[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 88 (Thursday, May 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26236-26238]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10969]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-94-000; Docket No. CP15-96-000; Docket No. CP15-93-
000]

Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP; Trunkline Gas Company,
LLC; Rover Pipeline LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement for the Proposed Panhandle Backhaul Project and
Trunkline Backhaul Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental
Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will analyze the environmental impacts of the Panhandle
Backhaul Project and Trunkline Backhaul Project, involving the
modification and upgrades of existing facilities by Panhandle Eastern
Pipe Line Company, LP (Panhandle) and Trunkline Gas Company, LLC
(Trunkline), in the Commission's environmental impact statement (EIS)
currently under preparation for the Rover Pipeline Project in Docket
No. CP15-93-000. The Panhandle Backhaul Project would modify existing
facilities in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. The Trunkline
Backhaul Project would modify existing facilities in Illinois,
Tennessee, and Mississippi. Both projects would increase backhaul
capacity to flow natural gas volumes from the Rover Pipeline Project.
The Commission will use the EIS in its decision-making process to
determine whether the projects are in the public convenience and
necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the Panhandle Backhaul Project and

Trunkline Backhaul Project. You can make a difference by providing us
with your specific comments or concerns about these two projects. Your
comments should focus on the potential environmental effects,
reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental
impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what
issues they need to evaluate in the EIS. To ensure that your comments
are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the
Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before June 1, 2015.
    If you sent comments on these projects to the Commission before the
opening of these dockets on February 23, 2015, you will need to file
those comments in Docket No. CP15-94-000 for the Panhandle Backhaul
Project and Docket No. CP15-96-000 for the Trunkline Backhaul Project
to ensure they are considered as part of these proceedings.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for these projects. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of these proposed
projects and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement or
lease to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The
company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement.
However, if the Commission approves the projects, that approval conveys
with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement
negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could
initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be
determined in accordance with state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses
a number of typically-asked questions, including the use of eminent
domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at
(202) 502-8258 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' If you are filing a comment on a particular project,
please select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the
following address. Be sure to reference the projects' docket numbers
(CP15-94-000 for the Panhandle Backhaul Project and CP15-96-000 for the
Trunkline Backhaul Project) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

Summary of the Proposed Projects

    Panhandle and Trunkline are proposing the upgrades and
modifications to allow for bi-directional flow of natural gas on their
existing pipeline systems. Modifications and upgrades along the
Panhandle system would occur at existing facilities in Lenawee County,
Michigan; Allen and Defiance Counties, Ohio; Hamilton, Marion, Parke,
and Vermillion Counties, Indiana; and Douglas County, Illinois. The
Panhandle Backhaul Project would include:

New pipe, valves, fittings, and associated materials to allow for bi-
directional flow at the Edgerton, Zionsville, Montezuma, and Tuscola
Compressor Stations;
minor piping, pressure controls, valves, fittings, and associated
materials at Edgerton 10 Gate, Zionsville 3 Gate, and Tuscola 6 Gate;
and
tap valves and associated piping for an interconnect with the proposed
Rover Pipeline Project at the Rover Defiance Compressor Station.

    Modifications and upgrades along the Trunkline system would occur
at existing facilities in Douglas and Wayne Counties, Illinois; Dyer
County, Tennessee; and Tate County, Mississippi. The Trunkline Backhaul
Project would include:

New pipe, valves, fittings, and associated materials to allow for bi-
directional flow at the Johnsonville, Joppa, Dyersburg, and
Independence Compressor Stations;
new pipe, valves, fittings, meters, regulators, and other associated
materials at the Bourbon Meter Station; and
tap valves and associated piping for an interconnect with the Panhandle
Backhaul Project at the Tuscola Compressor Station.

    The general locations of the Panhandle and Trunkline project
facilities are shown in appendix 1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov
using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the Panhandle facilities would disturb a total of
230.2 acres of land on or surrounding Panhandle's permanent right-of-
way or lands leased or owned by Panhandle. Any land disturbance
associated with the modifications and upgrades would occur within
previously disturbed areas.
    Construction of the Trunkline facilities would disturb a total of
204.3 acres of land within the existing facility sites or within
Trunkline's permanent right-of-way. Any land disturbance associated
with the modifications and upgrades would occur within previously
disturbed areas.

The EIS Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\2\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of
the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EIS on the
important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests
public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EIS. We
will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EIS we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
proposed projects under these general headings:

Geology and soils;
land use;
socioeconomics;
water resources,
cultural resources;
vegetation and wildlife;
air quality and noise;
endangered and threatened species;
public safety; and
cumulative impacts

    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
projects or portions of the projects, and make recommendations on how
to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The FERC staff is in the process of preparing an EIS for the Rover
Pipeline Project. Five other agencies are participating as cooperating
agencies in the preparation of this EIS: The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. With this notice,
we are asking other agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special
expertise with respect to environmental issues related the Panhandle
and/or Trunkline projects to formally cooperate with us in the
preparation of the EIS.\3\ Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EIS will present our independent analysis of the issues. We
will publish and distribute the draft EIS for public comment. After the
comment period, we will consider all timely comments and revise the
document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. To ensure we have
the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully
follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning
on page 2.

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s) (SHPO), and
to solicit their views and those of other government agencies,
interested Indian tribes, and the public on the projects' potential
effects on historic properties.\4\ The EIS will document our findings
on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of
consultations under section 106. We note that Panhandle has a signed
categorical exclusion with Illinois SHPO and Trunkline has signed
categorical exclusions with Illinois and Tennessee SHPOs. These
categorical exclusions exempt work activities within existing
facilities from further review by the SHPOs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will define the project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE)
in consultation with the SHPO(s) as the projects develop. On natural
gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas
subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction right-of-
way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and access
roads). Our EIS for these projects will document our findings on the
impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of
consultations under section 106.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the projects. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
proposed projects.
    Copies of the completed draft EIS will be sent to the environmental
mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to
receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the
attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EIS scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceedings. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in
the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web
site.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the projects is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP15-
94, CP15-96, CP15-93). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date
range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: May 1, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-10969 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32400-32401]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13354]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0848; FRL-9351-5]

Fenamidone; Pesticide Tolerance; Technical Amendment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a final rule in the Federal Register of October 24,
2007, establishing tolerances for residues of fenamidone in or on
various commodities. This document is being issued to correct a
typographical error.

DATES: This final rule is effective June 1, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID)

number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0848, is available either electronically through
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OPP Docket in the
Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), located in EPA
West, Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions
and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tony Kish, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this action apply to me?

    The Agency included in the final rule a list of those who may be
potentially affected by the action. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. What does this technical amendment do?

    EPA issued a final rule in the Federal Register of October 24, 2007
(72 FR 60266) (FRL-8152-9), establishing tolerances for residues of the
fungicide fenamidone in or on various commodities. In Units II., III.,
and V., of the preamble, the text correctly listed the tolerance level
for the commodity ``strawberry'' at 0.02 parts per million (ppm). The
table in Sec.  180.579(d), of the regulatory text, incorrectly listed
the tolerance level for ``strawberry'' at 0.15. This technical
amendment corrects that error.

III. Why is this action issued as a final rule?

    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an Agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary
to the public interest, the Agency may issue a final rule without
providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has
determined that there is good cause for making this technical amendment
final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because this
action merely corrects a typographical error. EPA finds that this
constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

IV. Do any of the statutory and executive order reviews apply to this
action?

    No. For a detailed discussion concerning the statutory and
executive order reviews, refer to Unit VI. of the October 24, 2007
final rule.

V. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) 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
this rule in the Federal Register. This final rule is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 24, 2012.
Losi Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 180.579 is amended by revising the entry for ``Strawberry''
in paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  [emsp14]180.579  Fenamidone; tolerances for residues.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Strawberry................................................         0.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-13354 Filed 5-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 174 (Friday, September 7, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45476-45479]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19376]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84012; File No. SR-BX-2018-040]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Provide New
Optional Functionality to Minimum Quantity Orders

August 31, 2018.
    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 August 20, 2018, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``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 Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to provide new optional functionality to
Minimum Quantity Orders.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.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 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 provide a new optional functionality
to the Minimum Quantity Order Attribute,\3\ which is identical to the
optional functionality provided by The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC
(``Nasdaq'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rule 4703(e).
    \4\ See Nasdaq Rule 4703(e); see also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 73959 (Dec. 30, 2014), 80 FR 582 (Jan. 6, 2015) (SR-
NASDAQ-2014-95).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current Functionality
    An Order designated with the Minimum Quantity Order Attribute
(``MQ'') allows a market participant to specify a minimum share amount
at which it will execute. For example, a market participant seeking to
buy or sell a large position may desire to execute only if a large
quantity of shares can be traded to reduce the price impact of the
security being bought or sold. An Order with MQ will not execute unless
the volume of contra-side liquidity available to execute against the
order meets or exceeds the designated minimum. When an Order with MQ is
received by the Exchange, it will execute immediately \5\ if there is
sufficient liquidity available on the Exchange within the limit price
of the Order with MQ. Specifically, the Order with MQ will execute if
the sum of the shares of one or more resting Orders is equal to or
greater than its minimum quantity. In the case of multiple resting
Orders being aggregated to meet the minimum quantity, each contra-side
order creates a separate execution and thus there can be multiple
executions that, in aggregate, equal or exceed the minimum quantity. If
an Order with MQ does not execute immediately due to lack of contra-
side liquidity that is equal to or greater than the designated minimum,
the Order will post \6\ to the Exchange book as a Non-Displayed Order
with the characteristics of its underlying Order Type.\7\ Once posted,
an Order with MQ will execute only if an incoming Order is marketable
against the resting Order with MQ and is equal to or greater than the
minimum quantity set on the resting Order with MQ. Multiple potential
executions cannot be aggregated to meet the minimum quantity
requirement of the posted Order with MQ. If an Order with MQ executes
partially and the number

of shares remaining is less than the minimum quantity of the Order, the
minimum quantity of the Order is reduced to the remaining share size.
If an Order with MQ is received that is marketable against a resting
contra-side Order with size that does not meet the minimum quantity
requirement, the Order with MQ will be posted on the Exchange book as a
Non-Displayed Order with the characteristics of its underlying Order
Type.\8\ For example, if an Order with MQ is received to buy 1,000
shares at $10 with a minimum quantity restriction of 500 shares and
there is a resting sell order for 300 shares at $10, the Order with MQ
will be posted as a Non-Displayed Order at $10. Furthermore, the
Exchange notes that a subsequent Order without a minimum quantity
restriction that is marketable against the resting contra-side interest
will result in an execution because the market participant entering the
Order with MQ has expressed its intention not to execute against
liquidity below a certain minimum size, and therefore cedes execution
priority to any new Orders that would otherwise have a lower priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ An Order with MQ would satisfy the requirements of
Regulation NMS Rule 611 and not trade through a protected quotation.
See 17 CFR 242.611.
    \6\ Orders post to the Exchange book only if they are designated
with a time in force that allows for posting. For example, an IOC
order never posts to the book.
    \7\ A Non-Displayed Order is an Order Type that is not displayed
to other Participants, but nevertheless remains available for
potential execution against incoming Orders until executed in full
or cancelled. See Rule 4702(b)(3). Orders with MQ are always Non-
Displayed when posted on the Exchange book.
    \8\ SEC Rule 610(d) under Regulation NMS restricts displayed
quotations that lock or cross protected quotations in NMS stock, but
does not apply to non-displayed trading interest, like a resting
Order with MQ. See 17 CFR 242.610(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Functionality
    The Exchange is proposing to add a new optional functionality to
further enhance the utility of the Minimum Quantity Order Attribute to
market participants.\9\ As was noted by Nasdaq in proposing the
optional functionality proposed herein,\10\ some market participants
have noted that they avoid sending large Orders with MQ to the Exchange
out of concern that such Orders may interact against small Orders
entered by professional traders. These market participants are
concerned that such interaction may negatively impact the execution of
their larger Orders. Often institutional Orders are much larger in size
than the average Order in the marketplace. Furthermore, in order to
facilitate the liquidation or acquisition of a large position, multiple
Orders are submitted into the market, which although larger than the
average Order in the market, only represent a small proportion of the
overall institutional position to be executed. The various strategies
used to execute large size are based on a desire to limit price
movement of the stock the institution is pursuing. Executing in small
sizes, even if in aggregate it meets a minimum quantity designation,
may impact the market such that the additional Orders that the
institution has yet to submit to the market may be more costly to
execute. If an institution is able to execute in larger sizes, the
contra-party to the execution is less likely to be a participant that
reacts to short term changes in the stock price and as such the price
impact to the stock could be less acute when larger individual
executions are obtained by the institution.\11\ As a consequence of
this concern, these Orders are often executed away from the Exchange in
dark pools, at least some of which have the functionality proposed
herein,\12\ or via broker-dealer internalization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The option is available at the port level. Accordingly, all
Orders entered through a particular port will receive the selected
functionality. All trading ports default to the current
functionality.
    \10\ See note 4, supra.
    \11\ The Commission has long recognized this concern: ``Another
type of implicit transaction cost reflected in the price of a
security is short-term price volatility caused by temporary
imbalances in trading interest. For example, a significant implicit
cost for large investors (who often represent the consolidated
investments of many individuals) is the price impact that their
large trades can have on the market. Indeed, disclosure of these
large orders can reduce the likelihood of their being filled.'' See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 42450 (Feb. 23, 2000), 65 FR
10577, 10581 (Feb. 28, 2000) (SR-NYSE-99-48) (emphasis added)
(internal citation omitted).
    \12\ For example, the BIDS Alternative Trading System also has
functionality that allows its subscribers to select a minimum size
requirement, which prevents a subscriber's interest from interacting
with contra-side interest if its size is less than the specified
minimum. See http://www.bidstrading.com/solutions/faqs/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, to attract larger Orders with MQ to the Exchange, it
is proposing new optional functionality that will allow a market
participant to designate a minimum individual execution size, and thus
allow users to avoid interaction with such smaller Orders resting on
the book. As discussed above, under the current rule, an incoming Order
with MQ will execute against any number of smaller contra-side Orders
that, in aggregate, meet the minimum quantity set by the market
participant. For example, if a market participant entered an Order with
MQ to buy with a price of $10, a size of 1,000 and a minimum quantity
of 500, and the order was marketable against two resting sell orders
for 300 and 400 shares, the System would aggregate both orders for
purposes of meeting the minimum quantity, thus resulting in executions
of 300 shares and 400 shares respectively with the remaining 300 shares
of the Order with MQ posting to the Exchange book with a minimum
quantity restriction of 300 shares. The proposed new optional
functionality will not allow aggregation of smaller executions to
satisfy the minimum quantity of an incoming Order with MQ. Using the
same scenario as above, but with the proposed new functionality and a
minimum execution size requirement of 400 shares selected by the market
participant, the Order with MQ would not execute against the two sell
orders because the order at the top of the Exchange book is less than
400 shares. The new functionality will reprice the Order with MQ to one
minimum price increment lower than (higher than) the lowest price
(highest price) of the resting contra-side Order, and post the Order to
the Exchange book as a Non-Displayed Order when the top of the Exchange
book is of insufficient size to satisfy the minimum execution size
requirement. Applied to the example above, the Order would post to the
Exchange book as a Non-Displayed Order to buy 1,000 shares at $9.99.
The Exchange notes that the market participant entering the Order with
MQ has expressed its intention not to execute against liquidity below a
certain minimum size, and therefore cedes execution priority when it
would lock or cross resting Orders against which it would otherwise
execute if it were not for the minimum execution size restriction.
    The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to adjust the price
one minimum price increment lower than (higher than) the lowest price
(highest price) of the resting contra-side Order prior to posting on
the Exchange book because, by using the minimum execution size option,
the submitter of the Order is choosing to reduce the number of
situations in which the Order could potentially execute. Thus, an Order
without this further restriction provides greater contribution to the
price discovery process of the market. All bona fide market
participation that results in an execution on a data feed contributes
to the price discovery process that is essential to a proper
functioning market. However, there are different degrees to which
activity within the market contributes to price discovery. A displayed
Order at the NBBO of an Exchange, and the subsequent execution thereof,
contributes significantly to price discovery because both the Displayed
Order prior to execution, and the execution itself, provide a reference
price to the market. Further, a non-displayed order on an exchange
contributes to price discovery as it is part of the continuous auction
on a market with publicly displayed orders and quotes--albeit the
contribution of a non-displayed order on an exchange is

less than the contribution of a displayed order on an exchange.
Furthermore, a non-displayed order on a dark pool contributes less to
price discovery because it is resting in a less transparent trading
venue that is not part of the continuous auction of a lit exchange. If
one were to rank the contribution to price discovery that different
market activity provides, it would include the following (listed from
least price discovery contribution to most):

[ssquf] Order resting in dark pool (no contribution)
[ssquf] Non-displayed order on exchange (no or very little
contribution)
[ssquf] Order execution in dark pool (some contribution, execution
reported publicly via TRF)
[ssquf] Non-displayed order execution on exchange (contribution as part
of continuous auction, execution reported publicly, and priority is
behind displayed--i.e., priority is ceded to orders that contribute
more to price discovery)
[ssquf] Displayed order on exchange (significant contribution)
[ssquf] Displayed order execution on exchange (significant
contribution, publicly displayed order + execution reported publicly)

In this sense, the proposed change continues to contribute more
meaningfully to price discovery than an order in a dark pool because it
is part of the continuous auction market on the exchange but, similar
to a regular Non-Displayed Order ceding priority to Displayed Orders on
the Exchange, the Order with MQ that uses the proposed functionality
will cede price priority to Orders that do not contain the minimum
execution size restriction. Also unlike the current process, the
proposed new functionality will cancel the remainder of a marketable
Order with MQ that is partially filled upon entry if the partially-
executed Order with MQ would lock or cross resting contra-side
liquidity that does not meet the minimum execution size requirement.
Under the current process, an Order with MQ that receives a partial
execution has the remainder of the Order posted to the Exchange book as
a Non-Displayed Order. The proposed new functionality will, instead,
cancel any shares not executed after a partial execution of an Order
with MQ if there are more shares that remain resting on the Exchange
book at a price that would satisfy the limit price of the Order with MQ
but that are not executable against the incoming Order with MQ due to
the minimum execution size set on the Order. For example, an Order with
MQ to buy priced at $10 with a size of 1,000 and a minimum quantity of
500, that is marketable against two sell orders on the Exchange book,
one for 500 shares and one for 400 shares, would result in the
execution of 500 shares and the cancellation of the remaining 500
shares. Under the current process, the Order would receive two partial
executions of 500 and 400 shares, and the remaining 100 shares would be
posted to the Exchange book as a Non-Displayed Order to buy priced at
$10.
    The Exchange notes that when a non-IOC Order with MQ is partially
executed and cancelled in this situation, the contra-side liquidity
that is not executed may be Non-Displayed. If an Order with MQ is
cancelled due to Non-Displayed contra-side liquidity, the submitter of
the Order will know that there may be a resting Order or Orders at the
price of the Order with MQ and also that the resting Order or Orders
are for fewer shares than the minimum execution size required by the
Order. The Exchange believes this is acceptable because the Order with
MQ has already partially executed for a size of at least one round lot
and thus the Order submitter has taken on risk due to the execution and
therefore contributed to price discovery in the market place.
    Under the proposed change, a resting Order with MQ will operate the
same way as it does currently. When an Order with MQ is posted on the
book, it will only execute against incoming Orders if the individual
incoming Order is equal to or greater than the minimum designated on
the Order. The primary difference between the current functionality and
the proposed new functionality is that upon receipt, an incoming Order
with MQ will only execute against individual resting Orders if the
order at the top of the Exchange book meets or exceeds the minimum on
the Order. The Exchange notes that this is no different than Nasdaq's
Minimum Quantity Order Attribute, on which the proposed change is
based, and is also similar to Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.'s (``BZX'')
Minimum Quantity Order,\13\ which allows BZX Users to specify that such
an order will not execute against multiple aggregated orders
simultaneously and that the minimum quantity condition be satisfied by
each individual order resting on the BZX book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See BZX Rule 11.9(c)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\14\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in particular, 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. The proposal will provide market participants, including
institutional firms that ultimately represent individual retail
investors in many cases, with better control over their Orders, thereby
providing them with greater potential to improve the quality of their
Order executions. Currently, the rule allows the market participant to
designate a minimum quantity on an Order that, upon entry, may
aggregate multiple executions to meet the minimum quantity requirement.
Once posted to the Exchange book, however, the minimum quantity
requirement is equivalent to a minimum execution size requirement. The
Exchange is now proposing to provide a market participant with control
over the execution of their Order with MQ by allowing them an option to
designate the minimum individual execution size upon entry. The control
offered by the proposed change is consistent with the various types of
control currently provided by exchange order types. For example, the
Exchange, Nasdaq and other exchanges offer limit orders, which allow a
market participant control over the price it will pay or receive for a
stock.\16\ Similarly, exchanges offer order types that allow market
participants to structure their trading activity in a manner that is
more likely avoid certain transaction cost related economic
outcomes.\17\ Moreover, and as discussed above, other trading venues
provide the very functionality that the Exchange is proposing, with the
proposed rule text and operation of the functionality identical to that
of Nasdaq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \16\ See, e.g., Rule 4703(c).
    \17\ See, for example, the Exchange's Post-Only Order. See Rule
4702(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, some market participants have requested the
functionality proposed herein so they may avoid transacting with
smaller Orders that they believe ultimately increase the cost of the
transaction. Market participants, such as large institutions that
transact a large number of orders on behalf of retail investors, have
noted that because the Exchange does not have this functionality, they
avoid sending large orders to the Exchange to avoid potentially more

expensive transactions.\18\ In this regard, the Exchange notes that
proposed new optional functionality may improve the Exchange market by
attracting more Order flow, which is currently trading on less
transparent venues that contribute less to price discovery and price
competition than executions and quotes that occur on lit exchanges.
Such new Order flow will further enhance the depth and liquidity on the
Exchange, which supports just and equitable principles of trade.
Furthermore, the proposed modification to the Minimum Quantity Order
Attribute is consistent with providing market participants with greater
control over the nature of their executions so that they may achieve
their trading goals and improve the quality of their executions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ As noted, the proposal is designed to attract liquidity to
the Exchange by allowing market participants to designate a minimum
size of contra-side Order with which to interact, thus providing
market participants with functionality that is otherwise available
to them on another exchange (i.e., Nasdaq). The designation of a
minimum size may reduce the interaction that such new Order flow
would have with smaller contra-side Orders on the Exchange, some of
which may be retail Order flow. The Exchange notes that since the
Order flow attracted by this functionality may also represent retail
investors and is in addition to the existing Order flow currently on
the Exchange, market quality for retail investors ultimately should
not be negatively impacted. Accordingly, the Exchange does not
believe that retail Orders will be disadvantaged by the proposed
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
Specifically, the proposed change allows market participants to
condition the processing of their Orders based on a minimum execution
size. The changes to the Minimum Quantity Order Attribute will enhance
the functionality offered by the Exchange to its members, thereby
promoting its competitiveness with other exchanges and non-exchange
trading venues that already offer the same or similar functionality. As
a consequence, the proposed change will promote competition among
exchanges and their peers, which, in turn, will decrease the burden on
competition rather than place an unnecessary burden thereon.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    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 \19\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BX-2018-040 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2018-040. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BX-2018-040 and should be submitted on
or before September 28, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-19376 Filed 9-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 192)]
[Notices]
[Page 61473]
[DOCID:fr05oc10-81]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-2887-000]

New Hampshire Industries, Inc.; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

September 29, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
New Hampshire Industries, Inc.'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 October 19, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive 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>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-24960 Filed 10-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 170)]
[Notices]
[Page 45648-45649]
[DOCID:fr03se09-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

United States Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0761]

Cook Inlet Regional Citizen's Advisory Committee; Charter Renewal

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of Recertification.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has recertified the Cook Inlet Regional
Citizen's Advisory Council for the period covering September 1, 2009,
through August 31, 2010. Under the Oil Terminal and Oil Tanker
Environmental Oversight Act of 1990, the Coast Guard may certify on an
annual basis an alternative voluntary advisory group in lieu of a
regional citizens' advisory council for Cook Inlet, Alaska. This
advisory group monitors the activities of terminal facilities and crude
oil tankers under the Cook Inlet Program established by the statute.

DATES: The Cook Inlet Regional Citizen's Advisory Council is certified
through August 31, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may request a copy of the recertification letter by
writing to Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District (dpi), P.O. Box
25517, Juneau, AK 99802-5517; or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant-Commander Ken Phillips,
Seventeenth Coast Guard District (dpi), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    On September 1, 2008, the Coast Guard recertified the Cook Inlet
Regional Citizen's Advisory Council through August 31, 2009 (73 FR
57127). Under the Oil Terminal and Oil Tanker Environmental Oversight
Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2732), the Coast Guard may certify, on an annual
basis, an alternative voluntary advisory group in lieu of a regional
citizens' advisory council for Cook Inlet, Alaska. This advisory group
monitors the activities of terminal facilities and crude oil tankers
under the Cook Inlet Program established by Congress, 33 U.S.C. 2732
(b).
    On September 16, 2002, the Coast Guard published a notice of policy
on revised recertification procedures for alternative voluntary
advisory groups in lieu of councils at Cook Inlet, Alaska (67 FR
58440). This revised policy indicated that Cook Inlet Regional
Citizen's Advisory Council recertification in 2009 need only submit a
streamlined

application and public comments would not be solicited prior to that
recertification.

    Dated: August 14, 2009.
Christopher C. Colvin,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. E9-21262 Filed 9-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: March 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 59)]
[Notices]
[Page 15408-15409]
[DOCID:fr28mr06-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12608-000]

Alternatives Unlimited, Inc.; Notice of Application Ready for
Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Terms and Conditions,
Recommendations, and Prescriptions

March 21, 2006.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed

with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Exemption from Licensing.
    b. Project No.: 12608-000.
    c. Date filed: August 15, 2005.
    d. Applicant: Alternatives Unlimited, Inc.
    e. Name of Project: Alternatives Hydro Power Project.
    f. Location: On the Mumford River, in the Town of Northbridge,
Worcester County, Massachusetts. The project would not use Federal
land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of
1978, 16 U.S.C. 2705 and 2708.
    h. Applicant Contact: Kathleen D. Hervol. Beals and Thomas, Inc.
Reservoir Corporate Center, 144 Turnpike Road (Route 9), Southborough,
MA 01772-2104,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Stefanie Harris,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and prescriptions is May 22, 2006; reply comments are due
105 days from the date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person whose name appears on the official service list for the project.
Further, if an intervenor 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.
    Comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions
may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``eFiling'' link.

    k. This application has been accepted and is now ready for
environmental analysis at this time.
    l. Description of Project: The Alternatives Hydro Power Project
would consist of: (1) The existing 127-foot-long by 15.5-foot-high Ring
Shop Dam consisting of a concrete 9.5-foot-high spillway topped with
2.5-foot-high flashboards, a waste gate, and two inlet structures
located at the north and south ends of the spillway; (2) an existing
1.3-acre reservoir enlarged to 2 acres with a normal full pond
elevation of 285.1 feet above mean sea level; (3) a restored 8-foot-
wide head gated intake structure; (4) a new 23-foot by 6-foot metal
service platform (to be enclosed for a future powerhouse) located at
the south side of the dam containing three generating units with a
total installed capacity of 45 kilowatts; and (5) appurtenant
facilities. The restored project would have an average annual
generation of 340 megawatt-hours.
    m. 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 at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h. above.
    All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``REPLY COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND
CONDITIONS,'' or ``PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (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 submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be
accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service
list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with
18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Procedural schedule: The Commission staff proposes to issue one
Environmental Assessment (EA) rather than issuing a draft and final EA.
Staff intends to allow 30 days for entities to comment on the EA, and
will take into consideration all comments received on the EA before
final action is taken on the exemption application. The application
will be processed according to the schedule, but revisions to the
schedule may be made as appropriate:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Action                                Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of the availability of the EA....  August 2006.
Ready for Commission decision on the      October 2006.
 application.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-4463 Filed 3-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 215 (Monday, November 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68664-68666]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28112]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0145]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems;
Booster Seat Effectiveness Estimates Based on CDS and State Data

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

ACTION: Request for comments on technical report.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces NHTSA's publication of a Technical
Report on its existing Safety Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems.
The report's title is: Booster Seat

Effectiveness Estimates Based on CDS and State Data.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than March 8, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Report: The technical report is available on the Internet
for viewing in PDF format at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811338.pdf. You may obtain a copy of the report free of charge by
sending a self-addressed mailing label to Robert Sivinski (NVS-431),
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room W53-440, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments: You may submit comments [identified by Docket Number
NHTSA-2010-0145] by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    You may call Docket Management at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments, see
the Procedural Matters section of this document. Note that all comments
received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Sivinski, Statistician, Evaluation
Division, NVS-431, National Center for Statistics and Analysis,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room W53-312, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For information about NHTSA's evaluations of the effectiveness of
existing regulations and programs: You may see a list of published
evaluation reports at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/cats/listpublications.aspx?Id=226&ShowBy=Category and if you click on any
report you will be able to view it in PDF format.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Safety Standard 213 (49 CFR 571.213)
establishes standards for child restraint systems, including booster
seats, manufactured for use in motor vehicles as well as aircraft. This
report uses CDS data from 1998-2008 and 17 combined years of State data
from Kansas, Washington and Nebraska to estimate the effects of early
graduation from child restraint seats to booster seats and of early
graduation from booster seats to lap and shoulder belts. Estimates are
computed by double-pair comparison, a method uniquely suited to address
the confounding variables which may bias results and are difficult or
impossible to account for with other statistical methods.
    The principal findings are that among 3-4-year-olds there is
evidence of increased risk of injury when restrained in booster seats
rather than the recommended child restraint seats. This effect may be
more pronounced in the 3-year-olds. Among 4-8-year-olds there is strong
evidence of increased risk of injury when restrained by lap and
shoulder belts rather than the recommended booster seats. The magnitude
of this effect is estimated at a 14% increase in risk of any type of
injury, but may vary depending on data source and injury severity.
    Procedural Matters:

How can I influence NHTSA's thinking on this subject?

    NHTSA welcomes public review of the technical report. NHTSA will
submit to the Docket a response to the comments and, if appropriate,
will supplement or revise the report.

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the Docket
number of this document (NHTSA-2010-0145) in your comments.
    Your primary comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR
553.21). However, you may attach additional documents to your primary
comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our 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 DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit http://www.regulations.gov.
    Please send two paper copies of your comments to Docket Management,
fax them, or use the Federal eRulemaking Portal. The mailing address is
U. S. Department of Transportation, Docket Management Facility, M-30,
West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. The fax number is 1-202-493-2251. To use the
Federal eRulemaking Portal, go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
    We also request, but do not require you to send a copy to Bob
Sivinski, Statistician, Evaluation Division, NVS-431, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Room W53-440, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590 (or e-mail them to robert.sivinski@dot.gov).
He can check if your comments have been received at the Docket and he
can expedite their review by NHTSA.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, send three copies of your complete submission,
including the information you claim to be confidential business
information, to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Include a cover letter supplying the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).
    In addition, send two copies from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information to U. S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Management Facility, M-30, West Building, Ground
Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
or submit them via the Federal eRulemaking Portal.

Will the agency consider late comments?

    In our response, we will consider all comments that Docket
Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing
date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also
consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the

Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late
comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the
Docket for new material.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document
(e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other
interested persons) at any time by going to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also
read the materials at the Docket Management Facility by going to the
street address given above under ADDRESSES. The Docket Management
Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30111, 30168; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

James F. Simons,
Director, Office of Regulatory Analysis and Evaluation.
[FR Doc. 2010-28112 Filed 11-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15212-15215]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05518]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2020-0002]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood
Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)
boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways
(hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on
the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities
listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance
Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities.
The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to
calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their
contents.

DATES: Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.

ADDRESSES: Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the
LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these
modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers
of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication.
The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has
resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
    The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to
section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.
    For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is
shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
    The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the
floodplain management measures that

the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being
already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
    This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
    This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet
the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are used to
calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new
buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in
flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the final flood hazard information available at the address
cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at https://msc.fema.gov.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Location and case                                                                                Community
  State and county           No.          Chief executive officer of community    Community map  repository        Date of modification          No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama: Limestone   City of Huntsville   The Honorable Thomas Battle, Jr.,     City Hall, 308 Fountain       Mar. 9, 2020.................       010153
 (FEMA Docket No.:    (19-04-3429P).       Mayor, City of Huntsville, 308        Circle, 8th Floor,
 B-1981).                                  Fountain Circle, 8th Floor,           Huntsville, AL 35801.
                                           Huntsville, AL 35801.
Colorado:
    Boulder (FEMA    City of Boulder (19- The Honorable Suzanne Jones, Mayor,   Central Records Department,   Feb. 24, 2020................       080024
     Docket No.: B-   08-0629P).           City of Boulder, 1777 Broadway        1777 Broadway Street,
     1974).                                Street, Boulder, CO 80302.            Boulder, CO 80302.
    Larimer (FEMA    Unincorporated       The Honorable Tom Donnelly,           Larimer County Engineering    Feb. 21, 2020................       080101
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Larimer     Chairman, Larimer County Board of     Department, 200 West Oak
     1981).           County (19-08-       Commissioners, P.O. Box 1190, Fort    Street, Suite 3000, Fort
                      0367P).              Collins, CO 80522.                    Collins, CO 80521.
Delaware:
    New Castle       Unincorporated       Mr. Matthew Meyer, New Castle County  New Castle County Government  Feb. 6, 2020.................       105085
     (FEMA Docket     areas of New         Executive, 87 Reads Way, New          Center, 87 Reads Way, New
     No.: B-1974).    Castle County (19-   Castle, DE 19720.                     Castle, DE 19720.
                      03-0220P).
    New Castle       Unincorporated       The Honorable Matthew Meyer, New      New Castle County Land Use    Feb. 13, 2020................       105085
     (FEMA Docket     areas of New         Castle County Executive, 87 Read      Department, 87 Read Way,
     No.: B-1981).    Castle County (19-   Way, New Castle, DE 19720.            New Castle, DE 19720.
                      03-0484P).
Florida:
    Monroe (FEMA     Unincorporated       The Honorable Sylvia Murphy, Mayor,   Monroe County Building        Mar. 2, 2020.................       125129
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Monroe      Monroe County Board of                Department, 2798 Overseas
     1981).           County (19-04-       Commissioners, 102050 Overseas        Highway, Suite 300,
                      6687P).              Highway, Suite 234, Key Largo, FL     Marathon. FL 33050.
                                           33037.
    Osceola (FEMA    City of St. Cloud    The Honorable Nathan Blackwell,       City Hall, 1300 9th Street,   Feb. 28, 2020................       120191
     Docket No.: B-   (19-04-0759P).       Mayor, City of St. Cloud, 1300 9th    St. Cloud, FL 34769.
     1981).                                Street, St. Cloud, FL 34769.
    Osceola (FEMA    Unincorporated       The Honorable Fred Hawkins, Jr.,      Osceola County Human          Feb. 28, 2020................       120189
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Osceola     Chairman, Osceola County Board of     Resources Department, 1
     1981).           County (19-04-       Commissioners, 1 Courthouse Square,   Courthouse Square, Suite
                      0759P).              Suite 4700, Kissimmee, FL 34741.      4700, Kissimmee, FL 34741.
    Pasco (FEMA      Unincorporated       Mr. Dan Biles, Pasco County           Pasco County Facilities       Feb. 24, 2020................       120230
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Pasco       Administrator, 8731 Citizens Drive,   Management Department,
     1981).           County (19-04-       New Port Richey, FL 34652.            38301 McDonald Street, Dade
                      0816P).                                                    City, FL 33525.
    Sarasota (FEMA   City of Sarasota     The Honorable Liz Alpert, Mayor,      Development Services          Feb. 24, 2020................       125150
     Docket No.: B-   (19-04-4552P).       City of Sarasota, 1565 1st Street,    Department, 1565 1st
     1981).                                Room 101, Sarasota, FL 34236.         Street, Sarasota, FL 34236.
Louisiana:
    Lafayette (FEMA  City of Youngsville  The Honorable Ken Ritter, Mayor,      City Hall, 305 Iberia         Feb. 6, 2020.................       220358
     Docket No.: B-   (18-06-2837P).       City of Youngsville, 305 Iberia       Street, Youngsville, LA
     1981).                                Street, Youngsville, LA 70592.        70592.
Montana:
    Gallatin (FEMA   City of Bozeman (19- Ms. Andrea Surratt, City of Bozeman   City Hall, 20 East Olive      Mar. 2, 2020.................       300028
     Docket No.: B-   08-0500P).           Manager, P.O. Box 1230, Bozeman, MT   Street, Bozeman, MT 59715.
     1981).                                59771.
    Gallatin (FEMA   Unincorporated       The Honorable Joe P. Skinner,         Gallatin County Department    Mar. 2, 2020.................       300027
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Gallatin    Chairman, Gallatin County Board of    of Planning and Community
     1981).           County (19-08-       Commissioners, 311 West Main          Development Department,
                      0500P).              Street, Room 306, Bozeman, MT         Bozeman, MT 59715.
                                           59715.
Nevada:
    Clark (FEMA      City of Henderson    Mr. Richard A. Derrick, City of       Public Works Department, 240  Feb. 5, 2020.................       320005
     Docket No.: B-   (19-09-0090P).       Henderson Manager, P.O. Box 95050,    South Water Street,
     1981).                                Henderson, NV 89009.                  Henderson, NV 89009.
    Clark (FEMA      Unincorporated       The Honorable Marilyn Kirkpatrick,    Clark County Drainage Review  Feb. 5, 2020.................       320003
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Clark       Chair, Clark County Board of          Department, 500 South Grand
     1981).           County (19-09-       Commissioners, 500 South Grand        Central Parkway, Las Vegas,
                      0090P).              Central Parkway, Las Vegas, NV        NV 89155.
                                           89155.
North Carolina:

    Cleveland (FEMA  Unincorporated       The Honorable Susan K. Allen, Chair,  Cleveland County Planning     Mar. 6, 2020.................       370302
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Cleveland   Cleveland County Board of             Department, 1333 Fallston
     1981).           County (19-04-       Commissioners, 311 East Marion        Road, Shelby, NC 28150.
                      0261P).              Street, Shelby, NC 28150..
    Cumberland       Town of Hope Mills   The Honorable Jackie Warner, Mayor,   Town Hall, 5770 Rockfish      Mar. 6, 2020.................       370312
     (FEMA Docket     (18-04-6701P).       Town of Hope Mills, 5770 Rockfish     Road, Hope Mills, NC 28348.
     No.: B-2006).                         Road, Hope Mills, NC 28348.
    Cumberland       Unincorporated       The Honorable W. Marshall Faircloth,  Cumberland County             Mar. 6, 2020.................       370076
     (FEMA Docket     areas of             Chairman, Cumberland County Board     Engineering and
     No.: B-2006).    Cumberland County    of Commissioners, P.O. Box 1829,      Infrastructure Department,
                      (18-04-6701P).       Fayetteville, NC 28302l               130 Gillespie Street, Suite
                                                                                214, Fayetteville, NC
                                                                                28301l
Ohio:
    Warren (FEMA     City of Lebanon (19- The Honorable Amy Brewer, Mayor,      Engineering Department, 50    Feb. 10, 2020................      390557.
     Docket No.: B-   05-2274P).           City of Lebanon, 50 South Broadway    South Broadway Street,
     1974).                                Street, Lebanon, OH 45036.            Lebanon, OH 45036.
Oklahoma:
    Canadian (FEMA   City of Oklahoma     The Honorable David Holt, Mayor,      Department of Public Works,   Feb. 21, 2020................       405378
     Docket No.: B-   City (19-06-         City of Oklahoma City, 200 North      420 West Main Street, Suite
     1974).           3217P).              Walker Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK      700, Oklahoma City, OK
                                           73102.                                73102.
    Tulsa (FEMA      City of              The Honorable Bud York, Mayor, City   Engineering Department, 106   Feb. 10, 2020................       400360
     Docket No.: B-   Collinsville (19-    of Collinsville, P.O. Box 730,        North 12th Street,
     1974).           06-1337P).           Collinsville, OK 74021.               Collinsville, OK 74021.
    Tulsa (FEMA      Unincorporated       The Honorable Karen Keith, Chair,     Tulsa County Inspections      Feb. 10, 2020................       400462
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Tulsa       Tulsa County Board of                 Department, 633 West 3rd
     1974).           County (19-06-       Commissioners, 500 South Denver       Street, Tulsa, OK 74127.
                      1337P).              Avenue, Tulsa, OK 74103.
Texas:
    Bexar (FEMA      City of Schertz      The Honorable Michael Carpenter,      Public Works Department,      Feb. 10, 2020................       480269
     Docket No.: B-   (19[dash]06[dash]1   Mayor, City of Schertz, 1400          Floodplain Management
     1981).           878P).               Schertz Pkwy, Schertz, TX 78154.      Division, 10 Commercial
                                                                                Place, Schertz, TX 78154.
    Bexar (FEMA      Unincorporated       The Honorable Nelson W. Wolff, Bexar  Bexar County Public Works     Feb. 18, 2020................       480035
     Docket, No.: B-  areas of Bexar       County Judge, 101 West Nueva          Department, 1948 Probandt
     1981).           County (19-06-       Street, 10th Floor, San Antonio, TX   Street, San Antonio, TX
                      0327P).              78205.                                78214.
    Collin (FEMA     City of Murphy (19-  The Honorable Scott Bradley, Mayor,   City Hall, 206 North Murphy   Feb. 10, 2020................       480137
     Docket No.: B-   06-0931P).           City of Murphy, 206 North Murphy      Road, Murphy, TX 75094.
     1981).                                Road, Murphy, TX 75094.
    Collin (FEMA     City of Plano (20-   The Honorable Harry LaRosiliere,      Department of Engineering,    Feb. 28, 2020................       480140
     Docket, No.: B-  06-0039P).           Mayor, City of Plano, 1520 K          1520 K Avenue, Plano, TX
     1981).                                Avenue, Plano, TX 75074.              75074.
    Collin (FEMA     City of Sachse (19-  The Honorable Mike Felix, Mayor,      Public Works Department,      Feb. 10, 2020................       480186
     Docket No.: B-   06-0931P).           City of Sachse, 3815 Sachse Road,     3815 Sachse Road, Building
     1981).                                Building B, Sachse, TX 75048.         B, Sachse, TX 75048.
    Denton (FEMA     Town of Argyle (19-  The Honorable Donald Moser, Mayor,    Town Hall, 308 Denton         Feb. 28, 2020................       480775
     Docket No.: B-   06-1846P).           Town of Argyle, P.O. Box 609,         Street, Argyle, TX 76226.
     1981).                                Argyle, TX 76226.
    Johnson (FEMA    City of Burleson     The Honorable Ken Shetter, Mayor,     City Hall, 141 West Renfro    Feb. 24, 2020................       485459
     Docket No.: B-   (19-06-0971P).       City of Burleson, 141 West Renfro     Street, Burleson, TX 76028.
     1981).                                Street, Burleson, TX 76028.
    McClennan (FEMA  City of Waco (18-06- The Honorable Kyle Deaver, Mayor,     Public Works Department, 401  Feb. 7, 2020.................       480461
     Docket No.: B-   2475P).              City of Waco, P.O. Box 2570, Waco,    Franklin Avenue, Waco, TX
     1981).                                TX 76702.                             76701.
    Tarrant (FEMA    City of Arlington    The Honorable Jeff Williams, Mayor,   Public Works and              Feb. 27, 2020................       485454
     Docket No.: B-   (19-06-1226P).       City of Arlington, P.O. Box 90231,    Transportation Department,
     1981).                                Arlington, TX 76004.                  101 West Abram Street,
                                                                                Arlington, TX 76010.
    Tarrant (FEMA    City of Euless (19-  The Honorable Linda Martin, Mayor,    Planning and Engineering      Feb. 6, 2020.................       480593
     Docket No.: B-   06-0184P).           City of Euless, 201 North Ector       Department, 201 North Ector
     1974).                                Drive, Euless, TX 76039.              Drive, Euless, TX 76039.
    Tarrant (FEMA    City of Fort Worth   The Honorable Betsy Price, Mayor,     Transportation and Public     Feb. 6, 2020.................       480596
     Docket No.: B-   (19-06-0498P).       City of Fort Worth, 200 Texas         Works Department,
     1974).                                Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102.         Engineering Vault, 200
                                                                                Texas Street, Fort Worth,
                                                                                TX 76102.
    Tarrant (FEMA    City of Fort Worth   The Honorable Betsy Price, Mayor,     Transportation and Public     Mar. 2, 2020.................       480596
     Docket, No.: B-  (19-06-0840P).       City of Fort Worth, 200 Texas         Works, Engineering
     1981).                                Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102.         Department, 200 Texas
                                                                                Street, Fort Worth, TX
                                                                                76102.
    Tarrant (FEMA    City of Fort Worth   The Honorable Betsy Price, Mayor,     Transportation and Public     Feb. 28, 2020................       480596
     Docket No.: B-   (19-06-3630P).       City of Fort Worth, 200 Texas         Works, Engineering
     1981).                                Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102.         Department, 200 Texas
                                                                                Street, Fort Worth, TX
                                                                                76102.
    Tarrant (FEMA    City of Haltom City  The Honorable An Truong, Mayor, City  Public Works Services         Feb. 6, 2020.................       480599
     Docket, No.: B-  (19-06-0498P).       of Haltom City, 5024 Broadway         Department, 4200 Hollis
     1974).                                Avenue, Haltom City, TX 76117.        Street, Haltom City, TX
                                                                                76111.

Utah: Salt Lake      City of Riverton     The Honorable Trent Staggs, Mayor,    Public Works Department,      Feb. 13, 2020................       490104
 (FEMA Docket No.:    (19-08-0446P)        City of Riverton, 12830 South         12526 South 4150 West,
 B-1974)                                   Redwood Road, Riverton, UT 84065      Riverton, UT 84096
    Washington       City of St. George   The Honorable Jon Pike, Mayor, City   Public Works Department, 175  Feb. 21, 2020................       490177
     (FEMA Docket     (19-08-0174P).       of St. George, 175 East 200 North,    East 200 North, St. George,
     No.: B-1981).                         St. George, UT 84770.                 UT 84770.
    Washington       City of Santa Clara  The Honorable Rick Rosenberg, Mayor,  Building Department, 2603     Feb. 21, 2020................       490178
     (FEMA Docket     (19-08-0174P).       City of Santa Clara, 2603 Santa       Santa Clara Drive, Santa
     No.: B-1981).                         Clara Drive, Santa Clara, UT 84765.   Clara, UT 84765.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-05518 Filed 3-16-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P