carcinogenic potentials of sodium dichromate and Cr (VI/III) oxide
aerosols in Wistar rats. Envir Hyg 1:111-116.

Gradi湥⹴†〲㈰倠潲潴潣潦⁲慈摮愠摮圠灩慓灭
楬杮漠䍃ⵁ牐獥牥敶潗摯⠠牄晡⁴敒潰瑲⸩†牐灥
牡摥映牯䄠敭楲慣桃浥獩牴⁹潃湵楣䄨䍃
祢䜠慲
楤湥⁴潃灲牯瑡潩⹮†慄整灁楲ㄱ〲㈰മ

	ༀꂄㄅ$葞֠

ༀ낄ᄓㇱ$葞Ꮀ葠

愀Ĥ

愀Ĥ

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

@

ô

kd

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Ff

R

R

R

R

	”

R

؀

š

å

=

=

	ûÿ=

B

=

	ûÿ=

B

=

	ûÿ=

B

=

਀&䘋

态ú␷㠀$♀䠀$ဏ਀&䘋

态ú␷㠀$♀䠀$ဏ਀&䘋

1

3

h

j

:

<

ì

ë

ì

옍)

è

ê

s

†

Hansen, M.B., Johansen, J.D., and Menne, T. (2003): Chromium Allergy:
significance of both Cr(III) and Cr(VI). Contact Dermatitis 49: 206-212

Hayes, RB; Sheffet, A; Spirtas, R. (1989) Cancer mortality among a
cohort of chromium pigment workers. Am J Ind Med 16:127-133.

Ivankovic, S; Preussman, R. (1975) Absence of toxic and carcinogenic
effects after

administrations of high doses of chronic oxide pigment in subacute and
long term

feeding experiments in rats. Food Cosmet Toxicol 13:347-351.

 ADVANCE \d4

Langard, S; Norseth, T. (1975) A cohort study of bronchial carcinomas in
workers producing chromate pigments. Br J Ind Med 32:62-65.

Langard, S; Vigander, T. (1983) Occurrence of lung cancer in workers in
producing chromium pigments. Br J Ind Med 40:71-74.

 ADVANCE \d4

Lindberg, E; and Hedenstierna, G. (1983) Chrome plating: Symptoms,
finding in the upper airways, and effects on lung functions. Arch
Environ Health 38(6):367-374.

MacKenzie RD, Byerrum RU, Decker CF, et al. 1958. Chronic toxicity
studies II. Hexavalent and trivalent chromium administered in drinking
water to rats. A.M.A. Arch Industrial  Health 18:232-234.

Mancuso, TF. (1975) Consideration of chromium as an industrial
carcinogen.International Conference on Heavy Metals in the Environment,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, October 27-31. pp. 343-356.

Micklewright 1998.  A Report to the Wood Preserving Industry in the
United States.  Wood Preservation Statistics 1997.  August, 1998.

National Toxicology Program (NTP). 1996. Final report on the
reproductive toxicity of potassium dichromate (hexavalent)(CAS No.
7778-50-9) administered in diet to SD rats. Dec. 16, 1996. U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service,
PB97125355.

National Toxicology Program (NTP). 1997a. Final report on the
reproductive toxicity of potassium dichromate (hexavalent) (CAS No.
7778-50-9) administered in diet to BALB/C mice. Jan 10, 1997. U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service,
PB97125363.

National Toxicology Program (NTP). 1997b. Final report on the
reproductive toxicity of potassium dichromate (hexavalent) (CAS No.
7778-50-9) administered in diet to BALB/C mice. Feb 25, 1997. RACB94014.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service,
PB97-144919.

Nethercott, J., Paustenbach, D., Adams, R., Fowler, J., Marks, J.,
Morton, C., Taylor, J., Horowitz, S., Finley, B. (1994): A Study of
Chromium induced allergic contact dermatitis with 54 volunteers:
implications for environmental risk assessment. Occup. Environ. Med. 51:
371-380.

Osmose.  2005.  Osmose ACC 50% Wood Preservative:  Determination of
Hexavalent Chromium Residues In and On Wood Following Treatment with
Acid Copper Chromate.  Dated September 13, 2005.  MRID No. 466447-01.

Proctor, Deborah M.; Guiral, Jaspreet; Su, Steave (2006): Repeated Open
Application Test for Allergic Contact Dermatitis due to Hexavalant
Chromium [Cr(VI)] as CopperShield: Risk Assessment for Dermal Contact
with Cr(VI). Study performed by Dermatology Specialists, PSC, 444 South
First Street, Louisville, KY 40202. Project number FPRL 021506.
Submitted under MRID 46884001. Unpublished.

RTI.  2003.  Assessment of Exposure To Metals In CCA-Preserved Wood:
Full Study.  Prepared for American Chemistry Council (ACC) by RTI
International.  Dated June 20, 2003.

Solo-Gabriele et al.  2001.  New Lines of CCA-Treated Wood Research:
In-service and Disposal Issues.  State University System of Florida,
Florida Center for Solid Hazardous Waste Management.  Gainesville, FL.

Taylor A, Cooper PA, Ung YT.  2001.  Effects of Deck Washes and
Brighteners on the Leaching of CCA Components.  February 2001.  Forest
Products Journal.  Vol. 51, No. 2.

Tyl RW, Marr M, Meyers CB. 1991. Developmental toxicity evaluation of
chromic acid administered by gavage to New Zealand White rabbits.
Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Study No.
60C-4808-30/40. December 13, 1991. MRID 421712-01. Unpublished.

U.S. EPA, IRIS, Chromium (VI), 1998; CASRN 18540-29-9, 9/3/1998.

USEPA.  2001.  Transmittal of the Final Report for the FIFRA Scientific
Advisory Panel (SAP) Meeting Held October 23 – 25, 2001.  Memorandum
from Olga Odiott and Larry Dorsey (Designated Federal Officials, FIFRA
SAP) to Marcia Mulkey (Director, OPP).

USEPA.  2002.  Inorganic Chromium – Report of the Hazard
Identification Assessment Review Committee.  Dated April 15, 2002.

USEPA.  2004.  Hexavalent Chromium - Finalization of Issues related to
Quantitation of Dermal Risk from exposure to treated wood containing
hexavalent chromium.  Dated August 31, 2004.

USEPA.  2006a.  Review of the, “Assessment of Potential Inhalation
Exposure to Hexavalent Chromium At Wood Treatment Facilities Using
CCA” submitted by FPRL to be used as a surrogate to assess Acid Copper
Chromate (ACC).  Memorandum from Tim Leighton (USEPA) to Mark Hartman
(USEPA).  Dated May 2006.

USEPA.  2006b.  Review of the, “Assessment of Potential Inhalation
Exposure to Hexavalent Chromium at Wood Treatment Facilities using
CCA”, MRID No. 467208-01, submitted by FPRL to be used as a surrogate
to assess Acid Copper Chromate (ACC).  DP Barcode 329690. Memorandum
from Tim Leighton (USEPA) to Mark Hartman (USEPA).  Dated May 2006.

USEPA.  2006c.  Review of the, “Osmose ACC 50% Wood Preservative:
Determination of Hexavalent Chromium Residues In and On Wood Following
Treatment with Acid Copper Chromate. Memorandum from Tim Leighton
(USEPA) to Mark Hartman (USEPA).  Dated May 2006.

Vlosky, R.P., and T.S. Shupe. 2006. Statistical Overview of the U.S.
Wood Preserving Industry: 2004. Report to the Southern Forest Products
Association, Kenner, LA.

Zhang, J; and Li, S-K .  1987.  Chromium pollution of soil and water in
Jinxhou.  J. Chin. Prevent Med.  21:262-264.

Zhang J-D and Li S-K. 1997. Cancer Mortality in a Chinese Population
Exposed to Hexavalent Chromium in Water. J Occ Env Med 39(4):315-319.

Appendix A.  Inhalation Cancer Risks (Treatment Facilities).

Job Function

 	Air Conc

(ng/m3/lb CrO3)	Lifetime Average Daily Concentration (LADC)	Inhalation
Risk

CCA (study)	ACC (CCA study)	ACC Industrial	ACC All	CCA (study)	ACC (CCA
study)	ACC Industrial	ACC All

Rainier, OR Site

TO	0.49	6.1	9.1	30.9	127.6	7.1E-05	1.1E-04	3.6E-04	1.5E-03

TA	0.7	8.2	12.2	44.2	182.3	9.5E-05	1.4E-04	5.1E-04	2.1E-03

PK	0.18	2.6	3.8	11.4	46.9	3.0E-05	4.4E-05	1.3E-04	5.4E-04

SU	0.17	2.1	3.1	10.7	44.3	2.4E-05	3.6E-05	1.2E-04	5.1E-04

Overall	0.39	4.7	7.1	24.6	101.6	5.5E-05	8.3E-05	2.9E-04	1.2E-03

Savannah, GA Site

TO	0.58	18.3	27.4	36.6	151.1	0.00021	0.00032	0.00042	0.00175

TA	0.31	9.5	14.2	19.6	80.7	0.00011	0.00017	0.00023	0.00094

SU	0.176	4.5	6.8	11.1	45.8	0.00005	0.00008	0.00013	0.00053

FL	0.063	2.2	3.3	4.0	16.4	0.00003	0.00004	0.00005	0.00019

TG	0.04	1.5	2.2	2.5	10.4	0.00002	0.00003	0.00003	0.00012

Overall	0.23	7.1	10.6	14.5	59.9	0.00008	0.00012	0.00017	0.00069

Tampa, FL Site

TO	0.047	5.1	7.7	3.0	12.2	5.9E-05	8.9E-05	3.4E-05	1.4E-04

TA	0.041	4.1	6.2	2.6	10.7	4.8E-05	7.2E-05	3.0E-05	1.2E-04

SU	0.052	4.0	6.0	3.3	13.5	4.7E-05	7.0E-05	3.8E-05	1.6E-04

FL	0.17	17.2	25.8	10.7	44.3	2.0E-04	3.0E-04	1.2E-04	5.1E-04

TG	0.023	2.4	3.7	1.5	6.0	2.8E-05	4.2E-05	1.7E-05	6.9E-05

TB	0.053	5.4	8.0	3.3	13.8	6.2E-05	9.3E-05	3.9E-05	1.6E-04

Overall	0.068	6.7	10.0	4.3	17.7	7.8E-05	1.2E-04	5.0E-05	2.1E-04

Lifetime Average Daily Concentration (LADC, ng/m3) = air conc (TWA
ng/m3/lb Cr+6) x lbs CrO3 x (8hrs/24hrs) x (250 days/365 days) x (40
yrs/75 yrs).  Where lbs CrO3 = (1) amount handled per replicate in CCA
study; (2) CCA study amount x 1.5 (i.e., 50% more Cr+6); (3) industrial
use assumes 518 lbs CrO3 (i.e., 1454 ft3 x 0.5 pcf ACC x 71.3% CrO3);
(4) general use assumes 2139 lbs CrO3 (i.e., 6,000 ft3 wood).

Inhalation Risk = LADC (ng/m3) x Inhalation unit risk 0.0000116
(ng/m3)-1

Appendix B

(Excel Spreadsheets, Tables and graphs of wipe study residues)

To Be Added (separate document)

APPENDIX C

Top 25 Pressure Treatment Facilities

Rank

 	Company

 	Production 2005

(millions bd ft)	Cubic Ft

(million)	Number

Plants	Cubic Ft

per plant	Ft3/plant

per day	Ft3/plant/day

per shift

1	Great Southern Wood Preserving	NA	#VALUE!	7	#VALUE!	#VALUE!	#VALUE!

2	Universal Forest Products	1112	92.66667	24	3861111	12455	4152

3	Georgia-Pacific Corp	850	70.83333	12	5902778	19041	6347

4	Culpeper Wood Preservers	497	41.41667	4	10354167	33401	11134

5	Robbins Manufacturing Co. 	NA	#VALUE!	6	#VALUE!	#VALUE!	#VALUE!

6	Rocky Top Building Products	NA	#VALUE!	3	#VALUE!	#VALUE!	#VALUE!

7	Cox Industries	220	18.33333	8	2291667	7392	2464

8	McFarland Cascade	NA	#VALUE!	5	#VALUE!	#VALUE!	#VALUE!

9	John A. Biewer Lumber Co.	190	15.83333	3	5277778	17025	5675

10	C.M. Tucker Lumber	185	15.41667	1	15416667	49731	16577

11	Allweather Wood Treaters	177	14.75	4	3687500	11895	3965

12	Pacific Wood Preserving Co.	176	14.66667	4	3666667	11828	3943

13	Eastex Forest Products	141	11.75	1	11750000	37903	12634

14	Bestway Enterprises	128	10.66667	5	2133333	6882	2294

15	New South Inc.	128	10.66667	2	5333333	17204	5735

16	Curt Bean Lumber Co.	127	10.58333	3	3527778	11380	3793

17	BB&S Treated Lumber	122	10.16667	1	10166667	32796	10932

18	Madison Wood Preservers	116	9.666667	1	9666667	31183	10394

19	California Cascade Industries	115	9.583333	2	4791667	15457	5152

20	Coastal Lumber Co.	113	9.416667	5	1883333	6075	2025

21	Commonwealth Wood	103	8.583333	1	8583333	27688	9229

22	Exterior Wood Inc.	100	8.333333	1	8333333	26882	8961

23	Durawood Treating	95	7.916667	1	7916667	25538	8513

24	Fortress Wood Inc.	90	7.5	3	2500000	8065	2688

25	Conrad Wood Preservers	80	6.666667	3	2222222	7168	2389

Average	6155556	19857	6619

Cubic feet = board feet / 12

	Std	3760783	12132	4044

Cubic feet/day = cubic feet / 310 days per year

median	5277778	17025	5675

Cubic Ft/day/shift = Ft3/day / 3 shifts per day

75%tile	8583333	27688	9229

90%tile	10354167	33401	11134

max	15416667	49731	16577

count	ㄲ㈇ܱㄲ܇̍഍ഄ̍഍ഄ഍഍

഍

഍഍഍

഍

഍഍


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 13808]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06406]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Change in Use of Aeronautical
Property at Laurinburg-Maxton Airport, Maxton, NC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is requesting public
comment on a request by the Laurinburg-Maxton Airport Commission, on
behalf of the airport Sponsor (the City of Laurinburg and the Town of
Maxton), to change a portion of airport property from aeronautical to
non-aeronautical use at the Laurinburg-Maxton Airport. The request
consists of release of approximately 1.72 acres to Mr. William J.
Martin for use in conjunction with his existing business, Martin
Transport. Martin Transport currently borders the property.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 30, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Memphis Airports
District Office, Attn: Ja'Monta Smith, Program Manager, 2600 Thousand
Oaks Boulevard, Suite 2250, Memphis, TN 38118.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Ms. Joanne Gentry, Executive Director for
Laurinburg-Maxton Airport Commission at the following address: 16701
Airport Road, Maxton, NC 28364.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ja'Monta Smith, Program Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration, Memphis Airports District Office, 2600
Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Suite 2250, Memphis, TN 38118-2482.
    The application may be reviewed in person at this same location, by
appointment.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public
comment on the request to release property for non-aeronautical
purposes at Laurinburg-Maxton Airport, Maxton, NC under the provisions
of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). The FAA determined that the request to
release property at Laurinburg-Maxton Airport (MEB) submitted by the
Laurinburg-Maxton Airport Commission on behalf of the City of
Laurinburg and the Town of Maxton meets the procedural requirements of
the FAA and the release of the property does not and will not impact
future aviation needs at the airport. The FAA may approve the request,
in whole or in part, no sooner than thirty days after the publication
of this notice. This action is taken under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.
47151.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The Laurinburg-Maxton Airport Commission on behalf of the City of
Laurinburg and the Town of Maxton is proposing the release of
approximately 1.72 acres to Mr. William J. Martin for use in
conjunction with his existing business, Martin Transport. Martin
Transport currently borders the property. This property is located at
the intersection of Airport Road and Skyway Church Road in Scotland
County, NC. The property is separated from the majority of airport
property by other parcels of land owned by others.
    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Memphis, TN, on March 23, 2018.
Phillip Braden,
Manager, Memphis Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2018-06406 Filed 3-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P


Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under The Paperwork Reduction Act 1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection Title: Notification of Substantial Risk of Injury to Health and the Environment under TSCA Section 8( e)

EPA ICR No.: 0794.11 OMB Control No.: 2070 0046 1( b) Short Characterization Section 8( e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA) states, " any person who manufactures, [ imports,] processes, or distributes in commerce a chemical substance or mixture and who obtains information which reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment shall immediately inform the [ EPA] Administrator of such information unless such person has actual knowledge that the Administrator has been adequately informed of such information." ( 15 U. S. C. 2607( e))

From January 1977 through June 2005, EPA received 16,063 initial section 8( e) submissions covering a large number of chemical substances and mixtures on a wide range of chemical toxicity/ exposure information. This includes approximately 10,500 submissions EPA received following a 1992 Compliance Audit Program, described below in Part 2( a). Although EPA's receipt of section 8( e) information does not necessarily trigger immediate regulatory action under TSCA or other authorities administered by EPA, all section 8( e) submissions receive screening level evaluations by EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( OPPT) to identify priorities for further Agency action and appropriate referrals to other programs.

OPPT routinely disseminates section 8( e) data to EPA's Program and Regional Offices and other Federal agencies ( e. g., NIOSH, OSHA, CPSC, FDA, NTP) on newly discovered chemical hazards/ risks. Since June 2001, OPPT has made these referrals primarily via emails of biweekly tables summarizing all new section 8( e) submissions. There is also public outreach and information access to section 8( e) data through the TSCA Public Docket, online data bases that include TSCA 8( e) records, as well as through the TSCA 8( e) web page that includes all biweekly reports of new 8( e) submissions back to June 2001 with pdf links to the submissions.  2 2 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection Section 8( e) of TSCA continues to be an important and useful tool for early warning and identification of potential substantial risk situations allowing EPA and others to focus their limited resources on chemicals or mixtures of highest concern. The submission of section 8( e) information makes it possible for the Agency and others to learn quickly about potential new chemical hazards/ risks posed by exposure to chemical substances, to conduct more complete assessments and, if needed, effective action to eliminate or reduce such risks in a timely manner.

The statutory authority for this information collection is section 8( e) of TSCA ( U. S. Public Law 94 469; 90 Stat. 2029; 15 U. S. C. 2607( e)). No formal rule making by the Agency was required to implement section 8( e), in that section 8( e) was a self activating reporting provision of TSCA that became immediately effective on January 1, 1977 ( the effective date of the Act). However, in order to facilitate compliance with section 8( e), EPA clarified the kinds of information that constitute substantial risk information, specified the types of information exempt from the reporting requirements, and outlined standard reporting procedures, in published proposed guidance ( 42 FR 45362; September 9, 1977). After holding several public meetings and considering the public comments on the proposed section 8( e) guidance, the Agency published its final " Statement of Interpretation and Enforcement Policy; Notification of Substantial Risk" ( 43 FR 11110; March 16, 1978). In June 1991, EPA published a " Section 8( e) Reporting Guide" to further assist the regulated community in complying with section 8( e). The 1991 Reporting Guide references examples of submitted information and EPA's comments on these submissions to help persons subject to section 8( e) better understand the types of information that are reportable under section 8( e). The 1991 Guide also includes dose ranges and exposure factors to consider in determining the section 8( e) reportability of acute lethality data.

In February of 1991, the Agency initiated a voluntary section 8( e) " Compliance Audit Program" ( CAP). This compliance program, which followed several section 8( e) enforcement cases indicating that some companies were not complying with section 8( e) reporting requirements, was designed to 1) achieve EPA's goal of obtaining any outstanding section 8( e) data, and 2) provide maximum encouragement to companies to voluntarily audit their files for section 8( e) reportable information. The section 8( e) CAP involved consent agreements/ orders pursuant to section 15 of TSCA, stipulated monetary penalties and an overall penalty ceiling. 123 companies elected to participate voluntarily in the Agency's section 8( e) CAP activity. The CAP was terminated on May 15, 1996 and settlements with CAP participants were announced on October 15, 1996.

In implementing the section 8( e) CAP, EPA determined that there was a need to suspend and refine those portions of the 1978 section 8( e) Policy Statement that deal specifically with the reportability of chemical releases to the environment and the detection of toxic chemicals in  3 environmental media. On July 13, 1993 ( 58 FR 37735), EPA published proposed guidance on the detection of toxic chemicals in environmental media. EPA received comments from 49 companies and industry associations. Based on the submitted comments and a number of meetings with industry representatives, EPA revised the proposed guidance and made it available for additional public comment through a notice in the Federal Register published on March 20, 1995 ( 60 FR 14756). In response, EPA received an additional 22 comments. While the comments offered additional refinements to the revised guidance, their basic tenor was that industry was in support of the changes.

Beginning in 1996, there was an ongoing collaboration between EPA and industry to develop a question and answer ( Q& A) document to promote industry understanding of and compliance with the Agency's anticipated revised section 8( e) reporting criteria for environmental release and contamination information. The intent was to make the Q& A publicly available before the revised guidance was published. However, the finalized Q& A document was not yet available when the revised guidance, " TSCA Section 8( e); Notification of Substantial Risk; Policy Clarification and Reporting Guidance" ( 68 FR 33129 33139), was published on June 3, 2003. The revised guidance included a re publication of the 1978 Policy Statement and incorporated revisions that address the reporting of information on the release of chemical substances to the environment and the detection of toxic chemicals in environmental media. Also included in the June 2003 Reporting Guidance is a change in the deadline for reporting " substantial risk" information to the Agency ( from 15 working days to 30 calendar days) and the circumstances under which certain information need not be reported to EPA under section 8( e) of TSCA. In a subsequent Federal Register Notice, " TSCA Section 8( e) Reporting Guidance; Correction, Clarification of Applicability, and Announcement Regarding the Issuance ( of) Questions and Answers" ( 70 FR 2162 2164), EPA announced certain corrections to the June 2003 Reporting Guidance ( due to transcription errors from the 1978 Policy Statement that appeared in the June 2003 Guidance), stated that the applicability date for the June 2003 Guidance Document was the publication date, and announced the availability on the TSCA 8( e) web page ( http:// www. epa. gov/ oppt/ tsca8e/) of a Q& A document on the section 8( e) reportability of releases of chemical substances to the environment and the detection of toxic chemicals in environmental media. This Q& A document included only a few of the items drafted earlier by industry stakeholders with EPA participation, but EPA will be adding Q& As to the TSCA 8( e) web page on environmental releases and other aspects of section 8( e) reporting following further comment and review.

2( b) Use/ Users of the Data Since 1977, the Agency and members of the chemical industry have devoted significant efforts in fulfilling their respective responsibilities under section 8( e). Since January 1, 1977, 16,063 initial section 8( e) notices ( includes CAP and non CAP submissions) covering a broad range of toxicity and exposure related data on a wide range of chemicals and chemical mixtures have been received by the Agency, screened, and received follow up attention as needed.  4 All incoming section 8( e) submissions are reviewed by EPA shortly after receipt. The initial processing of section 8( e) submissions includes a screening level evaluation of the submitted data. Such evaluations are not risk assessments, nor do they consider other available toxicity data on the chemical or exposure related information on the chemical/ mixture being reviewed. The results of screening level evaluations are used for priority setting to select cases for more detailed assessment, as well as to identify referrals to other Offices and Agencies.

EPA utilizes section 8( e) submission information for hazard/ risk identification purposes in the initial stages of the TSCA chemical screening and review program. Section 8( e) data are also used in ongoing EPA hazard and exposure assessments of both existing and new chemicals, in the SIDS international testing program, in the High Production Volume ( HPV) Challenge Program, and in support of regulation development under TSCA, e. g., development of chemical testing rules under section 4 of TSCA, as well as regulation development under other authorities administered by the Agency. In addition, section 8( e) submissions have been the basis for chemical advisories to communicate potential health risks and the need for exposure controls, as well as for chemical summaries to identify data availability for chemical hazard and exposure assessment.

Regardless of the type of section 8( e) follow up action or activity taken, all reported information not claimed as TSCA confidential business information is made available to other EPA Program and Regional Offices, other Federal Agencies and others ( e. g., chemical industry, trade unions, environmental groups, general public, international community) who may be interested in the subject chemical or mixture. EPA Offices and other Federal Agencies routinely utilize section 8( e) data in implementing their regulatory programs. The principal vehicles for making the information publicly available are the TSCATS database, the TSCA Docket, and the TSCA section 8( e) web page at http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ tsca8e/. The TSCA 8( e) web page includes all published section 8( e) guidance and full text copies of all new section 8( e) submissions.

EPA's proactive implementation of section 8( e) has also resulted in heightened corporate awareness of the potential risk of injury posed by exposure to chemical substances. This increased corporate awareness has led to a variety of voluntary corporate actions designed to protect human health and/ or the environment. Many companies have reported to EPA that the following types of risk reduction/ pollution prevention measures were initiated in direct response to the submitted chemical toxicity and/ or exposure data:

Notification of workers, customers and others;

Revision of product labels and Material Safety Data Sheets;

Modification of manufacturing, processing, and/ or handling;

Ceasing production/ use either temporarily or permanently;

Initiation of additional toxicity or exposure studies to further define potential risks.  5 3 NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Non Duplication There is no other source of data that can be used in place of the data submitted to EPA under the section 8( e) statutory reporting requirement. The " substantial risk" information required to be reported to EPA is unpublished information not already known to the Agency. In addition, information need not be submitted under section 8( e) if the information has been reported already to EPA pursuant to another mandatory information reporting requirement of TSCA or some other authority administered or delegated to the States by EPA. In the June 3, 2003 Reporting Guidance, the Agency clarified the circumstances under which certain information need not be reported to EPA under section 8( e) of TSCA. This is expected to result in some additional reduction of the overall respondent reporting burden for section 8( e).

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB Prior to submission to OMB, this ICR will be made available to the public for comment through a Federal Register notice. The public will have 60 days to provide comments. Any comments received will be given consideration when completing the supporting statement that is submitted to OMB.

3( c) Consultations EPA personnel have participated in numerous public meetings and other fora to discuss the section 8( e) Policy Statement and the Agency's implementation of section 8( e). Large EPAsponsored public meetings at which section 8( e) was a primary topic of discussion were held in 1978, 1986, 1987, 1990 and 1992 with chemical industry representatives and other interested parties. EPA staff also met on numerous occasions with members of the chemical industry to discuss section 8( e) in the context of the section 8( e) Compliance Audit Program. In addition, EPA staff have participated in more than 30 industry sponsored meetings at which section 8( e) of TSCA was the major or primary topic of discussion.

EPA proposed amendments to the section 8( e) policy statement in 1993 and again in 1995. The proposed amendments dealt specifically with clarifications on reporting requirements for occurrences of environmental exposure or contamination. The Agency received numerous public comments on these proposed amendments and developed a " Comment and Response Document for Revised Policy Statement of Section 8( e) of TSCA" ( OPPT 2002 0067 0002) to record these comments and the Agency's responses ( see Attachment 3). EPA has also collaborated with industry in preparing a question and answer document dealing with revisions to the 1978 Policy Statement and from 1994 to the present section 8( e) has been on the agenda of the " Living With TSCA" conferences held annually for all TSCA stakeholders.  6 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection TSCA section 8( e) reporting is not cyclical, but rather is self implementing. The statute states that persons covered under the section 8( e) reporting requirement shall immediately notify the EPA Administrator upon obtaining reportable information. As stated previously, section 8( e) continues to be an extremely important and useful EPA tool for early identification of potential substantial risk situations and allows the Agency as well as others to focus their resources on those chemicals or mixtures of highest concern. The consequences of EPA's not receiving section 8( e) data immediately following receipt by a respondent are serious. The Agency would be prevented from learning about and publicizing new information about substantial risks to health or environmental injury posed by exposure to chemical substances and/ or mixtures. Further, EPA would not be in a position to adequately assess and, if necessary, take action to effectively eliminate or reduce such risks in an expeditious manner.

3( e) General Guidelines The required reporting that takes place under section 8( e) does not appear to exceed the Paperwork Reduction Act imposed guidelines that are found at 5 CFR 1320.6.

3( f) Confidentiality Any person submitting a notice to EPA under section 8( e) may assert a claim of business confidentiality covering information contained in the submission. Any information covered by a claim will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent and by means of the procedures set forth at 40 CFR Part 2. If no confidentiality claim accompanies a section 8( e) notice, the submission is placed in the TSCA Docket and is available to the public without further notice to the submitting organization. The Agency has established and actively implements well publicized standard procedures for the handling and safeguarding of information claimed as TSCA Confidential Business Information ( TSCA CBI).

3( g) Sensitive Questions Under section 8( e), EPA does not seek submission of information with regard to sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, or other matters usually considered to be of a private nature.  7 4 RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents/ NAICS Codes A statutory section 8( e) reporting obligation can be incurred by any person who manufactures, imports, processes or distributes a TSCA covered chemical substance or mixture. EPA's section 8( e) Policy Statement defines the term " person" broadly to include " any natural person, corporation, firm, company, joint venture, partnership, sole proprietorship, association, or any other business entity, any State or political subdivision thereof, any municipality, any interstate body and any department, agency, instrumentality of the Federal Government." Although this definition is quite broad in terms of subject persons, section 8( e) reporting obligations are most typically incurred by companies engaged in activities classified by NAICS Codes 325  Chemicals and Allied Products Manufacturers and 32411 Petroleum Refining.

4( b) Information Requested ( i) Data Items There is no required " form" on which section 8( e) information must be submitted to EPA; however, the section 8( e) Policy Statement requires all respondents to ensure that a written section 8( e) notice:

is sent to EPA by a method verifying the Agency's receipt;

states that it is being submitted under section 8( e) of TSCA;

contains the name, address, job title, phone number and signature of the person reporting, and the name and address of the establishment with which the person is associated;

identifies the chemical substance( s) or mixture including, if known, the Chemical Abstract Service ( CAS) Registry Number( s);

summarizes adverse health/ environmental effects being reported including a description of the nature and extent of the risk; and

contains the specific source/ summary of the supporting data.

EPA is continuing its efforts to implement optional electronic reporting of section 8( e) submissions to increase processing efficiency for both the Agency and the regulated community.

( ii) Respondent Activities The overall purpose of section 8( e) reporting is to ensure that new information that reasonably supports a conclusion that a chemical substance or mixture presents a " substantial risk" of injury to health or the environment is brought to EPA's attention immediately upon discovery. It should be noted again that section 8( e) applies to all chemical manufacturers,  8 importers, processors, and distributors and applies also to information that a subject person possesses or about which that person has knowledge. Although compliance with section 8( e) does not require subject persons to search for information or to make extraordinary efforts to acquire information, section 8( e) does apply to information that is " obtained" ( i. e., information that a person possesses or about which that person knows). Following a review of existing information and a decision that such information is of the type required under section 8( e), respondents must notify EPA in writing immediately. EPA's June 2003 Reporting Guidance defines the term " immediately" in the context of written section 8( e) reports to mean within 30 calendar days of the date on which the information was obtained; the immediate reporting of an emergency incident of environmental contamination by a toxic substance is defined as a phone report to EPA or to the National Response Center as soon as a person knows about the incident.

5 INFORMATION COLLECTION  EPA ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Agency Activities As explained in additional detail in the following sections, the Agency's section 8( e) activities involve answering general and specific section 8( e) related questions, development and maintenance of computerized information tracking ( including data extraction, entry and quality assurance/ control), microfilming, confidential ( restricted access) and non confidential ( publicaccess section 8( e) information filing, initial evaluation of all submitted section 8( e) information ( including review of TSCA Confidential Business Information ( CBI) substantiations), and the posting of section 8( e) related information on the Internet for public access.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Information Management EPA uses Document Control Numbers ( DCNs) to identify TSCA submissions; section 8( e) has the following format: 88 YYXXXXXXX. The assigned 7 digit ascending numbers begin each year with 0000001. EPA also identifies section 8( e) submissions by 8EHQ Numbers, which are chronological from January 1977. The format is 8EHQ MMYY XXXXX. Initial submissions are assigned as Sequence A; supplemental an follow up submissions are assigned Sequence B, C, D, etc. Internal EPA tracking of section 8( e) submission information is handled via non confidential and confidential computerized data bases.

In order to assure that the public is kept apprised of new adverse chemical related toxicity and exposure information, the Agency provides public access to and actively disseminates nonconfidential section 8( e) submission information in many ways. Eexamples of EPA's public access/ outreach activities follow.  9 Non confidential section 8( e) initial and follow up/ supplemental submissions, status reports, submission summaries, and EPA follow up letters can be viewed/ copied in the TSCA Public Docket located at EPA Headquarters. Non confidential section 8( e) related documents can also be obtained by writing to EPA's Freedom of Information Office.

Relevant non confidential information from section 8( e) submissions is routinely entered into TSCATS ( Toxic Substances Control Act Test Submissions), a publicly available computerized data base that serves as an on line index of unpublished health and safety studies submitted to EPA under TSCA. The most recent version of the TSCATS data base is available on the web at http:// yosemite. epa. gov/ oppts/ epatscat8. nsf/ ReportSearch? OpenForm. The submitted studies themselves are stored/ available on microfiche. Microfiche copies of the studies referenced in the TSCATS database are available from either CIS or the National Technical Information Service ( NTIS) in Springfield, VA. EPA has also been creating full electronic ( PDF) copies of all new section 8( e) submissions since June 2001. Electronic copies of these most recent section 8( e) submissions are available to the public from the TSCA Public Docket, as well as from the section 8( e) web site at http:// www. epa. gov/ oppt/ tsca8e.

Under established Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA) procedures, EPA responds to requests from industry, other stakeholders and the public. And in cooperation with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's ( OECD) information gathering " Switchboard" project, EPA responds as well to international requests for section 8( e) and other unpublished health and safety data on chemicals of concern to OECD members.

As stated previously, EPA routinely notifies other Federal Agencies on incoming section 8( e) information via biweekly tabular reports of new section 8( e) submissions and by targeted referrals. As the direct result of these public outreach activities, several of these other Agencies actively publicize the information even further. For example, the National Library of Medicine ( NLM) at the National Institutes of Health makes section 8( e) information available via its publicly available computerized Hazardous Substances Data Bank ( HSDB) and Toxline data bases. In addition, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health ( NIOSH) cites section 8( e) notices in the printed and on line computerized versions of the " Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances" ( RTECS) data base.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility The statutory obligation to report information under section 8( e) of TSCA applies to all manufacturers, importers, processors, and/ or distributors of TSCA covered chemical substances and mixtures. The statutory language of section 8( e) itself does not allow for any reporting exemption or burden minimization based on the size or earnings of a respondent. However, nearly all reporting is by large and medium size companies. This is mainly because only larger companies have the financial resources to conduct toxicity testing that comprises most section 8( e) reporting. Since there is no routine reporting nor recordkeeping provisions for section 8( e),  10 the true burden on most small entities is practically nonexistent.

5( d) Collection Schedule Considering that section 8( e) submissions are received by the Agency on an ad hoc basis, there is no standard reporting cycle. Submitters are required to comply with section 8( e) immediately when they come into possession of or know about section 8( e) reportable information. If section 8( e) information were not made available immediately to EPA, the Agency's ability to learn about, publicize, effectively assess, and respond appropriately to newly discovered chemical related risks would be severely impeded, if not completely thwarted.

6 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTION For the 2002 ICR renewal, EPA utilized data on the number of section 8( e) submissions for fiscal years FY 2000 2002, including projected numbers for the remainder of FY 02. The averaged annual number of initial 8( e) submissions was 218 ( 227+ 224+ 202= 653/ 3) and a multiplier of 0.50 to estimate the number of supplemental submissions during the same period ( 218 x .5 = 109).

The 2005 ICR renewal uses a similar approach, except that data for the three most recent complete fiscal years ( FY 2002 2004) are averaged and the number of supplemental/ follow up submissions was counted rather than estimated. The average annual number of initial section 8( e) submissions for FY 2002 2004 was 230 ( 190+ 221+ 278 = 689/ 3); the average annual number of supplemental and follow up 8( e) submissions for FY 2002 2004 was 108 ( 324/ 3).

6( a) Estimating Submitter Burden The following discussion provides the basis for the Agency's upper bound estimate of approximately 6,750 total hours of annual reporting burden for submitters in complying with section 8( e).

EPA believes that in a large company it should take no more than 25 hours to judge and concur on the section 8( e) applicability of obtained information plus 2 additional hours to prepare/ submit the necessary information. Using the calculated average of 230 initial section 8( e) submissions per year, the total number of hours required for initial section 8( e) reporting is estimated to be 6,210 ( 230 x 27) hours. The submission of follow up/ supplemental information by a large company in response to EPA questions on the initial section 8( e) submission, or as a result of further investigation/ evaluation by the company, is estimated to be 5 hours per notice, assuming 3 hours to assemble the required information, 1 hour to prepare the submission, and 1 hour for review. Using the calculated average of 108 follow up/ supplemental submissions per year, the total number of hours required for follow up/ supplemental section 8( e) reporting is  11 estimated to be 540 ( 108 x 5) hours. Therefore, the total number of section 8( e) notices ( initial plus follow up/ supplemental submissions) is 338 submissions per year with an estimated hourly respondent reporting burden of 6,750 ( 6,210 + 540) hours per year.

INITIAL SUBMISSIONS SUBTOTAL Burden Item Hours/ Submitter Submissions/ Year Hours/ Year a1 25 230 5,750 b2 2 230 460 6,210 1 Reflects managerial/ technical review, data evaluation, decision making and concurrence processes to determine the section 8( e) reportability and crafting the usually 1 2 page section 8( e) notification letter. 2 This item reflects general clerical work ( typing, copying, and sending the section 8( e) submission).

Considering that the respondent's decision making/ concurrence activities for determining section 8( e) applicability/ reportability has already taken place for the initial submission, the activities surrounding the submission of follow up/ supplemental information related to the initial submission are viewed by the Agency as being less burdensome as follows:

FOLLOW UP AND SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSIONS SUBTOTAL Burden Item Hours/ Submitter Submissions/ Year Hours/ Year a1 4 108 432 b2 1 108 108 540 1 This item involves managerial and technical review, concurrence and letter writing activities in submitting a follow up/ supplemental section 8( e) submission. 2 This item reflects the typing, copying and transmittal of a follow up/ supplemental section 8( e) submission.

Based on the figures presented in the preceding charts, the total submitter burden ( in hours/ year) for initial and follow up/ supplemental section 8( e) submissions to EPA is as follows:

TOTAL HOURLY BURDEN/ YEAR Initial Follow Up/ Supplemental Total Submissions + Submissions = Hours/ Year 6,210 hours/ year + 540 hours/ year = 6,750  12 6( b) Estimating Submitter Costs EPA estimates that a respondent incurs costs up to $ 54/ hour in labor costs in submitting information to EPA under section 8( e). ( This hourly cost takes into account the involvement of the respondent's managerial, technical and clerical personnel and takes into account standard labor wage rates ( including fringe benefits) using 2004 information; these wage rates are consistent with those used in economic analyses performed for other section 8 recordkeeping/ reporting activities.) It should be noted that section 8( e) reporting does not involve operating/ maintenance or capital costs to the respondent. The hourly labor wage rates used in the computations are as follows:

Hourly Labor Rates *

Labor Category 2002 Hourly Rate Managerial $ 54 Technical $ 46 Secretarial $ 25 * EPA. 2002. Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 10, 2002.

Based on the total estimated reporting burden of 6,750 hours/ year, the upper bound yearly cost for submitters in complying with section 8( e) is estimated by EPA to be $ 364,500 as follows:

TOTAL COST/ YEAR Submitter Hours/ Year x Hourly Rate = Total Cost/ Year 6,750 hours/ year x $ 54/ hour = $ 364,500/ year 6( c) Estimating EPA Burden and Costs Based on reasonable costs for reports received by EPA as the result of general section 8 rule making activities, EPA estimates the cost per submission can range from $ 200 to $ 800 for the Agency to process, copy, file, and initially review and/ or answer questions on each section 8( e) submission. Therefore, EPA estimates its total annual cost for these activities involving 338 incoming section 8( e) submisions ( 230 initial plus 108 follow up/ supplemental notices/ year) to range from $ 67,600$ 270,400 per year as follows:  13 EPA BURDEN/ COSTS Initial/ Follow Up/ Supplemental Cost of EPA Total Submissions per Year x Processing/ Review = Cost/ Year 338 submissions/ year x $ 200$ 800/ Submission = $ 67,600  $ 270,400/ year 6( d) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs GENERAL NOTE: A full discussion and description of the rationale used to derive the following burden estimates can be found in sections 6( a), 6( b) and 6( c) of this Supporting Statement and is summarized below.

( i) Submitters' Annual Burden ( Hours and Costs)

( a) Hours Initial Section 8( e) Submissions 27 hours x 230 submissions = 6,210 hours Follow up/ Supplemental Section 8( e) Submissions 5 hours x 108 submissions = 540 hours Submitters' Total Annual Hourly Burden 6,210 hours + 540 hours = 6,750 hours ( b) COSTS Submitters' Total Annual Upper Bound Cost 6,750 hours x $ 54/ hour = $ 364,500 ( ii) EPA's Annual Burden/ Cost ( Upper bound Estimate)

Initial Section 8( e) Submissions 230 submissions x $ 800/ submission = $ 184,000  14 Follow up/ Supplemental Section 8( e) Submissions 108 submissions x $ 800/ submission = $ 86,400 EPA's Total Annual Upper bound Estimated Burden/ Cost 338 submissions x $ 800/ submission = $ 270,400 6( e) Reasons for Change in Burden There is an increase of 319 hours ( from 6,431 hours to 6,750 hours) in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the information collection request most recently approved by OMB. This increase in burden hours can be accounted for by the small increase in TSCA 8( e) reporting compared to the previous period. EPA receives relatively few supplemental submissions following the initial section 8( e) submission; typically the Agency only contacts submitters for follow up information when the initial submission is incomplete or more information is otherwise needed to complete a screening level evaluation. During FY 2002 2004, EPA received 324 supplements or follow up submissions versus 689 initial notices, which is slightly less than 50% supplemental/ follow up submissions per initial submission. This increase in burden hours is an adjustment.

The estimate in submitter annual costs associated with this ICR is lower than the previous section 8( e) ICR because of a change in methodology. The previous rates were based on an earlier Toxics Release Inventory analysis that made overly conservative assumptions regarding skill levels, which were subsequently observed to be in the 90+ percentile for industry using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS). The current estimate is based on a simpler BLS data series. 2003 is the most recent year for which wage rates were available not subject to revision by BLS.

6( f) Burden Statement The annual public burden for this collection of information, which is approved under OMB Control No. 2070 0046, is estimated to average 27 hours per initial section 8( e) submission and 5 hours per follow up/ supplemental section 8( e) submission. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act, " burden" means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal Agency. For this collection, it includes the time needed to: review instructions; disclose and provide information; adjust existing procedures to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to respond to a collection of information; complete and review the information collection; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this information  15 collection appears above. In addition, the OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations, after initial display in the final rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OPPT 2005 0043, which is available for public viewing at the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1544 and the telephone number for the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket is ( 202) 566 0280. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. OPPT 2005 0043 and OMB control number 2070 0046 in any correspondence. ATTACHMENT 1 Toxic Substances Control Action Section 8( e)

15 U. S. C. 2607( e) From the U. S. Code Online via GPO Access [ wais. access. gpo. gov] [ Laws in effect as of January 7, 2003]

TITLE 15 COMMERCE AND TRADE CHAPTER 53 TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL SUBCHAPTER I CONTROL OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES Sec. 2607. Reporting and retention of information * * *

( e) Notice to Administrator of substantial risks Any person who manufactures, processes, or distributes in commerce as chemical substance or mixture and who obtains information which reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment shall immediately inform the Administrator of such information unless such person has actual knowledge that the Administrator has been adequately informed of such information.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 102 (Thursday, May 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33570-33571]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12383]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77872; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2015-110]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment No. 4 Thereto, Amending NYSE Arca Equities Rule
8.600 To Adopt Generic Listing Standards for Managed Fund Shares

May 20, 2016.
    On November 6, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 8.600 and to adopt generic listing standards for Managed
Fund Shares.\3\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on November 27, 2015.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(c)(1) (defining Managed
Fund Shares).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76486 (Nov. 20,
2015), 80 FR 74169 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 23, 2015, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change, which amended and replaced the original proposal
in its entirety. On January 4, 2016, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\5\ the Commission designated a longer period within which to
approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\6\ On January 21, 2016, the Exchange withdrew
Amendment No. 1 and filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule
change.\7\ The proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2
thereto, was published for comment in the Federal Register on February
1, 2016.\8\ On February 11, 2016, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 3 to
the proposed rule change.\9\ On February 16, 2016, the Exchange filed
Amendment No. 4 to the proposed rule change.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76819, 81 FR 987
(Jan. 8, 2016). The Commission designated February 25, 2016 as the
date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the
proposed rule change. See id.
    \7\ In Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change, the Exchange
added provisions to the proposed generic listing criteria relating
to non-U.S. Component Stocks, convertible securities, and listed
swaps, among other changes. Amendment No. 2, which amended and
replaced the original proposal in its entirety, is available on the
Commission's Web site at: http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2015-110/nysearca2015110-3.pdf.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76974 (Jan. 26,
2016), 81 FR 5149.
    \9\ In Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change, the Exchange
(a) revised the provisions relating to convertible securities, (b)
clarified the limitations on non-exchange-traded American Depositary
Receipts, (c) eliminated redundant provisions relating to
limitations on leveraged and inverse-leveraged Derivative Securities
Products, (d) revised the provision relating to limitations on
listed derivatives, (e) clarified that, for purposes of the
limitations relating to listed and over-the-counter derivatives, a
portfolio's investment in listed and over-the-counter derivatives
will be calculated as the total absolute notional value of these
derivatives, and (f) provided additional information regarding the
statutory basis of the proposal. Amendment No. 3, which amended and
replaced the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2
thereto, in its entirety, is available on the Commission's Web site
at: http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2015-110/nysearca2015110-4.pdf.
    \10\ In Amendment No. 4 to the proposed rule change, the
Exchange (a) modified the proposed generic listing rules to require
compliance of the standards applicable to underlying equity
securities, fixed income securities, and over-the-counter
derivatives on an initial and continuing basis; and (b) clarified
that the limitations on listed derivatives would apply to all listed
derivatives, including listed swaps. Amendment No. 4, which amended
and replaced the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No.
3 thereto, in its entirety, is available on the Commission's Web
site at: http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2015-110/nysearca2015110-5.pdf.

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

    On February 22, 2016, the Commission issued notice of filing of
Amendment No. 4 to the proposed rule change and instituted proceedings
under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \11\ to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 4 thereto.\12\ In the Order Instituting Proceedings, the
Commission solicited comments to specified matters related to the
proposal.\13\ The Commission has received one comment letter on the
proposal.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77203, 81 FR 9900
(Feb. 26, 2016) (``Order Instituting Proceedings''). Specifically,
the Commission instituted proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the
rules of a national securities exchange be ``designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade,'' and ``to protect investors and the
public interest.'' See id., 81 FR at 9908.
    \13\ See id., 81 FR at 9908-09.
    \14\ See Letter from Rob Ivanoff to the Commission dated Nov.
22, 2015 (commenting that the format of the Exchange's proposed rule
change was unclear and difficult to read, and suggesting a new
format that would be easier to understand). All comments on the
proposed rule change are available on the Commission's Web site at:
http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2015-110/nysearca2015110-1.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \15\ provides that, after initiating
disapproval proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving
or disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after
the date of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule
change. The Commission may, however, extend the period for issuing an
order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change by not more
than 60 days if the Commission determines that a longer period is
appropriate and publishes the reasons for such determination. The
proposed rule change was published for notice and comment in the
Federal Register on November 27, 2015.\16\ The 180th day after
publication of the notice of the filing of the proposed rule change in
the Federal Register is May 25, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \16\ See supra note 4 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the
proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 4 thereto.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\17\ designates July 22, 2016, as the date by which the Commission
shall either approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 4 thereto (File No. SR-NYSEArca-2015-110).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-12383 Filed 5-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 9, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 73217-73218]
[DOCID:fr09de05-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP05-422-005]

El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

December 2, 2005.
    Take notice that on November 29, 2005, El Paso Natural Gas Company
(EPNG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second
Revised Volume No. 1A, the tariff sheets listed in Appendix A to the
filing.
    EPNG states that the filing is being made in compliance with the
Commission Order dated July 29, 2005 in the above listed proceeding.
    EPNG states that copies of the filing were served on parties on the
official service list in the above-captioned proceedings.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's

regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy
of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is 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>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-7145 Filed 12-8-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 25)]
[Notices]
[Page 6967-6968]
[DOCID:fr06fe08-55]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0061; FRL-8350-2]

Tribal Pesticide Program Council; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Tribal Pesticide Program Council will hold a 2-1/2 day
meeting, beginning on March 5, 2008 and ending March 7, 2008. This
notice announces the location and times for the meeting and sets forth
the tentative agenda topics.

DATES: The meeting will be held on March 5-6, 2008 from 8:30 a.m. to
5:30 p.m. and March 7, 2008 from 8:30 a.m. to 12 noon.
    To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT, preferably at least 10
days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to
process your request.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at EPA, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA; 4th Floor South Conference
Room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Georgia McDuffie, Field and External
Affairs Division, 7506P, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Lillian Wilmore, TPPC
Coordinator, PO Box 470329 Brookline Village, MA 02447; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are
interested in TPPC information exchange relationship with EPA regarding
important issues related to human health, environmental exposure to
pesticides, and insight into EPA's decision-making process, you are
invited and encouraged to attend the meetings and participate as
appropriate. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not
limited to: Those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing
of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA).

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other RelatedInformation?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0061. Publicly available docket
materials are available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office

of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. Tentative Agenda

    1. TPPC State of the Council Report.
    2. Tribal Presentations.
    3. Pesticide Labeling/Tribal and State Authority.
    4. Pesticide Labeling - Unenforceable Label Language.
    5. Pesticide Labeling - E-Labeling Update.
    6. Reports from the State FIFRA Issues Research Evaluation Group
(SFIREG); Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC); California
Indian Basketweavers Association (CIBA); National Tribal Environmental
Council (NTEC); and Alaska Intertribal Council.
    7. US EPA Region Reports.
    8. Container/Containment Rule, 19(f)
    9. Endangered Species Implementation
    10. Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) and Office of Enforcement &
Compliance Assurance (OECA)

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, [insert additional terms as appropriate].

    Dated: January 28, 2008.
William R. Diamond,
Director, Field External Affairs Division, Office of Pesticide Programs
[FR Doc. E8-2086 Filed 2-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15438-15440]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6230]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66552; File No. SR-C2-2011-043]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1
Thereto, Relating to Changes to the Automated Improvement Mechanism

March 9, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On December 30, 2011, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change relating to its Automated
Improvement Mechanism (``AIM''). The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on January 18, 2012.\3\ On March 2,
2012, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change.\4\ The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This
order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1
thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66131 (January 11,
2012), 77 FR 2595 (January 18, 2012) (``Notice'').
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange represented that it will
provide to the Commission the same data that the Chicago Board of
Options Exchange, Incorporated provides to the Commission in
connection with that exchange's AIM. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 53222 (February 3, 2006), 71 FR 7089 (February 10,
2006). Amendment No. 1 is technical in nature, and therefore the
Commission is not publishing Amendment No. 1 for public comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    C2's AIM allows a Participant \5\ to cross an agency order it
presents as agent (``Agency Order'') against principal interest or a
solicited order, provided that it first exposes the Agency Order to a
one-second auction. If the Agency Order is 50 contracts or greater, the
Participant (``Initiating Participant'') must stop the Agency Order at
the national best bid or offer (``NBBO'') (or the order's limit price
if better), and if it is less than 50 contracts, the Participant must
stop the Agency Order at the NBBO improved by one minimum increment (or
the order's limit price if better).\6\ When initiating an auction, an

Initiating Participant submitting an Agency Order to the AIM either
must indicate a single price at which it seeks to cross the Agency
Order (``single-price submission'') or must indicate that it will match
as principal the price and size of all AIM responses (``auto-
match'').\7\ Once the Initiating Participant has submitted an Agency
Order for processing, such submission may not be modified or
cancelled.\8\ A Request for Responses (``RFR'') will then be sent to
any Participant that has elected to receive such requests, and the
exposure period will last for one second.\9\ If the auction attracts
responses (which may be submitted by Participants), the Agency Order
will be allocated at the best price(s), subject to the allocation
algorithm in effect for the option class, and public customer orders in
the book will have priority.\10\ If the best price equals the
initiating Participant's single-price submission, then the Initiating
Participant will be allocated the greater of one contract or a
specified percentage of the order, which percentage will be determined
by the Exchange and may not be greater than 40% (or 50% in the case of
a single-price submission where only one other market maker matches the
price).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Participant'' is defined in C2 Rule 1.1.
    \6\ See Rule 6.51(a)(2)-(3). See also Rule 6.51, Interpretations
and Policies .03, noting that for at least a Pilot Period expiring
on July 18, 2012, there will be no minimum size requirement for
orders to be eligible for the auction.
    \7\ See Rule 6.51(b)(1)(A).
    \8\ See id.
    \9\ See Rule 6.51(b)(1)(B)-(C).
    \10\ See Rule 6.51(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ See Rule 6.51(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.51 to allow an Initiating
Participant to enter an Agency Order for fewer than 50 contracts into
the AIM at the NBBO. The proposal eliminates the distinction between
orders for fewer than 50 contracts and orders for 50 contracts or
greater and thereby will allow an Initiating Participant to submit to
AIM an Agency Order of any size at the NBBO.
    The Exchange also proposes to allow an Initiating Participant to
elect to auto-match competing prices from other market participants up
to a designated limit price. The Initiating Participant will not be
able to cancel the auto-match instruction after an AIM Auction
commences and will have no control over the prices at which it receives
an allocation in the auction other than the outside boundary
established by the designated limit price.
    The Exchange notes that, during the existing pilot for certain
components of AIM, there is no minimum size requirement for orders that
are eligible for AIM. In connection with the pilot program, the
Exchange represents that it will continue to submit to the Commission
reports providing AIM Auction and order execution data, including
monthly data regarding executions through AIM of agency orders for 50
contracts or greater or for fewer than 50 contracts, as supporting
evidence that, among other things, there is meaningful competition for
all size orders.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Rule 6.51, Interpretation and Policies .03. See also
Amendment No. 1, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that, in connection with the proposed auto-
match feature, it will provide the Commission with the following
additional data: (1) The percentage of trades effected through AIM in
which the Initiating Participant submitted an Agency Order with an
auto-match instruction that included a designated limit price and the
percentage that did not include a designated limit price; and (2) the
average amount of price improvement provided to AIM Agency Orders when
the Initiating Participant submitted an auto-match instruction that
included a designated limit price and the average amount that did not
include a designated limit price, versus the average amount of price
improvement provided to AIM Agency Orders when the Initiating
Participant submitted a single price (no auto-match instruction).
    At least one week prior to implementation of the proposed rule
change, the Exchange will issue a notice to Participants informing them
of the implementation of the additional auto-match feature.
Participants will have an opportunity to make any necessary
modifications to coincide with the implementation date.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\13\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\14\ in
general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in particular, which
requires that the rules of an exchange be designed, among other things,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts, to remove impediments to and to
perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposal to permit Initiating
Participants to stop an Agency Order for fewer than 50 contracts at the
better of the NBBO or the order's limit price will continue to provide
customers with an opportunity for price improvement over the NBBO. The
Commission also believes that the proposal will continue to provide
Participants with incentives to compete in AIM Auctions. The Commission
notes that once an Agency Order is submitted into the AIM Auction, the
submission may not be modified or cancelled. Therefore, the Agency
Order submitted to the AIM Auction will be guaranteed an execution
price of at least the NBBO and, moreover, will be given an opportunity
for execution at a price better than the NBBO.
    The Commission notes that the Initiating Participant's maximum
allocation in the auction will be only 40% (or 50% in the case of a
single price submission where only one other market maker matches the
price). Further, C2's current rules provide for broad participation in
the AIM Auction,\16\ which should allow for a meaningful, competitive
auction. Moreover, the Commission believes that the proposal may
encourage increased participation in the AIM by Participants willing to
trade with an Agency Order of less than 50 contracts at the NBBO but
not better than the NBBO. The Commission also notes that the proposal
makes the handling of AIM Agency Orders of under 50 contracts
consistent with larger AIM Agency Orders. Finally, the Commission notes
that it will continue to receive data from the Exchange pursuant to the
AIM pilot program, and that it will have the opportunity to evaluate
the data to assess the impact of the proposal.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Rule 6.51(b)(1)(D).
    \17\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposal to add an option for
Initiating Participants to auto-match competing prices from other
market participants up to a designated limit price is also consistent
with the Act. The Commission believes that the change may encourage
increased participation in AIM because it will allow Initiating
Participants to trade with an Agency Order at a price better than the
NBBO, but only up to a certain price.\18\ In

addition, the Exchange will provide the Commission with data showing
the average amount of price improvement provided to AIM Agency Orders
when the Initiating Participant submitted an auto-match instruction
versus the average amount of price improvement provided when there is
no auto-match instruction. This additional data will allow the
Commission to evaluate this change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Commission also notes that the Exchange's auto-match
proposal is similar to the current rules of the Boston Options
Exchange Group, LLC (``BOX'') and the International Securities
Exchange, LLC (``ISE'') relating to the Price Improvement Period
(``PIP'') and Price Improvement Mechanism (``PIM''), respectively.
See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62644 (August 4, 2010), 75
FR 48395 (August 10, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-61) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness of rule change to add auto-match
functionality in the PIM) and 61805 (March 31, 2010), 75 FR 17454
(April 6, 2010) (SR-BX-2010-022) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness of rule change to add auto-match functionality in the
PIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, for the reasons set forth above, the Commission believes that
the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\19\ that the proposed rule change (SR-C2-2011-043), as modified by
Amendment No. 1 thereto, be, and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-6230 Filed 3-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 232)]
[Notices]
[Page 73323-73324]
[DOCID:fr02de08-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER07-1409-000, EL02-30-000, TX07-2-000]

 Nevada Power Company; Notice of Filing

November 25, 2008.
    Take notice that on January 3, 2008, the Nevada Power Company
(Nevada Power) filed a Notice of Approval of Settlement by the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in the above-
captioned proceeding. On December 28, 2007, the Commission approved the
settlement as uncontested, subject to Nevada Power and the Sierra
Pacific Power Company (collectively, the Nevada Companies) filing this
notice.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is 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 e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 10, 2008.

 Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-28575 Filed 12-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P