<EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER  (7/1/2007)>

<EPA Registration Division contact: [insert name and telephone number
with area code]>

<INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide
petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please
insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline. Please do not change
the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace
the instructions that appear in green, i.e., “[insert company
name],” with the information specific to your action.>

<TEMPLATE:>

<[Bayer CropScience]>

<[Insert petition number]>

<	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([insert petition number]) from
[Bayer CropScience], [P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709] proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to
amend 40 CFR part 180. by increasing the tolerance for residues of
[clothianidin,
(E)-1-(2-chloro-1,3-thiazol-5-ylmethyl)-3-methyl-2-nitroguanidine and
its metabolite, TMG,
N-(2-chloro-5-thiazolylmethyl)-N’-methylguanidine] in or on the raw
agricultural commodity [potato] from [0.05] to [0.6] parts per million
(ppm). EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information
regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA;
however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted
data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition.
Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.>

<A. Residue Chemistry>

<	1. Plant metabolism. [1. Plant metabolism.  In plants, the metabolism
of clothianidin is adequately understood for the purposes of
establishing these proposed tolerances.  Unchanged parent clothianidin
was the predominant residue in all crop matrices (14.4% to 64.5% in
corn, 66.1% to 96.6% in tomatoes, 4.3% to 24.4% in sugar beets, and
24.3% to 63.3% in apples), with the exception of sugar beet leaves.  In
sugar beet leaves, the main components were the methylguanidine and
thiazolylmethylguanidine metabolites, accounting for 28.6% and 27.7%,
respectively.  In the EPA assessment of the clothianidin data for the
corn and canola registration the Agency concluded that clothianidin was
the residue of concern for corn and canola commodities, but that for
root crops and leafy vegetables residues of the metabolite TMG,
(N-[(2-chloro-5-thiazolyl)methyl]-N’-methylguanidine would need to be
quantified.  All metabolites found in plants were also found in the
animal metabolism studies.  In animals, parent clothianidin was the
major component in liver, muscle and fat.  Based on the available
metabolism data, the Agency concluded that parent clothianidin was the
residues of concern for the tolerance expression for animal commodities,
but that the metabolites
N-(2-Chlorothiazol-5-ylmethyl)-N’-nitroguanidine (TZNG),
thiazolyl-guanidine (TZG), thiazolyl-urea (TZU), and  aminothiazolyl
methylguanidine-pyridine (ATMG-Pyr) need to be included as residues of
concern in livestock matrices for risk assessment.

	2. Analytical method.  In plants and plant products, the residue of
concern, parent clothianidin and its metabolite, TMG,
N-(2-chloro-5-thiazolylmethyl)-N’-methylguanidine], can be determined
using High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) with Electrospray
MS/MS detection.  In an extraction efficiency testing, the plant
residues method has also demonstrated the ability to extract aged
clothianidin residue.

Although the plant residues LC-MS/MS method is highly suitable for
enforcement method, an LC-UV method has also been developed which is
suitable for enforcement (monitoring) purposes in all relevant
matrices.>

]

<	3. Magnitude of residues. [Magnitude of residue studies were conducted
to support the increased rate and tolerance on potatoes.  A total of 16
field trials were conducted in USA to measure the magnitude of
clothianidin residues in/on potatoes following the planting of potato
seed pieces treated with PONCHO 600 FS at a rate of 18.75 g ai/100 kg
seed pieces (14.2 mL formulated product/45 kg seed pieces) immediately
prior to planting. Following treatment, the seed pieces were planted at
rates ranging from 1637 to 2234 lb seed pieces/A (1835 to 2508 kg seed
pieces/ha). The resulting soil application rates ranged from 0.335 to
0.425 lb ai/A (0.376 to 0.477 kg ai/ha).  Additional five field trials
were conducted in Canada at a target seed treatment rate of 12.5 g
ai/100 kg seed pieces.  In all trials, single control samples and
duplicate treated samples of potato tubers were collected from each plot
at earliest commercial harvest (ECH).

The highest average field trial (HAFT) total clothianidin (clothianidin
+ TMG) residue was 0.23 ppm with a maximum residue of 0.24 ppm in potato
at ECH.

4.  Magnitude of the residues in Potato Processed Commodities - A potato
processing trial was conducted to measure the magnitude of clothianidin
residue on potatoes and potato processed commodities.   Application of
PONCHO 600 FS was made to potato seed pieces at a rate of 0.948 g ai/kg
seed pieces. The treatment rate was equivalent to 48.7 fl oz formulated
product/acre which represents a five-fold (5X) exaggeration of the
maximum recommended label use rate.  Following treatment, the seed
pieces were planted at a rate of 2012 lb seed pieces/A (2255 kg seed
pieces/ha).  The resulting soil application rate was 1.91 lb ai/A (2.138
kg ai/ha).

A single control and treated bulk sample of potatoes were collected at
commercial.  Prior to processing, random sub-samples of the control and
treated bulk potato samples were collected for analysis, and the
remainder of the potato samples were used to generate the processed
commodities of washed potato, wet peel, chips, cooked potato and
granules. Potato processing was performed using procedures which
simulated commercial processing practices. The resultant potato samples
and processed commodities were analyzed to determine total clothianidin
residue.

Concentration of the total clothianidin residue was observed in the
processed commodities of potato flakes (6.4X), potato chips (2.6X) and
washed potatoes (2.1X). A slight concentration was observed in potato
wet peel (1.3X), and no concentration was observed in cooked potato
(1X).  An evaluation of the potential residues in processed commodities
indicates that no processed commodity tolerances are required.

The available metabolism and residue data indicate that the residues of
concern for leafy and root vegetables include the parent clothianidin
plus the metabolite TMG while the residue of concern for other crops is
only clothianidin per se.]>

<B. Toxicological Profile>

<	1. Acute toxicity. The acute oral, dermal, and inhalation toxicity for
clothianidin is very low (EPA Toxicity Category IV).  Clothianidin was
not irritating to the skin and only slightly irritating to the eyes and
did not cause skin sensitization.  A special acute
neurotoxicity/pharmacology study was conducted in rats and mice.  The
resulting NOAEL of 25 mg/kg/day, was established in mice based on
clinical signs of neurotoxicity in the FOB.>

	2. Genotoxicty.  Extensive mutagenicity studies were conducted with
clothianidin.  Based on the weight of evidence clothianidin was
considered negative for genotoxicity.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity.  In a 2-generation
reproduction study, the resulting No Observed Effect Level (NOAEL) for
reproductive parameters was 500 ppm (31.2 mg./kg/day), while the NOAEL
for developmental effects was 150 ppm (9.8/11.5 mg/kg/day; M/F). The
parental systemic NOAEL was 500 ppm (31.2/36.8 mg/kg/day; M/F).

A developmental toxicity study was conducted in rats with clothianidin,
the NOAEL for maternal toxicity was established at 10 mg/kg bw and for
developmental effects it was >125 mg/kg bw.  Additionally, a
developmental toxicity study was conducted with rabbits with a resulting
NOAEL for maternal and developmental toxicity of 25 mg/kg bw.  These
studies showed no primary developmental toxicity and no teratogenic
potential was evident.

A developmental neurotoxicity in the rat resulted in a maternal NOAEL of
42.9 mg/kg/day, and an offspring NOAEL of 12.9 mg/kg/day.  While there
is a quantitative difference between the maternal and offspring NOAELs,
the degree of concern is low, as the observed effects are well
characterized and there are clear NOAELs/LOAELs.

	4. Subchronic toxicity.  Ninety-day feeding studies were conducted in
rats and dogs.  The rat systemic NOAEL was established at 500 ppm
(27.9/34.0 mg/kg/day; M/F) for rat, and the dog NOAEL was 650 ppm (19.3
mg/kg/day) for males and 1,500 ppm (42.1 mg/kg/day) for the females.  A
ninety-day neurotoxicity in the rat showed no indication of
neurotoxicity at any dose.

	5. Chronic toxicity.  A 2- year combined rat chronic/oncogenicity
demonstrated a NOAEL of 500 ppm (32.5 mg/kg/day) based on reduced weight
gains and non-neoplastic morphological changes.  A 78-week mouse
oncogenicity revealed a NOAEL of 350 ppm (65.1 mg/kg/day) based on
reduced body weight and body weight gains.  No evidence of oncogenicity
was seen in the rat or the mice.  A 52-week chronic toxicity study in
dogs revealed a NOAEL of 2,000 ppm (46.4 mg/kg/day) for the male dog and
1,500 ppm (40.1 mg/kg/day) for the female dog.

	6. Animal metabolism.  The nature of the clothianidin residue in
livestock is adequately understood.  In animals, parent clothianidin was
the major component in liver, muscle and fat.  Based on the available
metabolism data, parent clothianidin, TZG, TZU, and ATMG-Pyr are
proposed to be considered as the residues of concern in livestock
matrices.

	7. Metabolite toxicology.  Eight in vivo metabolites of clothianidin
identified in the rat were investigated for acute oral endpoints and
mutagenic activity.  None of the metabolites were mutagenic either with
or without activation and the LD50 values range from <500 to >2,000
mg/kg, showing low to moderate toxicity.

	8. Endocrine disruption.  EPA is required to develop a screening
program to determine whether certain substances (including all
pesticides and inerts) may have an effect in humans that is similar to
an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or such other
effect. The Agency is currently working with interested stakeholders,
including other government agencies, public interest groups, industry
and research scientists in developing a screening and testing program
and a priority setting scheme to implement this program. EPA may require
further testing of this active ingredient and end use products for
endocrine disrupter effects. Based on the toxicological findings for
clothianidin relating to endocrine disruption effects, clothianidin may
be considered as a candidate for evaluation as an endocrine disrupter
when the exact criteria are established.

<C. Aggregate Exposure>

<	1. Dietary exposure. [An aggregate risk assessment was conducted for
all registered and proposed uses of clothianidin following EPA
methodology (July 8, 2008 Dietary Risk Assessment) and starting with the
EPA residue file. The new uses mentioned above were added to the
existing uses in the EPA residue file to develop the new residue file
for risk assessment. The assessment assumed (based on an evaluation of
existing and proposed uses of clothianidin) that the secondary residues
remain the same.

The acute assessment is based on an acute reference dose (aRfD) and
population adjusted dose, PAD) of 0.025 mg/kg/day for females 13-50
years of age based on a NOAEL of 25 mg/kg/day from the rabbit
developmental study and an uncertainty factor of 1000 (10X for
interspecies uncertainty, 10X for intraspecies variability and 10X
database uncertainty factor for lack of a developmental immunotoxicity
(DIT) study). The RfD/PAD for the general population and all other
population subgroups was also 0.025 mg/kg/day but was based on a NOAEL
of 25 mg/kg/day from the acute neurotoxicity study and an uncertainty
factor of 1000.

The chronic assessment was conducted using a chronic reference dose
(cRfD) of 0.0098 mg/kg/day based on the two-generation reproduction
study and an uncertainty factor of 1000.

Results from the acute and chronic dietary exposure assessment described
below demonstrate a reasonable certainty that no harm to the overall
U.S. population or any population subgroup will result from the use of
clothianidin on the above crops.]>

<	i. Food. [An acute, Tier 2 dietary (food and drinking water) risk
assessment was conducted. The most exposed population subgroup was
Children 1-2 with an exposure equivalent to 52% of the aPAD (food only)
and 54% of the aPAD (food and water). The chronic exposure for Children
1-2 (the most exposed population) was equivalent to 20% of the cPAD
(food only) and 22% of the cPAD (food and water).

For the general US population the acute exposure was equivalent to 14%
of the aPAD (food only) and 17% of the aPAD (food and water).  The
chronic exposure for the general US population was equivalent to 5% of
the cPAD (food only) and 6% of the cPAD (food and water).]>

<	ii. Drinking water. [No monitoring data are available for residues of
clothianidin in drinking water, and EPA has established no health
advisory levels or maximum contaminant levels for residues of
clothianidin in drinking water. In order to address drinking water,
potential water residues were included in the dietary analyses for food
and are given above. As can be seen from the above results, potential
clothianidin residues in water contribute little to the overall dietary
exposure to clothianidin for the general US population or any population
subgroup.]>

<	2. Non-dietary exposure. [Residential (non-occupational) exposure to
clothianidin results solely from the currently registered use of this
compound on turfgrass. EPA has conducted an assessment for this use.
Based on the registered use patterns on turfgrasses, a number of
residential or recreational post-application exposures are possible.  In
a residential setting, a “homeowner” may be exposed during
application of the material to his or her lawn and as a result of
post-application dermal exposure.  Toddlers may be exposed via
“hand-to-mouth” oral exposures and/or dermal exposures.

The MOEs for the residential post-application exposures/risks ranged
from 1,300 to 490,000.  EPA considers MOE values greater than 1000
adequate to protect adults and children from residential
post-application exposures to clothianidin.  The estimated MOEs are
based upon conservative assumptions and are >1000; therefore, the
estimated risks from residential post-application exposures do not
exceed HED’s level of concern.]>

<D. Cumulative Effects>

<	[Clothianidin is a member of the neonicotinoid family of insecticides
and is a metabolite of the insecticide thiamethoxam. Therefore, all
dietary (food and water) assessments for clothianidin consider residues
of clothianidin resulting from application of thiamethoxam and
clothianidin.]>

<E. Safety Determination>

<	1. U.S. population. [Based on the conservative exposure assumptions
described above and on the completeness of the toxicity data, it can be
concluded that total food and drinking water exposure to clothianidin
from all proposed uses will utilize 17% of the acute RfD/PAD and 6% of
the chronic RfD/PAD for the general US population. EPA generally has no
concerns for exposures below 100% of the RfD, because the RfD represents
the level at or below which daily aggregate exposure over a lifetime
will not pose appreciable risks to human health.]>

<	2. Infants and children. [Based on the conservative exposure
assumptions described above and on the completeness of the toxicity
data, it can be concluded that total food and drinking water exposure to
clothianidin from all proposed uses will utilize 54% of the acute
RfD/PAD and 22% of the chronic RfD/PAD for the Children 1-2, the most
exposed population subgroup. EPA generally has no concerns for exposures
below 100% of the RfD, because the RfD represents the level at or below
which daily aggregate exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable
risks to human health.]>

<F. International Tolerances>

<	[Although no Codex MRLs are currently established for clothianidin
there are clothianidin MRLs for various crops in many countries around
the world. The current petition has also been submitted to the Canadian
PMRA requesting the same MRLs in Canada and the USA.]>

 PAGE

 PAGE   6


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 72 (Friday, April 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22374-22376]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8880]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66774; File No. SR-FINRA-2011-075]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, Amending Rule 13024 of the Code of Arbitration
Procedure for Industry Disputes To Preclude Collective Action Claims
From Being Arbitrated

April 9, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On December 22, 2011, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposal to amend Rule 13204 of the Code of
Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes (``Industry Code'') to
preclude collective action claims by employees of FINRA members under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (ADEA), or the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) from being
arbitrated under the Industry Code. Specifically, the proposal would,
among other things, (1) State that collective action claims under the
FLSA, the ADEA, or the EPA may not be arbitrated under the Code; (2)
provide that any claim involving similarly situated plaintiffs against
the same defendants, such as a court-certified collective action or a
putative collective action, would not be arbitrated in FINRA's
arbitration forum; (3) give arbitrators the authority to decide
disputes about whether a claim is part of a collective action; and (4)
prohibit a member firm or associated person from enforcing any
arbitration agreement against a member of a certified or putative
collective action with respect to any claim that is the subject of the
certified or putative collective action until either the collective
certification is denied or the group is decertified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on January 11, 2012.\3\ The Commission received two comments
on the proposed rule change.\4\ On March 29, 2012, FINRA filed a
response to comments and a partial amendment to the proposed rule
change (``Amendment No. 1'').\5\ The Commission is publishing this
notice and order to solicit comment on Amendment No. 1 and to approve
the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 66109 (Jan. 5, 2012), 77 FR
1773 (Jan. 11, 2012) (Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to
Amend the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes to
Preclude Collective Action Claims from Being Arbitrated)
(``Notice''). The comment period closed on February 1, 2012.
    \4\ See Letter from Kevin M. Carroll, Managing Director and
Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association, dated February 1, 2012 (``SIFMA Letter''); and letter
from Jill I. Gross, Director, Edward Pekarek, Assistant Director,
and Genavieve Shingle, Student Intern, Investor Rights Clinic at
Pace Law School, dated February 1, 2012 (``PIRC Letter''). Comment
letters are available at http://www.sec.gov.
    \5\ See Letter from Mignon McLemore, Assistant Chief Counsel,
FINRA, FINRA Dispute Resolution, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
SEC, dated March 28, 2012 (``Response to Comments No. 1 and Partial
Amendment No. 1''). The text of Response to Comments No. 1 and
Partial Amendment No. 1 is available on FINRA's Web site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA, and on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of Proposed Rule Change

    As stated in the Notice, Rule 13204 of the Industry Code generally
provides that any claim that is based upon the same facts and law, and
involves the same defendants as in a court-certified class action or a
putative class action, shall not be arbitrated. The Notice also stated
that in 1999 FINRA issued an Interpretive Letter stating that its class
action rules should include collective action claims brought under the
FLSA and, therefore, considered these claims ineligible for arbitration
in its forum.\6\ However, as described in the Notice, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York found that an FLSA
collective action is not a class action for purposes of Rule 13204 of
the Industry Code and compelled arbitration of such claims in FINRA's
dispute resolution forum.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Notice (citing FINRA Interpretive Letter to Cliff
Palefsky, Esq., dated September 21, 1999).
    \7\ Id. (citing Hugo Gomez et al. v. Brill Securities, Inc. et
al., No. 10 Civ. 3503, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118162 (S.D.N.Y. Nov.
2, 2010)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the court's finding, FINRA is proposing to amend
Rule 13204 to preclude collective action claims from being arbitrated
in FINRA's forum under the Industry Code. The proposed amendments to
Rule 13204, would separate Rule 13204 into two sections: subparagraph
(a) for class actions, and subparagraph (b) for collective actions.
Subparagraph (a) would be titled, ``Class Actions,'' and re-numbered.
Subparagraph (b) would be titled, ``Collective Actions,'' and would
contain four subparagraphs.
    Proposed subparagraph (b)(1) would state that collective action
claims under the FLSA, the ADEA, or the EPA may not be arbitrated under
the Industry Code.
    Under proposed subparagraph (b)(2), any claim that involves
plaintiffs who are similarly-situated against the same defendants as in
a court-certified collective action or a putative collective action, or
that is ordered by a court for collective action at a forum not
sponsored by a self-regulatory organization, would not be arbitrated
under the Industry Code, if the party bringing the claim has opted in
to the collective action.
    Under proposed subparagraph (b)(3), as originally proposed, the
Director would have referred to a panel any dispute as to whether a
claim is part of a collective action, unless a party asked the court
hearing the collective action to resolve the dispute within 10 days of
receiving notice that the Director has decided to refer the dispute to
a panel. Amendment No. 1, however, would permit a party to ask any
forum (not just a court) hearing the collective action to resolve the
dispute within the specified time.

    Subparagraph (b)(4), as originally proposed, would have provided
that a member or associated person may not enforce any arbitration
agreement against a member of a certified or putative collective action
with respect to any claim that is the subject of the certified or
putative collective action until the collective action certification is
denied or the collective action is decertified. Amendment No. 1,
however, would specify that subparagraph (b)(4) would apply only to
agreements to arbitrate in the FINRA forum, thus not affecting
agreements to arbitrate in fora other than FINRA's.

III. Summary of Comment Letters

    As stated above, the proposed rule change was published for comment
in the Federal Register on January 11, 2012, and the comment period
closed on February 1, 2012. The Commission received two comment letters
in response to the proposed rule change. On March 28, 2012, FINRA
responded to the comments and filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule change.
    The PIRC Letter strongly supported the proposed rule change.
    The SIFMA Letter did not object to the proposed rule change, but
recommended revisions to certain language in proposed subparagraph (b).
First, SIFMA recommended modifying proposed subparagraph (b)(2) to
replace the phrase, ``Any claim that involves plaintiffs who are
similarly situated against the same defendants as in a court-certified
collective action or a putative collection action,'' with, ``Any claim
that is the subject of a certified or putative collective action.''
SIFMA argued that FINRA's proposed language could be misconstrued to
include multi-party litigation outside of the collective action
context. SIFMA suggested that its proposed change would clarify FINRA's
intent to limit the application of the proposed rule to collective
actions.
    In its Response to Comments No. 1, FINRA declined to amend its
proposed subparagraph (b)(2) as SIFMA suggested. FINRA stated that the
revision is unnecessary because as proposed the rule already clarifies
its applicability to only those parties who opt in to a collective
action; furthermore, as proposed the rule would preclude those claims
from being arbitrated in FINRA's forum only, and would not preclude
their being arbitrated in other fora. FINRA also declined to remove the
term ``similarly situated'' from proposed subparagraph (b)(2) as SIFMA
suggested because the term is consistent with language used in the FLSA
to describe party plaintiffs in collective actions under the
statute,\8\ and the term helps define the parties to whom the proposal
would apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 29 U.S.C. 216(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, SIFMA recommended modifying proposed subparagraphs (b)(3)
and (b)(4) to limit their scope to FINRA arbitration. Specifically,
SIFMA recommended modifying proposed subparagraph (b)(3) by replacing
``the court hearing the collective action'' with ``the court or other
forum hearing the collective action.'' SIFMA stated that this change
would clarify that arbitration fora, other than FINRA's forum, accept
collective action claims. Similarly, SIFMA recommended modifying
proposed subparagraph (b)(4) by replacing ``may not enforce any
arbitration agreement'' with ``may not enforce an agreement to
arbitrate in this forum.'' SIFMA stated that this change would clarify
that under the proposed rule agreements to arbitrate collective action
claims in arbitration fora other than FINRA would remain valid and
enforceable.
    FINRA agreed to amend proposed subparagraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) as
SIFMA recommended. FINRA stated that it made these changes because the
proposed rule is designed to prohibit collective action claims from
being arbitrated in its forum only; FINRA members and their employees
may, however, agree to address collective action claims either by
filing them in a court of competent jurisdiction or by arbitrating them
in other arbitration fora.

IV. Commission's Findings

    The Commission has carefully considered the proposed rule change,
the comments received, FINRA's Response to Comments No. 1, and
Amendment No. 1. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as
amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act, and
the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national
securities association.\9\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\10\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
association be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change, as amended, would facilitate the
efficient resolution of collective actions under the FLSA, ADEA, or the
EPA, as courts have established procedures to manage these types of
representative actions. It also would preserve access to courts for
these types of claims for employees of FINRA members.
    The Commission believes that FINRA has responded adequately to
SIFMA's comments recommending revisions to certain language in proposed
subparagraphs (b)(2), (b)(3) and (b)(4) to the proposed rule by
explaining, among other things, why it is proposing to revise proposed
subparagraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4), but is not proposing to revise
subparagraph (b)(2). In response to SIFMA's comments, FINRA proposed to
amend proposed subparagraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) to acknowledge that
arbitration fora other than FINRA's dispute resolution forum accept
collective action claims. FINRA has suitably explained its reasons for
declining to amend proposed subparagraph (b)(2) as SIFMA recommended.

V. Accelerated Approval

    The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act \11\ for approving the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, prior to the 30th day after publication of Amendment
No. 1 in the Federal Register. The changes proposed in Amendment No. 1
revised proposed subparagraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) in response to
specific concerns raised by SIFMA. The amendment addresses these
concerns by clarifying that arbitration fora, other than FINRA's forum,
accept collective action claims, and that under the proposed rule
agreements to arbitrate collective action claims in arbitration fora
other than FINRA would remain valid and enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission finds that good cause exists to approve
the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.

VI. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1
to 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-FINRA-2011-075 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-FINRA-2011-075. 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2011-075 and should be
submitted on or before May 4, 2012.

VII. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\12\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2011-075), as modified
by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-8880 Filed 4-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 177 (Friday, September 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54698-54699]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21745]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13135-004]

City of Watervliet; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing
With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: License for Major Project-Existing Dam.
    b. Project No.: P-13135-004.
    c. Date filed: August 26, 2014.
    d. Applicant: City of Watervliet, New York.
    e. Name of Project: Delta Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the East Branch of the Mohawk River, in the Town of
Rome, Oneida County, NY. No federal lands are occupied by the project
works or located within the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Michael P. Manning, Mayor, City of
Watervliet, City Hall, Watervliet, NY 12189, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Mark Gleason, General Manager,
City of Watervliet, City Hall, Watervliet, NY 12189, Phone: 518-270-
3800x122, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Wendy Jo Carey, P.E.,
Albany Engineering Corporation, 5 Washington Square, Albany, NY 12205,
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>x401 Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Brandi Sangunett, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of
the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: October 25, 2014.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202)
502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy
to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-13135-004.
    m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The proposed project would consist of: (1) The existing 1,016-
foot-long, 76-foot-high Delta dam, owned by the New York State Canal
Corporation; (2) an existing impoundment having a surface area of 2,700
acres and a storage capacity of 63,200 acre-feet at the spillway crest
elevation of 551.37 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988; (3) a
new 40-foot-diameter cylindrical powerhouse containing one turbine-
generator unit with a total installed capacity of 7.4 megawatts; (4) a
new 17,000-foot-long, 13.2-kilovolt underground generator lead; and (5)
appurtenant facilities. The project would generate about 14,100
megawatt-hours of electricity annually.
    o. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at 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. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    p. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the
schedule will be made as appropriate.

Issue Acceptance or Deficiency Letter........  October 2014
Request Additional Information...............  October 2014
Issue Notice of Acceptance...................  January 2015
Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments........  February 2015
Comments on Scoping Document 1...............  April 2015
Issue Scoping Document 2.....................  May 2015
Issue Notice of Ready for Environmental        May 2015
 Analysis.
Commission issues EA.........................  November 2015
Comments on EA...............................  December 2015

     Dated: September 5, 2014.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-21745 Filed 9-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 108)]
[Notices]
[Page 31909]
[DOCID:fr04jn08-111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

RTCA Program Management Committee

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Program Management Committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of the RTCA Program Management Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held June 19, 2008 starting at 9 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 850, Washington, DC, 20036; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (202)
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a Program Management Committee meeting. The agenda
will include:
     June 19:
     Opening Session (Welcome and Introductory Remarks, Review/
Approve Summary of December 6, 2007 Meeting, Paper No. 092-08/PMC-618).
     Publication Consideration/Approval:
     Final Draft, New Document, Minimum Operational Performance
Standards for Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance Systems II
(TCASII), RTCA Paper No. 102-08/PMC-619, prepared by SC-147.
     Final Draft, Revised DO-230A, Integrated Security Systems
Standard for Airport Access Control, RTCA Paper 121-08/PMC-622,
prepared by SC-207.
     Final Draft, New Document, Safety, Performance and
Interoperability Requirements Document for the In-trial Procedure in
Oceanic Airspace (ATSA-ITP) Application, RTCA Paper No. 122-08/PMC-623,
prepared by SC 186.
     Discussion:
     Attitude and Heading Reference System (AHRS)--Discussion--
Possible New Special Committee.
     Automatic Flight Guidance and Control--Discussion--
Possible New Special Committee SC.
     Airport Surface Wireless Link--Discussion--Possible New
Special Committee.
     Special Committee Chairman's Reports.
     Action Item Review:
     SC-203--Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)--Discussion--
Status Review.
     SC-205--Software Consideration--Discussion--Terms of
Reference.
     SC-214--Standards for Air Traffic Data Communications
Services Discussion--Review/Approve Terms of Reference.
    Closing Session (Other Business, Document Production, Date and
Place of Next Meeting, Adjourn).
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 28, 2008.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
 [FR Doc. E8-12350 Filed 6-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register: April 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 74)]
[Notices]
[Page 20723]
[DOCID:fr16ap08-115]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request,
    Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office
of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 20549-0213.

Comment Request: ``Tell Us How We're Doing!''; SEC File No. 270-406;
OMB Control No. 3235-0463.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
previously-approved questionnaire to the Office of Management and
Budget for approval.
    The Commission currently sends the questionnaire to persons who
have used the services of the Commission's Office of Investor Education
and Advocacy (OIEA). The questionnaire consists mainly of eight (8)
questions concerning the quality of services provided by OIEA. Most of
the questions can be answered by checking a box on the questionnaire.
    The Commission needs the information to evaluate the quality of
services provided by OIEA. Supervisory personnel of OIEA use the
information collected in assessing staff performance and for
determining what improvements or changes should be made in OIEA
operations for services provided to investors.
    The respondents to the questionnaire are those investors who
request assistance or information from OIEA.
    The total reporting burden of the questionnaire in 2007 was
approximately 142 hours and 45 minutes. This was calculated by
multiplying the total number of investors who responded to the
questionnaire times how long it is estimated to take to complete the
questionnaire (571 respondents x 15 minutes = 142 hours and 45
minutes).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director and
Chief Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, Securities
and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way,
Alexandria, VA 22312, or send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 10, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-8132 Filed 4-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 164 (Thursday, August 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42749-42751]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18162]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83877; File No. SR-CBOE-2018-057]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
the Options Regulatory Fee

August 17, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 9, 2018, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule relating to the
Options Regulatory Fee.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, 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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to decrease the Options Regulatory Fee
(``ORF'') from $0.0049 per contract to $0.0028 per contract in order to
help ensure that revenue collected from the ORF, in combination with
other regulatory fees and fines, meets the Exchange's total regulatory
costs.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee change on
August 1, 2018 (SR-CBOE-2018-054) for August 1, 2018 effectiveness.
On business date August 9, 2018, the Exchange withdrew that filing
and submitted this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ORF is assessed by Cboe Options to each Trading Permit Holder
(``TPH'') for options transactions cleared by the TPH that are cleared
by the Options

Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') in the customer range, regardless of the
exchange on which the transaction occurs.\4\ In other words, the
Exchange imposes the ORF on all customer-range transactions cleared by
a TPH, even if the transactions do not take place on the Exchange. The
ORF is collected by OCC on behalf of the Exchange from the Clearing
Trading Permit Holder (``CTPH'') or non-CTPH that ultimately clears the
transaction. With respect to linkage transactions, Cboe Options
reimburses its routing broker providing Routing Services pursuant to
Cboe Options Rule 6.14B for options regulatory fees it incurs in
connection with the Routing Services it provides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The ORF also applies to customer-range transactions executed
during Extended Trading Hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Revenue generated from ORF, when combined with all of the
Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, is designed to recover a
material portion of the regulatory costs to the Exchange of the
supervision and regulation of TPH customer options business. Regulatory
costs include direct regulatory expenses and certain indirect expenses
for work allocated in support of the regulatory function. The direct
expenses include in-house and third party service provider costs to
support the day to day regulatory work such as surveillances,
investigations and examinations. The indirect expenses include support
from such areas as human resources, legal, information technology and
accounting. These indirect expenses are estimated to be approximately
10% of Cboe Options' total regulatory costs for 2018. Thus, direct
expenses are estimated to be approximately 90% of total regulatory
costs for 2018. In addition, it is Cboe Options' practice that revenue
generated from ORF not exceed more than 75% of total annual regulatory
costs. These expectations are estimated, preliminary and may change.
There can be no assurance that our final costs for 2018 will not differ
materially from these expectations and prior practice; however, the
Exchange believes that revenue generated from the ORF, when combined
with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, will cover
a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's regulatory costs.
    The Exchange also notes that its regulatory responsibilities with
respect to TPH compliance with options sales practice rules have
largely been allocated to FINRA under a 17d-2 agreement.\5\ The ORF is
not designed to cover the cost of that options sales practice
regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76309 (October 29,
2015), 80 FR 68361 (November 4, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue
collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other
regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total
regulatory costs. The Exchange monitors its regulatory costs and
revenues at a minimum on a semi-annual basis. If the Exchange
determines regulatory revenues exceed or are insufficient to cover a
material portion of its regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the
ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. The Exchange
notifies TPHs of adjustments to the ORF via regulatory circular. The
Exchange endeavors to provide TPHs with such notice at least 30
calendar days prior to the effective date of the change.
    The Exchange lastly proposes a couple of minor clean up changes to
the Fees Schedule. Particularly, the ORF is listed as being $0.0081 per
contract through January 31, 2018 and $0.0049 per contract effective
February 1, 2018. As these dates have passed and the ORF is now simply
$0.0028 per contract, the Exchange proposes to delete the reference to
the ORF being $0.0081 per contract through January 31, 2018 and the
February 1, 2018 effective date of the $0.0049 per contract ORF.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ which provides that Exchange rules may provide
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among its TPHs and other persons using its facilities.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed fee change is reasonable because
it would help ensure that revenue collected from the ORF, in
combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the
Exchange's total regulatory costs. Moreover, the Exchange believes the
ORF ensures fairness by assessing higher fees to those TPHs that
require more Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of
customer options business they conduct. Regulating customer trading
activity is much more labor intensive and requires greater expenditure
of human and technical resources than regulating non-customer trading
activity, which tends to be more automated and less labor-intensive. As
a result, the costs associated with administering the customer
component of the Exchange's overall regulatory program are materially
higher than the costs associated with administering the non-customer
component (e.g., TPH proprietary transactions) of its regulatory
program.\9\ The Exchange believes the proposed fee change is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory in that it is charged to all TPHs on
all their transactions that clear in the customer range at the OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ If the Exchange changes its method of funding regulation or
if circumstances otherwise change in the future, the Exchange may
decide to modify the ORF or assess a separate regulatory fee on TPH
proprietary transactions if the Exchange deems it advisable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposal to eliminate obsolete language
with respect to past ORF rates maintains clarity in the rules and
alleviates potential confusion, thereby 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. This proposal does not create
an unnecessary or inappropriate intra-market burden on competition
because the ORF applies to all customer activity, thereby raising
regulatory revenue to offset regulatory expenses. It also supplements
the regulatory revenue derived from non-customer activity. This
proposal does not create an unnecessary or inappropriate inter-market
burden on competition because it is a regulatory fee that supports
regulation in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange is
obligated to ensure that the amount of regulatory revenue collected
from the ORF, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines,
does not exceed regulatory costs.

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

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

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 \10\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \11\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 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 protected]. Please include
File No. SR-CBOE-2018-057 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2018-057. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2018-057, and should be submitted on
or before September 13, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-18162 Filed 8-22-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 61)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 16615-16617]
[DOCID:fr28mr08-27]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 531 and 533

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0060]

Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for
New Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards

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

ACTION: Notice of intent; request for scoping comments.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
NHTSA plans to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to
address the potential environmental impacts of the agency's Corporate
Average Fuel Economy program for passenger automobiles (referred to
herein as ``passenger cars'') and non-passenger automobiles (referred
to herein as ``light trucks''). The EIS will consider the potential
environmental impacts of new fuel economy standards for model year
2011-2015 passenger cars and light trucks that NHTSA will be proposing
pursuant to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
    To this end, this notice initiates the NEPA scoping process to
identify the environmental issues and reasonable alternatives to be
examined in the EIS, and requests comments regarding those and other
matters related to the scope of NHTSA'S NEPA analysis for the new
standards. NHTSA will provide further guidance for the public about the
scoping process in a separate notice that will be published when the
proposal itself is published.

DATES: The scoping process will culminate in the preparation and
issuance of a Draft EIS, which will be made available for public
comment. Interested persons are requested to submit their scoping
comments as soon as possible after the issuance of the proposal in
order to ensure their consideration and facilitate the agency's prompt
preparation of the Draft EIS.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: 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.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document.
    You may call the Docket at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Note that all comments received, including any personal information
provided, will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, contact Carol
Hammel-Smith, Fuel Economy Division, Office of International Vehicle,
Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For legal issues, contact Kerry E. Rodgers, Vehicle Safety
Standards & Harmonization Division, Office of the Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA is preparing a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to propose Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
standards for model year (MY) 2011-2015 passenger cars and light trucks
pursuant to the amendments made by the Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007, Public Law 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (December 19, 2007)

(EISA), to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA).\1\ 49
U.S.C.A. 32901 et seq. NHTSA intends to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) to address the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed standards in the context of NHTSA's CAFE program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On February 20, 2008, NHTSA submitted a draft NPRM proposing
those standards to the Office of Management and Budget for review
pursuant to Executive Order 12,866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process for the EIS
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-
4347, and implementing regulations issued by the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40 CFR Pt. 1500, and NHTSA, 49 CFR Pt.
520. See 40 CFR 1501.7, 1508.22; 49 CFR 520.21(g). Specifically, this
notice of intent requests public input on the scope of NHTSA's NEPA
analysis relating to the CAFE standards for MY 2011-2015 automobiles.
As a related part of the NEPA scoping process, NHTSA intends to
describe proposed standards to meet EPCA's requirements and the
possible alternatives NHTSA plans to consider for purposes of its NEPA
analysis in its NPRM and in a separate scoping notice that will provide
further guidance for the public about the scoping process. See 40 CFR
1508.22.
    EPCA sets forth extensive requirements concerning the rulemaking to
establish MY 2011-2015 CAFE standards. It requires the Secretary of
Transportation \2\ to establish CAFE standards at least 18 months
before each model year and to set them at ``the maximum feasible
average fuel economy level that the Secretary decides the manufacturers
can achieve in that model year.'' 49 U.S.C.A. 32902(a). In making
decisions about ``maximum feasible'' levels of fuel economy, the
Secretary is required to ``consider technological feasibility, economic
practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the
Government on fuel economy, and the need of the United States to
conserve energy.'' 49 U.S.C. 32902(a), 32902(f). In past rulemakings,
NHTSA has construed these statutory factors as including environmental
and safety considerations.\3\ NHTSA also considers environmental
impacts under NEPA when setting CAFE standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NHTSA is delegated responsibility for implementing the EPCA
fuel economy requirements assigned to the Secretary of
Transportation. 49 CFR 1.50, 501.2(a)(8).
    \3\ There is case law with respect to the consideration of
safety. See, e.g., Competitive Enterprise Inst. v. NUTSA, 956 F.2d
321, 322 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (citing Competitive Enterprise Inst. v.
NIHTSA, 901 F.2d 107, 120 n.11 (D.C. Cir. 1990)): see also Center
for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA, 508 F.3d 508, 547 (9th Cir.
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPCA further directs the Secretary, after consultation with the
Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, to establish separate average fuel economy standards
for passenger cars and for light trucks manufactured in each model year
beginning with model year 2011 ``to achieve a combined fuel economy
average for model year 2020 of at least 35 miles per gallon for the
total fleet of passenger and non-passenger automobiles manufactured for
sale in the United States for that model year.'' 49 U.S.C.A.
32902(b)(1), 32902(b)(2)(A). In doing so, the Secretary of
Transportation is required to ``prescribe annual fuel economy standard
increases that increase the applicable average fuel economy standard
ratably beginning with model year 2011 and ending with model year
2020.'' 49 U.S.C.A. 32902(b)(2)(C). The standards for passenger cars
and light trucks must be ``based on 1 or more vehicle attributes
related to fuel economy,'' 49 U.S.C.A. 32902(b)(3)(A). In any single
rulemaking, standards may be established for not more than five model
years. 49 U.S.C.A. 32902(b)(3)(B). EPCA also specifies a minimum
standard for domestically manufactured passenger cars. 49 U.S.C.A.
32902(b)(4).
    In preparing an EIS for the new MY 2011-2015 CAFE standards, NHTSA
intends to consider issues raised in litigation concerning a 2006 final
rule, ``Average Fuel Economy Standards for Light Trucks, Model Years
2008-2011,'' 71 FR 17,566, April 6, 2006 (2006 Rule). NHTSA prepared a
final EA for the 2006 Rule after publishing a draft EA for public
comment and considering the comments received. Based on the final EA,
NHTSA determined that the 2006 Rule would not have a significant effect
on the quality of the human environment and that the agency therefore
was not required to prepare an EIS. See 71 FR at 17,671; 42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Before preparing an EIS, an agency may prepare a more
concise environmental assessment (EA) to present ``sufficient
evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an [EIS] or
a finding of no significant impact'' and to ``[f]acilitate
preparation of [an EIS] when one is necessary.'' 40 CFR
1508.9(a)(1), (3). NHTSA's final EA and Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) are available in the docket for the 2006 Rule. See
Docket No. NHTSA-2006-24309-0006 (Final Environmental Assessment:
NHTSA Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards, March 29,
2006): Docket No. NHTSA 2006-24309-0003[1] (Finding of No
Significant Environmental Impact for Model Year 2008-2011 Light
Truck Fuel Economy Standards, March 28, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a challenge to the 2006 Rule, petitioners argued in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that NHTSA's EA did not comply
with NEPA and that NEPA requires the agency to prepare an EIS. See
Center for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA, 508 F.3d 508, 514, 545-58
(9th Cir. 2007).\5\ The Court held, among other things, that NHTSA did
not prepare an adequate EA under NEPA. 508 F.3d at 548-558. The Court's
remedy was to order the agency to prepare an EIS. 508 F.3d 558. The
Government is presently seeking rehearing in the Ninth Circuit on the
appropriateness of that remedy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Petitioners also challenged the 2006 Rule under EPCA.
See Center for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA, 508 F.3d at 527-45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In any event, NHTSA must now propose CAFE standards for MY 2011 and
beyond, pursuant to the recent amendments to EPCA, to begin increasing
CAFE levels so that the combined fleet of all passenger cars and light
trucks in MY 2020 will achieve at least 35 mpg. NHTSA, therefore, now
needs to engage in a new analysis, including taking a fresh look at
potential environmental impacts under NEPA, and assessing whether or
not those impacts are ``significant'' within the meaning of NEPA law.
See 40 CFR 1508.27.
    NHTSA is beginning the EIS process for that rule, which includes
light truck standards for one model year previously covered by the 2006
Rule (MY 2011). We are doing so now because a standard for MY 2011 must
be issued by the end of March 2009 and achieving an industry-wide
combined fleet average of at least 35 miles per gallon for MY 2020
depends, in substantial part, upon setting standards well in advance so
as to provide the automobile manufacturers with as much lead time as
possible to make the extensive necessary changes to their automobiles.
    The scoping process initiated by this notice seeks to determine
``the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered'' in
the EIS and to identify the most important issues for analysis
involving the potential environmental impacts of NHTSA's CAFE
standards. See 40 CFR 1501.7, 1508.25. NHTSA invites stakeholders to
participate in the scoping process by submitting written comments to
the docket number identified in the heading of this notice using any of
the methods described in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. NHTSA
believes that the EPCA provisions described above regarding the levels
of the standards to be established and NHTSA's implementation of the
CAFE program to

date provide sufficient information to begin the scoping process. This
assessment is supported by the public comments submitted on the 2005
NPRM that led to the 2006 Rule (70 FR 51414, August 30, 2005).
    As noted above, NHTSA plans to publish a separate scoping notice in
the Federal Register to provide further information and guidance to
facilitate public participation in the scoping process. Based on
comments received during scoping, NHTSA expects to prepare a draft EIS
for public comment and a final EIS to support a final rule later this
year.

    Issued: March 21, 2008.
 Ronald Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
 [FR Doc. E8-6227 Filed 3-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-M


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17111-17113]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06842]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-1074; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-3]

Proposed Revocation of Class D Airspace; North, SC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to remove Class D Airspace at North, SC,
as the North Air Force Auxiliary Field Air Traffic Control Tower is no
longer staffed, and controlled airspace is no longer required. This
action would enhance the safety and airspace management in North, SC.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 12, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Bldg. Ground Floor Rm. W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone:
1-800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the Docket Number
FAA-2016-1074; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-3, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public
docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final
disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.
    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/airtraffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under
that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign
the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would remove Class D airspace at North Air Force
Auxiliary Field, North, SC.

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned
regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited
on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and
energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2016-1074; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-3) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ``ADDRESSES'' section
for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2016-1074; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-3.'' The postcard will be
date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's
Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office
of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room
350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective
September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to remove Class D airspace at North Air
Force Auxiliary Field, North, SC. The air traffic control tower is no
longer in use. Therefore, the airspace is no longer necessary.
    Class D airspace designations are published in Paragraph 5000 of
FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory
Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a
routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air
navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated,
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment:

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015,
effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO SC D North, SC [Removed]

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on March 15, 2016.
Ryan W. Almasy,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2016-06842 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 97 (Monday, May 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29361-29362]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11881]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 8012-007]

Winchendon Hydroelectric LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

a. Types of Application: Non-capacity amendment of exemption.
b. Project No.: 8012-007.
c. Date Filed: April 5, 2013.
d. Applicant: Winchendon Hydroelectric LLC.
e. Name of Project: Hunts Pond Dam Hydroelectric Project.
f. Location: Millers River in Worcester County, Massachusetts.
g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Stephen J. Fisk, Winchendon Hydroelectric,
LLC, 57 Suffolk Street, Suite 200, Holyoke, MA 01040,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
i. FERC Contact: Alyssa Dorval,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests:
June 11, 2013.

    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See, 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. If unable to be
filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an
original and seven copies should be mailed to: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426. 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. Please include the
project number (P-8012-007) on any comments or motions filed.
    k. Description of Application: Winchendon Hydroelectric LLC is
requesting a non-capacity exemption amendment to replace two cross-flow
turbines with a total generator nameplate capacity of 120 kW to a
single double regulated Kaplan unit with a generator capacity of 100
kW. The historical data shows the annual production to be approximately
305,000 kWh. The new Kaplan turbine is estimated to produce an
additional 201,000 kWh per year more than the existing installed units
resulting in an estimated new annual production value of 506,000 kWh.
With the turbine replacement, the hydraulic capacity value will be
reduced from the existing units at approximately 172 cubic feet per
second (cfs) to the new unit at approximately 110 cfs. The exemptee
also plans to address repairs to spalled concrete, stoplog and needle
beam maintenance and replacement at the dam as required by the
Commission's Division of Dam Safety. To complete the turbine
replacement and required maintenance, the exemptee will need to
temporarily draw down the project from a normal operating elevation of
954.6 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) to below the crest
of the dam, with a lower limit of 944.48 feet NGVD, for a period
lasting from June 2013 through September 2013.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field (P-8012) to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-
208-3676 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call (202) 502-
8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the
address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone

number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to project works which are the subject of the amendment application.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.

    Dated: May 13, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-11881 Filed 5-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P