[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 80 (Friday, April 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23032-23034]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09396]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71982; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2014-39])

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca
Equities Rules 1.1, 7.31, 7.34, 7.35, 7.37 and 7.43 To Update Rules
Related to the Exchange's Order Types and Modifiers

April 21, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on April 8, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 NYSE Arca Equities Rules 1.1, 7.31,
7.34, 7.35, 7.37 and 7.43 in order to update rules related to the
Exchange's order types and modifiers. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rules 7.31, 7.34
and 7.35 \4\ to delete the Timed Modifier and related references.
Second, the Exchange proposes to eliminate references in Rules 1.1,
7.31, 7.34, 7.37, and 7.43 to the Directed Order and Directed Fill
order types, which were recently deleted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ All references to rules in this filing are to the rules of
NYSE Arca Equities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elimination of Timed Modifier and References to Timed Order Rule
7.31(c)(2)(C)--Timed Modifier
    The Exchange proposes to delete Rule 7.31(c)(2)(C), which describes
the operation of the Timed Modifier. Because of the lack of use, the
Exchange proposes to eliminate the use of the Timed Modifier and
therefore proposes to delete this functionality from its rules. The
Exchange believes that deleting little-used functionality would
streamline its order processing and reduce confusion of available
functionality.
    The Exchange also proposes to delete references to Timed Order in
Rules 7.34 and 7.35. The Exchange recently relocated the Timed Order
from former Rule 7.31(q) to its current location in Rule 7.31(c)(2)(C)
and changed the description of the functionality to ``Modifier'' from
``Order''.\5\ Given the elimination of Rule 7.31(c)(2)(C), the
following references to Timed Order should be deleted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Act Release No. 71331 (January 16, 2014), 79
FR 3907 (January 23, 2014) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-92).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 7.34(d)(1)(F), describing orders permitted during the
Opening Session;
     Rule 7.34(d)(2)(C), providing that Timed Orders designated
as good from 1:00 p.m. (Pacific Time) are not eligible to participate
in the Closing Auction;
     Rule 7.35(a)(2), providing that Limited Price Orders
designated for the Opening Session and entered as a Timed Order good
from 1:00 a.m. (Pacific Time) are not eligible for execution during the
Opening Auction and Market Order Auction, respectively;
     Rule 7.35(b)(1), providing that Limited Price Orders
designated for the Opening Session and entered as a Timed Order good
from 1:00 a.m. (Pacific Time) are not eligible for execution during the
Opening Auction); and
     Rule 7.35(b)(4), providing that a Limited Price Orders
designated for the Opening Session and entered as a Timed Order good
from 6:30 a.m. (Pacific Time) are not eligible for execution during the
Market Order Auction.
    The Exchange will announce by Trader Update the date when the Timed
Modifier will no longer be available.
Elimination of References to Directed Order and Directed Fill Order
Types
    The Directed Order and Directed Fill order types were recently
eliminated.\6\ The Exchange proposes to remove the remaining references
to these order types in the following Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 1.1(a) and Rule 1.1(bbb)--Definitions

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate references to the Directed Order
Process in Rule 1.1(a), which defines the NYSE Arca Book, and Rule
1.1(bbb), which defines a ``Designated Market Maker'' as a registered
Market Maker that participates in the Directed Order Process.
Rule 7.34(d)(1)(C) and Rule 7.34(d)(2)(A)--Trading Sessions
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate references to Directed Orders in
Rule 7.34 to clarify that these order types are no longer available
during the Opening and Core Trading Sessions on the Exchange.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.34(d)(1)(C) to
remove references to ``market Directed Orders'', which are no longer
included in the Market Order Auction for purposes of the Opening
Session. Similarly, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.34(d)(2)(A)
to remove the

reference to Directed Order and clarify that such orders are no longer
eligible for entry and execution on the Exchange during the Core
Trading Session.
Rule 7.37(a)--Trading Sessions
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the Directed Order Process in
Rule 7.37(a), currently Step 1 in the process of matching and executing
like-priced orders, bids and offers under the Rule. With the
elimination of the Directed Order process, the Exchange proposes to
reduce the number of steps from 5 to 4 beginning with the Display Order
Process (formerly Step 2) as new Step 1 and continuing with the Working
Order Process (formerly Step 3) as new Step 2, the Tracking Order
Process (formerly Step 4) as new Step 3, and Routing Away (formerly
Step 5) as the new Step 4. The proposed revision to Rule 7.37(a) will
also eliminate references to the Directed Fill order type, which is no
longer available to Users on Exchange systems.
Rule 7.43--Use of Directed Order Process
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate Rule 7.43, which prohibits the
use of the Directed Order Process for the purpose of bypassing
otherwise applicable fees. The Exchange is proposing eliminating
references to the Directed Order Process since Directed Orders are
order types not available to Users on Exchange systems.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \7\ of the
Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\8\ in
particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that removing cross-references to the Directed Order and
Directed Fill order types, which the Exchange recently eliminated in a
separate rule filing,\9\ would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market because it would reduce potential
confusion that may result from having such cross references in the
Exchange's rulebook. Removing such obsolete cross references will also
further the goal of transparency and add clarity to the Exchange's
rules. The Exchange also believes that removing the Timed Modifier
time-in-force condition removes impediments to and perfects a national
market system by eliminating little-used functionality from its
rulebook. The Exchange believes that removing the Timed Modifier would
not be inconsistent with the public interest and the protection of
investors because investors will not be harmed by the removal of
little-utilized functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not
designed to address any competitive issue but rather would remove
obsolete cross-references and remove little-used functionality, thereby
reducing confusion and making the Exchange's rules easier to understand
and navigate.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
Because the 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 prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \13\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2014-39 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-NYSEARCA-2014-39. 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 Section, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Copies of the filing will also be
available for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and
on its Internet Web

site at www.nyse.com. 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-NYSEARCA-2014-39 and should be submitted on or before May 16, 2014.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-09396 Filed 4-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 10, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32870-32874]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14225]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0330; FRL-9928-95-Region 10]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington:
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation
Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting air emissions
that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On
May 11, 2015, the State of Washington submitted a SIP revision to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address these interstate
transport requirements with respect to the 2006 24-hour fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). The EPA is proposing to find that Washington has
adequately addressed certain CAA interstate transport requirements for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 10, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2015-0330, by any of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and
Toxics (AWT-150), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10 9th Floor Mailroom,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle WA, 98101. Attention: Jeff Hunt,
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT--150. Such deliveries

are only accepted during normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2015-0330. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Information is organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate Transport
    B. Rules Addressing Interstate Transport for the 2006 24-Hour
PM2.5 NAAQS
    C. Guidance
II. State Submittal
III. EPA Evaluation
    A. Identification of Nonattainment and Maintenance Receptors
    B. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment
    C. Evaluation of Interference with Maintenance
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate Transport

    On September 21, 2006, the EPA promulgated a final rule revising
the 1997 24-hour primary and secondary NAAQS for PM2.5 from
65 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) to 35 [micro]g/m\3\
(October 17, 2006, 71 FR 61144). Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires
each state to submit to the EPA, within three years (or such shorter
period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a
primary or secondary NAAQS or any revision thereof, a SIP that provides
for the ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS.
The EPA refers to these specific submittals as ``infrastructure'' SIPs
because they are intended to address basic structural SIP requirements
for new or revised NAAQS. For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
these infrastructure SIPs were due on September 21, 2009. CAA section
110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan
submission'' must meet.
    The interstate transport provisions in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
(also called ``good neighbor'' provisions) require each state to submit
a SIP that prohibits emissions that will have certain adverse air
quality effects in other states. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies
four distinct elements related to the impacts of air pollutants
transported across state lines. In this action, the EPA is addressing
the first two elements of this section, specified at CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),\1\ for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This proposed action does not address the two elements of
the interstate transport SIP provision in CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference with measures required to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect
visibility in another state. We previously addressed CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(I)(II) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in a
final action dated May 12, 2015 (80 FR 27102).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that
each SIP for a new or revised NAAQS contain adequate provisions to
prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the
state from emitting air pollutants that will ``contribute significantly
to nonattainment'' of the NAAQS in another state. The second element of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that each SIP contain adequate
provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity
in the state from emitting air pollutants that will ``interfere with
maintenance'' of the applicable NAAQS in any other state.

B. Rules Addressing Interstate Transport for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS

    The EPA has addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in past regulatory actions.\2\ The EPA
promulgated the final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (Transport Rule)
to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern portion of the
United States with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (August 8,
2011, 76 FR 48208). The Transport Rule was intended to replace the
earlier Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) which was judicially
remanded.\3\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
On August 21, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued
a decision vacating the Transport Rule. See EME Homer City Generation,
L.P. v. E.P.A., 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The Court also ordered the
EPA to continue implementing CAIR in the interim. However, on April 29,
2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the DC Circuit's
ruling and upheld the EPA's approach in the Transport Rule for the
issues that were in front of the Supreme Court for review.\4\ On
October 23, 2014, the DC Circuit lifted the stay on the Transport
Rule.\5\ While our evaluation is consistent with the Transport Rule
approach, the State of Washington was not covered by either

CAIR or the Transport Rule, and the EPA made no determinations in
either rule regarding whether emissions from sources in Washington
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another state, nor did it
attempt to quantify Washington's obligation.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998);
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); and
Transport Rule or Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208
(August 8, 2011).
    \3\ CAIR addressed the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. It did not address the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. For more information on CAIR, please
see our July 30, 2012 proposal for Arizona regarding interstate
transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (77 FR 44551, 44552).
    \4\ EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S.Ct. 1584
(2014).
    \5\ USCA Case #11-1302, Document # 1518738, Filed 10/23/2014.
    \6\ Transport Rule or Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR
48208 (August 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Guidance

    On September 25, 2009, the EPA issued a guidance memorandum that
addressed the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (``2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
Infrastructure Guidance'' or ``Guidance'').\7\ With respect to the
requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that state SIPs contain
adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that would contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any other state, the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance essentially
reiterated the recommendations for western states made by the EPA in
previous guidance addressing the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS.\8\ The 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure
Guidance advised states outside of the CAIR region to include in their
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs adequate technical analyses to
support their conclusions regarding interstate pollution transport,
e.g., information concerning emissions in the state, meteorological
conditions in the state and in potentially impacted states, monitored
ambient pollutant concentrations in the state and in potentially
impacted states, distances to the nearest areas not attaining the NAAQS
in other states, and air quality modeling.\9\ With respect to the
requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that state SIPs contain
adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that would interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS by any other state, the Guidance stated that
SIP submissions must address this independent requirement of the
statute and provide technical information appropriate to support the
state's conclusions, such as information concerning emissions in the
state, meteorological conditions in the state and in potentially
impacted states, monitored ambient concentrations in the state and in
potentially impacted states, and air quality modeling. See footnotes 5
and 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled ``Guidance
on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the
2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' September 25, 2009, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/20090925_harnett_pm25_sip_110a12.pdf.
    \8\ See Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled ``Guidance
for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submission to Meet Current
Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,''
August 15, 2006, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/section110a2di_sip_guidance.pdf.
    \9\ The 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure
Guidance stated that EPA was working on a new rule to replace CAIR
that would address issues raised by the Court in the North Carolina
case and that would provide guidance to states in addressing the
requirements related to interstate transport in CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. It
also noted that states could not rely on the CAIR rule for section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) submissions for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS because the CAIR rule did not address this NAAQS. See 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to use the conceptual approach
to evaluating interstate pollution transport under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS with
respect to Washington that the EPA explained in the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance. The EPA believes that
the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from Washington for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS may be evaluated using a
``weight of the evidence'' approach that takes into account available
relevant information. Such information may include, but is not limited
to, the amount of emissions in the state relevant to the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, the meteorological conditions in the area, the
distance from the state to the nearest monitors in other states that
are appropriate receptors, or such other information as may be
probative to consider whether sources in the state may contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. These submissions
may rely on modeling when acceptable modeling technical analyses are
available, but if not available, other available information can be
sufficient to evaluate the presence or degree of interstate transport
in a specific situation for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
For further explanation of this approach, see the technical support
document (TSD) in the docket for this action.

II. State Submittal

    CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and section 110(l) require that
revisions to a SIP be adopted by the state after reasonable notice and
public hearing. The EPA has promulgated specific procedural
requirements for SIP revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. These
requirements include publication of notices, by prominent advertisement
in the relevant geographic area, a public comment period of at least 30
days, and an opportunity for a public hearing.
    On May 11, 2015, Washington submitted a SIP to address the
interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (Washington 2006 PM2.5
Interstate Transport submittal).\10\ The Washington 2006
PM2.5 Interstate Transport submittal included documentation
of a public comment period from March 9, 2015 through April 10, 2015,
and opportunity for public hearing. We find that the process followed
by Washington in adopting the SIP submittal complies with the
procedural requirements for SIP revisions under CAA section 110 and the
EPA's implementing regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Washington 2006 PM2.5 Interstate Transport
submittal only addressed the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
interstate transport requirements of the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. The EPA previously addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in a separate action (May 12,
2015, 80 FR 27102). In addition, we previously approved the
Washington SIP for 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS on January 13, 2009 (74 FR 1591). Finally,
Washington did not submit a CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
demonstration with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, which
the State intends to address in a future action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
the Washington 2006 PM2.5 Interstate Transport submittal
referred to the applicable rules in the Washington SIP, meteorological
and other characteristics of areas with nonattainment problems for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in surrounding states, and
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) data
from the regional haze program that provides additional information on
how Washington sources influence monitored PM2.5 levels in
National Parks and wilderness areas surrounding Washington to assess
potential interstate transport. The Washington submittal concluded
that, based on the weight of the evidence, the Washington SIP
adequately addresses the interstate transport requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
A detailed discussion of the Washington 2006 PM2.5
Interstate Transport submittal can be found in the technical support
document (TSD) in the docket for this action.

III. EPA Evaluation

    To determine whether the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements

are satisfied, the EPA must determine whether a state's emissions will
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
in other states. If this factual finding is in the negative, then CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) does not require any changes to a state's
SIP. Consistent with the EPA's approach in the 1998 NOX SIP
call, the 2005 CAIR, and the 2011 Transport Rule, the EPA is evaluating
these impacts with respect to specific monitors identified as having
nonattainment and/or maintenance problems, which we refer to as
``receptors.'' See footnote 2.
    With respect to this proposed action, the EPA notes that no single
piece of information is by itself dispositive of the issue. Instead,
the total weight of all the evidence taken together is used to evaluate
significant contributions to nonattainment or interference with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another
state. Our proposed action takes into account the Washington 2006
PM2.5 Interstate Transport submittal, a supplemental
evaluation of monitors in other states that are appropriate
``nonattainment receptors'' or ``maintenance receptors,'' and a review
of monitoring data considered representative of background. Based on
the analysis in our TSD in the docket for this action, we believe that
it is reasonable to conclude that emissions from sources in Washington
do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any other
state.

A. Identification of Nonattainment and Maintenance Receptors

    The EPA evaluated data from existing monitors over three
overlapping three-year periods (i.e., 2009-2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-
2013) to determine which areas were violating the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS and which areas might have difficulty
maintaining the standard. If a monitoring site measured a violation of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS during the most recent three-
year period (2011-2013), then this monitor location was evaluated for
purposes of the significant contribution to nonattainment element of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). If, on the other hand, a monitoring
site showed attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
during the most recent three-year period (2011-2013) but a violation in
at least one of the previous two three-year periods (2009-2011 or 2010-
2012), then this monitor location was evaluated for purposes of the
interference with maintenance element of the statute.
    The State of Washington was not covered by the modeling analyses
available for the CAIR and the Transport Rule. The approach described
above is similar to the approach utilized by the EPA in promulgating
the CAIR and the Transport Rule. By this method, the EPA has identified
those areas with monitors to be considered ``nonattainment receptors''
or ``maintenance receptors'' for evaluating whether the emissions from
sources in another state could significantly contribute to
nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance in, that particular
area.

B. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment

    The EPA reviewed the Washington 2006 PM2.5 Interstate
Transport submittal and additional technical information to evaluate
the potential for emissions from sources in Washington to contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS at specified monitoring sites in the western United States.\11\
The EPA first identified as ``nonattainment receptors'' all monitoring
sites in the western states that had recorded PM2.5 design
values above the level of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35
[mu]g/m\3\) during the years 2011-2013.\12\ Please see the TSD in the
docket for a more detailed description of the EPA's methodology for
selection of nonattainment receptors. All of the nonattainment
receptors we identified in western states are in California, Idaho,
Montana, Oregon, and Utah.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The EPA has also considered potential PM2.5
transport from Washington to the nearest nonattainment and
maintenance receptors located in the eastern, midwestern, and
southern states covered by the Transport Rule and believes it is
reasonable to conclude that, given the significant distance from
Washington to the nearest such receptor (in Illinois) and the
relatively insignificant amount of emissions from Washington that
could potentially be transported such a distance, emissions from
Washington sources do not significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS at this location. These same factors also support a finding
that emissions from Washington sources neither contribute
significantly to nonattainment nor interfere with maintenance of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at any location further east.
See TSD at Section II.C.
    \12\ Because CAIR did not cover states in the western United
States, these data are not significantly impacted by the remanded
CAIR at the time and thus could be considered in this analysis.
    \13\ As this analysis is focused on interstate transport, the
EPA did not evaluate the impact of Washington emissions on
nonattainment or maintenance receptors within Washington.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the analysis in our TSD, we believe it is reasonable to
conclude that emissions from sources in Washington do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
in any other western state. We also evaluated nonattainment receptors
in eastern states, as detailed in the TSD, and we believe it is
reasonable to conclude that emissions from sources in Washington do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in any eastern state. Based on the analysis in
our TSD, we are proposing to determine that Washington's SIP adequately
addresses the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

C. Evaluation of Interference With Maintenance

    The EPA reviewed the Washington 2006 PM2.5 Interstate
Transport SIP and additional technical information to evaluate the
potential for Washington emissions to interfere with maintenance of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at specified monitoring sites in
the western United States. The EPA first identified as ``maintenance
receptors'' all monitoring sites in the western states that had
recorded PM2.5 design values above the level of the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35 [mu]g/m\3\) during the 2009-2011 and/or
2010-2012 periods but below this standard during the 2011-2013 period.
Please see our TSD for more information regarding the EPA's methodology
for selection of maintenance receptors. All of the maintenance
receptors we identified in western states are located in California,
Montana, and Utah.
    As detailed in the TSD, we believe it is reasonable to conclude
that emissions from sources in Washington do not interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in these states.
We also evaluated maintenance receptors in eastern states, as detailed
in the TSD, and we believe it is reasonable to conclude that emissions
from sources in Washington do not interfere with maintenance of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any eastern state.

IV. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to find that Washington has adequately
addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of

the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because it does not involve technical standards; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land in
Washington except for as specifically noted below and is also not
approved to apply in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). Washington's SIP is approved to apply on non-trust land within
the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known
as the 1873 Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement
Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly provided state and
local agencies in Washington authority over activities on non-trust
lands within the 1873 Survey Area.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    Dated: May 29, 2015.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2015-14225 Filed 6-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 120 (Tuesday, June 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36019-36021]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15384]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 31679; 812-14358]

Academy Funds Trust and Innovator Management LLC; Notice of
Application

June 17, 2015.

ACTION: Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from section 15(a)
of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.

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

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Applicants request an order that would permit
them to enter into and materially amend subadvisory agreements without
shareholder approval.

APPLICANTS: Academy Funds Trust (the ``Trust'') and Innovator
Management LLC (``Innovator'' or the ``Adviser'').

FILING DATES: The application was filed on September 12, 2014 and
amended on January 28, 2015, May 12, 2015 and June 3, 2015.

HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on July 8, 2015, and should be accompanied by proof of service on
the applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts
bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason
for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be
notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: 123 South Broad
Street, Suite 1630, Philadelphia, PA 19109.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce R. MacNeil, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6817, or James M. Curtis, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant
using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Trust is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and is
registered as an open-end management investment company with multiple
series. Each series of the Trust has its own investment objective,
policies and restrictions, and each is managed by the Adviser and may
be managed by various subadvisers.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants also request relief with respect to any existing
or future series of the Trust and any other existing or future
registered open-end management investment company or series thereof
that: (a) Is advised by Innovator or its successors, including any
entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with
Innovator or its successors (included in the term ``Adviser''); (b)
uses the manager-of-managers structure (``Manager of Managers
Structure'') described in the application; and (c) complies with the
terms and conditions of the application (each a ``Fund'' and
together, the ``Funds''). The only existing investment company that
currently intends to rely on the requested order, the Trust, is
named as an applicant. For purposes of the requested order,
``successor'' is limited to an entity that results from a
reorganization into another jurisdiction or a change in the type of
organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Innovator is a Delaware limited partnership registered as an
investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940
(``Advisers Act''). Innovator provides investment management services
to the Funds under an investment advisory agreement with the Trust (the
``Advisory Agreement'').\2\ The terms of the Advisory Agreement comply
or will comply with section 15(a) of the Act. Each Advisory Agreement
was or will be approved by the board of trustees of the relevant Fund
(the board of trustees of any Fund, a ``Board''), including by a
majority of the trustees who are not ``interested persons'' (as defined
in section 2(a)(19) of the Act) of the Trust or Adviser (the
``Independent Trustees''), and by the shareholders of the respective
Fund in the manner required by sections 15(a) and (c) of the Act and
rule 18f-2 thereunder.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Innovator or another Adviser will enter into substantially
similar investment advisory agreements to provide investment
management services to each future Fund (each included in the term
``Advisory Agreement''). Each other Adviser will also be registered
as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act.
    \3\ Applicants are not seeking any exemptions with respect to
the Advisory Agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Under the terms of each Advisory Agreement, Innovator is
responsible for the overall management of the Funds' business affairs
and selecting investments in accordance with the Funds' investment
objectives, policies and restrictions. For the investment management
services that it provides to the Funds, the Adviser receives the fee
specified in the Advisory Agreements. In addition, pursuant to the
Advisory Agreement, Innovator may retain one or more subadvisers (each,
a ``Subadviser'') for the purpose of managing all or a portion of the
assets of the Funds. Pursuant to its authority under the Advisory
Agreements, the Adviser intends to enter into subadvisory agreements
(the ``Subadvisory Agreements'') with certain unaffiliated Subadvisers
to provide investment advisory services to the Funds. Each Subadvisory
Agreement has been or will be approved by the Board, including by a
majority of the Independent Trustees in accordance with Sections 15(a)
and 15(c) of the Act. In addition, the terms of each Subadvisory
Agreements comply or will comply fully with the requirements of
Sections 15(a) and 15(c) of the Act other than the shareholder approval
required under Section 15(a). Each Subadviser to a Fund will be an
``investment adviser,'' as defined in section 2(a)(20)(B) of the Act,
and registered as an investment adviser

under the Advisers Act or not subject to such registration.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ If the name of any Fund contains the name of a subadviser,
the name of the Adviser will precede the name of the subadviser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. The Adviser will supervise the management and investment
programs and operations of the Funds and evaluate the abilities and
performance of other money management firms in order to identify
appropriate Subadvisers for the Fund's investment strategy. After a
Subadviser is selected, the Adviser will continuously supervise and
monitor the Subadviser's performance and periodically recommend to the
Board which Subadvisers should be retained or released. Neither the
Trust nor the Funds will be responsible for paying subadvisory fees to
any Subadviser. The Adviser will compensate the Subadvisers for a Fund
out of the advisory fees that are paid to the Adviser under the
applicable Advisory Agreement.
    5. Applicants request an order to permit the Adviser, subject to
the approval of the Board, to do the following without obtaining
shareholder approval: (a) Select certain unaffiliated Subadvisers to
manage all or a portion of the assets of the Funds or future Funds
pursuant to Subadvisory Agreements, and (b) materially amend
Subadvisory Agreements with the Subadvisers. Each Fund's prospectus
will contain, at all times following the approval of the Manager of
Managers Structure, the disclosure required by condition 2 below.
    6. The requested relief will not extend to any subadviser that is
an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of the
Trust, a Fund or the Adviser (other than by reason of serving as a
subadviser to one or more Funds) (``Affiliated Subadviser'').
    7. The Funds will inform shareholders of the hiring of a new
Subadviser pursuant to the following procedures (``Modified Notice and
Access Procedures''): (a) Within 90 days after a new Subadviser is
hired for any Fund, that Fund will send its shareholders either a
Multi-manager Notice or a Multi-manager Notice and Multi-manager
Information Statement, as applicable; \5\ and (b) the Fund will make
the Multi-manager Information Statement available on the Web site
identified in the Multi-manager Notice no later than when the Multi-
manager Notice (or Multi-manager Notice and Multi-manager Information
Statement) is first sent to shareholders, and will maintain it on that
Web site for at least 90 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The ``Multi-manager Notice'' will be modeled on a Notice of
Internet Availability as defined in rule 14a-16 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''), and specifically will,
among other things: (a) Summarize the relevant information regarding
the new Subadviser; (b) inform shareholders that the Multi-manager
Information Statement is available on a Web site; (c) provide the
Web site address; (d) state the time period during which the Multi-
manager Information Statement will remain available on that Web
site; (e) provide instructions for accessing and printing the Multi-
manager Information Statement; and (f) instruct the shareholder that
a paper or email copy of the Multi manager Information Statement may
be obtained, without charge, by contacting the Funds. A ``Multi-
manager Information Statement'' will meet the requirements of
Regulation 14C, Schedule 14C and Item 22 of Schedule 14A under the
Exchange Act for an information statement. Multi-manager Information
Statements will be filed electronically with the Commission via the
EDGAR system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 15(a) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that it is
unlawful for any person to act as an investment adviser to a registered
investment company except pursuant to a written contract that has been
approved by the vote of a majority of the company's outstanding voting
securities. Rule 18f-2 under the Act provides that each series or class
of securities in a series investment company affected by a matter must
approve that matter if the Act requires shareholder approval.
    2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of
persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or
from any rule thereunder, if such exemption is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors
and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the
Act. Applicants state that the requested relief meets this standard for
the reasons discussed below.
    3. Applicants assert that the requested relief is consistent with
the protection of investors. Primary responsibility for management of
the Funds, including the selection and supervision of the Subadvisers,
is vested in the Adviser, subject to the oversight of the Board.
Applicants state that from the perspective of the investor, the role of
the Subadvisers with respect to the Funds is substantially equivalent
to the role of the individual portfolio managers employed by the
Adviser for a Fund's assets managed by the Adviser. Both the portfolio
managers and the Subadvisers are concerned principally with the
selection of portfolio investments in accordance with each Fund's
respective investment objectives and policies and have no significant
supervisory, management or administrative responsibilities with respect
to the Funds. Applicants state that requiring shareholder approval of
each Subadvisory Agreement would impose costs and unnecessary delays on
the Funds, and may preclude the Adviser from acting promptly in a
manner considered advisable by the Board. Applicants note that the
Advisory Agreements and any subadvisory agreement with an Affiliated
Subadviser will remain subject to sections 15(a) and (c) of the Act and
rule 18f-2 thereunder.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following conditions:
    1. Before a Fund may rely on the requested order, the operation of
the Fund in the manner described in the application will be approved by
a majority of the Fund's outstanding voting securities, as defined in
the Act, or in the case of a Fund whose public shareholders purchase
shares on the basis of a prospectus containing the disclosure
contemplated by condition 2 below, by the initial shareholder(s) before
offering shares of that Fund to the public.
    2. Each Fund relying on the requested order will disclose in its
prospectus the existence, substance, and effect of any order granted
pursuant to the application. Each Fund will hold itself out to the
public as utilizing the Manager of Managers Structure. The prospectus
will prominently disclose that the Adviser has ultimate responsibility
(subject to oversight by the Board) to oversee the Subadvisers and
recommend their hiring, termination, and replacement.
    3. The Funds will inform shareholders of the hiring of a new
Subadviser within 90 days after the hiring of the new Subadviser
pursuant to the Modified Notice and Access Procedures.
    4. The Adviser will not enter into a subadvisory agreement with any
Affiliated Subadviser without such agreement, including the
compensation to be paid thereunder, being approved by the shareholders
of the applicable Fund.
    5. At all times, at least a majority of the Board will be
Independent Trustees, and the nomination of new or additional
Independent Trustees will be placed within the discretion of the then-
existing Independent Trustees.
    6. Whenever a subadviser change is proposed for a Fund with an
Affiliated Subadviser, the Board, including a majority of the
Independent Trustees, will make a separate finding, reflected

in the Board minutes, that such change is in the best interests of the
Fund and its shareholders, and does not involve a conflict of interest
from which the Adviser or the Affiliated Subadviser derives an
inappropriate advantage.
    7. The Adviser will provide general management services to each
Fund, including overall supervisory responsibility for the general
management and investment of each Fund's assets and, subject to review
and approval of the Board, will: (a) Set each Fund's overall investment
strategies; (b) evaluate, select and recommend Subadvisers to manage
all or a part of each Fund's assets; (c) allocate and, when
appropriate, reallocate each Fund's assets among one or more
Subadvisers; (d) monitor and evaluate the performance of Subadvisers;
and (e) implement procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the
Subadvisers comply with each Fund's investment objective, policies and
restrictions.
    8. No trustee or officer of the Trust or a Fund, or member,
manager, or officer of the Adviser, will own, directly or indirectly
(other than through a pooled investment vehicle that is not controlled
by such person), any interest in a Subadviser, except for (a) ownership
of interests in the Adviser or any entity that controls, is controlled
by, or is under common control with the Adviser or (b) ownership of
less than 1% of the outstanding securities of any class of equity or
debt of any publicly traded company that is either a Subadviser or an
entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with
a Subadviser.
    9. Any new Subadvisory Agreement or any amendment to an existing
Advisory Agreement or Subadvisory Agreement that directly or indirectly
results in an increase in the aggregate advisory fee rate payable by
the Fund will be submitted to the Fund's shareholders for approval.
    10. In the event the Commission adopts a rule under the Act
providing substantially similar relief to that in the order requested
in the application, the requested order will expire on the effective
date of that rule.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-15384 Filed 6-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 239)]
[Notices]
[Page 74076-74078]
[DOCID:fr14de05-115]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52918; File No. SR-PCX-2005-113]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Pacific Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change and
Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Revisions to the Series 9/10
Examination Program

December 7, 2005.
    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 November 17, 2005, the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (``PCX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by PCX. On
November 22, 2005, PCX filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change. PCX has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a
stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning,
administration, or enforcement of an existing rule of the self-
regulatory organization pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as
amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    PCX is filing revisions to the study outline and selection
specifications for the Limited Principal--General Securities Sales
Supervisor (Series 9/10) examination program. The proposed revisions
update the material to reflect changes to the laws, rules, and
regulations covered by the examination, as well as modify the content
of the examination program to track more closely the functional
workflow of a Series 9/10 limited principal. PCX is not proposing any
textual changes to the existing PCX rules.
    The revised study outline is available on PCX's Web site (http://www.pacificex.com
), at PCX, and at the Commission. However, PCX has

omitted the Series 9/10 selection specifications from this filing and
has submitted the

specifications under separate cover to the Commission with a request
for confidential treatment pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 240.24b-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, PCX 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. PCX 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
    Pursuant to Section 6(c)(3) of the Act,\6\ which allows PCX to
examine and verify the standards of training, experience, and
competence for persons associated with Equities Trading Permit
(``ETP'') Holders, PCX has developed examinations, and requires
satisfaction of examinations developed by other SROs, that are designed
to establish that persons associated with ETP Holders have attained
specified levels of competence and knowledge. PCX periodically reviews
the content of examinations to determine whether revisions are
necessary or appropriate in view of changes pertaining to the subject
matter covered by the examinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PCXE Rule 6.18(d) states that if an ETP Holder does business with
the public, the person (or persons) designated to direct day-to-day
compliance activity and each other person directly supervising ten or
more persons engaged in compliance activity must pass the General
Securities Sales Supervisor Qualification Examination (Series 9/10). A
General Securities Sales Supervisor is precluded from performing any of
the following activities: supervision of the origination and
structuring of underwritings; supervision of market making commitments;
final approval of advertisements as these are defined in NASD Rule
2210; supervision of the custody of firm or customer funds and/or
securities for purposes of Rule 15c3-3 \7\ under the Act; or
supervision of overall compliance with financial responsibility rules
for broker-dealers promulgated pursuant to the provisions of the Act.
The Series 9/10 examination, an industry-wide examination, qualifies an
individual to function as a General Securities Sales Supervisor. The
Series 9/10 examination tests a candidate's knowledge of securities
industry rules and regulations and certain statutory provisions
pertinent to the supervision of sales activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Series 9/10 examination program is shared by PCX and the
following SROs: the American Stock Exchange LLC, the Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Inc., the Municipal Securities Rule Making Board
(``MSRB''), the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE''), the National
Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD''), and the
Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.
    A committee of industry representatives, together with the staff of
PCX and the other SROs, recently undertook a periodic review of the
Series 9/10 examination program. As a result of this review, PCX is
proposing to update the content of the examination to cover Regulation
S-P,\8\ MSRB Rules G-37/G-38, SRO research analyst and anti-money
laundering rules, municipal fund securities (e.g., 529 college savings
plans), and exchange traded funds. PCX is further proposing revisions
to the study outline to reflect the SEC short sale requirements. In
addition, as part of an ongoing effort to align the examination more
closely to the supervisory duties of a Series 9/10 limited principal,
PCX is proposing to modify the content of the examination to track the
functional workflow of a Series 9/10 limited principal. Also, PCX is
proposing to include questions related to parallel rules of NASD, the
options exchanges, the MSRB, and the NYSE in the same section of the
exam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 248.1-18; 17 CFR 248.30; and 17 CFR 248, Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the revisions, PCX is proposing to modify the main
section headings and the number of questions on each section of the
Series 9/10 study outline as follows: Section 1--Hiring,
Qualifications, and Continuing Education, 9 questions; Section 2--
Supervision of Accounts and Sales Activities, 94 questions; Section 3--
Conduct of Associated Persons, 14 questions; Section 4--Recordkeeping
Requirements, 8 questions; Section 5--Municipal Securities Regulation,
20 questions; Section 6--Options Regulation, 55 questions. Sections 1
through 5 constitute the Series 10 portion of the examination. Section
6 constitutes the Series 9 portion of the examination. Series 10 covers
general securities and municipal securities, and Series 9 covers
options. The revised examination continues to cover the areas of
knowledge required for the supervision of sales activities.
    PCX is proposing these changes to the entire content of the Series
9/10 examination, including the selection specifications and question
bank. The number of questions on the Series 9/10 examination will
remain at 200, and candidates will continue to have four hours to
complete the Series 10 portion and one and one-half hours to complete
the Series 9 portion. Also, each question will continue to count one
point, and each candidate must correctly answer 70 percent of the
questions on each series, 9 and 10, to receive a passing grade.
    As noted below, PCX understands that the other SROs also will file
with the Commission similar proposed rule changes reflecting the
revisions to the Series 9/10 examination program.
2. Statutory Basis
    PCX believes that the proposed revisions to the Series 9/10
examination program are consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in
general, and further the objectives of Section 6(b)(1) \10\ in
particular, in that it is designed to enforce compliance by ETP Holders
and persons associated with the rules of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    PCX does not believe that the proposed rule change, as amended,
will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The proposed rule change, as amended, has become effective pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1)
thereunder,\12\ in that the proposed rule change constitutes a stated
policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning,
administration, or enforcement of an

existing rule of the self-regulatory organization. PCX will announce
the implementation date in a Rule Adoption Notice to be published no
later than 7 days after Notice of this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The effective date of the original proposed rule is
November 17, 2005. The effective date of Amendment No. 1 is November
22, 2005. For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under
Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period
to commence on November 22, 2005, the date on which PCX submitted
Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-PCX-2005-113 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PCX-2005-113. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the PCX. 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-PCX-2005-113 and should be submitted on or before
January 4, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-7325 Filed 12-13-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: February 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 32)]
[Notices]
[Page 8301]
[DOCID:fr16fe06-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 2692-032, 2603-012, and 2619-012]

Duke Power North Carolina; Notice of Availability of Draft
Environmental Assessment

February 9, 2006.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
as amended, and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)
regulations (18 CFR Part 380), Commission staff reviewed the
applications for licenses for the Nantahala, Franklin, and Mission
projects (Nantahala West Projects) and prepared a draft combined
environmental assessment (EA). The projects are located on the
Nantahala, Little Tennessee, and Hiwassee rivers, respectively, in
Macon and Clay counties, North Carolina.
    In this draft EA, Commission staff analyze the probable
environmental effects of implementing the projects and conclude that
approval of the projects, with appropriate staff-recommended
environmental measures, would not constitute a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    Copies of the draft EA are available for review in Public Reference
Room 2-A of the Commission's offices at 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC. The draft EA also may be viewed on the Commission's
Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary'' link.

Additional information about the projects is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or on the
Commission's Web site using the ``eLibrary'' link. For assistance,
contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free<PHONE_NUMBER>;
for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any comments on the draft EA should be filed within 45 days of the
date of this notice and should be addressed to Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Please reference the specific project and FERC
Project No. on all comments. Comments may be filed electronically via
the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    For further information, please contact Carolyn Holsopple at (202)
502-6407 or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-2242 Filed 2-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 18 (Friday, January 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5328-5329]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01660]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP23-37-000]

MountainWest Overthrust Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization and Establishing Intervention and Protest
Deadline

    Take notice that January 13, 2023, MountainWest Overthrust
Pipeline, LLC (Overthrust) filed a prior notice request for
authorization, in accordance with 18 CFR 157.205, 157.208 and 157.211
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations
under the Natural Gas Act and Overthrust's blanket certificate issued
in Docket No. CP82-493-000 to construct, own, operate, and maintain a
new delivery point on the Overthrust pipeline system, located in
Sweetwater County, Wyoming. Specifically, Overthrust proposes to
construct and operate a tap, delivery lateral and meter station, known
as the Carbonate Tap meter allocation point (MAP), located near the
Solvay chemicals plant facility located approximately 15 miles west of
Green River, Wyoming. The project would allow for the delivery 47,000
Dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of natural gas to Solvay from Overthrust's
mainline system. Overthrust estimates that the cost of the project will
be about $7.2 million, all as more fully set forth in the application
which is on file with the Commission and open for public inspection.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application should be directed to
Stewart Merrick, Vice President, Legal and Regulatory, MountainWest
Pipeline, LLC, 333 South State St., P.O. Box 45922, Salt Lake City, UT
84145 at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at [email protected].
    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure,\1\ within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will
either: complete its environmental review and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or environmental
assessment (EA) for this proposal. The filing of an EA in the
Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify
federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all
necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal
authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's FEIS or EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 157.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review
of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a
motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the
project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to
intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to
intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 24, 2023.
How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained
below.

Protests

    Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the NGA,\2\ any person \3\ or the Commission's staff may file a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed or if a
protest is filed and then withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed
time for filing a protest, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request for authorization
will be considered by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 157.205.
    \3\ Persons include individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities. 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section

157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,\4\ and must be submitted by
the protest deadline, which is March 24, 2023. A protest may also serve
as a motion to intervene so long as the protestor states it also seeks
to be an intervenor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 157.205(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interventions

    Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this
proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of
Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently
challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \5\ and the regulations under the NGA \6\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is March 24, 2023. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
your interest in the proceeding. For an individual, this could include
your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene. For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/how-guides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \6\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are
filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied.
Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late
and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide
justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status
will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the
Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The
Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments
on or before March 24, 2023. The filing of a comment alone will not
serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party,
you must intervene in the proceeding.

How To File Protests, Interventions, and Comments

    There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and
comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number
CP23-37-000 in your submission.
    (1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by
using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the
Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and
Filings. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; first select ``General'' and then select ``Protest'',
``Intervention'', or ``Comment on a Filing''; or \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Additionally, you may file your comments electronically by
using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's
website at www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings.
Using eComment is an easy method for interested persons to submit
brief, text-only comments on a project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to
the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket
number CP23-37-000.
    To mail via USPS, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    To send via any other courier, use the following address: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option
1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-
8258 or [email protected].
    Protests and motions to intervene must be served to the applicant
by mail to: Stewart Merrick, Vice President, Legal and Regulatory
MountainWest Pipeline, LLC, 333 South State St., P.O. Box 45922, Salt
Lake City, UT 84145 or by email (with a link to the document) at
[email protected]. Any subsequent submissions by an intervenor
must be served on the applicant and all other parties to the
proceeding. Contact information for parties can be downloaded from the
service list at the eService link on FERC Online.

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at
(866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link as described above. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of all 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. For more information and to register, go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview.

    Dated: January 23, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-01660 Filed 1-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P