[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 63 (Monday, April 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17654-17658]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06886]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91443; File No. SR-IEX-2021-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations: Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
Transaction Fees Pursuant to IEX Rule 15.110

March 30, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on March 23, 2021, the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,\3\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\4\ IEX is filing with the Commission a
proposed rule change to amend its Fee Schedule, pursuant to IEX Rule
15.110(a) and (c) (the ``Fee Schedule''), to modify the fees applicable
to executions of and with displayed orders for securities priced at or
above $1.00 per share, and to make several related and conforming
changes. Changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing,\5\ and the Exchange plans to implement the
changes on April 1, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.iextrading.com, at the principal office of the Exchange,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule, pursuant to IEX
Rule 15.110(a) and (c), to modify the fees applicable to executions of
and with displayable orders for securities priced at or above $1.00 per
share, and to make several related and conforming changes.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes not to charge Members \6\ a fee for
executions of orders that provide displayed liquidity, and proposes to
charge a fee of $0.0006 per share for executions of orders that remove
displayed liquidity, unless a lower fee applies.\7\ In addition, the
Exchange proposes to revise the existing internalization fee, \8\ which
currently provides that there is no fee for executions when the adding
and removing order originated from the same Member, to apply the
proposed fees for adding and removing displayed liquidity provided by
the same Member, while continuing to offer free executions for adding
and removing non-displayed liquidity provided by the same Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See IEX Rule 1.160(s).
    \7\ For example, as discussed infra, if a Retail order removes
displayed liquidity, the Retail order would not be charged a fee.
    \8\ The internalization fee code is applied to orders in which
the Member executes against resting liquidity added by such Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange charges a fee of $0.0003 per share for an
execution at or above $1.00 that adds or removes displayed liquidity
and charges a fee of $0.0009 per share for an execution at or above
$1.00 that adds or removes non-displayed liquidity. However, pursuant
to a pricing incentive adopted when the Exchange began to offer D-Limit
orders,\9\ a displayed or non-displayed D-Limit order \10\ that
provides liquidity and is executed at a price at or above $1.00 results
in a free execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89967 (September 23,
2020), 85 FR 63616 (October 8, 2020) (SR-IEX-2020-14).
    \10\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, all displayed orders that provide liquidity will
execute free of charge, and all orders that remove displayed liquidity
will be charged a fee of $0.0006 per share, with the exception that
executions below $1.00 will continue to be assessed a fee of 0.30% of
the total dollar value of the execution

(unless otherwise eligible for a free execution in accordance with the
IEX Fee Schedule). The proposed fee changes are designed to incentivize
posting displayed liquidity on IEX in order to facilitate price
discovery and price formation, which the Exchange believes benefits all
Members and market participants.
    Further, as proposed, all non-displayed orders that add or remove
liquidity will now be charged a fee of $0.0009 per share, including D-
Limit orders that add non-displayed liquidity, with the exception that
executions below $1.00 will continue to be assessed a fee of 0.30% of
the total dollar value of the execution (unless otherwise eligible for
a free execution in accordance with the IEX Fee Schedule).\11\ IEX
believes that the pricing incentive for D-Limit orders that add
liquidity is no longer necessary, and such orders will be subject to
the fees applicable to orders that add displayed or non-displayed
liquidity, as applicable. Accordingly, the Exchange also proposes to
delete the provision in the Fee Schedule specifying that a D-Limit
order priced at or above $1.00 that provides liquidity results in a
free execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, as discussed in this filing, non-displayed
orders that add or remove liquidity from the same Member will
execute for free.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to revise the application of the
internalization fee such that it only results in free executions for
transactions that add and remove resting non-displayed interest from
the same Member. As noted above, currently, the internalization fee
provides that there is no fee for executions when the adding and
removing order originated from the same Member. With the change to the
fee structure for executions of and with displayed liquidity, the
Exchange determined that providing a free execution for orders that
remove displayed liquidity is inconsistent with the proposed fee
structure of charging $0.0006 for execution of such orders.
Accordingly, as proposed, the internalization fee will provide a free
execution only when a Member adds and removes resting non-displayed
interest provided by that Member.
    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to delete the definition of
``spread crossing eligible order'' which is obsolete and not relevant
to fees charged by IEX. Previously, IEX had provided a discounted fee
to a buy order that is executable at the NBO \12\ or a sell order that
is executable at the NBB \13\ after accounting for the order's limit
(if any), peg instruction (if any), market conditions, and all
applicable rules and regulations.\14\ That discount was eliminated in
2018 and the language in the Fee Schedule is no longer applicable.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See IEX Rule 1.160(u).
    \13\ See IEX Rule 1.160(u).
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83147 (May 1,
2018), 83 FR 20118 (May 7, 2018) (SR-IEX-2018-09).
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83820 (August 10,
2018), 83 FR 40800 (August 16, 2018) (SR-IEX-2018-17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX is not proposing to make any changes to the fees applicable to
the execution of Retail orders and Retail Liquidity Provider \16\
orders, which will each continue to execute for free. The Commission,
in approving IEX's Retail Price Improvement Program, acknowledged the
value of exchanges' offering incentives to attract both retail investor
orders and orders specifically designated to execute only with retail
orders.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(14).
    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86619 (August 9,
2019), 84 FR 41769, 41771 (August 15, 2019) (SR-IEX-2019-05).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To effectuate the proposed changes, the Exchange proposes
conforming changes to the applicable Base Fee Codes, Additional Fee
Codes, and Fee Code Combinations and Associated Fees tables in the Fee
Schedule to reflect the proposed fee changes and to provide information
to Members on the relevant charges, including indicating whether an
execution added or removed liquidity, as well as to remove text related
to the current fee structure for D-Limit orders. As specified below,
the Exchange also proposes to consistently refer to all orders that add
liquidity as such, rather than using the term ``provide'' or
``provided'' in some Fee Code descriptions.
    Specifically, the following changes are proposed: \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ No fee changes are proposed for executions below $1.00,
which will continue to be assessed a fee of 0.30% of the total
dollar value of the execution (unless otherwise eligible for a free
execution in accordance with the IEX Fee Schedule). See IEX Fee
Schedule, https://iextrading.com/trading/fees/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Add modifier M to Base Fee Codes I (which applies to non-
displayed liquidity) and L (which applies to displayed liquidity) to
indicate that an order added liquidity.
     Add modifier T to Base Fee Codes I and L to indicate that
an order removed liquidity.
     Update the description of Base Fee Code I, which is
currently referred to as a Standard Match Fee, to separately describe
Base Fee Code MI as ``Add non-displayed liquidity'' and TI as ``Remove
non-displayed liquidity.'' Both Base Fee Codes will be subject to a fee
of $0.0009 per share, consistent with the current fees applicable to
execution of such orders.
     Update the description of Base Fee Code L, which is
currently referred to as a Reduced Match Fee, to separately describe
Base Fee Code ML as ``Add displayed liquidity'' and TL as ``Remove
displayed liquidity.'' Base Fee Code ML will be free (rather than the
current fee of $0.0003 per share applicable to execution of such
orders) and Base Fee Code TL will be subject to a fee of $0.0006
(rather than the current fee of $0.0003 per share applicable to
execution of such orders).
     Relocate Base Fee Code X, which was previously included
with Base Fee Code I as the Standard Match Fee, and describe it as
``Opening process for non-listed securities.'' No change is proposed to
the current fee of $0.0009 per share executed.
     Amend the description of Additional Fee Code S (which
applies to the internalization fee) to change the word ``provided'' to
``added'' and to update the Fee from ``FREE'' to instead read ``See
Relevant Fee Code Combinations Below.'' This change reflects that
removing displayed liquidity added by the same Member will no longer be
a free execution, but instead be charged the standard $0.0006 fee for
removing displayed liquidity.
     Conform references to Fee Codes I and L in the Fee Code
Combinations and Associated Fees section of the Fee Schedule to the
changes made to the Base Fee Codes to include Fee Code Combinations MI,
ML, TI and TL.
     Delete Fee Code Combination IS, which applies when a
Member executes against resting non-displayed liquidity provided by
such Member, and replace with Fee Code Combinations MIS and TIS in
order to indicate whether an order added or removed non-displayed
liquidity. MIS will apply to an order in which a Member adds resting
non-displayed liquidity that executes against the Member's removing
interest. TIS will apply to an order that removes resting non-displayed
liquidity added by such Member. Both Fee Code Combinations will
continue to be free pursuant to the internalization fee.
     Delete Fee Code Combination LS, which applies when a
Member executes against resting displayed liquidity provided by such
Member, and replace with Fee Code Combinations MLS and TLS in order to
indicate whether an order added or removed liquidity. MLS will apply
when a Member adds resting displayed liquidity that executes against
the Member's removing interest, specifying that execution of the order
is free. This Fee Code Combination will be

free because the order added displayed liquidity. Fee Code Combination
TLS will apply when a Member removes resting displayed liquidity added
by such Member. This Fee Code Combination will be subject to a fee of
$0.0006 per share which applies when an order that removes resting
displayed liquidity applies.
     Delete Fee Code Combination IR, which applies when a
Retail order removes non-displayed liquidity, and replace with Fee Code
Combination TIR to indicate that the order removed liquidity. The Fee
Code Combination, as amended, will continue to be free.
     Delete Fee Code Combination IA, which applies when a
Retail Liquidity Provider order adds non-displayed liquidity to a
Retail order, and replace with MIA to indicate that the order added
liquidity. The Fee Code Combination, as amended, will continue to be
free.
     Delete Fee Code Combination LR, which applies when a
Retail order removes displayed liquidity, and replace with Fee Code
Combination TLR to indicate that the order removed liquidity. The Fee
Code Combination, as amended, will continue to be free.
     Delete Fee Code Combination ISR, which applies when a
Retail orders removes non-displayed liquidity provided by such Member,
and replace with Fee Code Combination TISR to indicate that the order
removed liquidity. In addition, the term ``provided'' in the existing
definition will be replaced with the term ``added'' for consistency.
The Fee Code Combination, as amended, will continue to be free.
     Delete Fee Code Combination ISA, which applies when a
Retail Liquidity Provider order adds non-displayed liquidity to a
Retail order provided by such Member, and replace with Fee Code
Combination MISA to indicate that the order added liquidity. In
addition, the term ``provided'' in the existing definition will be
replaced with the term ``added'' for consistency. The Fee Code
Combination, as amended, will continue to be free.
     Delete Fee Code Combination LSR, which applies when a
Retail order removes displayed liquidity provided by such Member, and
replace with Fee Code Combination TLSR to indicate that the order
removed liquidity. In addition, the term ``provided'' in the existing
definition will be replaced with the term ``added'' for consistency.
The Fee Code Combination, as amended, will continue to be free.
    Make a conforming change in the Transaction Fees section of the Fee
Schedule to correct the reference to the ``Fee Codes and Associated
Fees table'' by changing it to read ``Fee Code Combinations and
Associated Fees table.''
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\19\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) \20\ of the Act, in particular, in that
it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
fees among IEX Members and persons using its facilities. Additionally,
IEX believes that the proposed changes to the Fee Schedule are
consistent with the investor protection objectives of Section 6(b)(5)
\21\ of the Act, in particular, in that they are 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 are not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes are reasonable,
fair and equitable, non-discriminatory, and consistent with the Act.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they
deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. Within that
context, providing free executions to displayed orders that add
liquidity is designed to incentivize Members and other market
participants to enter displayed orders on IEX by providing a pricing
incentive for such orders without offering rebates, thereby
contributing to price discovery and price formation, which is
consistent with the overall goal of enhancing market quality. The
Exchange currently offers free executions to displayed D-Limit orders
that add liquidity and does not believe that offering this pricing
incentive to additional displayed orders represents a significant
departure from pricing currently offered by the Exchange.
    The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable to increase the
fee applicable to an order that removes displayed liquidity from
$0.0003 per share to $0.0006 per share, which will continue to be lower
than the maximum fee permitted by Regulation NMS,\22\ and to bifurcate
the fees applicable to executions of resting displayed liquidity. Other
exchanges use ``maker-taker'' or ``taker-maker'' fee structures that
apply different fees to orders that add versus remove liquidity,
generally providing a rebate rather than charging a fee to adding or
removing orders. In a ``maker-taker'' model an exchange will typically
pay a rebate for an order that adds liquidity and charge a fee for an
order that removes liquidity. The Exchange is not proposing to pay a
rebate, but rather to not charge a fee to an order that adds liquidity
and charge a modest fee to an order that removes liquidity. This
approach is designed to reallocate in a revenue neutral manner the
current fee structure where both the adder and remover are charged
$0.0003 per share for executions involving displayed orders in order to
incentivize displayed liquidity. As proposed the fee to remove
displayed liquidity will be lower than the fee to add or remove non-
displayed liquidity and is within the range (and in many cases much
less than) the fees charged by competing exchanges to remove displayed
or non-displayed liquidity.\23\ Consequently, IEX does not believe that
the proposed fee structure for adding and removing displayed liquidity
raises any new or novel issues that the Commission has not already
considered in the context of other exchanges' fees. The Exchange
believes that this fee structure will attract and incentivize displayed
order flow as well as order flow seeking to trade with displayed order
flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Regulation NMS Rule 611(c). 17 CFR 242.610(c) (for
quotations of $1.00 or more, ``the fee or fees cannot exceed or
accumulate to more than $0.003 per share'').
    \23\ See Cboe BZX Fee Schedule (charging $0.0030 per share for
any liquidity removing transactions), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/; MIAX
Pearl Equities Free Schedule (charging $0.0030 per share for any
liquidity removing executions), available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/fee_schedule-files/MIAX_PEARL_Equities_Fee_Schedule_01292021.pdf; MEMX Fee Schedule
(charging $0.0026 per share for any liquidity removing executions),
available at https://info.memxtrading.com/fee-schedule/; Nasdaq
Equity 7 Section 118(a) (charging $0.0030 per share for any
liquidity removing executions), available at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/rules/nasdaq-equity-7; NYSE
Fee Schedule (charging $0.00275 per share for any liquidity removing
executions), available at https://www.nyse.com/markets/nyse/trading-info/fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that the proposed fee change is
consistent with the Act's requirement that the Exchange provide for an
equitable allocation of fees that is also not unfairly discriminatory.
As proposed, the fees for adding and removing displayed liquidity will
apply in an equal and

nondiscriminatory manner to all Members. All Members are eligible to
enter displayed orders and orders to remove displayed orders. Moreover,
to the extent the proposed change is successful in incentivizing the
entry and execution of displayed orders on IEX, such greater liquidity
will benefit all market participants by increasing price discovery and
price formation as well as market quality and execution opportunities.
    The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable to revise the
internalization fee to apply only to executions of non-displayed orders
and to refer Members to the relevant Fee Code Combinations for specific
details on fees for such orders. As discussed in the Purpose section,
with the change to the fee structure for executions of and with
displayed liquidity, the Exchange determined that the internalization
fee incentive is not necessary for executions of displayed orders
(which by definition are adding orders that receive a free execution).
Furthermore, as discussed in the Purpose section, providing a free
execution for orders that remove displayed liquidity is inconsistent
with the proposed fee structure of charging $0.0006 for all orders that
remove displayed liquidity. The Exchange further believes that this
approach is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will
apply to all Members in the same manner. The internalization fee was
adopted when IEX launched as a national securities exchange \24\ and
was designed to incentivize Members (and their customers) to send
orders to IEX that may otherwise be internalized off exchange with the
overall goals of, among other things, enhancing order interaction on
the Exchange with the resultant benefit of exchange transparency,
regulation, and oversight.\25\ The Exchange continues to believe that
these important goals are served by offering free non-displayed
executions for orders subject to the internalization fee, as well as
allowing displayed adding orders subject to the internalization fee to
execute for free. Charging the displayed liquidity removing fee to
orders subject to the internalization fee is reasonable because the
proposed pricing structure for execution of displayed liquidity is
designed to incentivize the adding of displayed liquidity, thereby
facilitating price discovery and price formation, which will inure to
the benefit of any market participants seeking to interact with IEX's
displayed liquidity, and the fee to access such liquidity will still
remain well below the rate charged by many other competing exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78550 (August 11,
2016), 81 FR 54873 (August 17, 2016) (SR-IEX-2016-09).
    \25\ See supra note 24 at 54875.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to charge non-
displayed liquidity adding D-Limit orders the standard $0.0009 fee for
non-displayed executions. As discussed in the Purpose section, IEX
believes that the pricing incentive for D-Limit orders that add
liquidity is no longer necessary, and such orders should be subject to
the fees applicable to orders that add displayed or non-displayed
liquidity, as applicable, and consistent with the goal of incentivizing
displayed liquidity on IEX. The Exchange also believes that this
approach is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will
apply to all Members in the same manner, and all Members are eligible
to enter displayed and non-displayed orders.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to revise
the applicable Base Fee Codes, Additional Fee Codes, and Fee Code
Combinations and Associated Fees to reflect the proposed fee changes
and to provide information to Members on the relevant charges,
including indicating whether an execution was to add or remove
liquidity, as well as to remove the text related to the current fee
structure for D-Limit orders. The revisions are designed to reflect the
fee changes, and also to provide enhanced clarity to the applicable
Base Fee Codes, Additional Fee Codes, and Fee Code Combinations and
Associated Fees with respect to whether an execution was to add or
remove liquidity. Based on informal feedback from Members, the Exchange
understands that this information would be useful to them in reviewing
trading activity on IEX. Other exchanges provide similar
information,\26\ so the Exchange does not believe that adding such
information raises any new or novel issues not already considered by
the Commission. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that it is
reasonable to revise the Base Fee Codes, Additional Fee Codes, and Fee
Code Combinations as proposed in order to reflect the applicable fees
and add additional relevant information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90076
(October 2, 2020), 85 FR 63620, 63621 (October 8, 2020) (SR-MEMX-
2020-10) (describing how the exchange provides ``distinct Fee Codes
on execution reports provided to Members.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to make a
conforming change to delete the provision in the Fee Schedule
specifying that a D-Limit order priced at or above $1.00 that provides
liquidity results in a free execution. As discussed in the Purpose
section, this language is no longer accurate because non-displayed
liquidity adding D-Limit orders will now be charged the standard fee
for non-displayed liquidity adding orders, and deletion will avoid any
unnecessary confusion as to the applicable fees.
    Finally, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to delete the
definition of ``spread crossing eligible order'' which is no longer
relevant to fees charged by IEX, as described in the Purpose section,
in order to avoid any unnecessary confusion regarding whether any fees
are impacted by whether an order is a ``spread crossing eligible
order.''

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed fees will impose any burden on intermarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can easily direct their orders to
competing venues, including off-exchange venues, if its fees are viewed
as non-competitive. Moreover, IEX believes that the proposed fees are
designed to enhance competition by increasing the Exchange's pool of
displayed liquidity, and to the extent that displayed liquidity
increases, would contribute to the public price discovery process.
Further, subject to the SEC rule filing process, other exchanges could
adopt a similar order type and fee incentive.
    The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change
will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. While Members
that add liquidity using displayed orders will be subject to different
fees based on this usage, those differences are not based on the type
of Member entering orders but on whether the Member chose to submit
displayed liquidity providing orders. As noted above, not only can any
Member submit displayed liquidity adding orders, but every Member would
benefit from the availability of more liquidity on the Exchange that
the proposed fees are designed to incentivize. The related and
conforming changes are designed, as discussed in the Purpose and
Statutory Basis sections, to provide additional

clarity and remove superfluous provisions. Accordingly, the Exchange
does not believe that these changes will have any impact on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) \27\ of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \28\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-IEX-2021-05 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-IEX-2021-05. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File No. SR-IEX-2021-05, and should be submitted on or
before April 26, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-06886 Filed 4-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 130 (Wednesday, July 8, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38943-38944]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16743]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0572]

Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo
Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: At various times throughout the month of July, the Coast Guard
will enforce certain safety zones located in the Captain of the Port
Buffalo Zone. This action is necessary and intended for the safety of
life and property on navigable waters during this event. During each
enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the respective safety
zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port Buffalo.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.939 will be enforced on July 3,
2015 from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m., on July 3 from 9:45 p.m. to 11:30
p.m., on July 4, 2015 from 8:45 p.m. to 10:15 p.m., and on July 11,
2015 from 9:15 p.m. to 11 p.m., as specified in the Supplementary
Information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
document, call or email LTJG Amanda Garcia, Chief of Waterways
Management, U.S. USCG Sector Buffalo; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Waterways Management Division,
Coast Guard Sector Buffalo, 1 Fuhrmann Blvd., Buffalo, NY 14203; Coast
Guard telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety
Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone listed in
33 CFR 165.939 for the following events:
    (1) Salute to our Heroes, Hamlin Beach State Park, NY; The safety
zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(16) will be enforced from 9:45 p.m. to
11:30 p.m. on July 3, 2015.
    (2) North Tonawanda Fireworks, North Tonawanda, NY; The safety zone
listed in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(18) will be enforced from 8:45 p.m. to
10:15 p.m. on July 4, 2015.
    (3) French Festival Fireworks, Cape Vincent, NY; The safety zone
listed in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(3) will be enforced from 9:15 p.m. to 11
p.m. on July 11, 2015.
    (4) Village Fireworks, Sodus Point, NY; The safety zone listed in
33 CFR 165.939(a)(14) will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on
July 3, 2015.
    Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring
within these safety zones during an enforcement period is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated
representative. Those seeking permission to enter one of these safety
zones may request permission from the Captain of Port Buffalo via
channel 16, VHF-FM. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter one
of these safety zones shall obey the directions of the Captain of the
Port Buffalo or his designated representative. While within a safety
zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to
maintain a safe course.
    This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.939 and 5
U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this document in the Federal Register,
the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance
notification of these enforcement periods via Broadcast Notice to
Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port
Buffalo determines that one of these safety zones need not be enforced
for the full duration stated in this document he or she may use a
Broadcast Notice to

Mariners to grant general permission to enter the respective safety
zone.

    Dated: June 25, 2015.
B.W. Roche,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2015-16743 Filed 7-7-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 214 (Monday, November 5, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66405-66406]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26684]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0470; FRL-9740-2]

Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality and Maricopa County Air Quality
Department

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and Maricopa County Air
Quality Department (MCAQD) portions of the Arizona State Implementation
Plan (SIP). This action was proposed in the Federal Register on June
27, 2012 and concerns regulations that require monitoring and reporting
of volatile organic compounds (VOC), oxides of nitrogen
(NOX), and particulate matter (PM) emissions from stationary
sources. We are approving local rules that regulate these emission
sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are not acting on
two Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PCDEQ) rules
originally listed in our June 27, 2012 proposed action because official
copies of these rules with public process documentation were not
submitted for SIP approval.

DATES: These rules will be effective on December 5, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0470 for
this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume
reports), and some may not be available in either location (e.g.,
confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rynda Kay, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4118<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    EPA proposed to approve the following rules into the Arizona SIP in
the Federal Register at 77 FR 38246, June 27, 2012.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Local agency                Rule No.                                Rule title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADEQ...........................  18-2-313..........  Existing Source Emission Monitoring.
ADEQ...........................  18-2-327..........  Annual Emissions Inventory Questionnaire.
MCAQD..........................  100, Section 500..  Monitoring and Records.
PCDEQ..........................  17.12.040.........  Reporting Requirements.
PCDEQ..........................  17.24.040.........  Reporting for Compliance Evaluations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve these rules because we determined that they
complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action
contains more information on the rules and our evaluation. Our proposed
approval of these rules responded to a June 1, 2012 request from the
State to parallel process versions of these rules. Our proposal
explained that the above rules had not previously been submitted to us
or had been adopted locally but had not been adopted specifically for
purposes of approval into the federally enforceable SIP under CAA
section 110.
    On August 24, 2012, ADEQ submitted to EPA the versions of ADEQ 18-
2-313 and 18-2-327 that were adopted locally on February 15, 2001 and
December 7, 1995 respectively. On June 19, 2012, ADEQ submitted to EPA
the version of Maricopa Rule 100, Section 500 that was adopted locally
on March 15, 2006. On September 5, 2012, EPA determined that the
submittal for ADEQ Rules 18-2-313 and 18-2-327, and MCAQD Rule 100,
Section 500 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V,
which must be met before formal EPA review. We have reviewed these
versions of the rules, and they are unchanged from the versions we
proposed for approval on June 27, 2012.
    On June 27, 2012, we also proposed approval of PCDEQ Rules
17.12.040 and 17.24.040 contingent upon EPA's receipt of fully adopted
rules that satisfy state and local procedural requirements for SIP
submittals. PCDEQ Rule 17.12.040 was not submitted to EPA and while
PCDEQ Rule 17.24.040 was submitted on August 24, 2012, it did not
include evidence of public notice as required by 40 CFR part 51
Appendix V. As such, we are not finalizing our action on these rules at
this time. If these rules are subsequently submitted to EPA, we may
finalize their approval in a future rulemaking contingent upon the
rules being substantially identical to the rules in our June 27, 2012
proposed action, and that the adopted rules satisfy relevant
requirements for SIP submittals.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received no comments.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in section
110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving Maricopa Rule 100, Section
500, ADEQ Rule 18-2-313 and ADEQ Rule 18-2-327 into the Arizona SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 4, 2013. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: September 14, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(152) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (152) The following plan was submitted August 24, 2012, by the
Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporated by reference.
    (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
    (1) Arizona Administrative Code, title 18, chapter 2, article 3
(Permits and Permit Revisions):
    (i) Section R18-2-313 (``Existing Source Emission Monitoring''),
effective on February 15, 2001.
    (ii) Section R18-2-327, (``Annual Emissions Inventory
Questionnaire''), effective on December 7, 1995.
    (B) Maricopa County Air Quality Department.
    (1) Rule 100, Section 500, ``Monitoring and Records,'' revised on
March 15, 2006.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-26684 Filed 11-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 178)]
[Notices]
[Page 53070]
[DOCID:fr12se08-122]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2008-0009, Notice No. 3]

Declaration of Emergency Events

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of declaration of emergency events.

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

SUMMARY: On August 28 and September 4, 2008, the Administrator of the
FRA determined that the impending landfall of hurricanes Gustav, Hanna,
and Ike and the related requests for Presidential, Federal Disaster
Declarations from the Governors of the States of Texas and Louisiana,
constituted emergency events as related to railroad operations.
Accordingly, the Administrator activated the Emergency Relief Docket.
This document provides notice of the Administrator's determinations.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 28 and September 4, 2008, the
Administrator of the FRA determined that the impending landfall of
hurricanes Gustav, Hanna, and Ike and the related requests for
Presidential, Federal Disaster Declarations from the Governors of the
States of Texas and Louisiana, constituted emergency events pursuant to
49 CFR 211.45(c) and that public safety required the implementation of
FRA's emergency waiver rule directly related to those emergencies.
Accordingly, the Administrator activated the Emergency Relief Docket
(docket number FRA-2008-0009) and in accordance with 49 CFR 211.45(g),
petitions received in that docket pursuant to these emergency events
will be handled according to the requirements of 49 CFR 211.45(g)-(j).
    Interested parties are reminded that the procedures in 49 CFR
211.45 provide for expedited review and processing of emergency waiver
petitions. Accordingly, in accordance with 49 CFR 211.45(h), any person
wishing to comment on petitions for emergency waivers should submit
their comments to the docket within 72 hours from the close of business
on the day that the petition is posted in the public docket. Any person
desiring a public hearing on any petition being processed in accordance
with the emergency waiver procedures must notify FRA of such request in
their comments submitted to the docket. 49 CFR 211.45(i).
    Interested persons may submit their comments using any of the
following methods:
    (1) E-mail to FRA at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Fax to FRA at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
    (3) Hand deliver or expedited delivery to the Docket Clerk, Docket
Operations Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590 or electronically via the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    All communications concerning any petition in the Emergency Relief
Docket should identify the appropriate docket number (e.g., FRA-2008-
0009).

Privacy

    Anyone is able to search all comments received into any of our
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
665, Number 7, Pages 19477-78). The statement may also be found at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC on September 8, 2008.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. E8-21336 Filed 9-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 106 (Friday, June 4, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29948-29949]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11740]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51, 52, 78, and 97

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0272; FRL-10024-45-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU84

Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is correcting
certain statements in the preamble of the Revised Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, which was
published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 30, 2021.
The preamble describes a provision of the final regulatory text
incorrectly by indicating that the provision applies if a satisfactory
demonstration is made, when in fact no demonstration is required. This
document corrects the preamble to accurately describe the regulatory
text provision.

DATES: The effective date of this document is June 29, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Lifland, Clean Air Markets
Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation,
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Revised CSAPR Update was signed by EPA Administrator Michael
Regan on March 15, 2021, was published in the Federal Register on April
30, 2021 (86 FR 23054), and has an effective date of June 29, 2021.
Among other things, the rule includes provisions at new 40 CFR
97.811(d) recalling a certain number of allowances issued under the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program (referred to
here as ``Group 2 allowances'') equivalent in quantity and useability
to the vintage 2021-2024 Group 2 allowances that EPA had previously
recorded in the compliance accounts of sources in states covered by the
new CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program (referred
to here as ``Group 3 sources''). The recall applies to all Group 3
sources in whose accounts vintage 2021-2024 Group 2 allowances were
recorded, including sources that may have already sold the Group 2
allowances or retired. See generally 86 FR at 23139-142 and 23201-203.
    In response to comments received on the proposal, the regulatory
text implementing the recall requirements includes a provision intended
to address the possible circumstance where the current owners and
operators of a Group 3 source may have obtained ownership and control
in a transaction that did not also provide rights to direct the use or
transfer of Group 2 allowances recorded in the source's compliance
account. In such a circumstance, the regulatory text at new 40 CFR
97.811(d)(2)(ii)(B) provides that responsibility for complying with the
Group 2 allowance recall requirements lies with the most recent former
owners and operators of the source before the occurrence of any such
transactions. See 86 FR at 23201.

Need for Corrections

    As published, the preamble text describing the regulatory text
provision at new 40 CFR 97.811(d)(2)(ii)(B) includes an incorrect
statement.

Specifically, at two locations the preamble text states that the
provision applies if the occurrence of a qualifying transaction is
``demonstrated to EPA's satisfaction'' and further states that the
relevant former owners and operators are identified by reference to
such demonstrations. See 86 FR at 23139, 23142. In fact, as adopted in
the final regulatory text, the provision applies whenever a qualifying
transaction has occurred, with no need for any specific demonstration.
Further, the relevant former owners and operators are identified by
reference to such transactions rather than by reference to any
demonstrations. In order to avoid any confusion that might be caused by
the incorrect references in the preamble to demonstrations, in this
document EPA is revising the preamble text to remove the incorrect
references.
    No change is being made to the regulatory requirements adopted in
the final rule as already reflected in the regulatory text. This
correction applies only to the preamble text, and the purpose of the
correction is to make the preamble consistent with the existing
regulatory language. This change is not to the rule itself and thus
does not require the opportunity for notice and comment. Even if this
change were considered to be a rule, notice and comment would be
unnecessary because this is a minor technical correction that does not
substantively alter the regulation. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This
correction will become effective along with the rule on June 29, 2021.

Correction of Publication

0
In rule document 2021-05705 at 86 FR 23054 in the Federal Register
issue of Friday, April 30, 2021, the following corrections are made:
    1. On page 23139, in the third column, in lines 3-4, remove ``it is
demonstrated to EPA's satisfaction that'', and in lines 19-20, remove
``for which such a demonstration is not made'' and add in its place
``before any such transactions occurred''; and
    2. On page 23142, in the first column, in lines 58-59, remove ``it
is demonstrated to EPA's satisfaction that'', and in the second column,
in lines 5-6, remove ``for which such a demonstration is not made'' and
add in its place ``before any such transactions occurred''.

    Dated: May 27, 2021.
Joseph Goffman,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2021-11740 Filed 6-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


"Johansson, Robert"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 10/18/2007 04:30 PM

To

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jim DeMocker/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

FW: Jim DeMocker's response to your question about 812

Hi Ron and Jim,

Thanks for getting back to me.  I had a couple thoughts/questions on

your responses especially after re-reading the Section 812 amendments to

the CAA, SAB's charge, and SAB's responses:

(1)  Do you consider an RIA to be a "scientifically reviewed study"?

(2)  Did the charge questions to SAB March 15th council refer to the 812

report Second Propective Study or to individual RIA's?

(3)  Because RIA's and section 812 reports have different guidelines and

may use different methods/data, please comment on the relevance of SAB's

responses to the methods used in the Second Prospective Study to methods

used in independent ongoing and future RIA's.

(4)  Was the SAB asked to comment on the merits of using multiple

methods to estimate costs of unknown controls vs. the merits of the

methods independently?

(5)  From SAB letter on the 812 report Second Propective Study,

"Emission reductions attributed to unidentified measures appear to

account for a large share of emission reductions required for a few

lasrge metropolitan areas but a relatively small share of emission

reductions in other locations and nationwide..."  (page 6). This

statement seems based on the current naaqs std and not the proposed

stds.  Do you agree with this interpretation?

(6)  Reading further (on page 6), SAB does acknowledge the possibility,

in the 812 report Second Propective Study, of there being some value to

assigning costs to unidentified measures, however SAB suggests taking

great care in reporting these costs.  SAB also acknowledges the

possibility, in the 812 report Second Propective Study, in some cases it

may be preferable to quantify these costs rather than to just report the

quantity and share of emissions reductions attributed to these measures.

In fact, section 812 states "The Administrator shall consider the

effects of such a standard on employment, productivity, cost of living,

economic growth, and the overall economy of the United States." Both of

these point to there being a value at portraying "all" costs of a

standard. Do you agree with this interpretation?

(7)  SAB does acknowledge the possibility, in the 812 report Second

Propective Study, that if costs are assigned to unidentified measures, a

simple transparent method that is sensitive to the degree of uncertainty

about these costs is best.  Do you agree with this interpretation?

(8)  Of the individual approaches presented (i.e., SAB was not asked the

merits to using more than one method), SAB does acknowledge the

possibility, in the 812 report Second Propective Study that the fixed

cost/ton appears to be the most straightforward.  However, they did not

say that the other methods were not simple or transparent. Do you agree

with this interpretation?

(9) SAB does acknowledge the possibility, in the 812 report Second

Propective Study, that uncertainty might be represented using

alternative fixed costs per ton of emissions avoided, but they

implicitly acknowledge that uncertainty might be represented using other

methods.  Do you agree with this interpretation?

Cheers,

Rob


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 35 (Friday, February 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 10164]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03495]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9049-5]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements filed February
10, 2020 10 a.m. EST through February 17, 2020 10 a.m. EST pursuant to
40 CFR 1506.9.
    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa/.
    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20200039, Final, DOE, OR, ADOPTION--Jordan Cove Energy Project,
Contact: Brian Lavoie<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    The Department of Energy (DOE) has adopted the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's Final EIS No. 20190276, filed 11/15/2019 with
the EPA. DOE was a cooperating agency on this project. Therefore,
recirculation of the document is not necessary under Section 1506.3(c)
of the CEQ regulations.

EIS No. 20200040, Final Supplement, DOE, LA, ADOPTION--Magnolia LNG
Production Capacity Amendment, Contact: Brian Lavoie<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    The Department of Energy (DOE) has adopted the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's Final EIS No. 20200018, filed 1/24/2020 with
the EPA. DOE was a cooperating agency on this project. Therefore,
recirculation of the document is not necessary under Section 1506.3(c)
of the CEQ regulations.

EIS No. 20200041, Final, FERC, NC, Southgate Project, Review Period
Ends: 03/23/2020, Contact: Office of External Affairs<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200042, Draft Supplement, BLM, ID, Idaho Greater Sage-Grouse
2020 Draft Supplemental EIS, Comment Period Ends: 04/06/2020, Contact:
Jon Beck<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200043, Final, USACE, NY, Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point
Reformulation Study, Review Period Ends: 03/23/2020, Contact: Robert J
Smith<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200044, Final, BLM, WY, Moneta Divide Natural Gas and Oil
Development Project, Review Period Ends: 03/23/2020, Contact: Holly
Elliot<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200045, Draft Supplement, BLM, CO, Colorado Greater Sage-
Grouse 2020 Draft Supplemental EIS, Comment Period Ends: 04/06/2020,
Contact: Jon Beck<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200046, Draft Supplement, BLM, NV, Nevada/California Greater
Sage-Grouse 2020 Draft Supplemental EIS, Comment Period Ends: 04/06/
2020, Contact: Jon Beck<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200047, Draft Supplement, BLM, OR, Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse
2020 Draft Supplemental EIS, Comment Period Ends: 04/06/2020, Contact:
Jon Beck<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200048, Draft Supplement, BLM, UT, Utah Greater Sage-Grouse
2020 Draft Supplemental EIS, Comment Period Ends: 04/06/2020, Contact:
Jon Beck<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200049, Draft Supplement, BLM, WY, Wyoming Greater Sage-
Grouse 2020 Draft Supplemental EIS, Comment Period Ends: 04/06/2020,
Contact: Jon Beck<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 18, 2020.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2020-03495 Filed 2-20-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


The Environmental Protection Agency is providing this “Reader’s
Guide” to allow the reader to more easily access and navigate the
various documents contained in the sulfentrazone electronic docket.  The
documents are posted in Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)
electronic docket in   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
www.regulations.gov  under EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0624.  Each item contains the
title of the document, the date of the document, its author(s) when
applicable, and a brief description of its purpose.

EPA is committed to involving stakeholders and the public in its
development of pesticide reregistration and tolerance reassessment
decisions. The Agency's public participation process provides a dynamic
framework for public involvement and consultation during the conduct of
these programs.

Docket Item 1. 	Federal Register Notice:  Pesticide Registration Review;
New Dockets Opened for Review and Comment; Notice of Availability;
September 23, 2009

This document formally and publicly announces the establishment of,
inter alia, the Sulfentrazone Registration Review Docket that is
available for review on the Federal Docket Management System’s
(FDMS’s) internet site or at the EPA’s Office of Pesticides
Programs’ (paper copy) Public Docket.  It solicits comments on the
sulfentrazone related documents and provides timeframes and locations
for submitting comments.

Docket Item 2. 	Reader’s Guide to docket # EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0624;
September 23, 2009; Guerry

This document, it is designed to describe the purpose of each document
in the docket.

Docket Item 3.	Sulfentrazone Summary Document Registration Review:
Initial Docket September 2009; September 16, 2009; Keigwin

Document summarizes what EPA currently knows about the sulfentrazone
pesticide case and a preliminary work plan for anticipated data and
assessment needs.

Docket Item 4.	Sulfentrazone Appendix A; September 9, 2008; Biological
and Economic Analysis Division

This report presents EPA’s understanding of the current use and usage
patterns of sulfentrazone including any limitations or restrictions.

Docket Item 5.	Screening Level Use Analysis (SLUA) for Sulfentrazone;
January 6, 2009; Biological and Economic Analysis Division

This report presents a screening level use estimate of the agricultural
use of the active ingredient sulfentrazone.

Docket Item 6.	EFED Problem Formulation for Sulfentrazone Registration
Review; 				September 9, 2009; Environmental Fate and Effects Division

Also included as part of the Summary Document, this document summarizes
what EPA currently knows about the environmental fate and effects of the
sulfentrazone pesticide and includes a preliminary work plan for
anticipated data and assessment needs.

Docket Item 7.	Revised Human-Health Assessment Scoping Document in
Support of Registration Review; September 9, 2009; Health Effects
Division

Also included as part of the Summary Document, this document summarizes
what EPA currently knows about the human health effects of the
sulfentrazone pesticide and includes a preliminary work plan for
anticipated data and assessment needs.

Docket Item 8.	Updated Review of Sulfentrazone Incident Reports; May7,
2009; Health Effects Division

This document summarizes the review of the EPA’s incident databases
for sulfentrazone.

Sulfentrazone Reader’s Guide - Docket # EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0624

 PAGE  2


[Federal Register: March 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 54)]
[Notices]
[Page 14200-14203]
[DOCID:fr21mr06-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF06-11-000]

Quoddy Bay, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement for the Proposed Quoddy Bay LNG Project, Request for
Comments on Environmental Issues and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings

March 14, 2006.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) and
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard (Coast
Guard) are in the process of evaluating the Quoddy Bay L.L.C. (Quoddy
Bay) Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Import and Regasification Terminal
project (the Project) which involves the construction and operation of
facilities by Quoddy Bay on the western shore of Passamaquoddy Bay in
Washington County, Maine. The Project would consist of an onshore LNG
import terminal located in Pleasant Point, ME with an approximate
eight-mile-long pipeline connecting to a storage facility located in
Perry, Maine., and 35-mile-long natural gas sendout pipeline
interconnecting with the Maritimes and Northeast (M&NE) Pipeline
system.
    As part of this evaluation, FERC staff will prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS) that will address the
environmental impacts of the project and the Coast Guard will assess
the maritime safety and security of the Project. As explained further
in the Public Participation Section of this notice, the FERC and Coast
Guard will hold joint public scoping meetings to allow the public and
interested agencies the opportunity to provide input to these
assessments.
    This notice explains the scoping process that will help us \1\
determine which issues/impacts need to be evaluated in the EIS. This
EIS will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to
determine whether the Project is in the public convenience and
necessity. Please note that the scoping period for the Project will
close on April 28, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``We,'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental
staff of the Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FERC will be the lead Federal agency in the preparation of an
EIS that will satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). The Coast Guard; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
and Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs will serve as
cooperating agencies during preparation of the EIS. In addition, we
have invited the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service; the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; the U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service; the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, the Natural Resources Conservation Service; the Maine
Department of Environmental Protection; the Maine Department of Marine
Resources; and the Maine Division of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.
    Comments may be submitted in written form or verbally. In lieu of
or in addition to sending written comments, you are invited to attend
the public scoping meetings that have been scheduled in the Project
area. Further instructions on how to submit written comments and
additional details of the public scoping meetings are provided in the
public participation section of this NOI.
    The Coast Guard is responsible for matters related to navigation
safety, vessel engineering and safety standards, and all matters
pertaining to the safety of facilities or equipment located in or
adjacent to navigable waters up to the last valve immediately before
the receiving tanks. The Coast Guard also has authority for LNG
facility security plan review, approval, and compliance verification as
provided in Title 33 CFR 105, and recommendation for siting as it
pertains to the management of vessel traffic in and around the LNG
facility.
    Upon receipt of a letter of intent from an owner or operator
intending to build a new LNG facility, the Coast Guard Captain of the
Port (COTP) conducts an analysis that results in a letter of
recommendation issued to the owner or operator and to the state and
local governments having jurisdiction, addressing the suitability of
the waterway to accommodate LNG vessels. Specifically the letter of
recommendation addresses the suitability of the waterway based on:
     The physical location and layout of the facility and its
berthing and mooring arrangements.
     The LNG vessels' characteristics and the frequency of LNG
shipments to the facility.
     Commercial, industrial, environmentally sensitive, and
residential area in and adjacent to the waterway used by the LNG
vessels en route to the facility.
     Density and character of the marine traffic on the
waterway.
     Bridges or other manmade obstructions in the waterway.
     Depth of water.
     Tidal range.
     Natural hazards, including rocks and sandbars.
     Underwater pipelines and cables.
     Distance of berthed LNG vessels from the channel, and the
width of the channel.
    In addition, the Coast Guard will review and approve the facility's
operations manual and emergency response plan (33 CFR 127.019), as well
as the facility's security plan (33 CFR 105.410). The Coast Guard will
also provide input to other Federal, state, and local government
agencies reviewing the project.
    In order to complete a thorough analysis and fulfill the regulatory
mandates cited above, the COTP Sector Northern New England will be
conducting a formal risk assessment evaluating the various safety and
security aspects associated with the Quoddy Bay's LNG proposed project.
This risk assessment will be accomplished through a series of workshops
focusing on the areas of waterways safety, port security, and
consequence management, with involvement from a broad cross-section

of government and port stakeholders with expertise in each of the
respective areas. The workshops will be by invitation only. However,
comments received during the public comment period will be considered
as input in the risk assessment process.
    This notice is being sent to affected landowners within 0.5 mile of
the proposed LNG Terminal; landowners within 200 feet of the pipeline
route under consideration; Federal, state, and local government
agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups;
Native American tribes; and local libraries and newspapers; and other
interested parties.
    Some affected landowners may be contacted by a project
representative about the acquisition of an easement to construct,
operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. If so, Quoddy Bay and
the affected landowners should seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable
agreement. In the event that the Project is certificated by the
Commission, that approval conveys the right of eminent domain for
securing easements for the facilities. Therefore, if easement
negotiations fail to produce an agreement, Quoddy Bay could initiate
condemnation proceedings in accordance with state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' addresses a number
of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and
how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is available for
viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Quoddy Bay proposes to site, construct, and operate an LNG terminal
and storage facility, and associated natural gas sendout pipeline with
a capacity of 2.0 billion cubic feet per day. More specifically, Quoddy
Bay's facilities would consist of:
     An LNG import and marine LNG terminal, including a double,
staggered berth, 1,700-foot-long pier, capable of handling about 90 LNG
tankers per year, ranging in size from 135,000 to 200,000 cubic meters
(m\3\) per ship;
     An onshore storage and regasification facility which
includes three full-containment insulated storage tanks with a capacity
of 160,000 m\3\ each.
     LNG being unloaded from either of two berths. Each berth
has four identical unloading arms, three in liquid service and one in
vapor service. Each arm is provided with an emergency release system.
Tankers can be unloaded at 4,000 to 12,000 cubic meters per hour;
     The platform on the unloading pier will be equipped with
submerged combustion vaporizers which can vaporize the LNG on site and
send gas directly to the sendout line bypassing the shore side storage
facility;
     The electrical power distribution, including power
substations, transformers, switchgear, multiple voltage distribution,
emergency and UPS power systems;
     Ancillary terminal facilities being located on the pier,
including enclosed control rooms, and platform firefighting capability;
     A computer-based distributed control system, measurement
controls and natural gas metering facilities;
     LNG being pumped via a cryogenic transfer line
approximately 6,000 ft., crossing under a state highway, across a small
inlet bay to the storage facility.
     A comprehensive hazard monitoring system incorporating
flammable gas detectors, high and low temperature detectors, smoke
detectors, and local emergency shut-down controls.
     The proposed sendout pipeline would consist of a 35.1
miles of 36-inch diameter pipeline that would extend from the Import
Facility through the Storage Facility and interconnect with the M&NE
Pipeline in Princeton, Maine.
    A map depicting the general location of the Project facilities and
pipeline is shown in Appendix 1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies are available from the
Commission's Public Reference and Files Maintenance Branch, at (202)
502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the
last page of this Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quoddy Bay is requesting approval such that the pier facilities are
completed and placed into service in 2009 with the storage facilities
being placed into service in 2010.

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the project would disturb about 993 acres of land.
Following construction, about 337 to 340 acres of the total would be
retained for the operation of the LNG Terminal and Sendout Pipeline.
    As proposed, the Import Facility would be constructed on submerged
lands that extend from mean low water at Split Rock eastward towards
the United States shore between Pleasant Point, Maine and Deer Island
in New Brunswick Canada. Construction of this facility would require
approximately 431 acres of land, of this amount, 30 acres consists of
submerged lands that would be permanently impacted by the operation of
the facility.
    The Support Facility would be located on Split Rock within the
Passamaquoddy Indian Reservation in Pleasant Point, Maine. About 4
acres of land would be temporarily impacted by the construction of the
Support Facility, of which about 2.5 acres of land would be permanently
impacted by the operation of the proposed facility.
    Construction of the LNG Transfer System would temporarily impact
about 8 acres of land and would including a segment of submerged land
in Half Moon Cove. About 6 acres would be required for operation of the
LNG Transfer System.
    The Storage Facility would be located in the town of Perry, Maine
and affect about 100 acres of land. About 88 acres would be affected by
operation.
    The 35.1-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter sendout pipeline in Washington
County, Maine would temporarily affect about 430 to 450 acres of land
during construction. About 210 to 213 acres would be required for
operations. Quoddy Bay would use a maximum 100-wide right-of-way for
construction, of this amount 50 feet would consist of permanent right-
of-way and 50 feet would consist of temporary workspace. The
construction right-of-way near wetlands and water bodies would be
limited to 75 feet and in residential areas to 50 feet.

The EIS Process

    The Project is currently in the preliminary stages of design, and
at this time a formal application has not been filed with the
Commission. For this proposal, the Commission is initiating the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review prior to receiving the
application. This allows interested stakeholders to become involved
early in project planning and to identify and resolve issues before an
application is filed with the FERC. A docket number (PF06-11-000) has
been established to locate in the public record information filed by
Quoddy Bay and related documents issued by the Commission.\3\ Once a
formal application is filed with the FERC, a new docket number will be
established.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ To view information in the docket, follow the instructions
for using the eLibrary link at the end of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEPA requires the Commission to take into account the environmental
impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the
issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity under
Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act. NEPA also requires us to

identify and address concerns the public would have about proposals.
This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EIS on important
environmental issues and reasonable alternatives. By this Notice of
Intent, the Commission staff requests agency and public comments on the
scope of the issues to be addressed in the EIS. All comments received
are considered during the preparation of the EIS.
    In the EIS we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of the
proposed project under these general headings:
     Geology and Soils,
     Water Resources,
     Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation,
     Endangered and Threatened Species,
     Cultural Resources,
     Land Use, Recreation and Special Interest Areas, and
Visual Resources,
     Socioeconomics,
     Marine Transportation,
     Air Quality and Noise,
     Reliability and Safety, and
     Alternatives.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be included in the
draft EIS. The draft EIS will be published and mailed to Federal,
state, and local agencies, Native American tribes, public interest
groups, interested individuals, affected landowners, newspapers,
libraries, and the Commission's official service list for this
proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review of the draft
EIS. We will consider all timely comments on the draft EIS and revise
the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS.
    We have already started to meet with Quoddy Bay, agencies, and
other interested stakeholders to discuss the Project and identify
issues/impacts and concerns. Between February 13 and 17, 2006,
representatives of FERC staff participated in public open houses
sponsored by Quoddy Bay in the Project area to explain the NEPA
environmental review process to interested stakeholders and take
comments about the Project. In addition, the Coast Guard, which would
be responsible for reviewing the safety and security aspects of the
planned project and regulating safety and security if the project is
approved, has initiated its review of the project as well.
    With this notice, we are asking other Federal, state, and local
agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues in the project area to formally cooperate with us
in the preparation of the EIS. These agencies may choose to participate
once they have evaluated the proposal relative to their
responsibilities. Agencies that would like to request cooperating
status should follow the instructions for filing comments described
later in this notice. We encourage government representatives to notify
their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.
    To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the
instructions in the public participation section below.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have identified several issues that we think deserve attention
based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and the
information provided by Quoddy Bay. This preliminary list of issues may
be changed based on your comments and our analysis.
     Impact of LNG ship traffic on other water-body users,
including recreational boaters, tour-boats, and commercial fishing
vessels.
     Potential impacts on regional aquaculture and commercial
fishing activities.
     Safety and security issues relating to LNG ship traffic,
including transits through Head Harbor Passage.
     Potential impacts on the residents of neighboring
communities, including safety issues at the import and storage
facility, noise, air quality, and visual resources.
     Project impacts on threatened and endangered species and
nearby National Wildlife Refuges.
     Project impacts on cultural resources.
    We will make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on
the various resource areas and evaluate possible alternatives to the
proposed Project or portions of the Project.

Public Participation

    You are encouraged to become involved in this process and provide
your specific comments or concerns about Quoddy Bay's proposal. Your
comments should focus on the potential environmental effects,
reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental
impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments
are received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Magalie
R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
St. NE.; Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 1.
     Reference Docket No. PF06-11-000 on the original and both
copies.
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before April 28, 2006 (Applicable copies will be
provided to the Coast Guard).
    Please note that the Commission encourages electronic filing of
comments. See 18 Code of Federal Regulations 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Internet Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
 under the ``eFiling'' link and the link to the User's

Guide. Prepare your submission in the same manner as you would if
filing on paper and save it to a file on your hard drive. Before you
can file comments you will need to create an account by clicking on
``Login to File'' and then ``New User Account.'' You will be asked to
select the type of filing you are making. This filing is considered a
``Comment on Filing.''
    In addition to or in lieu of sending written comments, we invite
you to attend the public scoping meetings we will conduct in the
Project area.\4\ The locations for these meetings are listed below. All
meetings are scheduled to begin at 7 p.m.:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Quoddy Bay scoping meetings were originally scheduled
for March 28 and 29, 2006. However, due to scheduling conflicts for
the FERC staff, the meetings were moved as noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, April 5, 2006, 7 p.m.
    Pleasant Point Recreational Dept./Sipayik Boy's and Girl's Club,
Passamaquoddy Drive, Perry, ME 04667,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Thursday, April 6, 2006, 7 p.m.
    Perry School, 1587 U.S. Route 1, Perry, ME 04667,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    The scoping meetings listed above will be combined with the Coast
Guard's public meeting regarding the safety and security of the
project. At the meetings, the Coast Guard will discuss (1) the waterway
safety assessment that it will conduct to determine whether or not the
waterway can safely accommodate the LNG carrier traffic and operation
of the planned LNG marine terminal, and (2) the security assessment it
will conduct in accordance with the requirements of the Maritime
Transportation Security Act. The Coast Guard will not be issuing a
separate meeting notice for the maritime safety and security aspects of
the project.
    The joint public scoping meetings are designed to provide state and
local agencies, interested groups, affected

landowners, and the general public with another opportunity to offer
your comments on the Project. Interested groups and individuals are
encouraged to attend the meetings and to present comments on the
environmental issues they believe should be addressed in the EIS and
LNG vessel transit safety concerns for consideration by the Coast
Guard. A transcript of each meeting will be made so that your comments
will be accurately recorded.
    All public meetings will be posted on the Commission's calendar
located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with

other related information.
    When Quoddy Bay submits its application for authorization to
construct and operate the project, the Commission will publish a Notice
of Application in the Federal Register and will establish a deadline
for interested persons to intervene in the proceeding. Because the
Commission's Pre-Filing Process occurs before an application to begin a
proceeding is officially filed, petitions to intervene during this
process are premature and will not be accepted by the Commission.

Environmental Mailing List

    If you received this notice, you are on the environmental mailing
list for this Project and will continue to receive Project updates
including the draft and final EISs. If you want your contact
information corrected or you do not want to remain on our mailing list,
please return the Correct or Remove From Mailing List Form included as
Appendix 3.
    To reduce printing and mailing costs, the draft and final EISs will
be issued in both CD-ROM and hard copy formats. The FERC strongly
encourages the use of the CD-ROM format in its publication of large
documents. If you wish to receive a paper copy of the draft EIS instead
of a CD-ROM, you must indicate that choice on the return postcard
(Appendix 3).

Additional Information

    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://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. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

    Finally, Quoddy Bay L.L.C. LNG has established an Internet Web site
for this project at http://www.quoddylng.com. The website includes a

project overview, status, and answers to frequently asked questions.
You can also request additional information by calling Quoddy Bay LNG
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-4041 Filed 3-20-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P