
and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by
the proposed project.
    If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of
the following steps:
    (1) Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>stating your
request. You must include the docket number CP21-463-000 in your
request. If you are requesting a change to your address, please be sure
to include your name and the correct address. If you are requesting to
delete your address from the mailing list, please include your name and
address as it appeared on this notice. This email address is unable to
accept comments.
    OR
    (2) Return the attached ``Mailing List Update Form'' (appendix 2).

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number
in the ``Docket Number'' field. Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/events along with
other related information.

    Dated: October 1, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-21945 Filed 10-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 144)]
[Notices]
[Page 44289-44291]
[DOCID:fr28jy10-122]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2006-0028]

MET Laboratories, Inc.; Application for Expansion of Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the application of MET Laboratories,
Inc., (MET) for expansion of its recognition, and presents the Agency's
preliminary finding to grant this request. This preliminary finding
does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of this
application.

DATES: Submit information or comments, or any request for extension of
the time to comment, on or before August 12, 2010. All submissions must
bear a postmark or provide other evidence of the submission date.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by any of the following methods:
    Electronically: Submit comments electronically at http://
www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow
the instructions online for making electronic submissions.
    Fax: If submissions, including attachments, are no longer than 10
pages, commenters may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, or messenger or courier service:
Submit one copy of the comments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No.
OSHA-2006-0028, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, and
messenger and courier service) are accepted during the Department of
Labor's and Docket Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m.,
e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
OSHA docket number (i.e., OSHA-2006-0028).

OSHA will place all submissions, including any personal information
provided, in the public docket without revision, and these submissions
will be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: To read or download submissions or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket are listed in the http:/
/www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g.,
copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download
through the Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material,
are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
    Extension of comment period: Submit requests for an extension of
the comment period on or before August 12, 2010 to the Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210,
or by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MaryAnn Garrahan, Director, Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. For information about the NRTL Program, go
to http://www.osha.gov, and select ``N'' in the site index.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice of Expansion Application

    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is
providing notice that MET Laboratories, Inc., (MET) applied for
expansion of its current recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratory (NRTL). MET's expansion request covers the use of additional
test standards.
    OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the legal requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within its
scope of recognition, and is not a delegation or grant of government
authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products
approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and
certification.
    The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial
recognition, or for an expansion or renewal of this recognition,
following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix
requires that the Agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides its preliminary finding, and, in the second
notice, the Agency provides its final decision on the application.
These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or
modifications of that scope. OSHA maintains an informational Web page
for each NRTL that details its scope of recognition. These pages can be
accessed from the Web site at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/
index.html. Each NRTL's scope of recognition has three elements: (1)
The type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its
applicable test standard; (2) the recognized site(s) that have the
technical capability to perform the testing and certification
activities for the applicable test standards within the NRTL's scope of
recognition; and (3) the supplemental program(s) that the NRTL may use,
each of which allows the NRTL to rely on other parties to perform
activities necessary for testing and certification.

General Background on the Application

    MET submitted two applications, dated October 6 and November 3,
2008, to expand its recognition to include 18 additional test
standards. The NRTL Program staff determined that these standards are
``appropriate test standards'' within the meaning of 29 CFR 1910.7(c).
In connection with this request, NRTL Program staff did not perform an
on-site review of MET's recognized sites. However, the staff analyzed
other information pertinent to the request and determined that MET has
the capabilities to perform the testing to 12 of the standards, which
are listed below. As a result, the Agency would approve these 12 test
standards for the expansion.
    MET seeks expansion of its recognition for testing and
certification of products to the following test standards:\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The designations and titles of these test standards were
current at the time of the preparation of this notice.

UL 244A Solid State Controls for Appliances
UL 412 Refrigeration Unit Coolers
UL 458* Power Converters/Inverters and Power Converter/Inverter Systems
for Land Vehicles and Marine Crafts
UL 466 Electric Scales
UL 561 Floor-Finishing Machines
UL 1230 Amateur Movie Lights
UL 1278 Movable and Wall or Ceiling Hung Electric Room Heaters
UL 1594 Sewing and Cutting Machines
UL 1795 Hydromassage Bathtubs
UL 1951 Electric Plumbing Accessories
UL 1996 Electric Duct Heaters
UL 2021 Fixed and Location Dedicated Electric Room Heaters

    * This standard is approved for testing and certification of
products for use within recreational vehicles and mobile homes.

    OSHA's recognition of MET, or any NRTL, for a particular test
standard is limited to equipment or materials (i.e., products) for
which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification
before use in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also
covers any product(s) for which OSHA does not require such testing and
certification, an NRTL's scope of recognition does not include that
product(s).
    The test standards listed above may be approved as American
National Standards by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
However, for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-
developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI
designation. Under the program's policy, any NRTL recognized for a
particular test standard may use either the latest proprietary version
of the test standard or the latest ANSI version of that standard.
Contact ANSI to determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI
approved.

Preliminary Finding on the Application

    MET submitted an acceptable request for expansion of its
recognition as an NRTL. OSHA's review of the application file and other
pertinent documents indicates that MET can meet the requirements, as
prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7, for an expansion of its recognition to
include the additional test standards listed above. This preliminary
finding does not constitute interim or temporary approval of the
application.
    OSHA welcomes public comments, in sufficient detail, as to whether
MET meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its
recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory. Comments
should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters
needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating
the reasons for the request. OSHA must receive the written request for
an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any

extension to 30 days unless the requester justifies a longer period.
OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not adequately
justified. You may obtain or review copies of MET's request and other
pertinent documents, and all submitted comments, online at http://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No. OSHA-2006-0028; or you may contact
the Docket Office, Room N-2625, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address. Docket
No. OSHA-2006-0028 contains all materials in the record concerning
MET's application.
    The NRTL Program staff will review all timely comments and, after
addressing the issues raised by these comments, will recommend whether
to grant MET's expansion request. The Assistant Secretary will make the
final decision on granting the request, and, in making this decision,
may undertake other proceedings that are prescribed in Appendix A to 29
CFR 1910.7. OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in
the Federal Register.

Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210,
directed the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is
issuing this notice pursuant to Sections 6(b) and 8(g) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655 and 657),
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), and 29 CFR part
1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on July 22, 2010.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-18438 Filed 7-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


                               Site Visit Report

	Walter Scott, Jr. Energy Center
	7215 Navajo Road
	Council Bluffs, IA 51501
      March 2, 2009

1.0 Background and Objectives

      The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of developing 316(b) cooling water intake structure (CWIS) requirements that reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impact for all existing power plants and manufacturing facilities. As part of this process, EPA staff is visiting electric generators and manufacturers to better understand the CWIS technologies in use at facilities, including the site-specific characteristics of each facility and how these affect the selection and performance of CWIS technologies.  EPA is also visiting facilities to better understand cooling water use and specific issues or technologies that can affect 316(b) compliance.  Walter Scott, Jr. Energy Center (WSEC) was selected for a site visit due to its location on a large freshwater river.

2.0 Facility Description

      WSEC is located approximately four miles south of downtown Council Bluffs, Iowa.  The facility began operations in 1954.  Units 1, 2, and 3 withdraw once-through cooling water from the Missouri River, and Unit 4 withdraws closed-cycle cooling tower make-up water from four lateral alluvial wells.  WSEC is regulated by NPDES permit IA0004308 (which expired February 26, 2008) and is owned by MidAmerican Energy Company.  The facility employs approximately 220 people.  The facility and surrounding land encompasses approximately 1,195 acres.

3.0 Electricity Generation and Transmission

      WSEC consists of four coal-fueled generating units with a total generating capacity of 1623 MW.   The facility's low sulfur coal comes via rail from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming; 128 car trains arrive approximately every 18 hours and the facility uses about seven million tons of coal per year.  The facility's capacity utilization rate (CUR) is approximately 80%; all four generating units operate as baseload units.

      The transmission system is owned by MidAmerican Energy Company but is operated by a different business unit.

4.0 Cooling Water System and Intake Structure

      WSEC has two CWISs that withdraw cooling water from the shoreline of the Missouri River.  Units 1 and 2 share one CWIS; it has four traveling screens and four circulating water pumps.  Unit 3's CWIS has four screens and four circulating water pumps.  The design intake flow (DIF) for the facility is 662 million gallons per day (mgd) and the average actual intake flow (AIF) for 2009 was 470 mgd.  Units 1-3 utilize once-through cooling and Unit 4 uses a closed-cycle cooling system (see Section 6.0 below).

      Units 1-3 employ coarse mesh traveling screens.  Units 1 and 2 have standard debris return troughs that return fish and debris to the river; Unit 3 has a separate fish spray wash and trough that combines with the debris return before being discharged to the river.  The screens automatically rotate every 15-20 minutes and are cleaned with a high pressure spray wash; during high debris loading periods, the screens often operate continuously.  The design through-screen velocity ranges from 1.7 to 1.9 feet per second (fps) at Units 1-2 and approximately three fps at Unit 3.

      Scheduled four to six week major maintenance outages are taken on each unit as needed (typically once every 4 years).  For Units 1-3, one traveling screen and circulating pump are refurbished each year.  Maintenance can be scheduled during the winter, when all of the screens and pumps are not required for normal operations.

5.0 Impingement and Entrainment Information

      WSEC is currently working to finalize a 2007 impingement study; this study will also include an evaluation of intake technologies and compliance approaches.

6.0 Cooling Tower Feasibility

      Facility representatives stated that close-cycle cooling was not reasonably feasible for WSEC Units 1-3.  They noted a number of potential problems: space constraints, a loss of generating efficiency, high costs, and icing on the transmission lines.

      The cooling tower for Unit 4 (a 22-cell mechanical draft tower with two back-to-back rows of 11 cells) was not designed with plume abatement and typically cycles water 6-8 times before blowdown.  The towers use a standard mix of biocides -- 12.5% sodium hypochlorite and bisulfate at the basin discharge.  The system loses approximately two percent of the circulating flow to evaporation.

7.0 Debris Handling

      WSEC has historically had issues with debris in the spring, when leaves, sticks, and eroded low-grade coal (found in the surrounding soil) are swept up in the rising waters.  Because a major outage occurred on Unit 3 as a result of debris, the facility installed a 5mm Tapproge debris filter on Unit 3.

      According to facility representatives, ice is not a significant problem at WSEC.  The facility is capable of recirculating warm water to the CWIS to address the issue.  However, at the time of the site visit, Unit 1 had been taken offline due to ice blocking the intake and causing condenser vacuum problems.

      The condenser also experiences some scaling and calcium deposits, but this issue is manageable; a firm is hired once per year to remove these deposits.

8.0 Repowering/Future Uses

      WSEC's Unit 4 began operations in 2007.  There are no plans for additional units at the facility at this time.

      The facility also provides steam to a neighboring ethanol manufacturing plant that recently began operations.  WSEC provides approximately 475,000 pounds of steam per hour from Unit 3, which represents approximately 10% of the main steam flow.

9.0 Cooling Ponds

      There are no cooling ponds on site.

10.0 Ownership

      The WSEC facility is operated by MidAmerican Energy, an investor-owned utility. Units 1 and 2 are 100% owned by MidAmerican Energy Company, whereas Units 3 and 4 are jointly-owned units.

11.0 316(a)

      Facility representatives stated that, under the current NPDES permit, WSEC is not subject to any 316(a) limitations. They expect to complete a thermal plume mixing zone study later this year.

12.0 Ash Handling

      Fly ash from Units 1-3 is typically sold for beneficial uses, but is occasionally stored in a lined monofill when market conditions are unfavorable.  Bottom ash from Units 1-3 is wet sluiced to two onsite impoundments; facility representatives noted that they are researching potential markets for the sale of the bottom ash.

      Fly ash and bottom ash from Unit 4 is stored in an onsite lined monofill.

      The Army Corps of Engineers conducts inspections of the levees surrounding the surface impoundments and performs any necessary maintenance.

13.0 Air Emissions Controls

      WSEC uses low NOx burners on all of its generating units, and overfire air is installed on Units 2-4.  Dry scrubber and baghouse systems are installed on Units 3 and 4; and a selective catalytic reduction system and activated carbon injection system is installed on Unit 4.  Materials provided by the facility also note that Unit 4 uses a supercritical boiler, increasing efficiency and reducing carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 15%.  There are no firm plans for any additional air emission control equipment at this time.

Attachments

Attachment A		List of Attendees
Attachment B		Aerial Photo
Attachment C		Walter Scott Energy Center Fact Sheet
Attachment D		Walter Scott Energy Center CWIS Information
Attachment E		Engineering and Flow Diagrams
Attachment F		Site Photos
Attachment G		Proposal for Information Collection

Attachment A--List of Attendees

Paul Shriner, EPA Headquarters
Jan Matuszko, EPA Headquarters
Jamie Hurley, EPA Headquarters
John Dunn, EPA Region VII
Glenn Curtis, EPA Region VII
John Bender, Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
Kelly Meadows, Tetra Tech
Matt Finnegan, MidAmerican
John Lusan, MidAmerican
Spencer Moore, MidAmerican
David O'Dell, MidAmerican
Mark Podany, MidAmerican
Jeff Walters, MidAmerican

Attachment B - Aerial Photo

Please see DCN 10-6518A accompanying this document

Attachment C--Walter Scott Energy Center Fact Sheet

Please see DCN 10-6518B accompanying this document

Attachment D--Walter Scott Energy Center CWIS Information

Please see DCN 10-6518C accompanying this document

Attachment E	--Engineering and Flow Diagrams

Please see DCN 10-6518D accompanying this document

Attachment F	--Site Photos

Please see DCN 10-6518E accompanying this document

Attachment G--Proposal for Information Collection

Please see DCN 10-6518F accompanying this document


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on May 4, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN – DOCKET OST 2001-10457

 _______________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  AEROVIAS de MEXICO, S.A. de C.V.
                       Date Filed: March 23, 2004

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to continue to conduct scheduled, combination services between
Cancun, Mexico, and Cincinnati, Ohio (operated only by code-share with
Delta Air Lines).

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  May 2, 2003, in this
Docket.

Applicant representative(s):  William C. Evans,<PHONE_NUMBER>       DOT
analyst:  Allen F. Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.
         Action date:  May 4, 2004

Effective dates of authority granted:  May 4, 2004, through May 9, 2005.

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  United
States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement.

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  Standard exemption
conditions.

Special conditions:  Aeromexico may only conduct this service by
code-share with Delta Air Lines.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp