[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 190 (Wednesday, September 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 61795]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21539]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[OMB Control No. 3235-0360, SEC File No. 270-317]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request'

Extension:
    Form N-17f-2

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350l et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Form N-17f-2 (17 CFR 274.220) under the Investment Company Act is
entitled ``Certificate of Accounting of Securities and Similar
Investments in the Custody of Management Investment Companies.'' Form
N-17f-2 is the cover sheet for the accountant examination certificates
filed under rule 17f-2 (17 CFR 270.17f-2) by registered management
investment companies (``funds'') maintaining custody of securities or
other investments. Form N-17f-2 facilitates the filing of the
accountant's examination certificates prepared under rule 17f-2. The
use of the form allows the certificates to be filed electronically, and
increases the accessibility of the examination certificates to both the
Commission's examination staff and interested investors by ensuring
that the certificates are filed under the proper Commission file number
and the correct name of a fund.
    Commission staff estimates that it takes: (i) on average 1.25 hours
of fund accounting personnel at a total cost of 272 to prepare each
Form N-17f-2; \1\ and (ii) .75 hours of administrative assistant time
at a total cost of $57 to file the Form N-17f-2 with the Commission.\2\
Approximately 201 funds currently file Form N-17f-2 with the
Commission. Commission staff estimates that on average each fund files
Form N-17f-2 three times annually for a total annual hourly burden per
fund of approximately 6 hours at a total cost of $1,002. The total
annual hour burden for Form N-17f-2 is therefore estimated to be
approximately 1,206 hours at a total cost of approximately $201,402.\3\
Form N-17f-2 does not impose any paperwork related cost burdens other
than this internal hour cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 1.25 x
$218 (fund senior accountant's hourly rate) = $272.
    \2\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: .75 x
$76 (administrative assistant hourly rate) $61.
    \3\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 201
funds x $1,002 (total annual cost per fund) = $201,402.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules and forms. Complying with the collections of
information required by Form N-17f-2 is mandatory for those funds that
maintain custody of their own assets. Responses will not be kept
confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid control number.
    The Commission requests written comments on: (a) Whether the
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the
burdens of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Cynthia
Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 24, 2020.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-21539 Filed 9-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80161-80164]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27397]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-1998-3637; FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-7165; FMCSA-
2000-8203; FMCSA-2001-10578; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-2004-18885; FMCSA-
2008-0106; FMCSA-2008-0231; FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-
2010-0161; FMCSA-2010-0187; FMCSA-2010-0201; FMCSA-2011-0324; FMCSA-
2012-0105; FMCSA-2012-0215; FMCSA-2014-0005; FMCSA-2014-0006; FMCSA-
2014-0007; FMCSA-2014-0010; FMCSA-2014-0011; FMCSA-2014-0296; FMCSA-
2014-0297]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from

the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
for 38 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals
from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions are effective from the dates
stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before
December 15, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: [Docket No. FMCSA-1998-3637; FMCSA-
2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-7165; FMCSA-2000-8203; FMCSA-2001-10578; FMCSA-
2002-12294; FMCSA-2004-18885; FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2008-0231; FMCSA-
2008-0266; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2010-0161; FMCSA-2010-0187; FMCSA-
2010-0201; FMCSA-2011-0324; FMCSA-2012-0105; FMCSA-2012-0215; FMCSA-
2014-0005; FMCSA-2014-0006; FMCSA-2014-0007; FMCSA-2014-0010; FMCSA-
2014-0011; FMCSA-2014-0296; FMCSA-2014-0297], using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division, Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office
hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 38 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 38 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. Each
individual is identified according to the renewal date.
    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her
person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal,
State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for
two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be
rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. The following group(s) of
drivers will receive renewed exemptions effective in the month of
November and are discussed below.
    As of November 9, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 36 individuals have satisfied the conditions
for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (63 FR
196; 63 FR 30285; 65 FR 20245; 65 FR 33406; 65 FR 57230; 65 FR 57234;
65 FR 66293; 66 FR 53826; 66 FR 66966; 67 FR 46016; 67 FR 57266; 67 FR
57267; 67 FR 67234; 68 FR 69434; 69 FR 51346; 69 FR 52741; 69 FR 53493;
69 FR 62741; 69 FR 62742; 70 FR 74102; 71 FR 50970; 71 FR 53489; 71 FR
62147; 71 FR 62148; 73 FR 35196; 73 FR 36955; 73 FR 46973; 73 FR 48270;
73 FR 48275; 73 FR 51336; 73 FR 51689; 73 FR 54888; 73 FR 61925; 73 FR
63047; 73 FR 74565; 75 FR 25919; 75 FR 36779; 75 FR 39725; 75 FR 39729;
75 FR 44051; 75 FR 47883; 75 FR 50799; 75 FR 52061; 75 FR 52062; 75 FR
52063; 75 FR 54958; 75 FR 59327; 75 FR 61833; 75 FR 63257; 75 FR 64396;
75 FR 66423; 75 FR 70078; 77 FR 7657; 77 FR 22059; 77 FR 27852; 77 FR
38384; 77 FR 39379; 77 FR 40946; 77 FR 46153; 77 FR 48590; 77 FR 52381;
77 FR 52388; 77 FR 52389; 77 FR 60010; 77 FR 64582; 77 FR 64583; 77 FR
64841; 77 FR 68199; 77 FR 68200; 79 FR 27681; 79 FR

35212; 79 FR 35218; 79 FR 38649; 79 FR 38659; 79 FR 45868; 79 FR 46153;
79 FR 46300; 79 FR 47175; 79 FR 51643; 79 FR 53514; 79 FR 56097; 79 FR
56099; 79 FR 56104; 79 FR 56117; 79 FR 58856; 79 FR 59348; 79 FR 59357;
79 FR 64001; 79 FR 68199; 79 FR 70928; 79 FR 72754:

Charles S. Amyx, Jr. (LA)
John W. Arnold (KY)
Derric D. Burrell (AL)
Kenneth C. Caldwell (NY)
John P. Catalano (NJ)
Lee A. Clason (NE)
Edward Cunningham (MI)
Eric P. Demers (NH)
Louis A. DiPasqua, Jr. (NY)
Roderick L. Duvall (PA)
Kelvin Frandin Bombu (KY)
Tyron O. Friese (MN)
James O. Hancock (IN)
John H. Holmberg (WI)
Stetson W. King (FL)
Donald L. McCraw, Jr. (VA)
Elijah Mitchell (TX)
Charles J. Morman (FL)
Benny R. Morris (WV)
Timothy L. Morton (NC)
Dennis E. Palmer, Jr. (CT)
Jesus Penuelas (AZ)
Larry A. Priewe (ND)
John C. Rodriguez (PA)
Sabahudin Sabic (IA)
Antonio Sanchez (NJ)
Garry R. Setters (KY)
Jimmy E. Settle (MO)
Lawrence Siegler (MN)
Lee F. Taylor (NJ)
Richard T. Traigle (LA)
Wilbert Walden (NC)
Donald Wallace (IL)
Carl V. Wheeler (NC)
Earl L. White, Jr. (NH)
Hubert Whittenburg (MO)

    The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket
Nos. FMCSA-1998-3637; FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-7165; FMCSA-2000-
8203; FMCSA-2001-10578; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-2004-18885; FMCSA-2008-
0106; FMCSA-2008-0231; FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2010-
0161; FMCSA-2010-0187; FMCSA-2010-0201; FMCSA-2011-0324; FMCSA-2012-
0105; FMCSA-2012-0215; FMCSA-2014-0005; FMCSA-2014-0006; FMCSA-2014-
0007; FMCSA-2014-0010; FMCSA-2014-0011; FMCSA-2014-0296. Their
exemptions are effective as of November 9, 2016, and will expire on
November 9, 2018.
    As of November 22, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 2 individuals have satisfied the conditions
for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (79 FR
63211; 80 FR 2471):

Dewey P. Huffman (OR)
Michael J. Monroe (IA)

    The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket
No. FMCSA-2014-0297. Their exemptions are effective as of November 22,
2016, and will expire on November 22, 2018.
    Each of the 38 applicants listed in the groups above has requested
renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the
vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at
49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In
addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the
respective vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each
applicant continues to meet the vision exemption requirements.
    These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each
renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by December 15, 2016.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 38 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each
case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received
to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That
information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register
publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

Submitting Comments

    You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail,
or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA
recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA
can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
in the search box insert the docket numbers FMCSA-1998-3637; FMCSA-
2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-7165; FMCSA-2000-8203; FMCSA-2001-10578; FMCSA-
2002-12294; FMCSA-2004-18885; FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2008-0231; FMCSA-
2008-0266; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2010-0161; FMCSA-2010-0187; FMCSA-
2010-0201; FMCSA-2011-0324; FMCSA-2012-0105; FMCSA-2012-0215; FMCSA-
2014-0005; FMCSA-2014-0006; FMCSA-2014-0007; FMCSA-2014-0010; FMCSA-
2014-0011; FMCSA-2014-0296; FMCSA-2014-0297 and click the search
button. When the new screen appears, click on the blue ``Comment Now!''
button on the right hand side of the page. On the new page, enter
information required including the specific section of this document to
which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by
mail and would like to know that they reached the facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the
close of the comment period.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert
the docket number FMCSA-1998-3637; FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-7165;
FMCSA-2000-8203; FMCSA-2001-10578; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-2004-18885;
FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2008-0231; FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2010-0082;
FMCSA-2010-0161; FMCSA-2010-0187; FMCSA-2010-0201; FMCSA-2011-0324;
FMCSA-2012-0105; FMCSA-2012-0215; FMCSA-2014-0005; FMCSA-2014-0006;
FMCSA-2014-0007; FMCSA-2014-0010; FMCSA-2014-0011; FMCSA-2014-0296;
FMCSA-2014-0297 and click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket
Folder'' and you will find all documents and comments related to this
notice.

    Issued on: November 1, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-27397 Filed 11-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: March 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 58)]
[Notices]
[Page 14270]
[DOCID:fr27mr07-31]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-357-000]

Liberty Gas Storage LLC; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas
Tariff

March 21, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 16, 2007, Liberty Gas Storage LLC
(Liberty) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original
Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets attached to the filing, with an
effective date of April 15, 2007.
    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 and 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 in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    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>.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5526 Filed 3-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 58 (Monday, March 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12995-12997]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06011]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82904; File No. SR-CboeEDGA-2018-004]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Expand an Offering Known as Cboe Connect To Provide Connectivity to
Single-Dealer Platforms Connected to the Exchange's Network and To
Propose a Per Share Executed Fee for Such Service

March 20, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 14, 2018, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to expand an offering known as Cboe
Connect to provide connectivity to single-dealer platforms connected to
the Exchange's network and to propose a per share executed fee for such
service.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.markets.cboe.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Cboe Connect is an optional communication service that provides
Members \5\ an additional means to receive market data from and route
orders to any destination connected to the Exchange's network.\6\ Cboe
Connect is offered by the Exchange on a voluntary basis in a capacity
similar to a vendor. The servers of the participant need not be located
in the same facilities as the Exchange in order to subscribe to Cboe
Connect. Participants may also seek to utilize Cboe Connect in the
event of a market disruption where other alternative connection methods
become unavailable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer, or any person associated with a registered broker or dealer,
that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange. A Member will
have the status of a ``member'' of the Exchange as that term is
defined in Section 3(a)(3) of the Act.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
    \6\ See Exchange Rule 13.9. See also Securities Exchange Act
Release Nos. 75112 (June 5, 2015), 80 FR 33316 (June 11, 2015) (SR-
EDGA-2015-20) (proposal adopting Cboe Connect (f/k/a Bats Connect);
and 34753 (June 11, 2015), 80 FR 34753 (June 17, 2015) (SR-EDGA-
2015-24) (proposal adopting fees for Cboe Connect).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, market participants are able to send orders directly to
broker-dealers that operate single-dealer platforms, where broker-
dealers would execute orders received on a principal basis or return
the unexecuted order (or portion thereof) back to their customers. To
connect to a single-dealer platform, the broker-dealer's customer must
purchase connectivity and perform the necessary infrastructure work to
be able to send orders to that single-dealer platform. Cboe Connect
allows participants to send orders to other exchanges and market
centers that are connected to the Exchange's network. Market centers on
the Exchange's network include Alternative Trading Systems operated by
broker-dealers, but do not currently include single-dealer platforms.
The Exchange proposes to expand Cboe Connect to now provide optional
connectivity by which market participant may send orders to these
single-dealer trading platforms connected to the Exchange's network.
The exchange proposes to refer to this connectivity option under Cboe
Connect as C-LNK.
    Orders routed via Cboe Connect to a single-dealer platform would be
treated the same as orders routed today via Cboe Connect to an exchange
or market center connected to the Exchange's network. Cboe Connect does
not effect trade executions and would not report trades to the relevant
Securities Information Processor and the Exchange does not propose to
do so for orders sent to single-dealer platforms. An order sent via the
service to a single-dealer platform would be handled by the Exchange's
affiliated broker-dealer, Cboe Trading, Inc., and bypass the EDGA Book
before going to a market center outside of the Exchange (i.e., a
participant could choose to route an order directly to any single-
dealer platform on the Exchange's network). A participant would be
responsible for identifying the single-dealer platform for any orders
sent through the service and for ensuring that it had authority to
access the selected destination; the Exchange would merely provide the
connectivity by which orders (and associated messages) could be sent by
a participant to the single-dealer platform and from the destination
back to the participant.
    The Exchange notes that Users sending orders to single-dealer
platforms via the C-LNK connectivity service would be subject to any
transaction related rates applied by the single-dealer platform
executing their order.\7\ This is not unique to C-LNK or Cboe Connect
as market participants who chose another method to connect to a single-
dealer platform would also be required to pay any transaction related
fees directly to that single-dealer platform. In addition, market
participants who send orders through Cboe Connect are subject to
separate per transaction rates (fees/rebates) provided directly by the
other exchanges and

market centers to which they send their orders for execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Like alternative trading systems, single-dealer platforms
are operated by broker-dealers and any transaction related rates are
presumed to be similarly pre-negotiated between the broker-dealer
and their customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, the Exchange charges a monthly connectivity fee to
subscribers utilizing Cboe Connect to route orders to other exchanges
and broker-dealers that are connected to the Exchange's network. The
amount of the connectivity fee varies based on the bandwidth selected
by the subscriber.\8\ Rather than charging a set connectivity fee based
on bandwidth, the Exchange proposes to charge a fee of $0.0002 for each
share executed by a single dealer platform for orders routed via Cboe
Connect. The Exchange proposes a per share rate, as opposed to a
monthly bandwidth related charge, because C-LNK is a new service and
the Exchange believes a monthly bandwidth charge may prove a deterrent
to attracting usage based on the anticipated preliminary volumes. The
Exchange, therefore, believes it is appropriate to charge a per share
fee at this time so that Users may evaluate the efficacy of C-LNK and
the connectivity it provides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Specifically, the Exchange charges $500 for 1 Mb, $1,000 for
5 Mb, $1,250 for 10 Mb, $1,500 for 25 Mb, $2,500 for 50 Mb, and
$3,500 for 100 Mb. See the Exchange's fee schedule available at
http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edga/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C-LNK removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system because it provides users
with optional connectivity method by which market participant may send
orders to these single-dealer trading platforms. The proposed
connectivity would be provided on a voluntary basis and no rule or
regulation requires that the Exchange offer it. Nor does any rule or
regulation require market participants to send orders to single-dealer
platforms generally, let alone through a connection like that proposed
herein. The proposed connectivity to single-dealer platforms would
operate in the same manner as connectively provided today to other
exchanges and market centers via Cboe Connect.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fee is consistent Section
6(b)(4) \11\ of the Act because it would provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its Members
and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange proposes to charge
a per share fee for each order sent via C-LNK to a single-dealer
platform that is connected to the Exchange's network. The proposed a
per share fee is appropriate, as opposed to a monthly bandwidth related
charge, because C-LNK is a new service and the Exchange believes a
monthly bandwidth charge may prove a deterrent to attracting usage
based on the anticipated preliminary volumes. A per share fee is
intended to encourage use of C-LNK at a rate that would enable users to
evaluate its efficacy and the connectivity it provides. Furthermore,
the proposed fee is designed to cover the Exchange's costs related to
providing the connectivity and performing the necessary infrastructure
work to be able send orders to each single-dealer platform connected to
the Exchange's network. The Exchange notes that, like all connectivity
provide via Cboe Connect, C-LNK would be an optional service provided
on a voluntary basis. Therefore, users may decide to not send orders
via C-LNK due to the reasonableness of the fee charged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed
rule change is a service that is designed to provide market
participants with an alternative connectivity to additional pools of
liquidity and is not intended have a competitive impact. Therefore, the
Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will have any effect
on competition.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing 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)(iii) of the Act \12\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

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-CboeEDGA-2018-004 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-CboeEDGA-2018-004. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will

post all comments on the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do
not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
CboeEDGA-2018-004 and should be submitted on or before April 16, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-06011 Filed 3-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


% Mosquitocide 1.5 h/day dermal exposure
% Dose to reach average cpfos conc in blood = 0.004 ug/L
% Sept 1, 2016
% Cecilia Tan

% Setting model parameters
use human_parameters_MRP
use preg_female_parameters
BWSW=1;		% Set BW to a fixed value
BWST=69;	 % Set BW
PREG=0;		% Not pregnant
DZONE = 1;	% Turn dermal exposure on
KDIS = 0.0;	% Daily dissipation
TSTOP=504;	%Simulation time = 21 days work week

% Dermal exposure
SAF=0.5;	 	% Fraction of skin in contact with chlorpyrifos.
FAD=1;     	% Fraction of dose available to be absorbed. Values of <1 could be used if pesticide is encapsulated.
%DERM =810;		% dose in ug/kg
DERM = 3.4;
D3=7;  %DAYS/WEEK
P2=1.5; %HRS/DAY
S2=0 ;%OFFSET FROM 0 START TIME (EG IF YOU WANT TO MODEL FROM MIDNIGHT, BUT DOSE AT 8 AM)
W2=21; %21 day exposure

prepare @clear@all
start @NoCallback
simall = [_time _rbcce _urinetcpy _cv*350.6 _cvo*334.5 _blauc*350.6 _blauco*334.5 _blaucavg*350.6 _blaucoavg*334.5];	%conc unit = ug/L

save simall @file='mosquitocide_dermal_adult_cc' @format=ascii


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 56 (Friday, March 22, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10753-10756]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05416]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0056; FRL-9991-27-Region 9]

Approval of California Air Plan Revisions; Imperial County Air
Pollution Control District; Stationary Source Permits

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Imperial County Air Pollution Control
District (ICAPCD or District) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns the District's New
Source Review (NSR) permitting program for new and modified sources of
air pollution. We are proposing action on a local rule under the Clean
Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on
this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by April 22, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2019-0056 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to T. Khoi
Nguyen, at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or edited from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically
any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T. Khoi Nguyen, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4120<EMAIL_ADDRESS>EPA Region IX is located at 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates
that it was amended by the ICAPCD and submitted by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB), which is the governor's designee for California
SIP submittals.

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Local agency                 Rule No.             Rule title             Amended         Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICAPCD............................             207   New and Modified                  9/11/18          10/5/18
                                                      Stationary Source Review.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 22, 2019, the EPA determined that the submittal for
ICAPCD Rule 207 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51
Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    On September 5, 2017, the EPA finalized a conditional approval of
Rule 207, as amended October 22, 2013, into the California SIP. 82 FR
41895.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations
that include a pre-construction permit program for certain new or
modified stationary sources of pollutants, including a permit program
as required by Part D of Title I of the CAA.
    The purpose of District Rule 207 is to implement a federal
preconstruction permit program for new and modified minor sources of
regulated NSR pollutants, and new and modified major sources of
regulated NSR pollutants for which the area is designated
nonattainment. Imperial County is currently designated as a marginal
nonattainment area for the 2015 8-hr ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) and a moderate nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Portions of the county are designated as a serious nonattainment
area for the 1987 24-hr PM10 NAAQS, as a moderate
nonattainment area for the 2006 24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS, and as a
moderate nonattainment area for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
40 CFR 81.305. In addition, Imperial County was designated
nonattainment for two revoked NAAQS: the 1979 1-hour ozone (moderate)
and 1997 8-hour ozone (moderate) NAAQS.
    The rule revision corrects a deficiency for which the EPA
previously finalized a conditional approval. 82 FR 41895. In that
action, we explained our finding that the rule did not fully satisfy 40
CFR 51.165(a)(13)'s requirements for regulation of PM2.5
precursors as they pertain to ammonia. Our conditional approval of Rule
217 was based on a commitment by CARB and the ICAPCD to submit a
revised Rule 207 that includes ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor
within twelve months of the effective date of our action (i.e., by
October 5, 2018). To fulfill the commitment, the ICAPCD amended Rule
207 on September 11, 2018 and the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
submitted revised Rule 207 to the EPA on October 5, 2018.
    We present our evaluation of revised Rule 207, as identified in
Table 1, in general terms below. Our technical support document (TSD),
which is available in the docket for the proposed rulemaking, contains
a more detailed analysis for today's proposed action.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?

    The submitted rule must meet the CAA's general requirements for
SIPs and SIP revisions in CAA sections 110(a)(2), 110(l), and 193 as
well as the applicable requirements contained in part D of title I of
the Act (sections 172 and 173) for a nonattainment NSR permit program.
In addition, the submitted rule must contain the applicable regulatory
provisions of 40 CFR 51.160-51.165 and 40 CFR 51.307.
    Among other things, section 110 of the Act requires that SIP rules
be enforceable and provides that the EPA may not approve a SIP revision
if it would interfere with any applicable requirements concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress or any other requirement of
the CAA. In addition, section 110(a)(2) and section 110(l) of the Act
require that each SIP or revision to a SIP submitted by a state must be
adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing.
    Section 110(a)(2)(c) of the Act requires each SIP to include a
permit program to regulate the modification and construction of any
stationary source within the areas covered by the SIP as necessary to
assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The EPA's regulations
at 40 CFR 51.160-51.164 provide general programmatic requirements to
implement this statutory mandate commonly referred to as the ``minor
NSR'' or ``general NSR'' permit program. These NSR program regulations
impose requirements for SIP approval of state and local programs that
are more general in nature as compared to the specific statutory and
regulatory requirements for nonattainment NSR permitting programs under
Part D of title I of the Act.
    Part D of title I of the Act contains the general requirements for
areas designated nonattainment for a NAAQS (section 172), including
preconstruction permit requirements for new major sources and major
modifications proposing to construct in nonattainment areas (section
173).

    Additionally, 40 CFR 51.165 sets forth the EPA's regulatory
requirements for SIP-approval of a nonattainment NSR permit program.
    The protection of visibility requirements that apply to New Source
Review programs are contained in 40 CFR 51.307. This provision requires
that certain actions be taken in consultation with the local Federal
Land Manager if a new major source or major modification may have an
impact on visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal Area.
    Section 110(l) of the Act prohibits the EPA from approving any SIP
revisions that would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any
other applicable requirement of the CAA. Section 193 of the Act, which
only applies in nonattainment areas, prohibits the modification of a
SIP-approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990, in
any manner unless the modification insures equivalent or greater
emission reductions of such air pollutant.
    The EPA has reviewed the submitted rule in accordance with the rule
evaluation criteria described above. With respect to procedures, based
on our review of the public process documentation included in the
October 5, 2018 submittal, we are proposing to approve the submitted
rule in part because we have determined that the ICAPCD has provided
sufficient evidence of public notice and opportunity for comment and
public hearings prior to adoption and submittal of this rule, in
accordance with the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l).
The amendment of Rule 207 now also includes ammonia as a potential
precursor to PM2.5, thus resolving the conditional approval
issue from the September 2017 action. Specifically, the revised Rule
207 updated definitions of ``emission increase'', ``major stationary
source'', ``precursors'', and ``significant'' to be consistent with
local and federal regulations and added language to specify when best
available control technology requirements apply to ammonia emissions.
Our TSD, which can be found in the docket for this rule, contains a
more detailed discussion of the approval criteria.

B. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
fully approve the submitted rule because it fulfills all relevant
requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
until April 22, 2019. If we take final action to approve the submitted
rule, our final action will incorporate this rule into the federally-
enforceable SIP.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the ICAPCD rule described in Table 1 of this preamble. The
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available
through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 21, 2019. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, New Source Review, Particulate
matter.

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

    Dated: March 13, 2018.
Michael Stoker,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2019-05416 Filed 3-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 28124]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11001]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4495-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Guam; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for territory of Guam (FEMA-4495-DR), dated March 27, 2020, and related
determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on April 26, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Robert J.
Fenton, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Tammy L. Littrell as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-11001 Filed 5-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


	follow-up
	Hector.Ybanez
	to:
	Keith Barnett
	09/17/2010 02:31 PM
	Show Details

History:	This message has been forwarded.

Keith

      During our August 31, 2010 meeting we discussed numerous issues and
as part of that discussion we identified some follow-up items.  Follow-up
items included (i) article regarding the design of wet scrubbers to control
HCl and SO2; (ii) Clinker production; (iii) Calculation of 30-day rolling
average expressed in lb per ton of clinker; and (iv) the alternative PM
limit for combined sources.

        HCl and SO2 have different optimum pHs where maximum adsorption
occurs.  For example; the optimum pH for HCL is between 2 and 3 and the
optimum for SO2 is about 7.  Therefore, it is possible that EPA's
assumption; that any SO2 scrubber will additionally control HCl emissions
to the degree necessary to meet the final standard.  The second item deals
with measuring clinker production.  This is an important issue to the
cement industry.  For instance, each plant is equipped with specific
measuring devices (i.e. weight feeders) to determine the daily production.
In accordance with CORPORATE guidelines, if the difference between the
measured value and the value calculated based on the Monthly Inventory
Verification Process is 5% or greater the plant must calibrate the
measuring device.  This is how many (if not all cement manufacturing
facilities) complete their month end closures.  My concern is that the
final promulgated rule is written with no realization of the operational
realities.  To that end, EPA should clean-up this matter as part of its
efforts to improve the Final Rule.  However, in the meantime, I think that
this can be accomplished using an alternative monitoring request.  Would
you agree with that approach?

      On the third item you asked for our opinion of how to best calculate
a 30-day rolling average.  We would agree that each 30-day average is best
calculated by dividing the total mass of pollutant emitted in 30-days by
the total mass of clinker produced in 30-days.

The fourth major item deals with the alternative particular matter (APM)
limit.  The final rule describes the situation when there is an alkali
bypass associated with a kiln, the combined PM emissions from the kiln or
in-line kiln/raw mill and the alkali bypass stack are subject to the PM
emissions limit of 0.04.  Existing kilns that combine the clinker cooler
exhaust with the kiln exhaust for energy efficiency purposes and send the
combined exhaust to the PM control device as a single stream may meet an
alternative PM emissions limit.  This limit is calculated using the
following equation:

         PM alt  =  0.004 x 1.65 x (Qk + Qc)/7000

However, the industry contains numerous other plant configurations not
addressed by the final rule.  For instance, several plant configurations
include the following:

   a.   In-line kiln/raw mill, alkali bypass, and in-line coal mill
   b.   In-line kiln/raw mill and in-line coal mill
   c.   In-line kiln/raw mill, alkali bypass, in-line coal mill, and cooler

Holcim believes that the above configurations should be allowed to use the
above equation to establish an alternative PM limit. Item "c" above fits
the definition in the final rule with the exception of the in-line coal
mill.  The in-line coal mill can use hot gases from the kiln or the cooler
and Holcim recommends that depending on the configuration Qk or Qc should
include airflow volumes associated with the in-line coal mill.  Items "a"
and "b" above are configurations where the clinker cooler vents to the
atmosphere however because of the in-line coal mill we believe that the
appropriate alt PM limit equation is:

                  PM alt  =  0.004 x 1.65 x (Qk + 0)/7000

      Where Qk would include those sources listed in items "a" or "b"
associated with the kiln and in that case Qc would equal zero.  Qc would
equal zero because the cooler in such configurations is vented to
atmosphere. I think that this can be accomplished using an alternative
monitoring request.  Would you agree with that approach?

Let's discuss these issues once more if you need any additional
clarifications.

Thanks

(See attached file: HCL and SO2 Scrubbers.pdf)

_____________________

Hector Ybanez
Corporate Manager, Environmental
122 West Carpenter Freeway
Suite 485
Irving, Texas 75039
Phone (214) 524 - 2814
Cell<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.holcim.com/us
This e-mail is confidential and intended only for the use of the above
named addressee. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete
it immediately and notify us by e-mail or telephone.


[Federal Register: August 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 153)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 45924-45925]
[DOCID:fr07au08-25]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1030; FRL-8573-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Colorado; Affirmative Defense Provisions for Malfunctions; Common
Provisions Regulation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of Colorado on August 1, 2007. These
revisions establish affirmative defense provisions for source owners
and operators for excess emissions during periods of malfunction. The
affirmative defense provisions are contained in the State of Colorado's
Common Provisions regulation. The intended effect of this action is to
approve only those portions of Colorado's Common Provisions regulation
submitted on August 1, 2007 that relate to the affirmative defense for
malfunctions. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean
Air Act.
    In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register,
EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a non-
controversial SIP revision and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the preamble to the
direct final rule. If EPA receives no adverse comments, EPA will not
take further action on this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse
comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take
effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so
at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may
be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

DATES: Any written comments on this proposal must be received on or
before September 8, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2007-1030, by one of the following methods:

     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section if you are faxing
comments).
     Mail: Callie Videtich, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-A, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Callie Videtich, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-A, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only
accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
Section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Komp, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-A, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the Direct
Final action of the same title which is located in the Rules and
Regulations section of this Federal Register.

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

    Dated: May 12, 2008.
Carol Rushin,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. E8-16269 Filed 8-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12975-12976]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04120]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2022-0055; OMB No. 1660-0047]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review, Comment Request; Request for Federal Assistance Form--How To
Process Mission Assignments in Federal Disaster Operations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: 30-Day notice of revision and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission seeks comments
concerning the collection of information necessary to allow FEMA to
support the needs of State, Tribes, and Territories during disaster
situations through the use of other Federal agency resources.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 31, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Information Management Division, 500 C St. SW, Washington, DC 20472,
email address: [email protected] or
John Walls, via email: [email protected] or by phone (202) 674-
4936.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: According to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5121 et
seq., FEMA is authorized to provide assistance before, during, and
after a disaster has impacted a State, Tribe, or Territory. For a major
disaster, the Stafford Act authorizes FEMA to direct any agency to
utilize its existing authorities and resources in support of State,
Tribe, and Territory assistance response and recovery efforts. See 42
U.S.C. 5170(a)(1). For an emergency, the Stafford Act authorizes FEMA
to direct any agency to utilize its existing authorities and resources
in support of State and local emergency assistance efforts. See 42
U.S.C. 5192(a)(1). FEMA may task other Federal agencies to assist
during disasters and to support emergency efforts by State and local
governments by issuing a mission assignment to the appropriate agency.
See 44 CFR 206.5, 206.208. FEMA collects the information necessary to
determine what resources are needed and if a mission assignment is
appropriate. The information collected explains which States, Tribes,
or Territories require assistance, what needs to be accomplished,
details any resource shortfalls, and explains what assistance is
required to meet these needs.
    This proposed information collection previously published in the
Federal Register on December 13, 2022, at 87 FR 76208 with a 60 day
public comment period. No comments were received. The purpose of this
notice is to notify the public that FEMA will submit the information
collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for
review and clearance.

Collection of Information

    Title: Request for Federal Assistance Form--How to Process Mission
Assignments in Federal Disaster Operations.
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0047.

    FEMA Form: FEMA Form FF-104-FY-21-120 (formerly 010-0-7), Resource
Request Form.
    Abstract: If a State, Tribe, or Territory determines that its
capacity to respond to a disaster exceeds its available resources, it
may submit to FEMA a request that the work be accomplished by a Federal
agency. This request documents how the response requirements exceed the
capacity for the State to respond to the situation on its own and what
type of assistance is required. FEMA reviews this information and may
issue a mission assignment to the appropriate Federal agency to assist
the State in its response to the situation.
    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Number of Respondents: 10.
    Number of Responses: 6,400.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,133.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Costs: $180,430.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $44,318.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Millicent Brown Wilson,
Records Management Branch Chief, Office of the Chief Administrative
Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2023-04120 Filed 2-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-24-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 225 (Monday, November 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72960-72961]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29776]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-197-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: City of Perryville to be
effective 12/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/16/15.
    Accession Number: 20151116-5103.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-198-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Town of Corning to be
effective 12/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/16/15.
    Accession Number: 20151116-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/15.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.  385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to
the proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1303-001.

    Applicants: Empire Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing RP15-1303 Compliance Filing to be
effective 11/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/16/15.
    Accession Number: 20151116-5193.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/15.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 17, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-29776 Filed 11-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 135)]
[Notices]
[Page 41250-41252]
[DOCID:fr15jy10-105]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62472; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-94]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
to the Fees and Rebates for Adding and Removing Liquidity

July 8, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 29, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the fees and rebates for adding and
removing liquidity for options overlying various select symbols.
    While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative for transactions settling on or after July 1, 2010.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, at the
principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference
Room, and on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its current fees and rebates for
adding and removing liquidity by implementing a fee for adding
liquidity. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to assess a $0.05 per
contract fee for Firms and Broker-Dealers who add liquidity in select
symbols.\3\ The Exchange is proposing these fees in order to support
increased bandwidth usage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The fees and rebates for adding and removing liquidity are
applicable to executions in options overlying AA, AAPL, ABK, ABX,
AIG, ALL, AMD, AMR, AMZN, ARIA, AXP, BAC, BRCD, C, CAT, CIEN, CIGX,
CSCO, DELL, DIA, DNDN, DRYS, EBAY, EK, F, FAS, FAZ, GDX, GE, GLD,
GLW, GS, HAL, IBM, INTC, IWM, IYR, JPM, LVS, MGM, MOT, MSFT, MU,
NEM, NOK, NVDA, ONNN, ORCL, PALM, PFE, POT, QCOM, QID, QQQQ, RIG,
RIMM, RMBS, SBUX, SDS, SIRI, SKF, SLV, SMH, SNDK, SPY, T, TBT, TZA,
UAUA, UNG, USO, UYG, V, VALE, VZ, WYNN, X, XHB, XLF, XRX and YHOO
(``Symbols'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently assesses a per-contract transaction charge
in various select Symbols on six different categories of market
participants that submit orders and/or quotes that remove, or ``take,''
liquidity from the Exchange: (i) Specialists,\4\ Registered Options
Traders (``ROTs''),\5\ Streaming Quote Traders (``SQTs'') \6\ and
Remote Streaming Quote Traders (``RSQTs''); \7\ (ii) customers; \8\
(iii) specialists, SQTs and RSQTs that receive Directed Orders
(``Directed Participants'' \9\ or ``Directed Specialists, RSQTs, or
SQTs'' \10\); (iv) Firms; (v) broker-dealers; and (vi)
Professionals.\11\ The current per-contract transaction charge depends
on the category of market participant submitting an order or quote to
the Exchange that removes liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A Specialist is an Exchange member who is registered as an
options specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a).
    \5\ A Registered Option Trader is defined in Exchange Rule
1014(b) as a regular member or a foreign currency options
participant of the Exchange located on the trading floor who has
received permission from the Exchange to trade in options for his
own account. A ROT includes a SQT, a RSQT and a Non-SQT, which by
definition is neither a SQT or a RSQT. See Exchange Rule 1014 (b)(i)
and (ii).
    \6\ An SQT is an Exchange Registered Options Trader (``ROT'')
who has received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit
option quotations electronically through an electronic interface
with AUTOM via an Exchange approved proprietary electronic quoting
device in eligible options to which such SQT is assigned. See
Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A).
    \7\ An RSQT is an ROT that is a member or member organization
with no physical trading floor presence who has received permission
from the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations
electronically through AUTOM in eligible options to which such RSQT
has been assigned. An RSQT may only submit such quotations
electronically from off the floor of the Exchange. See Exchange Rule
1014(b)(ii)(B).
    \8\ This applies to all customer orders, directed and non-
directed.
    \9\ For purposes of the fees and rebates related to adding and
removing liquidity, A Directed Participant is a Specialist, SQT, or
RSQT that executes a customer order that is directed to them by an
Order Flow Provider and is executed electronically on PHLX XL II.
    \10\ See Exchange Rule 1080(l), ``* * * The term `Directed
Specialist, RSQT, or SQT' means a specialist, RSQT, or SQT that
receives a Directed Order.'' A Directed Participant has a higher
quoting requirement as compared with a specialist, SQT or RSQT who
is not acting as a Directed Participant. See Exchange Rule 1014.
    \11\ The Exchange defines a ``professional'' as any person or
entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii)
places more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s)
(hereinafter ``Professional'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The per-contract transaction charges that are currently assessed on
participants who submit proprietary quotes and/or orders that remove
liquidity in the applicable Symbols are, by category:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                              Charge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer.........................  $0.25 per contract.
Directed Participants............  $0.30 per contract.

Specialist, ROT, SQT, RSQT.......  $0.32 per contract.
Firms............................  $0.45 per contract.
Broker-Dealers...................  $0.45 per contract.
Professional.....................  $0.40 per contract.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also currently assesses a per-contract rebate relating
to transaction charges for orders or quotations that add liquidity in
the select Symbols. The amount of the rebate depends on the category of
participant whose order or quote was executed as part of the Phlx Best
Bid and Offer. Specifically, the per-contract rebates are, by category:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                              Rebate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer.........................  $0.20 per contract.
Directed Participants............  $0.25 per contract.
Specialist, ROT, SQT, RSQT.......  $0.23 per contract.
Firms............................  $0.00 per contract.
Broker-Dealers...................  $0.00 per contract.
Professional.....................  $0.20 per contract.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to assess a $0.05 per contract fee for adding
liquidity in the select Symbols for Firms and Broker-Dealers. Today,
Firms and Broker-Dealers receive no rebate for adding liquidity,
therefore the proposal constitutes a $0.05 fee increase for those
participants.
    While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative for transactions settling on or after July 1, 2010.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \12\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \13\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members. The impact of the proposal
upon the net fees paid by a particular market participant will depend
on a number of variables, including its monthly volumes, the order
types it uses, and the prices of its quotes and orders (i.e., its
propensity to add or remove liquidity). The Exchange believes that its
proposal to assess a $0.05 per contract for Firms and Broker-Dealers
adding liquidity in the select Symbols is reasonable because the fee is
within the range of fees assessed by other exchanges employing similar
pricing schemes. For example, the proposed fees assessed to Firms and
Broker-Dealers are comparable to rates assessed by the International
Securities Exchange, Inc. (``ISE''). Currently, ISE assesses a fee of
$0.10 for Firm Proprietary orders and a fee of $0.20 for Non-ISE Market
maker (FARMM) orders for adding liquidity in certain symbols.\14\ In
addition, the Exchange also believes that these fees are reasonable
because the net differential between the proposed fee for adding
liquidity and the proposed fee for removing liquidity is similar to the
$0.30 net differential that exists today at ISE as between a Market
Maker Plus receiving a $0.10 rebate and a Non-ISE Market Maker (FARMM)
being assessed a $0.20 fee for adding liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \14\ See ISE's Schedule of Fees. See also Securities and [sic]
Exchange Act Release No. 61869 (April 7, 2010), 75 FR 19449 (April
14, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-25).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the price differentiation between Firms
and Brokers-Dealers and Specialists, ROTs, SQTs and RSQTs \15\ is
justified in that the Specialists, ROTs, SQTs and RSQTs have
obligations to the market, which do not apply to Firms and Broker-
Dealers.\16\ The concept of incenting market makers, who have quoting
obligations, with a rebate is not novel.\17\ The Exchange believes that
it is equitable to assess a $0.05 fee for adding liquidity on Firms and
Broker-Dealers who have no such quoting requirements as do market
makers. In addition, the Exchange believes that by not assessing a fee
on customers for adding liquidity and providing a $.20 per contract
rebate for adding liquidity incentivizes customer order flow to the
Exchange. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are
fair, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed
fees are consistent with price differentiation that exists today at all
option exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Specialists, ROTs, SQTs and RSQTs are the Exchange's market
maker category.
    \16\ See Exchange Rule 1014 titled ``Obligations and
Restrictions Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options
Traders.''
    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62048 (May 6, 2010)
75 FR 26830 (May 12, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-43).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Differentiated pricing is typical in mature, competitive markets
and is generally understood to benefit purchasers. Simply put, investor
protection is furthered by the lowering of prices and by robust
competition, not by a regulatory paradigm that (contrary to current
economic thought) enforces price rigidity and uniformity while looking
askance at attempts to reduce prices. As Congress and the Commission
both recognize, nothing is more important to fostering a national
market system than competition--and few things are more important to
competition than the ability to quickly alter prices or other terms to
respond to competition or win a significant new customer. Price
rigidity and uniformity are signs of a stagnant market, not a vibrant
one; regulation of differential pricing should be reserved to anti-
competitive conduct that impedes the objectives of the securities laws.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues
if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. The
Exchange believes the proposal is an equitable allocation of fees and
not unfairly discriminatory for the reasons stated above.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \18\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \19\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2010-94 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-94. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 Web site (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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-94 and should be
submitted on or before August 5, 2010.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-17193 Filed 7-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: May 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 93)]
[Notices]
[Page 27333-27334]
[DOCID:fr14my10-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. CP10-255-000]

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Texas Gas Transmission,
LLC; Notice of Application

May 6, 2010.
    Take notice that on April 29, 2010, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC
(Texas Gas), 3800 Frederica Street, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301, filed
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application under
section 7 of the Natural Gas Act to amend the certificates associated
with eight of its storage fields so they are consistent with each
field's current operating characteristics, all as more fully set forth
in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection.
    In its application, Texas Gas states it has conducted a
comprehensive review of its storage operations and determined that
eight of its fields' operating characteristics differ from the
operating parameters approved by the Commission. Texas Gas states that
these amendments will have no effect on Texas Gas' existing agreements,
services, rates, or FERC Gas Tariff. Texas Gas states that these
amendments will have no environmental effects, as no new construction
is required. The result of these amendments will be to allow Texas Gas
to provide additional storage capacity and peak day design
deliverability to the market consistent with the demonstrated
capabilities of each storage field.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to J.
Kyle Stephens, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Texas Gas
Transmission, LLC, 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046,
or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 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

(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: May 27, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-11519 Filed 5-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P