[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 193 (Thursday, October 6, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 60673]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21782]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-2959-000]

Second Foundation US Trading, 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
Second Foundation US Trading, 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 October 20, 2022.
    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: September 30, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-21782 Filed 10-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


1 Toxics Release Inventory TRI Burden Reduction Update October 19, 2004 Kevin Donovan 202 566 0676 Donovan. Kevin e @ epa. gov 2 TRI Burden Reduction Update Agenda October 19, 2004 AM ° 9: 00   Welcome ° 9: 15  Review of Overall Burden Reduction Strategy ° 9: 45   TRI Reporting Forms Modification Rule ° 10: 30   Break ° 10: 45   TRI Reporting Forms Discussion and Summary 3 TRI Burden Reduction Update Agenda ( Continued)

° 11: 15   TRI Program Related Burden Reduction Options and Public Comment Summary ° 11: 50   Lunch PM ° 1: 00   Approach to Options Analysis ° 1: 30  General Discussion on Options Analysis ° 2: 30  Break ° 2: 45  Summary of Overall BR Efforts and Wrap up ° 3: 30  Meeting Ends 4 ° The purpose for this stakeholder dialogue is to develop a burden reduction initiative that provides meaningful burden relief while at the same time continuing to provide valuable information to the public consistent with the goals and statutory requirements of the TRI program.

° On November 5, 2003, TRI posted a stakeholder dialogue paper with 5 specific options for burden reduction to initiate Phase II of the TRI Stakeholder Dialogue.

EPA also requested comment on any other burden reduction not specifically discussed in the paper as well as asking for comment on ways to improve the Toxics Release Inventory  Made Easy ( TRI ME) software.

° The comment period closed on February 4, 2004.

° EPA received over 700 comments, which are posted on the Agency's EDOCKET under TRI 2003 0001 at www. epa. gov/ edocket.

Overall Burden Reduction Strategy 5 Overall Burden Reduction Strategy ° All options are still under consideration.

° Based on stakeholder input and public comment, we are pursuing a 2 tiered approach. 6 Key Terms For Today ° TRI Reporting Forms R and A Modifications   Proposed rule anticipated release: December 2004 ° TRI ` Program Related' Burden Reduction Options   Propose rule anticipated release: August 2005 7 TRI National Meeting ° TRI National Meeting   February 9 11,

2005, open to public. Likely discussion on Burden Reduction. http:// www. ecos. org/

Look under ` events.'


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 72227]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30070]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Regulation S-K; OMB Control No. 3235-0071; SEC File No. 270-2.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Regulation S-K (17 CFR 229.101--et seq.) specifies the non-
financial disclosure requirements applicable to registration statements
under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.); and
registration statements, periodic reports, going-private transaction
and tender offer statements, proxy and information statements, and any
other documents required to be filed under Sections 12, 13, 14, and 15
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l, 78m, 78n,
78o(d)). Regulation S-K is assigned one burden hour for administrative
convenience.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     Dated: November 16, 2011.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-30070 Filed 11-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 227 (Friday, November 25, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72666-72671]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30330]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 192

[Docket No. PHMSA-2011-0009]
RIN 2137-AE71

Pipeline Safety: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas
Distribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family
Residences

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has made a
safety recommendation to PHMSA that excess flow valves be installed in
all new and renewed gas service lines, regardless of a customer's
classification, when the operating conditions are compatible with
readily available valves. In response to that recommendation, PHMSA is
seeking public comment on several issues relating to the expanded use
of excess flow valves (EFVs) in gas distribution systems. PHMSA is also
interested in seeking comment from gas distribution system operators on
their experiences using EFVs, particularly from a cost-benefit
perspective.

DATES: Persons interested in submitting written comments on this ANPRM
must do so by February 18, 2012. PHMSA will consider late filed
comments so far as practicable.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number
PHMSA-2011-0009 by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-(202) 493-2251.

     Mail: Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT), Docket Management System, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001 between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Instructions: If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies.
To receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, include a
self-addressed stamped postcard.

    Note: Comments are posted without changes or edits to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
There is a privacy statement published on http://www.regulations.gov.

Privacy Act Statement

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
response to any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting
the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement was published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Israni, by telephone at (202)
366-4571, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by mail at DOT, PHMSA, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., PHP-1, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Congress authorized Federal regulation of gas pipeline facilities
and PHMSA has statutory authority to prescribe safety standards and
practices for gas pipeline facilities. That authorization is codified
in the Pipeline Safety Regulations (PSR) (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.), a
series of statutes that are administered by the DOT, PHMSA.
    On October 24, 1992, Congress enacted the Pipeline Safety Act (PSA)
of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-508). Section 104 of the PSA (codified as amended
at 49 U.S.C. 60110) stated, in relevant part:
    (1) Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of
this subsection, the Secretary [of Transportation] shall issue
regulations prescribing the circumstances, if any, under which
operators of natural gas distribution systems must install excess flow
valves in such systems. In prescribing such circumstances, the
Secretary shall consider--
    (A) The system design pressure and the system operating pressure;
    (B) The types of customers to which the distribution system
supplies natural gas, including hospitals, schools, and commercial
enterprises;
    (C) The technical feasibility and cost of the installation of such
valves;
    (D) The public safety benefits of the installation of such valves;
    (E) The location of customer meters; and
    (F) Such other factors as the Secretary determines to be relevant.
    Section 104 further stated, in relevant part:
    (2) Not later than two years after the date of the enactment of
this subsection, the Secretary [of Transportation] shall issue
regulations requiring operators of natural gas distribution systems to
notify, in writing, their customers with lines in which excess flow
valves are not required by law, but can be installed in accordance with
the performance standards developed under paragraph (4)--
    (A) Of the availability of excess flow valves for installation in
such systems,
    (B) Of any safety benefits to be derived from the installation, and
    (C) Of any costs associated with the installation.
    Such regulations shall provide that, except in circumstances under
which the installation is required under paragraph (1), excess flow
valves shall be installed at the request of a customer if the customer
will pay all costs associated with the installation.
    Finally, section 104 stated, in relevant part:
    (3) Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of
this paragraph, the Secretary [of Transportation] shall develop
standards for the performance of excess flow valves used to protect
lines in natural gas distribution systems. Such standards shall be
incorporated into any regulations issued by the Secretary under this
subsection. All installations of excess flow valves shall be made in
accordance with such standards.
    On June 20, 1996 (61 FR 31449), PHMSA's predecessor agency, the
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), issued a final
rule on the installation of EFVs in single-family-residence service
lines. RSPA determined that the mandatory installation of EFVs was not
justified under any circumstances, primarily because the costs of such
a requirement far exceeded the benefits. RSPA also adopted a standard
for the performance and installation of EFVs in single-family-residence
service lines (codified at 49 CFR 192.381). In a later final rule,
dated February 3, 1998 (63 FR 5464), RSPA adopted a requirement that
written notice about the availability of EFVs be provided to customers
with single-family-residence service lines that operate at or above 10
pounds per square inch gauge (psig), and that those customers be
further advised that the operator would install an EFV at the
customer's expense.
    Part 192 of the PSR in combination with measures mandated in the
Distribution Integrity Management Program (DIMP) and continual
monitoring of leaks has increased pipeline safety significantly in
recent years. PHMSA continues to review the way pipelines are regulated
and adopt strategies to improve pipeline safety. Programs such as
damage prevention, public awareness, and operator qualifications have
enhanced pipeline safety. Unfortunately, on rare occasions, the layers
of protection fail and the results can have serious consequences.
    On July 7, 1998, a natural gas explosion occurred at a single
family residence in South Riding, Virginia, killing one person and
injuring three others. NTSB investigated the incident and determined
that the cause of the explosion was a service line failure. NTSB
further concluded that an EFV would have cut off the flow of gas in the
service line and prevented the explosion. Citing that conclusion, on
June 22, 2001, the NTSB issued Safety Recommendation P-01-2 (SR P-01-
2). SR P-01-2 recommended ``that excess flow valves be installed in all
new and renewed gas service lines, regardless of a customer's
classification, when the operating conditions are compatible with
readily available valves.''
    On December 29, 2006, Congress enacted the Pipeline Inspection,
Protection, Enforcement, and Safety (PIPES) Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-
468). Section 9 of the PIPES Act (codified at 49 U.S.C. 60109(e))
stated that ``[n]ot later than December 31, 2007, the Secretary [of
Transportation] shall prescribe minimum standards for integrity
management programs for distribution pipelines.'' Section 9 further
stated that those:
    [M]inimum standards shall include a requirement for an operator of
a natural gas distribution system to install an excess flow valve on
each single family residence service line connected to such system if--
    (i) The service line is installed or entirely replaced after June
1, 2008;
    (ii) The service line operates continuously throughout the year at
a pressure not less than 10 pounds per square inch gauge;
    (iii) The service line is not connected to a gas stream with
respect to which the operator has had prior experience with
contaminants the presence of

which could interfere with the operation of an excess flow valve;
    (iv) The installation of an excess flow valve on the service line
is not likely to cause loss of service to the residence or interfere
with necessary operation or maintenance activities, such as purging
liquids from the service line; and
    (v) An excess flow valve meeting performance standards developed
under section 60110(e) of title 49, United States Code, is commercially
available to the operator, as determined by the Secretary.
    On December 4, 2009, (74 FR 63934) PHMSA issued a final rule with
minimum standards for distribution pipeline integrity management. Those
standards included a mandatory installation requirement for EFVs
(codified at 49 CFR 192.383):
    (b) Installation required. An EFV installation must comply with the
performance standards in Sec.  192.381. The operator must install an
EFV on any new or replaced service line serving a single-family
residence after February 12, 2010, unless one or more of the following
conditions is present:
    (1) The service line does not operate at a pressure of 10 psig or
greater throughout the year;
    (2) The operator has prior experience with contaminants in the gas
stream that could interfere with the EFV's operation or cause loss of
service to a residence;
    (3) An EFV could interfere with necessary operation or maintenance
activities, such as blowing liquids from the line; or
    (4) An EFV meeting performance standards in Sec.  192.381 is not
commercially available to the operator.
    A requirement that operators report the number of installed EFVs on
annual basis was also included in that regulation.
    In Section 9 of the PIPES Act, Congress mandated that EFVs be
installed on service lines serving single family residences. Other
kinds of service lines, including those that serve branched single
family residences, apartment buildings, other multi-residential
dwellings, commercial properties, or industrial facilities, are not
subject to that statutory mandate, even though such lines are
susceptible to the same risks as single-family-residence service lines.
Though Congress has not expressly mandated the use of EFVs to
applications other than single-family residences, PHMSA has broad
authority under 49 U.S.C. 60102 to prescribe safety standards requiring
that EFVs be installed on those lines in appropriate cases. Operators
of gas distribution systems can also expand the use of EFVs to
applications other than service lines for single family residences as
part of their broader obligation to develop and implement an integrity
management program (49 CFR part 192 subpart B).

II. Interim Evaluation: Response to NTSB Recommendation To Use EFVs in
Applications Other Than Service Lines Serving One Single Family
Residence

    In June and August of 2009, PHMSA held public meetings on NTSB's
recommendation in SR P-01-2 to expand the use of EFVs. The meeting
participants included the National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners, the National Association of Pipeline Safety
Representatives, the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC)
the National Association of State Fire Marshals (NASFM), natural gas
distribution operators, trade associations, manufacturers, and the
Pipeline Safety Trust. As a result of these meetings, PHMSA issued a
report titled, ``Interim Evaluation: NTSB Recommendation P-01-2 Excess
Flow Valves in Applications Other Than Service Lines Serving One Single
Family Residence'' (Interim Evaluation) (available in Docket No.:
PHMSA-2011-0009 at http://www.regulations.gov.). The Interim Evaluation
incorporates input from the meeting participants and addresses issues
related to the installation of EFVs on branched service lines serving
more than one single family residence, multi-family residential
dwellings such as apartments, commercial services and industrial
applications on systems which operate above 10 psig where outside force
damage could occur to a DOT regulated service. The report provides
background on NTSB's recommendations and PHMSA's regulatory and non-
regulatory initiatives targeted at reducing the occurrence of failures
on service lines. The Interim Evaluation also describes the
characteristics of U.S. distribution systems, EFVs' safety function to
mitigate the consequences of an incident, industry's operating
experience, the technical challenges, and the commercial availability
of EFVs for installation in services other than single family
residences. The report explores alternatives (e.g., curb valves) to the
installation of an EFV and discusses the information that is needed to
develop an economic analysis. The report also considers the need for
adoption and enhancement of EFV technical standards or guidelines.
    Curb valves, essentially a service valve, often are installed close
to the main for larger services which serve public buildings such as
schools, churches, commercial buildings, as well as services with
indoor residential meters. The location and operability of these valves
in an emergency are relevant in terms of their use as a viable
alternative to EFVs.

III. Expanded Use of EFVs

    In recent years, PHMSA has expanded regulatory requirements aimed
at reducing the risk of pipeline incidents. These measures have in
large part been directed to lowering the likelihood of failures by
preventing damage to pipelines. EFVs do not prevent accidents but do
mitigate the consequences of incidents by greatly reducing the amount
of gas released to the atmosphere when significant damage occurs. EFVs
help mitigate the potential consequences of a high rate, high volume
gas release. Where installed, EFVs are complementary to damage
prevention programs and other pipeline safety efforts that focus on
preventing accidents caused by outside forces. The following reasons
have been identified for expanding the use of EFVs to additional
classes of service:
     Likelihood of EFV mitigating the consequences of an
incident: Based on incident report information submitted to PHMSA,
during March 2004-December 2009, approximately 148 out of a total of
914 incidents (16%) were located on a service or meter/regulator set
and potentially severe enough to trigger an EFV if one were present.
These incidents were reported as leaks with a puncture, rupture, or a
catastrophic failure.
     Likelihood of an incident occurring on a service line
other than a single family residence: Of the 148 incidents deemed to be
candidates for prevention by an EFV in the report, 87 (59%) were
serving customers other than single family residences. Service lines
serving other than a single-family residence represent approximately
30% of new and replaced natural gas service lines. Therefore, there is
a much greater probability that failure of a service line other than a
single family residence will result in an incident.
     Limitations to the Effectiveness of Damage Prevention
Efforts to Prevent an Incident: The frequency of service line incidents
caused by excavation damage has decreased, but there has not been a
corresponding reduction in consequences, (i.e., in terms of fatalities,
injuries, fires, explosion or property damage). Furthermore, one-third
of the incidents in which an EFV might have mitigated the consequences
and for which the cause was listed as excavation damage occurred after
a One-

Call notification. While incidents occur less frequently when a One-
Call notification is placed, the One-Call notification system does not
eliminate incidents. PHMSA's evaluation found that the pipeline was
marked in 80% of incidents where the operator received prior
notification. Such incidents could be the result of unmapped
facilities, un-locatable facilities, mismarked pipelines, excavators
that fail to call in, excavators that are exempt from one-call
requirements and do not call in, inadequate depth-of-cover, etc.
     Difficulty in Preventing Incidents Caused by Natural
Forces and Other Outside Forces: Of the incidents that were candidates
for EFV mitigation and where EFVs are not currently required, almost 8%
were caused by natural forces and 25% were caused by other, non-
excavation outside forces. Operators have less ability to prevent
incidents from occurring due to these causes than from excavation
damage.
     Views of the NASFM and the IAFCs: The associations'
position on the installation of EFVs is that uncontrolled gas leaks
pose a significant hazard to firefighters, emergency responders, and
the public. According to these associations, the presence of an EFV can
be a critical factor in suppressing a gas leak at the scene of an
incident, where a first responder's ability to control gas flow is
limited and dependent on the arrival of gas company personnel. While
not frequently activated, an EFV is a critical tool in the event of a
large volume release.
     Commercial Availability of EFVs for Other Applications:
The EFV device is relatively simple and experience demonstrates that
they operate reliably when sized appropriately for operating
conditions. The principles of operation remain the same as sizes become
larger and trip points are increased. EFVs are currently manufactured
for the vast majority of services.
    PHMSA has identified several situations where the installation of
an EFV may not be technically practicable. These technical challenges
are described in detail in Section 9 of the Interim Evaluation,
``Technical Challenges Associated with Use of EFVs in Non-Single Family
Residence Service.'' In these situations, the installation of a
readily-accessible curb valve and box might serve a similar safety
function to an EFV. Although not instantaneous, a curb valve could
facilitate the manual shut-off of natural gas service in an emergency
and provide an alternative solution to an EFV. However, use of curb
valves requires consideration of additional factors such as:
     EFVs shut-off the flow of gas instantaneously when the gas
flow exceeds design limits. Curb valves must be manually closed. The
incident may have already occurred before the curb valve can be closed.
     When the service is very short, the curb valve may be too
close to a burning building to be safely operated.
     Curb valves can be used to shut-off the flow of gas under
any flow conditions. EFVs are intended to shut-off the flow of gas when
there has been a catastrophic failure to the service or its
appurtenances. In situations when less severe damage occurs, an
incident may be prevented by closing the curb valve to stop the flow of
gas.
    PHMSA has identified several issues related to the costs and
benefits associated with mandatory EFV or curb valve installation that
should be considered when performing the economic analysis (See Section
10 of the Interim Evaluation ``Economic Analysis Considerations''). The
expected benefits are preventing or reducing incident consequences. The
magnitude of the expected benefits is believed to be dependent on the
estimated number of incidents impacted and incident consequences
avoided if an EFV or curb valve had been installed on a service. The
primary incident consequences that would be reduced are deaths,
injuries, and property damage. Additional benefits would be an expected
reduction in the number of fires, explosions, and evacuations occurring
at incidents, and the quantity of gas lost during incidents. Since the
subset of incidents whose consequences potentially could have been
mitigated if an EFV was installed versus those that potentially could
have been mitigated by a curb valve is different, the magnitude of the
expected benefits will also be different.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Data found at http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/PSI.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Expected costs include the installation and maintenance of the EFV
or curb valve. Installation costs include material, labor, design,
supply chain management, and training. For EFVs, maintenance costs
include the cost of analyzing the cause of failure and the cost of
replacing an EFV and any other associated costs. Possible EFV failures
include false closure (closed when not intended), failure to close (did
not close when service was severely damaged), and failure to reset (EFV
did not reset after service was put back in operation). Operators may
also need to replace EFVs when a customer's load increases above the
capacity of the currently installed EFV. For curb valves, maintenance
costs include periodically inspecting the curb valve to ensure it is
operational and inspecting the box to ensure it is free of debris. Curb
boxes may also require adjusting after surface condition occurrences
such as road resurfacing or landscaping.
    PHMSA has identified several potential areas in which enhanced or
expanded technical standards and guidance for the performance,
operation, installation, identification, and testing of EFVs could be
valuable regardless of whether PHMSA decides to expand the classes of
services requiring an EFV (See Section 4, ``Technical Standards and
Guidelines for EFVs'' of the Interim Evaluation). Currently, Sec.
192.381 requires operators to use EFVs which are manufactured and
tested by the manufacturer according to an industry specification or to
the manufacturer's written specification.
    While not incorporated by reference into the pipeline safety
regulations, there are three technical standards that address the
specification, manufacturing, and testing of EFVs. These standards are:
    i. ``Manufacturers Standardization Society (MSS) SP-115-2006--
Design, Performance & Test.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Manufacturers Standardization Society (MSS) SP-115-2006
``Design, Performance & Test'' http://www.mss-hq.org/Store/index.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. ``ASTM International (ASTM) F1802-04--Standard Test Method for
Performance Testing of Excess Flow Valves.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) F1802-04
``Standard Test Method for Performance Testing of Excess Flow
Valves'' http://www.astm.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    iii. ``ASTM International (ASTM) F2138-01--Standard Specification
for Excess Flow Valves for Natural Gas Service.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) F2138
``Standard Specification for Excess Flow Valves for Natural Gas
Service'' http://www.astm.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These standards may not be applicable to all sizes and pressure
ratings of EFVs that would be needed if they were mandated for use in
applications other than single family residences and would likely need
to be expanded to cover other sizes and pressure ratings. A number of
factors affect the performance and reliability of EFVs such as:
installation location, configuration, selection, sizing,
identification, installation method, and operation. ASTM International
(ASTM) F2138 ``Standard Specification for Excess Flow Valves for
Natural Gas Service'' addresses some of these factors at a high level,
but not in depth.
    These standards may need to be expanded to better address the

selection, installation, and performance testing of EFVs for a variety
of design considerations and service line configurations. Operating
conditions and system configurations under which EFVs are not
compatible or potentially not advisable may need to be identified and
integrated into the guidelines. PHMSA's recommended approach is to
select and size EFVs with a trip point less than, but closest to, the
gas flow rate of a full service line pipe break.
    If these standards and guidance are enhanced or developed, PHMSA
may consider if they are adequate to be incorporated by reference into
the Pipeline Safety Regulations. Incorporating standards by reference
provides PHMSA a mechanism to ensure that any changes to the standards
do not lessen public safety. Lastly, the Interim Evaluation identifies
areas where additional data is needed to further review EFV issues and
to perform a cost-benefit analysis.
    PHMSA will consider all comments received from the ANPRM plus any
additional information available, and will finalize the Interim
Evaluation after publication of this ANPRM. The Interim Evaluation,
which was peer reviewed by PHMSA, NTSB and representatives of National
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the National
Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives, IAFC, NASFM, natural
gas distribution operators, trade associations and the Pipeline Safety
Trust will document the basis for any PHMSA decision and response to
NTSB with respect to the EFV issue.

IV. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Although not mandated by Congress, PHMSA, in a direct response to
the NTSB recommendation P-01-2, seeks public comment regarding the
technical challenges, and the potential costs and the potential
benefits of any expanded requirement to use EFVs in applications other
than service lines serving single family residences. PHMSA additionally
seeks comment as to whether to establish and/or adopt technical
standards or guidance for the performance, specification,
manufacturing, testing, installation, identification, and operation of
EFVs. Specifically, PHMSA is asking for comment on the following
issues:
    1. Technical Challenges--Operators have identified technical
challenges to installing EFVs on services other than single family
residences. These challenges include (1) the effect of changing gas
usage patterns; (2) snap loads; (3) business-critical gas supply
applications; (4) system configuration; (5) pressure ratings; and (6)
size of commercially available EFVs.
    a. Does Section 9 ``Technical Challenges Associated with Use of
EFVs in Non-Single Family Residence Service'' fully and accurately
explain the technical challenges of EFVs in these other applications?
    b. Are there additional technical challenges, obstacles to
implementation, or reliability issues that should be considered for
these other applications?
    c. What are the technical challenges to installing and maintaining
a curb valve when an EFV is not technically feasible?
    d. What are the limitations to using a curb valve to stop the flow
of gas during emergency situations where EFVs are not technically
feasible?
    e. What additional cases may exist where the installation of EFVs
may not be feasible or practical other than those listed in Section
10.3.1, ``Feasibility/Practicality''?
    2. Economic Analysis Considerations (Potential Costs and
Benefits)--In addition, PHMSA requests commenters to provide
information and supporting data related to: the potential costs of
modifying the existing regulatory requirements pursuant to the
commenters suggestions; the potential quantifiable safety and societal
benefits of modifying the existing regulatory requirements; the
potential impacts on small business of modifying the existing
regulatory requirements; and the potential environmental impacts of
modifying the existing requirements.
    The economic analysis of installation of EFVs on services other
than single family residences involves challenges related to
quantification and monetization of costs and/or benefits including
distributional affects. It is important as part of the economic
analysis to consider both benefits and costs that are distributed among
sub-populations of particular concern so that decision makers can
properly consider them along with the effects on economic efficiency.
Therefore, it will be important to consider input from a variety of
stakeholders. OMB A-4 (titled ``REGULATORY ANALYSIS'') provides
additional information about benefit-cost analyses and cost-
effectiveness analyses. Any cost benefit analysis prepared in response
to this ANPRM will be consistent with the guidance outlined in OMB
Circular A-4, and any related policies.
    a. Categories of Services To Be Considered--If the requirement for
EFVs were expanded to other categories of services, would the
classification described in Section 10.3.2, ``Categories of Services''
in the Interim Report be practicable to implement? If not, why not?
    b. Cost Factors--Are there any other issues related to costs
associated with mandatory EFV or curb valve installation that should be
considered when performing the benefit-cost analysis, other than those
listed in Section 10.4, ``Defining Cost Factors'' of the Interim
Report?
    c. Who should be expected to pay for the installation and
maintenance of EFV or other alternative and why?
    d. Are there any opportunity costs associated with the installation
of EFVs? Does there have to be a particular time of day when
installation occurs? If so, why? How long does installation take?
    e. Benefits Factors:
    i. Are there any other issues related to benefits associated with
mandatory EFV or curb valve installation that should be considered when
performing the benefit-cost analysis, other than those listed in
Section 10.5 ``Defining Benefit Factors'' of the Interim Report?
    ii. Is the method used in Section 2.3.3, ``PHMSA Evaluation of Data
Related to Incidents on Services,'' of the Interim Report appropriate
to quantify the expected number of incidents or the consequences
averted, and to evaluate the risks of such incident occurring? Do the
parameters used to evaluate incidents for the likelihood of prevention
by an EFV (i.e. location of the leak (incidents on service lines),
reported cause of the leak (leaks due to damage), maximum allowable
operating pressure (MAOP) of the system (>10 PSIG),additional
information about the leak's characteristics (large leaks and ruptures)
and classification of customer (customers other than stand-alone
service line serving a single family residence)) satisfactorily allow a
conclusion to be made?
    3. Technical Standards and Guidance for EFVs--OMB Circular A-119
``Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary
Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities'' directs
Federal agencies to utilize voluntary standards both domestic and
international, whenever feasible and consistent with law and
regulation. The current DOT regulation applicable to excess flow valve
standards is 49 CFR 192.381 which requires excess flow valves to be
manufactured and tested by the manufacturer according to an industry
specification or to the manufacturer's written specification but does
not prescribe a specification. Without a standard prescribing EFV
specification, the possibility exists that EFVs could be installed that
do not meet currently accepted specifications.

    4. Additionally, a number of factors affect the performance and
reliability of EFVs such as installation location, configuration,
selection, sizing, or installation method. PHMSA has determined that
current industry standards do not address these factors in detail.
PHMSA therefore requests comment on industry standards to determine the
need and availability of consensus standards for EFV utilization.
    a. Should PHMSA incorporate by reference the following technical
standards? If not, why not?
    b. Are there any alternatives to the standards listed below?
    i. ``Manufacturers Standardization Society (MSS) SP-115-2006--
Design, Performance & Test.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Manufacturers Standardization Society (MSS) SP-115-2006
``Design, Performance & Test''  http://www.mss-hq.org/Store/index.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. ``ASTM International (ASTM) F1802-04--Standard Test Method for
Performance Testing of Excess Flow Valves.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) F1802-04
``Standard Test Method for Performance Testing of Excess Flow
Valves'' http://www.astm.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    iii. ``ASTM International (ASTM) F2138-01--Standard Specification
for Excess Flow Valves for Natural Gas Service.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) F2138
``Standard Specification for Excess Flow Valves for Natural Gas
Service''http://www.astm.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. Are guidelines or technical standards needed for developing and
if so, why?:
    i. A standard approach to sizing, specifying, performance testing,
and installing EFVs for a variety of design considerations and service
line configurations.
    ii. Criteria for identifying operating conditions and system
configurations under which EFVs are not compatible or potentially not
advisable.
    In addition, PHMSA requests commenters to provide information and
supporting data related to:
     The potential costs of modifying the existing regulatory
requirements pursuant to the commenter's suggestions.
     The potential quantifiable safety and societal benefits of
modifying the existing regulatory requirements.
     The potential impacts on small businesses of modifying the
existing regulatory requirements.
     The potential environmental impacts of modifying the
existing regulatory requirements.

V. Regulatory Notices

A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require agencies to regulate in
the ``most cost-effective manner,'' to make a ``reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,'' and
to develop regulations that ``impose the least burden on society.'' We
therefore request comments, including specific data if possible,
concerning the costs and benefits of revising the pipeline safety
regulations to accommodate any of the changes suggested in this ANPRM.

B. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and
timely input by State and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that may 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. PHMSA is inviting comments on the effect
a possible rulemaking adopting any of the amendments discussed in this
document may have on the relationship between National Government and
the States.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), we must consider whether a proposed rule would have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
``Small entities'' include small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations under 50,000. If your business or organization is a small
entity and if adoption of any of the amendments discussed in this ANPRM
could have a significant economic impact on your operations, please
submit a comment to explain how and to what extent your business or
organization could be affected.

D. National Environmental Policy Act

    The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires
Federal agencies to consider the consequences of Federal actions and to
prepare a detailed statement analyzing whether the action significantly
affects the quality of the human environment. Interested parties are
invited to address the potential environmental impacts of this ANPRM.
PHMSA is particularly interested in comments about compliance measures
that would provide greater benefit to the human environment or
alternative actions the agency could take that would provide beneficial
environmental impacts.

E. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and
timely input from Indian Tribal government representatives in the
development of rules that ``significantly or uniquely affect'' Indian
communities and that impose ``substantial and direct compliance costs''
on such communities. PHMSA invites Indian Tribal governments to provide
comments on any aspect of this ANPRM that may affect Indian
communities.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under 5 CFR part 1320, PHMSA analyzes the paperwork burdens of any
information collection required by a rulemaking. PHMSA invites comment
on the need for collection of information and the associated paperwork
burdens, if any.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.; 49 CFR 1.53.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 21, 2011.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2011-30330 Filed 11-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 109 (Thursday, June 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26720-26721]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11924]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 32669; File No. 812-14611]

Franklin Fund Allocator Series, et al.

June 5, 2017.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application for an order under section 12(d)(1)(J) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from
sections 12(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act; under sections 6(c) and
17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a) of the Act; and
under section 6(c) of the Act for an exemption from rule 12d1-2(a)
under the Act. The requested order would: (a) Permit certain registered
open-end investment companies to acquire shares of certain registered
open-end investment companies, registered closed-end investment
companies, business development companies, as defined in section
2(a)(48) of the Act, and unit investment trusts (collectively,
``Underlying Funds'') that are within and outside the same group of
investment companies as the acquiring investment companies, in excess
of the limits in section 12(d)(1) of the Act; and (b) permit certain
registered open-end management investment companies relying on rule
12d1-2 under the Act to invest in certain financial instruments.

Applicants: Franklin Fund Allocator Series, a Delaware statutory trust,
that is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment
company with multiple series (the ``Trust''); Franklin Advisers, Inc.
(the ``Initial Adviser''), a California corporation, registered as an
investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940; and
Franklin Templeton Distributors, Inc. (the ``Distributor''), registered
as a broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``1934 Act'') and a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority.

Filing Dates: The application was filed on February 9, 2016, and
amended on May 23, 2017.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on June 30, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for
lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act,
hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any
facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the
reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to
be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Craig S. Tyle,
Franklin Templeton Investments, One Franklin Parkway, San Mateo, CA
94403; and Bruce G. Leto and Michael W. Mundt, Stradley Ronon Stevens &
Young, LLP, 2600 One Commerce Square, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura L. Solomon, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6915, or Nadya Roytblat, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202)
551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

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

Summary of the Application

    1. Applicants request an order to permit (a) each Fund \1\ (each a
``Fund of Funds'') to acquire shares of Underlying Funds \2\ in excess
of the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (C) of the Act and (b) each
Underlying Fund that is a registered open-end management investment
company or series thereof, their principal underwriters, and any broker
or dealer registered under the 1934 Act to sell shares of the
Underlying Funds to the Fund of Funds in excess of the limits in
section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act.\3\ Applicants also request an order of
exemption under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act from the prohibition
on certain affiliated transactions in section 17(a) of the Act to the
extent necessary to permit the Underlying Funds to sell their shares
to, and redeem their shares from, the Funds of Funds.\4\ Applicants
state that such transactions will be consistent with the policies of
each Fund of Funds and each Underlying Fund and with the general
purposes of the Act and will be based on the net asset values of the
Underlying Funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants request that the order apply not only to the
existing series of the Trust (the ``Initial Funds''), but that the
order also extend to any future series of the Trust and any other
existing or future registered open-end management investment
companies and any series thereof that are part of the same ``group
of investment companies,'' as defined in section 12(d)(1)(G)(ii) of
the Act, as the Trust and are, or may in the future be, advised by
the Initial Adviser or its successor or any other investment adviser
controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Initial
Adviser or its successor (together with the Initial Funds, each
series a ``Fund,'' and collectively, the ``Funds''). Applicants
further request that the order also apply to any future principal
underwriter and distributor for a Fund. For purposes of the
requested order, ``successor'' is limited to an entity that results
from a reorganization into another jurisdiction or a change in the
type of business organization. For purposes of the request for
relief, the term ``group of investment companies'' means any two or
more registered investment companies, including closed-end
investment companies, and business development companies, that hold
themselves out to investors as related companies for purposes of
investment and investor services.
    \2\ Certain of the Underlying Funds have obtained exemptions
from the Commission necessary to permit their shares to be listed
and traded on a national securities exchange at negotiated prices
and, accordingly, to operate as an exchange-traded fund (``ETF'').
    \3\ Applicants are not requesting relief for a Fund of Funds to
invest in business development companies and registered closed-end
investment companies that are not listed and traded on a national
securities exchange.
    \4\ Applicants note that a Fund of Funds generally would
purchase and sell shares of an Underlying Fund that operates as an
ETF or closed-end fund through secondary market transactions rather
than through principal transactions with the Underlying Fund.
Applicants nevertheless request relief from sections 17(a)(1) and
(2) to permit each ETF or closed-end fund that is an affiliated
person, or an affiliated person of an affiliated person, as defined
in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of a Fund of Funds, to sell shares to
or redeem shares from the Fund of Funds. This includes, in the case
of sales and redemptions of shares of ETFs, the in-kind transactions
that accompany such sales and redemptions. Applicants are not
seeking relief from Section 17(a) for, and the requested relief will
not apply to, transactions where an ETF, BDC or closed-end fund
could be deemed an affiliated person, or an affiliated person of an
affiliated person, of a Fund of Funds because an investment adviser
to the ETF, BDC or closed-end fund or an entity controlling,
controlled by or under common control with the investment adviser to
the ETF, BDC or closed-end fund, is also an investment adviser to
the Fund of Funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Applicants further request an exemption under section 6(c) from
rule 12d1-2 under the Act to permit any Fund of Funds that relies on
section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act (``Section 12(d)(1)(G) Fund of Funds'')
and that otherwise complies with rule 12d1-2(a) under the Act, to also
invest, to the extent consistent with its investment objective,
policies, strategies and limitations, in other financial instruments
that may not be securities within the meaning of section 2(a)(36) of
the Act (``Other Investments'').
    3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief
will be subject to the terms and conditions

stated in the application. Such terms and conditions are designed to,
among other things, help prevent any potential (i) undue influence over
an Underlying Fund that is not in the same ``group of investment
companies'' as the Fund of Funds through control or voting power, or in
connection with certain services, transactions, and underwritings, (ii)
excessive layering of fees, and (iii) overly complex fund structures,
which are the concerns underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A),
(B), and (C) of the Act. Applicants assert that permitting a Section
12(d)(1)(G) Fund of Funds to invest in Other Investments as described
in the application would not raise any of the concerns that section
12(d)(1) of the Act was intended to address.
    4. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may
exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of
persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section
12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and
the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the
Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise
prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the
proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve
overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed
transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered
investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is
consistent with the general purposes of the Act. Section 6(c) of the
Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from
any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors
and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the
Act.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-11924 Filed 6-7-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment: 75 day comment period is insufficient time for the vaping industry and the wider vaping community to comment on the proposed deeming regulations. I would respectfully request that the period for comment be extended to 180 days.

Furthermore I would urge you to consider the effect of these regulations on small businesses built by fostering a community of individuals who believe that electronic cigarettes are their best hope for quitting tobacco products.


[Federal Register: March 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 45)]
[Notices]
[Page 11614-11615]
[DOCID:fr08mr06-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 2619-012 and 2603-012--North Carolina Mission and
Franklin Hydroelectric Projects]

Duke Power; Notice of Proposed Restricted Service List for a
Programmatic Agreement for Managing Properties Included in or Eligible
for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places

February 28, 2006.
    Rule 2010 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that, to
eliminate unnecessary expense or improve administrative efficiency, the
Secretary may establish a restricted service list for a particular

phase or issue in a proceeding.\1\ The restricted service list should
contain the names of persons on the service list who, in the judgment
of the decisional authority establishing the list, are active
participants with respect to the phase or issue in the proceeding for
which the list is established.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission staff is consulting with the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Officer (hereinafter, SHPO) and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (hereinafter, Council) pursuant to the
Council's regulations, 36 CFR part 800, implementing section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, (16 U.S.C. section 470
f), to prepare and execute two programmatic agreements for managing
properties included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National
Register of Historic Places at the Mission Hydroelectric Project No.
2619-012 (SHPO Reference Number ER03-0343) and at the Franklin
Hydroelectric Project No 2603-012 (SHPO Reference Number ER03-0342).
    The programmatic agreements, when executed by the Commission, the
SHPO, and the Council, would satisfy the Commission's section 106
responsibilities for all individual undertakings carried out in
accordance with each license until each license expires or is
terminated (36 CFR 800.13(e)). The Commission's responsibilities
pursuant to section 106 for the Mission and Franklin Projects would be
fulfilled through the execution of a programmatic agreement for each
project, which the Commission proposes to draft in consultation with
certain parties listed below. The executed programmatic agreement for
each project would be incorporated into any Order issuing a license for
the respective project.
    Duke Power, as licensee for Project Nos. 2619 and 2603, and the
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians have expressed an interest in these
proceedings and are invited to participate in consultations to develop
the programmatic agreements.
    For purposes of commenting on the programmatic agreement, we
propose to restrict the service list for the aforementioned project as
follows:

Don Klima or Representative, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
The Old Post Office Building, Suite 803, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20004.
Jennifer Huff or Representative, Duke Power, P.O. Box 1006, Mail Code
EC12Y, Charlotte, NC 28201-1006.
Renee Gledhill-Earley, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources,
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617.
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Attention: Tyler Howe, THPO, Qualla
Boundary, P.O. Box 455, Cherokee, NC 28719.

    Any person on the official service list for the above-captioned
proceeding may request inclusion on the restricted service list, or may
request that a restricted service list not be established, by filing a
motion to that effect within 15 days of this notice date. In a request
for inclusion, please identify the reason(s) why there is an interest
to be included. Also please identify any concerns about historic
properties, including Traditional Cultural Properties. If historic
properties are to be identified within the motion, please use a
separate page, and label it Non-Public Information.
    An original and 8 copies of any such motion must be filed with
Magalie R. Salas, the Secretary of the Commission (888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426, and must be served on each person whose name
appears on the official service list. Please put the project names
``Mission Project'' and ``Franklin Project'' and numbers ``P-2619-012''
and ``P-2603-012'' on the front cover of any motion. If no such motions
are filed, the restricted service list will be effective at the end of
the 15 day period. Otherwise, a further notice will be issued ruling on
any motion or motions filed within the 15 day period.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-3202 Filed 3-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44179-44180]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17596]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Regulation S; OMB Control No. 3235-0357, SEC File No. 270-315.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Regulation S (17 CFR 230.901 through 230.905) sets forth rules
governing offers and sales of securities made outside the United States
without registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et
seq.). Regulation S clarifies the extent to which Section 5 of the
Securities Act applies to offers and sales of securities outside of the
United States. Regulation S is assigned one burden hour for
administrative convenience.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100
F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of
this notice.

    Dated: July 17, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-17596 Filed 7-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3760-3761]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1419]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice Announcing Filing Priority for Preliminary Permit
Applications

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Project
                                                                  No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FFP Project 21, LLC.........................................   12863-002
Northland Power Mississippi River LLC.......................   14074-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 17, 2012, the Commission held a drawing to determine
priority among competing preliminary permit applications with identical
filing times. In the event that the Commission concludes that none of
the applicants' plans are better adapted than the others to develop,
conserve, and utilize in the public interest the water resources of the
region at issue, the priority established by this drawing will serve as
the tiebreaker. Based on the drawing, the order of priority is as
follows:
    1. Northland Power Mississippi River LLC; Project No. 14074-000.
    2. FFP Project 21, LLC; Project No. 12863-002.

    Dated: January 18, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-1419 Filed 1-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 110 (Friday, June 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34374-34375]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13516]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD12-2-000]

Notice of Availability of Final Revisions to the Upland Erosion
Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan and Wetland and Waterbody
Construction and Mitigation Procedures

    The staff of the Office of Energy Projects has revised its Upland
Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Plan) and Wetland
and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Procedures).
Attached to this notice are full texts of the final Plan and Procedure
revisions, identifying all changes from the January 2003 versions in
tracked changes format \1\. Clean copies of the revised Plan and
Procedures (May 2013 versions) are available on the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/guidelines.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The attachments referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan and Procedures are referred to at 18 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 380.12(i)(5) and 380.12(d)(2), respectively, as well
as 18 CFR 157C.206(b)(3)(iv). The Plan and Procedures identify the
staff's baseline mitigation measures for minimizing erosion, enhancing
revegetation, and minimizing the extent and duration of disturbance on
wetlands and waterbodies during the construction of FERC jurisdictional
natural gas projects.
    In accordance with Order 603,\2\ the FERC staff solicited comments
on the January 2003 versions of the Plan and Procedures by public
notice issued October 31, 2011, in the above referenced docket. Draft
revisions were issued for comment on July 31, 2012, and the Plan and
Procedures were subsequently revised and finalized. During the comment
periods, the FERC received input from the natural gas industry,
federal, state and local agencies, environmental consultants,
inspectors, construction contractors, nongovernmental organizations and
other interested parties with special expertise with respect to
environmental issues commonly associated with pipeline projects and
other natural gas facility construction projects. The final revisions
address the comments filed in response to the public notices, frequent
inquiries for clarification or staff guidance, and common variance
requests. Other modifications provide necessary updates to reflect
current laws and industry best management practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Revision of Existing Regulations Under Part 157 and Related
Sections of the Commission's Regulations Under the Natural Gas Act,
Commission Order No. 603, Docket No. RM98-9-000, issued April 29,
1999. Noticed in the Federal Register on May 14, 1999. 64 FR 26572.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the information related to the Plan and Procedures revisions
and submitted comments can be found on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov)
using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General
Search'' and enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits
in the Docket Number field (i.e., AD12-2). Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Information Collection Statement

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, 44 USC 3507(a)(1)(D), the FERC is submitting the information
collection changes described in this notice to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review.
    Any interested person may file comments regarding the information
collection requirements 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 (77 FR 47063, 8/7/2012)
requesting public comments. FERC received no comments directly related
to the practical utility of the information or the accuracy of the
burden estimates. FERC did receive comments suggesting ways to clarify
and improve the nature of the information collected, which we took into
consideration for the final Plan and Procedure revisions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ FERC addresses the applicable comments in its submittal to
OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The public can access this
submittal via www.reginfo.gov by searching in the ``currently under
review'' field for FERC information collections.\\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-
0128, 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. AD12-2-000, by
either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. 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 in response to this notice is considered a ``Comment
on a Filing''; or
     You may file a paper copy of your comments at the
following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.
    The information collection requirements in the Plan and Procedures
are part of FERC-577, Natural Gas Facilities: Environmental Review and
Compliance (OMB Control No. 1902-0128).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In the July 31, 2012 Notice of Availability, the Commission
erroneously indicated that the Plan and Procedures were part of the
FERC-537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final Plan and Procedure revisions identified in this notice
are primarily modifications and clarifications to the content of
information collections required by the current versions. For example,
revisions to Plan sections III.I and VII.B.2 clarify staff's
expectations for the content of winter construction plans and quarterly
activity reports. Revisions to Plan section III.F standardize staff's
expectations regarding wildlife and livestock protection measures and
blasting plans. A revision to Procedure section VI.D.5 modifies the
wetland revegetation success criteria used for monitoring and
reporting. Such revisions do not constitute entirely new information
collections; however, we estimate the revisions will increase reporting
burden by adjusting the existing ways to comply with previously
applicable instructions and requirements; training personnel to respond
to the modified collection of information; and completing and reviewing
these collections.
    We estimate that certain revisions will reduce reporting burden on
jurisdictional natural gas companies by providing guidance that is
frequently requested during report preparations; directions to provide
information that frequently results in data requests; and improved
flexibility to reduce variance

requests for construction practices the staff has determined are
acceptable. For example, frequently requested guidance on beneficial
reuse of construction materials is provided in revised Plan sections
II.B.17 and III.E. Identification of baseline expectations for
residential construction practices is provided in revised Plan section
III.H. We expect variance requests will be reduced via revisions to
Procedure section V.B.3.g that addresses construction through
waterbodies that are dry or frozen, and Procedure section VI.B.2.f that
addresses burning of woody debris in wetlands. Additionally, we expect
revisions to Procedure section II.A to reduce reporting burden on
jurisdictional entities, permitting detailed justifications rather than
site-specific plans for reduced workspace setbacks at waterbodies and
wetlands, and expanded wetland construction rights-of-way.
    We revised terminology to be inclusive of prior notice, advanced
notice, and automatic authorization projects to address the wider net
of project types subject to the Plan and Procedure requirements. The
revisions clarify applicability for projects constructed under the
Commission's blanket certificate program (18 CFR part 157, subpart F)
and construction of facilities for transportation services under the
Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA) section 311 (18 CFR part 284, Subpart A).
We expect these clarifications to improve the efficiency of the
environmental review process, and reduce labor hours required of
jurisdictional natural gas companies to prepare reports.
    We implement a new record retention requirement regarding drainage
system repairs or improvements (see revised Plan section VII.B.1.e). In
addition, we also put in place a new annual report for affected
wetlands that do not successfully revegetate within three years after
construction (see revised Procedure section VI.D.6). We expect this
revision to result in a minor increase in reporting burden due to the
low incidence of wetland revegetation failure.
    We expect that the revisions will lead to additional filings for
blanket certificate projects, subject to our prior notice regulations
(see revised ``Applicability'' discussions in section I of the Plan and
Procedures). Such filings include winter construction plans noted in
revised Plan section III.I, and the pre-construction filings noted in
section II of the Procedures (e.g., hydrostatic testing information,
waterbody crossing schedules, spill prevention and response procedures,
plans for major waterbody crossings, horizontal directional drill
crossings, and justifications for any variances). This would not
reflect entirely new reporting burdens however, as this information is
typically requested by staff during review of these projects to ensure
compliance with blanket certificate standard conditions in 18 CFR
157.206.
    Overall, in consideration of the revisions to reporting
requirements and the increased efficiency that would be realized during
the environmental review process, we expect the net effect of the
revised Plan and Procedures to constitute a minor increase in
information collection burden.
    Burden Estimate: The estimate below was updated using workload
completion data prepared by FERC's Division of Gas--Environment and
Engineering for fiscal year 2012. The estimate previously provided in
the July 31, 2012 Notice of Availability was based on fiscal year 2011
workload completion data.\5\ Respondents include companies that filed
project applications under Natural Gas Act (NGA) Section 7, blanket
certificate prior notice filings and annual reports, and NGPA 311
advanced notification filings and annual reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ We found upon further review of the previous estimate that
we did not account for all of the filings in the fiscal year 2011
data. We correct the previous error in this notice. The net effect
of using the 2012 data (along with accurate accounting) is an
increase of 509 hours from the July 31, 2012 notice.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average      Total annual
                                                                      Average        change in       change in
Modification to FERC-577,  OMB Control      Average number of        number of      burden hrs.     burden hrs.
             No. 1902-0128                respondents annually      filings per     per filing       for  all
                                                                     year \6\        (rounded)     filings types
                                        ........................             (a)             (b)         (a x b)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upland Plan...........................  81 Natural Gas Companies             218             7.6            1667
Wetland and Waterbody Procedures......  81 Natural Gas Companies             218            -4.2            -905
    Grand total.......................  ........................  ..............  ..............             762
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total estimated annual cost burden to prepare new or modified
information collections based on the Plan and Procedure revisions is
$53,340 (762 hours times $70/hr \7\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NGA 7, Blanket Certificate, and NGPA 311 filings. Filings
were excluded if they qualified as categorical exclusions under the
National Environmental Policy Act or were otherwise categorized as
``environment not involved.''
    \7\ Estimated average annual cost (wage plus benefits) per
employee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We expect the estimated burden would reduce in subsequent years, as
companies adjust to the modified information collections and have
trained their personnel to collect information per the revised Plan and
Procedures.
    Interested persons may obtain additional information on the OMB
process and information collection statement by contacting Ellen Brown,
Office of the Executive Director, via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
by phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 31, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-13516 Filed 6-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5807-5809]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01924]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76983; File No. SR-NYSE-2015-48]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change Deleting Rule 410B Governing Reporting
Requirements for Off-Exchange Transactions

January 28, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On October 16, 2015, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to delete Rule 410B governing reporting
requirements for off-Exchange transactions. The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on November 2,
2015.\3\ The Commission received no comment letters on the proposed
rule change. On December 16, 2015, the Commission designated a longer
period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the
proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\4\ The Commission is
approving 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. 76277 (October 27,
2015), 80 FR 67443.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76666, 80 FR 79644
(December 22, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to delete Rule 410B, which sets forth certain
regulatory reporting requirements for member or member organizations
effecting off-Exchange transactions in Exchange listed securities that
are not reported to the Consolidated Tape, and to make conforming
amendments to Rule 476A to delete a reference to Rule 410B. The
Exchange represents that Rule 410B is no longer necessary in light of
changes in trade reporting and regulatory requirements that have been
put in place since the Exchange adopted Rule 410B.
Changes to Regulatory Landscape
    On July 30, 2007, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD''), NYSE, and NYSE Regulation, Inc. (``NYSE Regulation'')
consolidated their member firm

regulation operations to create the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''), and entered into a plan to allocate to
FINRA regulatory responsibility for common rules and common members
(``17d-2 Agreement'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56148 (July 26,
2007), 72 FR 42146 (August 1, 2007) (File No. 4-544) (Notice of
Filing and Order Approving and Declaring Effective a Plan for the
Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities). In 2007, the NASD, NYSE,
the Exchange and NYSE Regulation also entered into a Regulatory
Services Agreement (``RSA''), whereby FINRA was retained to perform
certain regulatory services for non-common rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2008, the Exchange, NASD, NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT''), and NYSE
Regulation also entered into a plan to allocate to FINRA regulatory
responsibility, over exchange members that are also FINRA members, for
surveillance, investigation, and enforcement of insider trading with
respect to NYSE- and MKT-listed stocks, among others, irrespective of
where the relevant trading occurred (the ``Insider Trading Plan'').\6\
On June 14, 2010, FINRA was retained to perform the residual market
surveillance and enforcement functions that had, up to that point, been
performed by NYSE Regulation.\7\ In January 2011, the SEC approved an
amendment to the Insider Trading Plan whereby FINRA also assumed
responsibility for performing the insider-trading-related market
surveillance and enforcement functions previously conducted by NYSE
Regulation for its U.S. equities and options markets.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54646 (September 12,
2008), 73 FR 54646 (September 22, 2008) (File No. 4-566). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58806 (October 17, 2008), 73 FR
63216 (October 23, 2008) (File No. 4-566).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62355 (June 22,
2010), 75 FR 36729 (June 28, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-46); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 62354 (June 22, 2010), 75 FR 36730 (June
28, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-57). NYSE Regulation performed the
regulatory functions of NYSE MKT pursuant to an intercompany RSA.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63750 (January 21,
2011), 76 FR 4948 (January 27, 2011) (File No. 4-566).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes in Trade Reporting and Regulatory Reporting
    In 1998, FINRA (then the NASD) established the Order Audit Trail
System (OATS), as an integrated audit trail of order, quote, and trade
information for OTC equity securities and equity securities listed and
traded on The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (``Nasdaq'').\9\ In 2010, FINRA
Rules 7410 through 7470 (the ``OATS Rules'') were amended to extend the
recording and reporting requirements to all NMS stocks, as that term is
defined in Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS,\10\ including NYSE- and
MKT-listed securities. The Exchange adopted the OATS Rules in 2011.\11\
The Exchange states that FINRA may use the information it collects
pursuant to the OATS Rules to perform its regulatory functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39729 (March 6,
1998), 63 FR 12559 (March 13, 1998) (SR-NASD-97-56).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63311 (November 12,
2010), 75 FR 70757 (November 18, 2010) (SR-FINRA-2010-044). See also
17 CFR 242.600(b)(47).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65524 (October 7,
2011), 76 FR 64151 (October 17, 2011) (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-74).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, Rule 410B also predates the
establishment of a FINRA Trade Reporting Facility (``TRF''). FINRA Rule
6110 requires FINRA members to report transactions in NMS stocks \12\
effected ``otherwise than on or through a national securities
exchange.'' \13\ Pursuant to FINRA Rules 6310A and 6310B, FINRA members
may use either the FINRA/NYSE TRF or FINRA/Nasdaq TRF to report such
off-Exchange transactions.\14\ FINRA members using these TRFs to report
off-Exchange transactions are in turn subject to FINRA Rule 7230B,
which, the Exchange states, imposes transaction-information reporting
requirements similar to Rule 410B.\15\ As a result, the Exchange
represents that dual members of both the Exchange and FINRA must report
off-Exchange transactions to a TRF and submit substantially similar
reports to the Exchange and FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As defined in Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS, 17 CFR
242.600(b)(47).
    \13\ See FINRA Rule 6110. See generally FINRA Rule 6300A and
7200A Series (FINRA/Nasdaq TRF) and 6300B and 7200B Series (FINRA/
NYSE TRF).
    \14\ See FINRA Rules 6300A & 6300B.
    \15\ See Rule 7230B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange proposes to delete Rule 410B in its entirety. The
Exchange represents that, since 2010, surveillance and enforcement
responsibilities across markets have been consolidated at FINRA, which
conducts cross-market surveillances on the Exchange's behalf utilizing
various data sources, including extensive trade and other information
that FINRA collects pursuant to its rules. This trade information
includes reports of off-exchange transactions.
    The Exchange represents that all of its member organizations, with
only nine exceptions, are members of FINRA and, as such, must report
all off-exchange transactions to FINRA, including transactions away
from the Exchange that are not reported to the Consolidated Tape. The
Exchange further represents that this information is essentially
duplicative of the Rule 410B reports the Exchange currently supplies to
FINRA. The Exchange notes that one exception would be transactions in
dually listed securities executed on and reported to a foreign
securities exchange, which are not required to be reported because such
trades are executed ``on or through an exchange.'' \16\ The Exchange
represents that it believes such trades pose little regulatory risk
and, given that no other exchange has a rule comparable to Rule 410B,
notes that such trades are also not being reported to other equities
exchanges. Finally, the Exchange represents that only a handful of
firms currently account for all of the Rule 410B activity, all of whom
are also FINRA members.\17\ The Exchange believes that Rule 410B is
thus no longer necessary, and deleting it would eliminate essentially
duplicative reporting of off-Exchange transactions by dual members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Trade Reporting Frequently Asked Questions, Section
701, Q/A701.1, available at http://www.finra.org/industry/trade-reporting-faq.
    \17\ According to the Exchange, Rule 410B Weekly Reports
submitted to the SEC in July and August 2015 reveal that only five
firms, all also FINRA members, accounted for all of the Rule 410B
trading activity. The Exchange further represents that the list of
firms that have in the past submitted Rule 410B reports does not
include any non-FINRA members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not believe that eliminating the Rule 410B
reporting requirement for the small number of NYSE-only members \18\
would pose any significant regulatory risk. The Exchange represents
that none of these firms has ever submitted a Rule 410B report. The
Exchange also notes that NYSE-only members would remain subject to
federal and Exchange books and records requirements.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Exchange represents that these nine non-FINRA member
firms do not have any public customers and are also members of
Nasdaq as well as NYSE.
    \19\ See 17 CFR 240.17a-3, 17 CFR 240.17a-4 & Rule 440--
Equities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act \20\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\21\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\22\ 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 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 investors and the public interest and that the rules are not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \21\ 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).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the Exchange's representations, the Commission believes
that eliminating the Rule 410B reporting requirement will not reduce
the amount of publicly available information about securities
transactions and that it is not likely to hamper the ability of the
Exchange to conduct regulatory oversight of its members. The Commission
notes that Rule 410B does not currently provide for real-time, publicly
disseminated reporting of transactions, but instead requires non-
public, electronic reporting of trade data to the Exchange on a next-
day basis for regulatory purposes only. The Commission further notes
that the Exchange represents that its members would remain subject to
federal and Exchange books-and-records requirements \23\ and that
Exchange members would still be required to provide such trade data to
the Exchange upon the Exchange's request. For these reasons, the
Commission believes that the proposal should help to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general,
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See 17 CFR 240.17a-3, 17 CFR 240.17a-4 & Rule 440--
Equities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\24\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2015-48) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-01924 Filed 2-2-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 32571]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14027]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0373]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Risk and Benefit Perception Scale
Development

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Risk and Benefit Perception Scale
Development'' has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 28, 2015, the Agency submitted a
proposed collection of information entitled ``Risk and Benefit
Perception Scale Development'' to OMB for review and clearance under 44
U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0784.
The approval expires on May 31, 2018. A copy of the supporting
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: June 3, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-14027 Filed 6-8-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P