[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 202 (Tuesday, October 20, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63477-63478]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26636]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 101

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-1210]
RIN 0910-AF22

Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts
Labels; Reopening of the Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the
reopening of the comment period for certain documents associated with
the proposed rule to amend FDA's labeling regulations for conventional
foods and dietary supplements to provide updated nutrition information
on the Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts labels to assist consumers
in maintaining healthy dietary practices. We also are reopening the
comment period for a supplemental proposed rule to revise the Nutrition
Facts and Supplement Facts labels. We are taking this action due to
technical difficulties at the Federal eRulemaking Portal.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the supplemental
proposed rule and related documents by October 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2012-N-1210 for this rulemaking. Received comments will be placed
in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at
the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION''. The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your

name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can
provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your
comments and you must identify this information as ``confidential.''
Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except
in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law.
For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets,
see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at:
http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip L. Chao, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-24), Food and Drug Administration, 5100
Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11879), we
published a proposed rule that would amend our labeling regulations for
conventional foods and dietary supplements to provide updated nutrition
information. In the Federal Register of July 27, 2015 (80 FR 44302), we
reopened the comment period through September 25, 2015, for the
proposed rule for the sole purpose of inviting public comments on two
consumer studies being added to the administrative record. The consumer
studies pertained to proposed changes to the Nutrition Facts label
formats. We also issued a supplemental proposed rule (80 FR 44303) with
a comment period through October 13, 2015. The supplemental proposal
included two additional consumer studies pertaining to the declaration
of added sugars and alternative footnote statements. We proposed text
for the footnotes to be used on the Nutrition Facts label, after
completing our consumer research in which we tested various footnote
text options for the label. We also proposed to establish a Daily
Reference Value of 10 percent of total energy intake from added sugars
and to require the declaration of the percent Daily Value for added
sugars on the label. The supplemental proposed rule also provided
additional rationale for the declaration of the amount of added sugars
on the label. We explained that we were taking these actions based, in
part, on the science underlying a new report released by the 2015
Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.
    More recently, in the Federal Register of September 10, 2015 (80 FR
54446), we issued a notice clarifying: (1) The consumer studies on the
added sugars declaration and the alternative footnote statements in the
supplemental proposal relate to topics on which we sought comment and
(2) the consumer studies on the format published in a separate notice
in July 2015 were included for comment, and were placed in the docket
at that time. We also stated that, in response to requests for the raw
data for each of these consumer studies that are relevant to the
summary memoranda for the studies, we were making the raw data
available for comment. We extended the comment period for the two
consumer studies pertaining to the proposed changes to the Nutrition
Facts label formats (originally scheduled to close on September 25,
2015) to October 13, 2015, to coincide with the end of the comment
period for the supplemental proposed rule.
    However, on October 13 and 14, 2015, the Federal eRulemaking
Portal, http://www.regulations.gov, experienced technical difficulties
which sometimes prevented the electronic submission of comments.
Therefore, we are reopening the comment period for the consumer studies
and the supplemental proposal; the reopened comment period will close
on October 23, 2015.

    Dated: October 15, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-26636 Filed 10-19-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71365-71366]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28363]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0724; Airspace Docket No. 14-AGL-12]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Clark, SD

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Clark,
SD. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at Clark County Airport. The FAA
is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 16, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2014-0724/Airspace Docket No. 14-
AGL-12, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket
Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the
building at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Shelby, Central Service
Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone:
817-321-7740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2014-0724/
Airspace Docket No. 14-AGL-12.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Clark
County Airport, Clark, SD, to accommodate new standard instrument
approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and
management of IFR operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014 and effective September 15, 2014, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an

established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would establish controlled airspace at Clark County Airport,
Clark, SD.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

     Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014 and
effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AGL SD E5 Clark, SD [New]

Clark County Airport, ND
    (Lat. 48[deg]28'48'' N., long. 099[deg]14'11'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Clark County Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on November 24, 2014.
Humberto Melendez,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2014-28363 Filed 12-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4901-14-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9925-9928]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03164]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96865; File No. SR-IEX-2023-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend IEX
Rule 11.190(e) To Offer Users an Additional Option for How To Apply the
Exchange's Existing Anti-Internalization Functionality to Their Orders

February 9, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on February 2, 2023, 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,\4\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\5\ IEX is filing with the Commission a
proposed rule change to amend IEX Rule 11.190(e) to offer Users an
additional option for how to apply the Exchange's existing anti-
internalization functionality to their orders and to make conforming
and clarifying changes to the rule. The Exchange has designated this
rule change as ``non-controversial'' under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act \6\ and provided the Commission with the notice required by Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 the
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 statement 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend IEX Rule 11.190(e) to offer Users
\8\ an additional option for how to apply the Exchange's existing anti-
internalization group identifier (``AIQ'') functionality to their
orders. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend IEX Rule
11.190(e)(2)(E) to allow Users to modify the way a newer order
designated with the ``Decrement Larger--Original Order Quantity'' \9\
AIQ functionality interacts with older orders also subject to anti-
internalization. The Exchange also proposes to make conforming and
clarifying changes to IEX Rule 11.190(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Pursuant to IEX Rule 1.160(qq), a User means any Member or
Sponsored Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the
System pursuant to IEX Rule 11.130. Member is defined in IEX Rule
1.160(s), and Sponsored Participant is defined in IEX Rule
1.160(ll).
    \9\ See IEX Rule 11.190(e)(2)(E).

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

    IEX offers optional anti-internalization functionality that enables
a User to prevent two of its orders from executing against each other.
To utilize IEX's optional anti-internalization functionality, a User
adds a unique identifier of its choosing to an order, thereby
designating the order as subject to anti-internalization (the ``AIQ
identifier'').\10\ Orders that have the same AIQ identifier and
originate from the same MPID, User, or Member Affiliate,\11\ as
specified by the User,\12\ are part of the same ``AIQ group.'' \13\ And
any active order that is part of the same AIQ group is prevented from
executing against a resting opposite side order that is part of the
same AIQ group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See IEX Rule 11.190(e)(1)(A).
    \11\ See IEX Rule 11.190(e)(1)(B)(i).
    \12\ Users may elect to enable anti-internalization
functionality on an IEX Port Request Form, designating whether such
functionality should be applied on an MPID, User, or Member
Affiliate basis.
    \13\ See IEX Rule 11.190(e)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Users seeking to apply AIQ to their orders also include one of five
modifiers to their orders, which determines the interaction between two
orders within the same AIQ group that would otherwise execute against
each other (``AIQ modifier'').\14\ The AIQ modifier on the order with
the newer timestamp controls the interaction between the two orders in
an AIQ group.\15\ The five AIQ modifiers are: (1) cancel the older of
the two orders (``CO''); (2) cancel the newer of the two orders
(``CN''); (3) cancel both orders (``CB''); (4) cancel the smaller of
the two orders (``CS''); or cancel the smaller of the two orders and
decrement the size of the smaller order from the larger order
(``DLO'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See IEX Rule 11.190(e)(1)(C).
    \15\ See IEX Rule 11.190(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, IEX Rule 11.190(e)(2)(E) provides for the following
functionality if the newer order is marked with the DLO AIQ modifier:

    1. If both the newer and older orders are the same size, both
orders are cancelled back to the User by the System \16\; or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See IEX Rule 1.160(nn).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. If the newer order is larger than the older order, the size
of the newer order is decremented by the size of the older order and
the older order is cancelled back to the User by the System; or
    3. If the newer order is smaller than the older order and the
older order is also marked with the DLO AIQ modifier, the size of
the older order is decremented by the size of the newer order and
the newer order is cancelled back to the User by the System; or
    4. If the newer order is smaller than the older order and the
older order is marked with an AIQ modifier other than the DLO AIQ
modifier, both orders are cancelled back to the User by the System.
Proposal
    Based upon informal feedback from Members, IEX is proposing to
allow Users to override the default functionality of the DLO AIQ
modifier that IEX applies when the newer order is smaller than the
older order and the older order is not designated with the DLO AIQ
modifier, which is described in the fourth list item, above. IEX is not
proposing to modify any of the DLO AIQ functionality described in the
first through third of the above list.
    As proposed, if the newer order is smaller than the older order,
the older order is marked with an AIQ modifier other than the DLO AIQ
modifier, the older order is not routable,\17\ and the User instructed
the Exchange to disregard the older order's AIQ modifier; then the
System would decrement the size of the larger older order by the size
of the smaller newer order (without changing the older order's AIQ
modifier) and cancel the smaller newer order instead of canceling both
orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ IEX rejects routable orders designated with a DLO AIQ
modifier, see IEX Rule 11.190(e)(8), due to technical limitations
that prevent the IEX router from identifying that the size of a
routable order has been decremented pursuant to IEX Rule 11.190(e).
For the same reason, IEX is proposing to not allow decrementing of
an older routable order even if the User has instructed the Exchange
to disregard the older order's AIQ modifier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, IEX proposes to modify IEX Rule 11.190(e)(2)(E) to specify
the interactions between two orders in the same AIQ group when the
newer order is marked with the DLO AIQ modifier. Specifically, IEX
proposes to delete the first, third and fourth sentences of IEX Rule
11.190(e)(2)(E), and amend the rule to read as follows:

    Decrement Larger--Original Order Quantity (``DLO''). If the
newer order is marked with the DLO AIQ modifier, the following
describes the manner in which such orders will interact:
    (i) If both orders are equivalent in size, then both orders will
be cancelled back to the originating User.
    (ii) If the newer order is larger than the older order, then the
size of the larger order will be decremented by the size of the
smaller order, and the smaller order will be cancelled back to the
originating User.
    (iii) If the newer order is smaller than the older order, and:
    a. the older order is also marked with the DLO AIQ modifier,
then the size of the older order will be decremented by the size of
the newer order, and the newer order will be canceled back to the
originating User.
    b. the older order is marked or designated with any AIQ modifier
other than DLO, and the User did not provide a standing instruction
for the Exchange to disregard the AIQ modifier of the older order if
the newer order is marked with the DLO AIQ modifier, then both
orders will be canceled back to the originating User.
    c. the older order is marked or designated with any AIQ modifier
other than DLO, the User provided a standing instruction for the
Exchange to disregard the AIQ modifier of the older order if the
newer order is marked with the DLO AIQ modifier, and:
    i. the older order is not routable, then the size of the older
order will be decremented by the size of the newer order, and the
newer order will be cancelled back to the originating User.
    ii. the older order is routable, then both orders will be
cancelled back to the originating User.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See proposed IEX Rule 11.190(e)(2)(E).

    With the exception of proposed IEX Rule 11.190(e)(2)(E)(iii), which
specifies how a User may override the default DLO AIQ functionality
(unless the older order is routable), the proposed changes set forth
above to the text of IEX Rule 11.190(e)(2)(E) simply clarify the
existing functionality of the DLO AIQ modifier.
    Additionally, IEX proposes to make conforming and clarifying
changes to IEX Rule 11.190(e)(2)(A)-(D). Specifically, IEX proposes to
remove the first sentence of each of these subparagraphs, because they
restate language found in IEX Rule 11.190(e) about how an active order
subject to AIQ will not execute against resting opposite side orders
within the same AIQ group. IEX also proposes to add clarifying language
to subparagraphs (A)-(D) of IEX Rule 11.190(e)(2) clarifying that the
interaction between two orders in the same AIQ group is determined by
the newer order's AIQ modifier. Finally, IEX proposes to add language
clarifying that if the criteria in that subparagraph are met, then the
two orders will interact in the specified manner.
    The proposed rule change is designed to provide additional
flexibility to Users in how they implement self-trade prevention
provided by the Exchange, and thereby better manage their order flow
and prevent undesirable executions or the potential for ``wash sales''
that may occur as a result of the speed of trading in today's
marketplace. Based on informal discussions with Users, the Exchange
believes that the proposed additional anti-internalization
functionality will be useful to Users in implementing their own
compliance controls. And the additional AIQ functionality may assist
Members in complying with certain rules and regulations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (``ERISA'') that preclude and/or limit
managing broker-dealers of such accounts from trading as

principal with orders generated for those accounts.
    The Exchange notes that, as with the current anti-internalization
functionality offered by IEX, use of the proposed new DLO AIQ
functionality will not relieve, or otherwise modify the duty of best
execution owed to orders received from customers.\19\ As such, market
participants using the AIQ modifiers will continue to be obligated to
take appropriate steps to ensure that customer orders that do not
execute because they were subject to anti-internalization ultimately
receive the same price, or a better price, than they would have
received had execution of the orders not been inhibited by anti-
internalization.\20\ Further, as with current rule provisions, Market
Makers \21\ and other Users may not use AIQ functionality to evade the
firm quote obligation, as specified in IEX Rule 11.151(b), and the AIQ
functionality must be used in a manner consistent with just and
equitable principles of trade.\22\ For these reasons, the Exchange
believes the proposed new optional DLO AIQ functionality offers Users
enhanced order processing functionality that may prevent potentially
undesirable executions without modifying broker-dealer best execution
obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Supplementary Material .01 to IEX Rule 11.190(e).
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ See IEX Rule 14.002(a)(20).
    \22\ See Supplementary Material .02 and .03 to IEX Rule
11.190(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX notes that this proposed rule change is functionally identical
to one of the anti-internalization options offered by the Cboe BZX
Exchange, Inc (``BZX''), with the exception that the BZX rule allows a
User to decrement an older order that is routable.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See BZX Rule 11.9(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\24\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\25\ in particular, in that it is
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, and 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. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because allowing Users
to apply DLO AIQ functionality to their orders irrespective of if the
newer order is larger than the older order or if the older order has
the same AIQ functionality (which is not a requirement for any other
AIQ modifier), will provide Users with additional flexibility with
respect to how they implement self-trade protections provided by IEX
that may better support their trading strategies and compliance
controls. Users that prefer the current DLO AIQ functionality can
continue to use it without any modification (i.e., this change will
only apply if the User specifically instructs the Exchange to override
the current DLO AIQ functionality).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, IEX believes that, as discussed in the Purpose
section, allowing Users the option of having an order designated with a
DLO AIQ modifier decrement the larger of the two orders with which it
would otherwise execute may encourage Users to use the Exchange's
optional AIQ functionality. As noted in the Purpose section, IEX
believes that providing Users with more flexibility and control over
the interactions of their orders better prevents undesirable executions
or the potential for ``wash sales'' that may occur as a result of the
speed of trading in today's marketplace. And the ability to override
the default DLO AIQ modifier functionality may better assist Members in
complying with certain ERISA rules and regulations that preclude and/or
limit managing broker-dealers of such accounts from trading as
principal with orders generated for those accounts.
    And the Exchange believes that the proposed non-substantive
conforming and clarifying changes to IEX Rule 11.190(e)(2) are
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because they will have no impact on the Exchanges anti-internalization
functionality, but rather simply provide consistency and clarity in
IEX's description of the AIQ modifiers, thereby reducing the potential
for confusion of any market participants.
    Finally, as discussed in the Purpose section, the Exchange notes
that this proposed rule change is functionally identical to the
functionality at BZX with the exception of IEX not allowing a routable
order to be decremented.\26\ Consequently, the Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change raises any new or novel issues
not already considered by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra note 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. To the contrary, the
proposal is designed to enhance IEX's competitiveness by providing
additional flexibility to Users applying the Exchange's optional anti-
internalization functionality, thereby incentivizing Users to send
orders to IEX and increase the liquidity available on the Exchange.
Additionally, the proposed rule change is designed to assist Users with
compliance with the securities laws that prohibit wash trading as well
as ERISA requirements. The Exchange also notes that the proposed new
DLO AIQ modifier functionality, like the Exchange's current anti-
internalization functionality, is completely optional and Users can
determine on an order-by-order basis whether to apply anti-
internalization protections to orders submitted to the Exchange.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard,
IEX notes that there is no barrier to other national securities
exchanges adopting a similar modification to their equivalent AIQ
modifiers.
    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. As proposed,
all Users will continue to be eligible to use the Exchange's anti-
internalization functionality.
    Further, the proposed conforming and clarifying changes to IEX Rule
11.190(e)(2) are not designed to address any competitive issue, but
rather to provide additional clarity in IEX's rulebook.

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 Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial
under

Section 19(b)(3)(A) \27\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \28\
thereunder. Because the proposed rule change does not: (i)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \28\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change meets the
criteria of subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 \29\ because it merely
provides additional flexibility for the use of AIQ functionality which,
as discussed above, is substantially identical to an existing rule of
another exchange with the exception of BZX allowing the decrementing of
a routable order.\30\ Thus, IEX does not believe that the proposed
change raises any new or novel material issues that have not already
been considered by the Commission in connection with existing anti-
internalization functionality offered by IEX and other national
securities exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \30\ See supra note 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-
controversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \31\ and paragraph
(f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \32\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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) \33\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-IEX-2023-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-IEX-2023-01. This file
number should be included in 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 Section, 100 F Street NE, Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing 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 Number SR-IEX-2023-01 and should be submitted on
or before March 8, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-03164 Filed 2-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 152 (Thursday, August 7, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46167-46168]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18653]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 2014 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0907; Special Conditions No. 25-541-SC]

Special Conditions: Airbus Model A350-900 Series Airplane; Tire
Failure--Debris Penetration or Rupture of Fuel-Tank Structure

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for Airbus Model A350-900
series airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual design
feature associated with fuel tanks constructed of carbon-fiber
reinforced plastic (CFRP) materials located within the tire-impact
zone, including the wing fuel tanks.
    The ability of aluminum wing skins, as has been conventionally
used, to resist penetration or rupture when impacted by tire debris, is
understood from extensive experience. The ability of carbon-fiber
composite material to resist these hazards has not been established. No
current airworthiness standards specifically address this hazard for
all exposed wing surfaces. These special conditions contain the
additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary
to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: Effective Date: September 8, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Bryant, Propulsion/Mechanical
Systems, ANM-112, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 25, 2008, Airbus applied for a type certificate for their
new Model A350-900 series airplane. Later, Airbus requested and the FAA
approved an extension to the application for FAA type certification to
November 15, 2009. The Model A350-900 series airplane has a
conventional layout with twin wing-mounted Rolls-Royce Trent XWB
engines. It features a twin aisle, 9-abreast, economy-class layout, and
accommodates side-by-side placement of LD-3 containers in the cargo
compartment. The basic Model A350-900 series airplane configuration
accommodates 315 passengers in a standard two-class arrangement. The
design cruise speed is Mach 0.85 with a maximum take-off weight of
602,000 lbs.
    Accidents have resulted from uncontrolled fires caused by fuel
leaks following penetration or rupture of the lower wing by fragments
of tires, or from uncontained engine failure. In a November 1984
accident, a Boeing Model 747 airplane tire burst during an aborted
takeoff from Honolulu, Hawaii. That tire debris penetrated a fuel-tank
access cover, causing substantial fuel leakage. Passengers were
evacuated down the emergency slides into pools of fuel that fortunately
had not ignited.
    After an August 1985 Boeing Model 737 airplane accident in
Manchester, England, in which a fuel-tank access cover was penetrated
by engine debris creating a fire, the FAA amended Title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 25.963 to require fuel-tank access covers
that are resistant to both tire and engine debris (engine debris is
addressed outside of these special conditions). Modifications to the
access covers were required of the existing fleet by an amendment to 14
CFR part 121. This regulation, Sec.  25.963(e), only addressed the
fuel-tank access covers because service experience at the time showed
that the lower-wing skin of a conventional, subsonic airplane provided
adequate inherent capability to resist tire and engine debris threats.
More specifically, this regulation requires showing, by analysis or
tests, that the access covers ``. . . minimize penetration and
deformation by tire fragments, low energy engine debris, or other
likely debris.'' Advisory Circular (AC) 25.963-1 defines the region of
the wing that is vulnerable to impact damage from these sources and
provides a method to substantiate that the rule has been met for tire
fragments. No specific requirements were established for the contiguous
wing areas into which the access covers are installed. AC 25.963-1
specifically notes, ``The access covers, however, need not be more
impact resistant than the contiguous tank structure,'' highlighting the
assumption that the wing was adequately addressed.
    The Concorde accident in July 2000 is the most notable example.
That accident demonstrated an unanticipated failure mode in an airplane
with an unusual transport-airplane configuration. Impact to the thin
aluminum wing surface by tire debris induced pressure waves within the
fuel tank that resulted in fuel leakage and fire. The skin on the
Concorde delta-wing supersonic airplane is made of aluminum, having a
thickness that is much less than that of a conventional subsonic
airplane.
    Several previous accidents from burst tires damaged the fuel tank
and wings on the Concorde. In 1979, a burst main-gear tire put a hole
through the wing, causing both fuel and hydraulic leaks. In 1980, a
burst tire damaged the engine and airframe. In July 1993, a main-gear
tire burst, damaging the wing and causing hydraulic problems. In
October 1993, a main-gear tire burst, broke the water deflector, and
created holes in the fuel tank. Fortunately, the fuel did not catch
fire during any of these events before the July 2000 accident involving
the Concorde airplane.
    Following the accident in 2000, regulatory authorities required
modifications to the Concorde aircraft to improve impact resistance of
the lower wing, or means to retain fuel if the primary fuel retention
means is damaged.
    These accidents and incidents highlight the need to establish
standards for fuel-tank designs and configurations that were not
envisioned when the existing standards in 14 CFR part 25 were issued.

Type Certification Basis

    Under 14 CFR 21.17, Airbus must show that the Model A350-900 series
airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by
Amendments 25-1 through 25-129.

    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for Model A350-900 series airplanes
because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar
novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also
apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Model A350-900 series airplane must be shown to comply
with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34,
and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. The FAA
must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public
Law 92-574, the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-
certification basis under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Airbus Model A350-900 series airplanes will incorporate the
following novel or unusual design features: CFRP materials for most of
the wing fuel-tank structure.

Discussion

    To maintain the level of safety prescribed by Sec.  25.963(e) for
fuel-tank access covers, these special conditions establish a standard
for resistance to potential tire-debris impacts to the contiguous wing
surfaces, and require consideration of possible secondary effects of a
tire impact, such as the induced pressure wave that was a factor in the
Concorde accident. These special conditions take into account that new
construction methods and materials may not necessarily provide the
resistance to debris impact that has historically been shown as
adequate. These special conditions are based on the defined tire-impact
areas and tire-fragment characteristics described in AC 25.963-1.
    In addition, despite practical-design considerations, some uncommon
debris larger than that defined in paragraph (b) may cause a fuel leak
within the defined area, so paragraph (c) of these special conditions
also takes into consideration possible leakage paths. Fuel-tank
surfaces of typical transport airplanes have thick aluminum
construction in the tire-debris impact areas that is tolerant to tire
debris larger than that defined in paragraph (b) of these special
conditions. Consideration of leaks caused by larger tire fragments is
needed to ensure that an adequate level of safety is provided.

    Note:  While Sec.  25.963 includes consideration of uncontained
engine debris, the effects of engine debris are not included in
these special conditions because these related potential hazards are
addressed on the Model A350-900 series airplane under the existing
requirements of Sec.  25.903(d). Section 25.903(d) requires
minimizing the hazards from uncontained engine debris.

    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Discussion of Comments

    Notice of proposed special conditions No. 25-13-19-SC for the
Airbus Model A350-900 series airplanes was published in the Federal
Register on January 14, 2014 (79 FR 2388). No comments were received,
and the special conditions are adopted as proposed.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to
Airbus Model A350-900 series airplanes. Should Airbus apply at a later
date for a change to the type certificate to include another model
incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special
conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on Airbus Model A350-900 series airplanes. It is not a rule of general
applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type-certification basis for Airbus Model A350-900 series
airplanes.
    a. Impacts by tire debris to any fuel tank or fuel-system component
located within 30 degrees to either side of wheel rotational planes may
not result in penetration or otherwise induce fuel-tank deformation,
rupture (for example, through propagation of pressure waves), or
cracking sufficient to allow a hazardous fuel leak. A hazardous fuel
leak results if debris impact to a fuel tank surface causes--
    1. a running leak,
    2. a dripping leak, or
    3. a leak that, 15 minutes after wiping dry, results in a wetted
airplane surface exceeding 6 inches in length or diameter.
    The leak must be evaluated under maximum fuel-head pressure.
    b. Compliance with paragraph (a) must be shown by analysis or tests
assuming all of the following:
    1. The tire-debris fragment size is equal to 1 percent of the tire
mass.
    2. The tire-debris fragment is propelled at a tangential speed that
could be attained by a tire tread at the Airplane Flight Manual
airplane rotational speed (VR at maximum gross weight).
    3. The tire-debris fragment load is distributed over an area on the
fuel-tank surface equal to 1.5 percent of the total tire-tread area.
    c. Fuel leaks caused by impact from tire debris larger than that
specified in paragraph (b), from any portion of a fuel tank or fuel-
system component located within the tire-debris impact area defined in
paragraph (a), may not result in hazardous quantities of fuel entering
any of the following areas of the airplane:
    1. Engine inlet,
    2. APU inlet, or
    3. Cabin-air inlet.
    This must be shown by test or analysis, or a combination of both,
for each approved engine forward-thrust condition, and each approved
reverse-thrust condition.

Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-18653 Filed 8-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 61633]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22095]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-249, OMB Control No. 3235-0258]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension: Form F-1

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Form F-1 (17 CFR 239.31) is used by certain foreign private issuers
to register securities pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (15
U.S.C. 77a et seq.). The information collected is intended to ensure
that the information required to be filed by the Commission permits
verification of compliance with securities law requirements and assures
the public availability of such information. Form F-1 takes
approximately 1,615.64 hours per response and is filed by approximately
66 respondents. We estimate that 25% of the 1,615.64 hours per response
(403.91 hours) is prepared by the registrant for a total annual
reporting burden of 26,658 hours (403.91 hours per response x 66
responses). An agency may conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
by November 14, 2022 to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii)
David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, or by sending an email to: [email protected].

    Dated: October 5, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-22095 Filed 10-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 172 (Friday, September 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 53058]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21099]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER14-2709-000]

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

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Seiling Wind II, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application
includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of
future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is September 17, 2014.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 28, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-21099 Filed 9-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P