	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 52

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2005-MD-0002; FRL-         ]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

	Maryland; Clarification of Visible Emissions Exceptions

AGENCY:	Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:	Final rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Maryland.  This revision consists of
clarifications to the exception provisions of the Maryland visible
regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  This final rule is effective on [insert date 30 days
from date of publication].

ADDRESSES:  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
ID Number EPA-R03 OAR-2005-MD-0002.  All documents in the docket are
listed in the www.regulations.gov website.   Although listed in the
electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.  Publicly available docket materials
are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in
hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment,
1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland, 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Miller,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I.	Background

On December 1, 2003, the State of Maryland submitted a formal SIP
revision (#03-10) that clarifies Maryland(s federally-approved general
visible emissions (VE) regulations, including those related to specific
source categories.  The revised language will ensure that sources
correctly interpret the exception provisions provided in those
regulations.  On April 26, 2005 (70 FR 21337), EPA published a direct
final rule (DFR) approving revisions to Maryland(s SIP pertaining to its
VE regulations.

An explanation of the CAA(s requirements and EPA(s rationale for
approving this SIP revision were provided in the DFR and will not be
restated here.  In accordance with direct final rulemaking procedures,
on April 26, 2005 (70 FR 21387), EPA also published a companion notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for this SIP revision inviting interested
parties to comment on the DFR.  Timely adverse comments were submitted
on EPA(s April 26, 2005 DFR.

On June 27, 2005 (70 FR 36844), due to the receipt of adverse comments
submitted in response to the DFR, EPA published a withdrawal of the DFR.
 A summary of those comments and EPA(s responses are provided in Section
II of this document.

II.	Public Comment and EPA Response

Comment:  EPA received the same comment on behalf of two commenters.
The commenters state that the federal new source performance standards
(NSPS) and national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAPs) regulations allow exceedance of their respective opacity
standards for up to three hours per occurrence during periods of
startup, shutdown and repair.  These federal regulations require the
installation of continuous opacity monitors (COM).   The commenters
claim that air pollution control equipment on certain municipal waste
combustion (MWC) sources cannot achieve the visible emissions exception
requirements as stated in Maryland(s clarified visible emissions rule
due to the occasional formation of (condensed( plumes after emissions
exit the stack, as a result of upset conditions that may occur during
the operation of emission control devices used to reduce nitrogen oxides
(NOX) emissions.  The commenters believe that Maryland(s regulations
regarding VE exceptions should be revised to be consistent with the
existing federal NSPS and NESHAP regulations for MWCs.

Response:  EPA understands that the VE requirements established in
Maryland(s regulations differ from those established in the NSPS and
NESHAP regulations that currently apply to MWCs.  States have frequently
used VE limits as part of their efforts to attain the NAAQS.   Under the
CAA(s bifurcated scheme, the State is responsible for choosing how a
source must be regulated for purposes of attaining the NAAQS and EPA(s
role is limited in reviewing the State(s choice to ensure it meets the
minimum statutory requirements.  Here, the commenter is not claiming
that the regulations do not meet the statutory minimum, but rather that
Maryland is seeking to require more than the minimum statutory
requirements.  The CAA is based upon "cooperative federalism," which
contemplates that each State will develop its own SIP, and that States
retain a large degree of flexibility in choosing which sources to
control and to what degree.  EPA must approve a State's plan if it
meets the "minimum requirements of the CAA.  Union Elec. Co. v. EPA, 427
U.S. 246, 264-266 (1976).

III. Final Action

EPA is approving revisions to the Maryland VE exception provisions as a
revision to the Maryland SIP.

IV.   Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.   General Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action
is not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget.  For this reason, this
action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).  This action merely approves state law
as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.  Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).  Because this rule approves pre-existing
requirements under state law and does not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain
any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104-4).   This rule also does not have tribal implications
because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).  This action also
does not have Federalism implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).  This
action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement,
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.  This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks( (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA(s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.  In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to
use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS.  It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act.  Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.  This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B.   Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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 rule 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.  This rule is not a
(major rule( as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C.  Petitions for Judicial Review

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 [insert date 60 days from date of
publication of this document in the Federal Register].  Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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 to approve revisions to the Maryland
regulations which clarify the visible emissions exception provisions may
not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements 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, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

                         /s/

                        ___________________________

Dated:   7/19/07                      				William T. Wisniewski, Acting
                             							Regional Administrator,

                                  					Region III.

	40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52 - [AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart V( Maryland

2. In Section  52.1070, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by
revising the entries for COMAR  <IP_ADDRESS>, 10.18.08 (Title),
<IP_ADDRESS>, <IP_ADDRESS>, and <IP_ADDRESS> to read as follows:

( 52.1070  		Identification of plan.

*		*		*		*		*

(c)   EPA approved regulations.

       EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE MARYLAND SIP

Code of Maryland administrative regulations (COMAR) citation

Title/subject

State effective date

EPA approval date

Additional explanation/

citation at 40 CFR ( 52.1100

          *            *               *              *              *
              *             *

 26.11.06

General Emission Standards, Prohibitions, and Restrictions

          *            *               *              *              *
              *             *

<IP_ADDRESS>

[Except:  .02A(1)(e), (1)(g), (1)(h), (1)(i)]

Visible Emissions

11/24/03

[Insert Federal Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]

Revised paragraph <IP_ADDRESS>A(2)

 *             *               *                *                *
        *           *

10.18.08/

26.11.08

Control of Incinerators

*             *               *                *                *
       *           *

<IP_ADDRESS>/

<IP_ADDRESS>

Visible Emissions

11/24/03

[Insert Federal Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]

Revised COMAR citation; revised paragraph  <IP_ADDRESS>C.

*             *               *                *                *
       *           *

26.11.09

Control of Fuel-Burning Equipment, Stationary Internal Combustion
Engines, and Certain Fuel-Burning Installations

 *             *               *                *                *
        *           *

<IP_ADDRESS>

Visible Emissions

11/24/03

[Insert Federal Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]

Revised paragraph <IP_ADDRESS>A(3)

 *             *               *                *                *
        *           *

 26.11.10

Control of Iron and Steel Production Installations

 *             *               *                *                *
        *           *

<IP_ADDRESS>

Visible Emissions

11/24/03

[Insert Federal Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]

Revised paragraph <IP_ADDRESS>A(2)

 *             *               *                *                *
        *           *

*	*	*	*	*

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

 PAGE  9


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 51048]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20964]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1981-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

North Dakota; Amendment No. 9 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 the State of North Dakota (FEMA-1981-DR), dated May 10, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 4, 2011.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of North Dakota is hereby amended to include the
following area among those areas determined to have been adversely
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of May 10, 2011.

    Benson County for Individual Assistance (already designated for
Public Assistance).

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.

    Dated: August 11, 2011.
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-20964 Filed 8-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


Population Level Impacts Shannon L. Cass Calay NOAA Fisheries Miami Laboratory Quantifying Population Level Impact ° Equivalent Adult Losses   Goodyear, C. P. 1978. Entrainment impact estimates using the equivalent adult approach. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services. FWS/ OBS 78/ 65.

  EPA 316( b)

° Leslie Matrices   Vaughan, D. S. and S. B. Saila. 1976. A method for determining mortality rates using the Leslie matrix. Trans.

Am. Fish. Soc. 105: 380 383. Quantifying Population Level Impact ° Dynamic Pool ( Yield per recruit) Models   Jensen, A. L. and T. A. Hamilton. 1982. Application of a conventional fishery model for assessment of entrainment and impingement impact. Env. Biol. Fish. 7: 181 185.

° Surplus Production Model   MacCall, A. D. et al. 1982. Power plant impact assessment:

A simple fishery production model approach. Fish. Bull.

81: 613 619. Data Requirements ° Equivalent Adult Losses   Number of eggs, larvae, juveniles and adults entrained and impinged.

  Daily or stage specific mortality rates ° Leslie Matrix   Age specific fertility   Age specific survivorship   Numbers or proportion of population at age x   Can examine the role of E& I by varying the age zero survivorship Data Requirements ° Dynamic Pool   Growth parameters   Eggs produced per female   Duration of egg stage   Hatching fraction   Duration of larval period   Age at entry to fishery   Fishing Mortality Coefficient   Natural Mortality Coefficient   Size of mature population   Total population size   Annual water intake   Eggs and larvae entrained Data Requirements ° Production Model   Standing stock of larvae/ eggs   Number of eggs and larvae entrained   Number of adults impinged   Natural Mortality rate   Adult biomass Equivalent Adult Losses ° Previous estimates were made for Compass Point LNG station by a consultant ( ENSR International)

° For this presentation, I will reexamine the approach for 3 species: Red Snapper, Red Drum and Menhaden Equivalent Adult Losses ( Red Drum)

° Assumptions   Egg Stage Duration = 1 day   Egg Daily Survival = 50%

  Eggs entrained = 2,070,640   Larvae entrained = 23,226,019   Juvenile Stage Duration = 365   egg duration   larval duration   Daily survival of juveniles = 99%

° Result: perhaps 5,000   20,000 AE. More extreme values are possible ° Previous estimate = 5,849 ESTIMATED ADULT EQUIVALENTS RED DRUM 80000 100000 120000 160000140000 180000 200000 60000 400 00 20000 Daily Survival Probability of Larvae 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 Larval Duration (

Days) 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Equivalent Adult Losses ( Menhaden)

° Assumptions   Egg Stage Duration = 4 day   Egg Daily Survival = 50%

  Eggs entrained = 53,717,351   Larvae entrained = 602,538,351   Juvenile Stage Duration = 365   egg duration   larval duration   Daily survival of juveniles = 99%

° Result: perhaps 100,000 1,000,000 AE. More extreme values are possible.

° Previous estimate 175,000 ESTIMATED ADULT EQUIVALENTS MENHADEN 1e+

6 2e+

6 4e+

6 3e+

6 6e+

6 5e+

6 8e +

6 7e+

6 Daily Survival Probability of Larvae 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 Larval Stage Duration (

days) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Equivalent Adult Losses ( Red Snapper)

° Assumptions   Egg Stage Duration = 1 day   Egg Daily Survival = 50%

  Eggs entrained = 779,492   Larvae entrained = 8,743,424   Juvenile Stage Duration = 365   egg duration   larval duration   Daily survival of juveniles = 99%

° Result: perhaps 1,000   10,000 AE.

More extreme values are possible ° Previous estimate = 73 ESTIMATED ADULT EQUIVALENTS RED SNAPPER 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 35000 30000 45000 40000 50000 60000 55000 65000 Daily Survival Probability of Larvae 0.76 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 Larval Stage Duration (

days)

20 22 24 26 28 30 32


Aaron Levy/DC/USEPA/US
12/03/2007 10:56 AM	To
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>	cc
	Ross Brennan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeremy Arling/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Richard
Keigwin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Nikhil Mallampalli/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Christine
Augustyniak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Elisa Rim/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Colwell
Cook/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Paul Balserak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Eileen
Pritchard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mariana Cubeddu/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
	bcc

	Subject
	CUE Methyl Bromide Final Rulemaking:  Final Informal Draft

Hello all,

Please find attached what I hope is the final informal draft for the 2008
CUE rulemaking.  In this draft, I've marked significant changes that
respond to issues raised during interagency review.  Minor editorial
changes that reviewers suggested have been made, but are not explicitly
marked in this draft.  As discussed on last week's calls, EPA is currently
estimating 2008 iodomethane uptake, and double-checking its estimate of
the feasibility of sulfuryl fluoride for 2008 cocoa bean fumigations.
These issues may create small changes to the CUE amounts in the attached
draft.

Given the tight time frame for publishing this rule before the end of the
year, please provide comments on this draft within 24-hours, and expect to
hear from Amanda  in the very near future about any final calls that may
be needed before this package is formally transmitted through EPA to OMB.

Once again, thank you all for your continued hard work and cooperation!

Regards,

Aaron Levy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Stratospheric Protection Division
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW (6205J)
Washington, DC 20460
Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 222 (Thursday, November 17, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 81052]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27683]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R07-RCRA-2016-0637; FRL-9955-24-Region 7]

State of Nebraska; Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Nebraska has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) for final authorization of revisions to its hazardous waste
program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA is
proposing to grant final authorization to Nebraska.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
December 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
RCRA-2016-0637, to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Haugen, EPA Region 7, Enforcement
Coordination Office, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219,
phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the Federal
Register, EPA is authorizing the revisions by a direct final rule. EPA
did not make a proposal prior to the direct final rule because we
believe this action is not controversial and do not expect comments
that oppose it. We have explained the reasons for this authorization in
the preamble of the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments
are received in response to this action, no further activity is
contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this
action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives
adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of
the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional
information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules
section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: November 3, 2016.
Mark Hague,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2016-27683 Filed 11-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58071-58072]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22842]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-96-000]

Route 66 Solar Energy Center, LLC; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Route 66 Solar Energy Center, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is November 3, 2021.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the

Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. At this time, the
Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free, (886) 208-
3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 14, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-22842 Filed 10-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


POTW Sludge Criteria ( sldg_ cri. sd2)

Sewage sludge criteria for the eight MP& M sludge pollutants.

Data Element Definitions CASNUM  Pollutant Chemical Abstract Number NAME  Pollutant name CLASS  Not used SLUDCRIT  Sludge criteria ( same as land applied high) LA_ H  Land applied high disposal limit ( mg/ kg dry weight) LA_ L  Land applied low disposal limit ( mg/ kg dry weight) SURFDIS  Surface disposal limit ( mg/ kg dry weight) CO_ DIS  Co disposal limit ( mg/ kg dry weight)


[Federal Register: September 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 187)]
[Notices]
[Page 59707]
[DOCID:fr28se10-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13662-000]

Coastal Hydropower, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

September 21, 2010.
    On February 9, 2010, and supplemented on July 16, 2010, Coastal
Hydropower, LLC filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant
to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the
feasibility of the Winchester Dam Hydroelectric Project, to be located
at the Winchester dam on the North Umpqua River, in Douglas County,
Oregon. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to
grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during
the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit
holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter
upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) Five new
submersible Kaplan turbine/generator units with a total installed
capacity of 2.5 megawatts, to be installed replacing sections of the
existing dam; (2) a new control house building; and (3) a new
approximately 100-foot-long, 20-kilovolt transmission line
interconnecting to an existing substation. The estimated annual
generation of the project would be 13 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Neil Anderson, Coastal Hydropower, LLC, Key
Centre, 601 108th Avenue, NE., Suite 1900, Bellevue, WA 98004; phone:
(425) 943-7690.
    FERC Contact: Dianne Rodman; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-
filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing,
documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and
seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http: //www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13662-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-24235 Filed 9-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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

General Comment:I do not want what is known as vaping regulated. It has helped both my husband and my daughter quit smoking and slowly taper down their nicotine use.They have had health improvements and feel better in general. I see it as a safer alternative to actual smoking. As with everything else, the danger to kids is over-hyped. Parents need to parent their kids not the government.

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


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 112 (Thursday, June 11, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33331-33332]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14252]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0015; Notice 2]

Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, (CTA), has determined that
certain Continental replacement passenger car tires do not fully comply
with paragraph S5.5(f) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. CTA has filed
an appropriate report dated January 7, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Abraham
Diaz, Office of Vehicles Safety Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. CTA's Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), CTA submitted a petition for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the CTA's petition was published, with a 30-
day public comment period, on April 16, 2015 in the Federal Register
(80 FR 20570). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2015-0015.''
    II. Tires Involved: Affected are approximately 116,500 Continental
ExtremeContact DWS size 225/45R17 91W, Continental ExtremeContact DW
size 225/45R17 91W and General G-Max AS-03 size 225/45R17 91W passenger
car tires.
    III. Noncompliance: CTA explains that the noncompliance is that due
to mold labeling errors, the sidewall markings on the subject tires do
not correctly describe the actual number of plies in the tread area of
the tires as required by paragraph S5.5(f) of FMVSS No. 139.
Specifically, the Continental ExtremeContact DWS size 225/45R17 91W
tires were manufactured with ``Tread 4 Plies: 1 Polyester + 2 Steel + 1
Polyamide.'' The correct labeling and stamping should have been ``Tread
5 Plies: 1 Polyester + 2 Steel + 2 Polyamide.'' The Continental
ExtremeContact DW size 225/45R17 91W tires were manufactured with
``Tread 4 Plies: 1 Polyester + 2 Steel + 1 Polyamide.'' The correct
labeling and stamping should have been ``Tread 5 Plies: 1 Polyester + 2
Steel + 2 Polyamide.'' The General G-Max AS-03 size 225/45R17 91W tires
were manufactured with ``Plies: Tread: 1 Polyester + 2 Steel + 1
Polyamide.'' The correct labeling and stamping should have been
``Plies: Tread: 1 Polyester + 2 Steel + 2 Polyamide.''
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.5 of FMVSS No. 139 requires in
pertinent part:

    S5.5 Tire Markings. Except as specified in paragraphs (a)
through (i) of S5.5, each tire must be marked on each sidewall with
the information specified in S5.5(a) through (d) and on one sidewall
with the information specified in S5.5(e) through (i) according to
the phase-in schedule specified in S7 of this standard . . .
    (f) The actual number of plies in the sidewall, and the actual
number of plies in the tread area, if different;

    V. Summary of CTA's Analyses: CTA stated its belief that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for
the following reasons:

    (A) CTA believes that the mislabeling of the number of plies on the
subject tires has no impact on the operational performance of the
subject tires or on the safety of vehicles on which these tires are to
be mounted. CTA states that the subject tires also meet or exceed all
of the performance requirements specified by FMVSS No. 139.
    (B) CTA states that they are unaware of any accidents or injuries
that have occurred as a result of this noncompliance.
    (C) CTA states that NHTSA has previously granted similar petitions
for Inconsequential Noncompliances in the past.
    CTA has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the
subject noncompliance.
    In summation, CTA believes that the described noncompliance of the
subject tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition, to exempt CTA from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.

NHTSA's Decision

    NHTSA's Analysis of CTA's Arguments: The agency agrees with CTA
that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The
agency believes that the true measure of inconsequentiality to motor
vehicle safety in this case is that there is no effect of the
noncompliance on the operational safety of the vehicles on which these
tires are mounted. The safety of people working in the tire retread,
repair and recycling industries must also be considered.
    Although tire construction affects the strength and durability,
neither the agency nor the tire industry provides information relating
tire strength and durability to the number of plies and types of ply
cord material to the tread and sidewall. Therefore, tire dealers and
customers should consider the tire construction information along with
other information such as load capacity, maximum inflation pressure,
and tread wear, temperature, and traction ratings, to assess
performance capabilities of various tires. In the agency's judgement,
the incorrect labeling of the tire construction information will have
an inconsequential effect on motor vehicle safety because most
consumers do not base tire purchases or vehicle operation parameters on
the number of plies in a tire.
    The agency believes the noncompliance will have no measureable
effect on the safety of tire retread, repair and recycling industries.
The use of steel cord construction in the sidewall and tread is the
primary safety concern of these industries. In this case, since the
tire sidewall is marked correctly for the number of steel plies, this
potential safety concern does not exist.
    NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that CTA has met its burden of persuasion that the
noncompliance described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, CTA's petition is hereby granted and CTA is exempted from
the obligation of providing notification of, and remedy for the subject
noncompliance.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the subject tires that CTA no longer controlled at the
time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of this petition does not relieve tire distributors and
dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant tires under their control after CTA notified them that
the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8).

Jeffrey Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-14252 Filed 6-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: July 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 129)]
[Notices]
[Page 37004-37005]
[DOCID:fr06jy07-60]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0038; FRL-8136-9]

Management Support Technology, Inc. and System Integration Group,
Inc.; Transfer of Data

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that pesticide related information
submitted to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) pursuant to the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including information
that may have been claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)
by the submitter, will be transferred to Management Support Technology,
Inc. and its subcontractor, System Integration Group, Inc. in
accordance with 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3) and 2.308(i)(2). Management Support
Technology, Inc. and its subcontractor, System Integration Group, Inc.,
have been awarded a contract to perform work for OPP, and access to
this information will enable Management Support Technology, Inc. and
its subcontractor, System Integration Group, Inc., to fulfill the
obligations of the contract.

DATES: Management Support Technology, Inc. and its subcontractor,
System Integration Group, Inc. will be given access to this information
on or before July 11, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Felicia Croom, Information Technology
and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action applies to the public in general. As such, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0038. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard

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

II. Contractor Requirements

    Under Contract No. EP-W-07-063, Management Support Technology, Inc.
and its subcontractor, System Integration Group, Inc., will provide
image production support for study documents. This support involves the
conversion of paper source documents into digital images. Management
Support Technology, Inc. will provide image production support for
pesticide administrative documents (registration jackets) including
application forms and other forms associated with pesticide
registration applications, pesticide product labels. And correspondence
associated with pesticide registrations. Provide document destruction
services.
    The OPP has determined that access by Management Support
Technology, Inc. and its subcontractor, System Integration Group, Inc.
to information on all pesticide chemicals may be necessary for the
performance of this contract.
    Some of this information may be entitled to confidential treatment.
The information has been submitted to EPA under sections 3, 4, 6, and 7
of FIFRA and under sections 408 and 409 of FFDCA.
    In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.307(h)(2), the
contract with Management Support Technology, Inc. and its
subcontractor, System Integration Group, Inc. prohibits use of the
information for any purpose not specified in the contract; prohibits
disclosure of the information to a third party without prior written
approval from the Agency; and requires that each official and employee
of the contractor

sign an agreement to protect the information from unauthorized release
and to handle it in accordance with the FIFRA Information Security
Manual. In addition, Management Support Technology, Inc. and its
subcontractor, System Integration Group, Inc., are required to submit
for EPA approval a security plan under which any CBI will be secured
and protected against unauthorized release or compromise. No
information will be provided to Management Support Technology, Inc. and
its subcontractor, System Integration Group, Inc., until the
requirements in this document have been fully satisfied. Records of
information provided to Management Support Technology, Inc. and its
subcontractor, System Integration Group, Inc., will be maintained by
EPA Project Officers for this contract. All information supplied to
Management Support Technology, Inc. and its subcontractor, System
Integration Group, Inc., by EPA for use in connection with this
contract will be returned to EPA when Management Support Technology,
Inc. and its subcontractor, System Integration Group, Inc., have
completed their work.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Business and industry, Government
contracts, Government property, Security measures.

    Dated: June 25, 2007.
Robert A. Forrest,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E7-13005 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 7 (Friday, January 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1906-1908]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00211]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71236; File No. SR-PHLX-2014-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Clarify
That an Extranet Access Fee is Not Charged

January 6, 2014.
    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 January 2, 2014, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or the ``Exchange'')
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 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to clarify that it does not charge an
extranet access fee (``Extranet Access Fee'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is italicized.
* * * * *

NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC \1\ PRICING SCHEDULE

* * * * *

VIII. NASDAQ OMX PSX FEES

* * * * *

Market Data Distributor Fees

    (a)-(c) No change.
Extranet Access
    Extranet providers that establish a connection with the Exchange to
offer direct access connectivity to market data feeds shall not be
assessed a monthly access fee per recipient Customer Premises Equipment
(``CPE'') Configuration. For purposes of this rule, the term ``Customer
Premises Equipment Configuration'' shall mean any line, circuit, router
package, or

other technical configuration used by an extranet provider to provide a
direct access connection to Exchange market data feeds to a recipient's
site.

Administrative Reports

    No change.
* * * * *

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 is proposing to clarify that the Exchange does not
charge an Extranet Access Fee, unlike The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
(``NASDAQ'') \3\ or NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'') \4\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See NASDAQ Rule 7025.
    \4\ See BX Rule 7025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the proposed rule change provides that extranet
providers that establish a connection with the Exchange to offer direct
access connectivity to market data feeds will not be assessed a monthly
access fee per recipient Customer Premises Equipment (``CPE'')
Configuration.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As defined in the proposed rule text, a ``Customer Premises
Equipment Configuration'' means any line, circuit, router package,
or other technical configuration used by an extranet provider to
provide a direct access connection to Exchange market data feeds to
a recipient's site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \6\ in general, and with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\
in particular. The Exchange believes the proposal furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customer, issuers, brokers and dealers. The Exchange is proposing to
add clarifying language that states that extranet providers that
establish an extranet connection with the Exchange to access market
data feeds from the Exchange will not be subject to an Extranet Access
Fee. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that it is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest to avoid potential
market participant confusion that may be caused by the omission of the
proposed rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, as amended. The
proposed rule change clarifies that no fee is being instituted and this
applies across all extranet providers and none are [sic] compelled to
establish a connection with the Exchange to offer access connectivity
to market data feeds.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    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) of the Act \9\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\12\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The proposed rule
change presents no novel issues. Waiver will allow the Exchange to
immediately clarify that it does not charge an extranet access fee,
thereby reducing the potential for confusion. For these reasons, the
Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \14\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-PHLX-2014-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PHLX-2014-01. 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 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 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal offices 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 available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-PHLX-2014-01, and should be
submitted on or before January 31, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-00211 Filed 1-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 17, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 221)]
[Notices]
[Page 69748]
[DOCID:fr17no05-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER05-1482-001]

Electric Energy, Inc.; Notice of Compliance Filing

November 9, 2005.
    Take notice that on November 3, 2005, Electric Energy, Inc. (EEInc)
tendered for filing supplemental information pertaining to its
September 15, 2005 request for market-based rate authority. EEInc
states that this filing includes a revised generation market power
analysis.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

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

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 14, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6340 Filed 11-16-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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 CAA; 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, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because
redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical
area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on tribes,
impact any existing sources of air pollution on tribal lands, nor
impair the maintenance of ozone national ambient air quality standards
in tribal lands.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Administrative
practice and procedure, Designations and classifications,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 3, 2022.
Debra Shore,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2022-05020 Filed 3-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 220)]
[Notices]
[Page 64233-64235]
[DOCID:fr15no07-83]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2007-0045]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget: OMB Control Numbers: 1625-0005, 1625-0020, 1625-0029, 1625-
0031, and 1625-0085

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-Day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit Information Collection Requests
(ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requesting an
extension of their approval for the following collections of
information: (1) 1625-0005, Application and Permit to Handle Hazardous
Materials; (2) 1625-0020, Security Zones, Regulated Navigation Areas,
and Safety Zones; (3) 1625-0029, Self-propelled Liquefied Gas Vessels;
(4) 1625-0031, Plan Approval and Records for Electrical Engineering
Regulations--Title 46 CFR Subchapter J; and (5) 1625-0085, Streamlined
Inspection Program. Before submitting these ICRs to OMB, the Coast
Guard is inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before January 14,
2008.

ADDRESSES: To make sure your comments and related material do not enter
the docket [USCG-2007-0045] more than once, please submit them by only
one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.

    (2) Mail or Hand deliver to: Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Hand
deliver between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Fax to: Docket Management Facility,<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Docket
Management Facility maintains the public docket for this notice.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents
mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, will become
part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at
room W12-140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Copies of complete ICRs are available through this docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are

available from Commandant (CG-611), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters,
(Attn: Mr. Arthur Requina), 2100 2nd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-
0001. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Arthur Requina, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket

Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public participation and request for comments: We encourage you to
respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials.
We will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov.
 They will include any personal information you

provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their Docket Management
Facility. Please see the paragraph on DOT's ``Privacy Act Policy''
below.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this request [USCG-2007-0045], indicate the specific
section of the document to which each comment applies, providing a
reason for each comment. We recommend you include your name, mailing
address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body
of your document to ensure that you can be identified as the submitter.
This also allows us to contact you in the event further information is
needed or if there are questions. For example, if we cannot read your
submission due to technical difficulties and you cannot be contacted,
your submission may not be considered. You may submit your comments and
material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket
Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; but please submit
them by only one means. If you submit them by mail or 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 them 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. We may change the
documents supporting this collection of information or even the
underlying requirements in view of them.
    Viewing comments and documents: Go to http://www.regulations.gov to

view documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the
docket. Click on ``Search for Dockets,'' and enter the docket number
[USCG-2007-0045] in the Docket ID box, and click enter. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in room W12-140 on the West
Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments
received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Privacy
Act Statement of DOT in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Information Collection Request

    1. Title: Application and Permit to Handle Hazardous Materials.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0005.
    Summary: The information sought by this collection, which includes
form CG-4260, ensures the safe handling of explosives and other
hazardous materials around ports and aboard vessels.
    Need: Sections 1225 and 1231 of 33 U.S.C. authorize the Coast Guard
to establish standards for the handling, storage, and movement of
hazardous materials on a vessel and waterfront facility. Regulations in
33 CFR 126.17, 49 CFR 176.100, and 176.415 prescribe the rules for
facilities and vessels.
    Respondents: Shipping agents and terminal operators that handle
hazardous materials.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 145 hours
to 185 hours a year.
    2. Title: Security Zones, Regulated Navigation Areas, and Safety
Zones.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0020.
    Summary: The Coast Guard collects this information only when
someone seeks a security zone, a regulated navigation area, or safety
zone. It uses the information to assess the need to establish one of
these areas.
    Need: Sections 1226 and 1231 of 33 U.S.C.; 50 U.S.C. 191 and 195;
and parts 6 and 165 of 33 CFR give the Coast Guard Captain of the Port
(COTP) the authority to designate security zones in the United States
for as long as deemed necessary to prevent damage or injury. Section
1223 of 33 U.S.C. authorizes the Coast Guard to prescribe rules to
control vessel traffic in areas he or she deems hazardous because of
reduced visibility, adverse weather, or vessel congestion. Section 1225
of 33 U.S.C. authorizes the Coast Guard to establish rules to allow the
designation of safety zones where access is limited to authorized
persons, vehicles, or vessels to protect the public from hazardous
situations.
    Respondents: Federal, State, and local government agencies, vessels
and facilities.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 194 hours
to 295 hours a year.
    3. Title: Self-propelled Liquefied Gas Vessels.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0029.
    Summary: To ensure compliance with our rules for the design and
operation of liquefied gas carriers, the Coast Guard needs the
information sought in this collection utilizing agency form numbers CG-
4355 and CG-5148.
    Need: Sections 3703 and 9101 of 46 U.S.C. authorize the Coast Guard
to establish regulations to protect life, property, and the environment
from the hazards associated with the carriage of dangerous liquid cargo
in bulk. Part 154 of 46 CFR prescribes these rules for the carriage of
liquefied gases in bulk on self-propelled vessels by governing the
design, construction, equipment, and operation of these vessels and the
safety of personnel aboard them.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of self-propelled vessels
carrying liquefied gas.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 5,416
hours to 6,566 hours a year.
    4. Title: Plan Approval and Records for Electrical Engineering
Regulations--Title 46 CFR Subchapter J.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0031.
    Summary: The information sought is required to ensure compliance
with our rules on electrical engineering for the design and
construction of U.S. flag commercial vessels.
    Need: Sections 3306 and 3703 of 46 U.S.C. authorize the Coast Guard
to establish rules to promote the safety of life and property in
commercial vessels. The electrical engineering rules appear at 46 CFR
chapter I, subchapter J (parts 110 through 113).
    Respondents: Owners, operators, and builders of vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 1,151
hours to 3,529 hours a year.
    5. Title: Streamlined Inspection Program.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0085.
    Summary: The Coast Guard established an optional Streamlined
Inspection Program (SIP) to provide owners and operators of U.S.
vessels an alternative method of complying with inspection requirements
of the Coast Guard.
    Need: Section 3306 of 46 U.S.C. authorizes the Coast Guard to
prescribe regulations necessary to carry out inspections of vessels
required under 46 U.S.C. 3301. Within the same subtitle, 46 U.S.C. 3103
allows the Coast Guard to rely on reports, documents, and records of
other persons/methods determined to be reliable, to ensure

compliance with vessels and seamen requirements. The SIP regulations
under 46 CFR part 8, subpart E, offer owners and operators of inspected
vessels an alternative to traditional Coast Guard inspection
procedures. Owners and operators of vessels opting to participate in
the program will maintain them in compliance with a Company Action Plan
(CAP) and Vessel Action Plan (VAP). They will have their own personnel
periodically perform many of the tests/examinations conducted by marine
inspectors of the Coast Guard, who expect participating vessels will
continuously meet a higher level of safety/readiness throughout the
inspection cycle.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion. Application and plan development occur only
once, at time of enrollment. Updates and revisions are required to be
made every two years by the applicant. The Officer in Charge, Marine
Inspection (OCMI) and the company SIP agent will review the plans every
five years.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 2,138
hours to 2,496 hours a year.

    Dated: November 8, 2007.
D.T. Glenn,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. E7-22367 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 139 (Friday, July 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43191-43192]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17335]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC13-127-000.
    Applicants: Astoria Energy II LLC.
    Description: Application under FPA Section 203 of Astoria Energy II
LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130711-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/13.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1274-001.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: 2013-07-11--Bucket Compliance to be effective 4/15/
2013.
    Filed Date: 7/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130711-5142.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1958-000.
    Applicants: FirstEnergy Service Company.
    Description: Petition of FirstEnergy Service Company for Limited
Waiver of the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Open Access Transmission
Tariff and Request for Action by August 23, 2013.
    Filed Date: 7/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130711-5124.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1959-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Rate Schedule No. 180
Transportation Services Agreement with the New York Power Authority of
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Filed Date: 7/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130711-5127.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1961-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.
    Description: 2013-7-11--NSP--UND--R&R Trans&TrsfmrAgrmt--440--0.0.0
to be effective 1/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130711-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/13.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    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 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.
    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: July 11, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-17335 Filed 7-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 31 (Thursday, February 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10922-10924]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03102]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80012; File No. SR-BatsBZX-2017-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related To
Fees as They Relate to the Equities Options Platform

February 10, 2017.
    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 February 1, 2017, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change 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)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-Members of the Exchange pursuant to BZX Rules
15.1(a) and (c) applicable to its equity options platform (``BZX
Options'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See
Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.bats.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
    The Exchange proposes to amend the BZX Options fee schedule to: (i)
Modify the definitions of fee codes RQ and RR to include routing to
MIAX Pearl LLC (``MIAX PEARL'') and to increase the fee for fee code
RR; (ii) reduce the required criteria for the Market Maker Non-Penny
Pilot Add Volume Tier 3 under footnote 7; and (iii) remove all fees for
Mini Options.
Modifications to Fee Codes RQ and RR To Include Routing to MIAX PEARL
    The Exchange's current approach to routing fees is to set forth in
a simple manner certain sub-categories of fees that approximate the
cost of routing to other options exchanges based on the cost of
transaction fees assessed by each venue as well as costs to the
Exchange for routing (i.e., clearing fees, connectivity and other
infrastructure costs, membership fees, etc.) (collectively, ``Routing
Costs''). The Exchange then monitors the fees charged as compared to
the costs of its routing services and adjusts its routing fees and/or
sub-categories to ensure that the Exchange's fees do indeed result in a
rough approximation of overall Routing Costs, and are not significantly
higher or lower in any area.
    First, the Exchange proposes to modify the description of fee codes
RQ and RR in connection with the upcoming launch of MIAX PEARL.
Currently, fee code RR is appended to Customer \6\ orders in non-Penny
Pilot securities that are routed to ARCA, C2, ISE, ISE Gemini or NOM
and assessed a fee of $1.00 per contract. Additionally, fee code RQ is
appended to Customer orders in Penny Pilot securities that are routed
to ARCA, C2, ISE, ISE Gemini or NOM and assessed a fee of $0.70 per
contract. The Exchange proposes to modify the definitions of fee codes
RR and RQ to include MIAX Pearl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As defined in the Exchange's fee schedule available at
http://www.bats.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange proposes to increase the fee for fee code RR
from $1.00 per contract to $1.10 per contract to account for the cost
of routing to MIAX Pearl. The Exchange does not propose to amend the
fee for fee code RQ. The Exchange anticipates that the proposed fee
structure will approximate the cost of routing orders to MIAX Pearl.
The Exchange is proposing the charges set forth above to maintain a
simple and fair fee schedule with respect to routing fees that
approximate the total cost of routing, including Routing Costs.
Market Maker Non-Penny Pilot Add Volume Tier 3
    The Exchange determines the liquidity adding rebate that it will
offer Members using a tiered pricing structure. Currently, the Exchange
offers rebates ranging from $0.45 and $0.65 per share for Market Maker
\7\ orders that add volume in non-Penny Pilot securities under three
tiers described in footnote 7 of the fee schedule. To receive Tier 3's
rebate of $0.65 per share, a Member must have: (i) An ADAV \8\ in
Market Maker non-Penny Pilot Securities equal to or greater than 0.20%
of average OCV; \9\ and (ii) an ADAV in Non-Customer orders equal to or
greater than 3.00% of average OCV. The Exchange now proposes to reduce
the first prong of Tier 3's required criteria to require that a Member
have an ADAV in Market Maker Non-Penny Pilot orders of at least 0.10%
of average OCV, rather than 0.20% of average OCV. The Exchange does not
proposed to amend the second prong of Tier 3's required criteria or the
rebate associated with the tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elimination of References to Mini Options
    Mini Options \10\ on SPDR S&P 500 (``SPY''), Apple Inc. (``AAPL''),
SPDR Gold Trust (``GLD''), Alphabet Inc. (``GOOGL''), and Amazon.com
Inc. (``AMZN'') listed and traded on BZX Options expired in January
2017 and no other series of Mini Options currently trade nor will any
new series of Mini Options be trading on BZX Options. As a result, the
Exchange proposes to delete all fees for Mini Options from its fee
schedule by deleting fee codes DM,\11\

MA,\12\ MR,\13\ ZC,\14\ and ZF \15\ from the Fee Codes and Associate
Fees table and updating the Standard Rates table to reflect the removal
of these fee codes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ After an option class on a stock, Exchange-Traded Fund
Share, Trust Issued Receipt, Exchange Traded Note, and other Index
Linked Security with a 100 share deliverable has been approved for
listing and trading on the Exchange, series of option contracts with
a 10 share deliverable on that stock, Exchange-Traded Fund Share,
Trust Issued Receipt, Exchange Traded Note, and other Index Linked
Security may be listed for all expirations opened for trading on the
Exchange. See Exchange Rule.19.6. Interpretations and Policies .07
    \11\ Fee code DM is appended to an order executed at a Member's
directed destinations when bypassing the Bats Options order book,
executed in Mini Options Securities, and is assessed a fee of $0.15
per contract.
    \12\ Fee code MA is appended to a Member's order which adds
liquidity in Mini Options Securities, and is not assessed a fee.
    \13\ Fee code MR is appended to a Member's order which removes
liquidity in Mini Options Securities, and is not assessed a fee.
    \14\ Fee code ZC is appended to a Member's routed Customer order
in Mini Options Securities, and is assessed a fee of $0.12.
    \15\ Fee code ZF is appended to a Member's routed Non-Customer
order in Mini Options Securities, and is assessed a fee of $0.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement the proposed rule change on
February 1, 2017.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange notes that the date of its fee schedule was
previously amended to state February 1, 2017 in SR-BatsBZX-2017-02
(filed January 30, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\17\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\18\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange also notes that it 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 proposed rule change reflects a competitive
pricing structure designed to incentivize market participants to direct
their order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the
proposed tier is equitable and non-discriminatory in that it would
apply uniformly to all Members. The Exchange believes the rates remain
competitive with those charged by other venues and, therefore, are
reasonable and equitably allocated to Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Modifications to Fee Codes RQ and RR To Include Routing to MIAX PEARL
    As explained above, the Exchange generally attempts to approximate
the cost of routing to other options exchanges, including other
applicable costs to the Exchange for routing. The Exchange believes its
proposed fees are equitable and reasonable by taking into account
Routing Costs based on the rates charged by MIAX PEARL. The Exchange
believes that a pricing model based on approximate Routing Costs is a
reasonable, fair and equitable approach to pricing. Specifically, the
Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt routing fees to MIAX PEARL
is fair, equitable and reasonable because the fees are generally an
approximation of the anticipated cost to the Exchange for routing
orders to MIAX PEARL. The Exchange notes that routing through the
Exchange is voluntary. The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee
structure for orders routed to and executed at MIAX PEARL is fair and
equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory in that it applies
equally to all Members.
Market Maker Non-Penny Pilot Add Volume Tier 3
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to modify the
required criteria of the Market Maker Non-Penny Pilot Add Volume Tier 3
is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\19\ in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. Volume-based rebates such as those
currently maintained on the Exchange have been widely adopted by
equities and options exchanges and are equitable because they are open
to all Members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or
discounts that are reasonably related to the value to an exchange's
market quality associated with higher levels of market activity, such
as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns, and
introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume
discovery processes. Decreasing the criteria is intended to incentivize
additional Members to send orders to the Exchange in an effort to
qualify for the enhanced rebate made available by the tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Elimination of References to Mini Options
    The Exchange believes it is equitable, reasonable, and not unfairly
discriminatory to delete fees for Mini Options from its fee schedule
because the Mini Options listed and traded on BZX Options expired in
January 2017 and no other series of Mini Options currently trade nor
will any new series of Mini Options be trading on BZX Options. The
Exchange believes that the proposed changes will make the fee schedule
clearer and eliminate potential investor confusion, thereby removing
impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market
and a national market system, and in general, protecting investors and
the public interest.

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. The Exchange believes the
proposed routing fee will not impose an undue burden on competition
because the Exchange will uniformly assess the routing fee on all
Members. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes
represent a significant departure from routing fees offered by the
Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the
Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better
value or if they view the proposed fee as excessive. Accordingly, the
Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the
ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive
standing in the financial markets. The Exchange does not believe that
the proposed change to the Exchange's tiered pricing structure burdens
competition, but instead, enhances competition as it is intended to
increase the competitiveness of the Exchange. Further, excessive fees
for participation would serve to impair an exchange's ability to
compete for order flow and members rather than burdening competition.
Lastly, the Exchange believes removing fees for Mini Options from its
fee schedule will not have impact on competition as it is simply
designed to eliminate potential investor confusion by eliminating fees
for products no longer available on the Exchange.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested
parties.

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) of the Act \20\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\21\ At any time within

60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission
summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BatsBZX-2017-12 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsBZX-2017-12. 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 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
10:00 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; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsBZX-2017-12 and should
be submitted on or before March 9, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03102 Filed 2-15-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P