[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 186 (Monday, September 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66105-66109]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23044]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78885; File No. SR-CBOE-2016-064]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to
SPX Combo Orders

September 20, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 8, 2016, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange seeks to amend its rules related to SPX Combo Orders.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at
the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 24.20, SPX Combo Orders, and
6.42, Minimum Increment for Bids and Offers, to specify the manner in
which the minimum increment provision of Rule 6.42 applies to SPX Combo
Orders.
Background
    An SPX Combo Order consists of an order to purchase or sell one or
more SPX option series (hereinafter the ``non-SPX combination'') and
the offsetting number of ``SPX combinations'' defined by the delta.\3\
For purposes of an SPX Combo Order, an SPX combination is a purchase
(sale) of an SPX call and sale (purchase) of an SPX put having the same
expiration date and strike price. Additionally, the delta is the
positive (negative) number of SPX combinations that must be sold
(bought) to establish a market neutral hedge with one or more SPX
option series (i.e., the non-SPX combination).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Rule 24.20(a)(3).
    \4\ See Rule 24.20(a)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SPX traders commonly hedge their options positions with SPX
combinations, also called ``synthetic futures,'' which, as the above
definition provides, are created by combining long(short) SPX calls
with short(long) SPX puts of the same series, in lieu of hedging with
the actual S&P 500 futures contract trading at CME. The individual legs
of the SPX combination are priced such that a value for the SPX
combination is established which is equivalent to the value of a future
at a level at which the trader wishes to make the underlying futures
market ``static.'' Then, based on the static value established by the
SPX combination that has been quoted, the trader will request a market
for the non-SPX combination that he wishes to trade, and will indicate
the delta of the non-SPX combination. An SPX trader will execute the
SPX combination in conjunction with the non-SPX combination, taking
into account the delta of the particular options making up the non-SPX
combination, such that the combined positions will create a

``delta neutral'' hedge.\5\ For example, a customer that wants to
purchase 100 SPX calls that have a delta of ``30'' (30% or .30) may
hedge against a downward movement in the S&P 500 Index by selling 30
SPX combinations (.30 x 100). In other words, the SPX combination in
this example will be to sell 30 SPX calls and buy 30 SPX puts with the
same strike price and expiration date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The entire SPX Combo Order consisting of the SPX combination
portion and the non-SPX combination portion must be executed as a
package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the non-SPX combination is paired with an SPX combination the
non-SPX combination can be described as being ``tied'' to the value of
a future because the non-SPX combination is tied to an SPX combination
that is equivalent to the value of a future. The concept of an option
being ``tied'' to an underlying value extends to stock-option
orders.\6\ For example, floor brokers may represent an order to buy an
AAPL call tied to the sale of AAPL stock at a specified price. The
price at which the crowd is willing to sell the call is dependent on
the specified price of the AAPL stock. For purposes of this example,
assume the specified price is $99. The crowd may be willing to sell the
call for $5.00 tied to AAPL stock at $99. If the specified price of
AAPL stock was instead $100, the crowd's market for the call would
change. If the broker is unable to execute the stock portion of the
order at the specified price of $99, the option portion of the order
also cannot be executed. Similarly, a broker representing an SPX Combo
Order may be unable to execute the SPX combination portion of the order
at the desired futures level because the individual leg prices of the
SPX combination that would create the equivalent futures value are
outside the market for the leg prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A stock-option order is an order to buy or sell a stated
number of units of an underlying or a related security coupled with
either (a) the purchase or sale of option contract(s) on the
opposite side of the market representing either the same number of
units of the underlying or related security or the number of units
of the underlying security necessary to create a delta neutral
position or (b) the purchase or sale of an equal number of put and
call option contracts, each having the same exercise price,
expiration date and each representing the same number of units of
stock as, and on the opposite side of the market from, the
underlying or related security portion of the order. Rule 1.1(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Minimum Increment Applicable to SPX Combo Orders
    Currently, SPX Combo Orders are treated as complex orders for the
purposes of the minimum increment provision of Rule 6.42(4).\7\
Although Rule 24.20 does not explicitly specify the minimum increment
applicable to SPX Combo Orders,\8\ or reference how the minimum
increment provision of Rule 6.42(4) applies to SPX Combo Orders, the
Exchange believes the original intent was for SPX Combo Orders to be
considered ``complex orders'' for the purposes of the minimum
increment. In support of this conclusion the Exchange notes that Rule
6.42(4)(b) states that ``complex orders are subject to special priority
requirements as described in Rules 6.45, 6.45A, 6.45B, 6.53C, 24.19 and
24.20.'' \9\ The Exchange believes referencing Rule 24.20 in this
manner demonstrates the intent to include SPX Combo Orders as complex
orders for purposes of the minimum increment provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Rule 6.42(4) states that except as provided in Rule 6.53C,
bids and offers on complex orders, as defined in Interpretation and
Policy .01 [to Rule 6.42], may be expressed in any net price
increment (that may not be less than $0.01) that may be determined
by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis and announced to the
Trading Permit Holders via Regulatory Circular, regardless of the
minimum increments otherwise appropriate to the individual legs of
the order. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, bids and offers
on complex orders in options on the S&P 500 Index (SPX), p.m.-
settled S&P 500 Index (SPXPM) or on the S&P 100 Index (OEX and XEO),
except for box/roll spreads, shall be expressed in decimal
increments no smaller than $0.05 or in any increment, as determined
by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis and announced to the
Trading Permit Holders via Regulatory Circular. In addition: (a) The
legs of a complex order may be executed in $0.01 increments; and (b)
complex orders are subject to special priority requirements as
described in Rules 6.45, 6.45A, 6.45B, 6.53C, 24.19 and 24.20.
    \8\ Rule 24.20(b)(2) uses the term ``minimum increment'' but
only in reference to the priority requirements for SPX Combo Orders,
stating that: ``[w]hen a Trading Permit Holder holding an SPX Combo
Order with the required combo indicator and bidding or offering in a
multiple of the minimum increment on the basis of a total debit or
credit for the order has determined that the order may not be
executed by a combination of transaction with the bids and offers
displayed in the SPX limit order book or by the displayed quotes of
the crowd, then the order may be executed at the best net debit or
credit so long as (A) no leg of the order would trade at a price
outside the currently displayed bids or offers in the trading crowd
or bids or offers in the SPX limit order book and (B) at least on
leg of the order would trade at a price that is better than the
corresponding bid or offer in the SPX limit order book.''
    \9\ See Rule 6.42(4)(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Exchange believes the intent was to include SPX Combo
Orders as complex orders for purposes of the minimum increment, the
Exchange also believes there is confusion amongst members of the
trading crowd regarding the applicable minimum increment. The Exchange
believes the confusion has arisen because Interpretation and Policy .01
to Rule 6.42 does not specifically identify SPX Combo Orders as complex
orders; rather, Rule 6.42.01 states:

    For purposes of this rule [6.42], ``complex order'' means a
spread, straddle, combination or ratio order as defined in Rule
6.53,\10\ a stock-option order as defined in Rule 1.1(ii), a
security future-option order as defined in Rule 1.1(zz), or any
other complex order as defined in Rule 6.53C.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A spread order is defined as ``an order to buy a stated
number of option contracts and to sell the same number of option
contracts, or contracts representing the same number of shares at
option, of the same class of options.'' See Rule 6.53(d). A
combination order is defined as ``an order involving a number of
call option contracts and the same number of put option contracts in
the same underlying security. In the case of adjusted option
contracts, a combination order need not consist of the same number
of put and call contracts if such contracts both represent the same
number of shares at option.'' See Rule 6.53(e). A straddle order is
defined as ``an order to buy a number of call option contracts and
the same number of put option contracts on the same underlying
security which contracts have the same exercise price and expiration
date; or an order to sell a number of call option contracts and the
same number of put option contracts on the same underlying security
which contracts have the same exercise price and expiration date.
(E.g., an order to buy two XYZ July 50 calls and to buy two July 50
XYZ puts is a straddle order.) In the case of adjusted option
contracts, a straddle order need not consist of the same number of
put and call contracts if such contracts both represent the same
number of shares at option.'' See Rule 6.53(f). A ratio order is
defined as ``a spread, straddle, or combination order in which the
stated number of option contracts to buy (sell) is not equal to the
stated number of option contracts to sell (buy), provided that the
number of contracts differ by a permissible ratio. For purposes of
this section, a permissible ratio is any ratio that is equal to or
greater than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal to three-to-
one (3.00). For example, a one-to-two (.5) ratio, a two-to-three
(.667) ratio, or a two-to-one (2.00) ratio is permissible, whereas a
one-to-four (.25) ratio or a four-to-one (4.0) ratio is not.'' See
Rule 6.53(n).
    \11\ Rule 6.53C is inapplicable to SPX Combo Orders because SPX
Combo Orders may be executed in open outcry only whereas Rule 6.53C
governs complex orders submitted to the Hybrid System for electronic
handling.

    As the definitions of spread, straddle, combination and ratio order
do not specifically identify SPX Combo Orders, the Exchange believes
confusion has arisen with respect to whether an SPX Combo Order is a
complex order for purposes of the minimum increment.
    In addition, the current interpretation that an SPX Combo Order is
technically a complex order for purposes of the minimum increment
(meaning all legs can be executed in $0.01 increments) does not fit how
SPX Combo Orders are generally executed. In general, the only time legs
of an SPX Combo Order are executed in $0.01 increments is in relation
to a non-SPX combination with multiple legs. When the non-SPX
combination is a single leg, the trading crowd generally executes the
non-SPX combination in $0.05 or $0.10 increments, even though the
current interpretation allows the legs to be executed in $0.01
increments. The Exchange notes that it is not a violation to execute a
single leg non-SPX combination in $0.01, $0.05 or $.10

increments. To illustrate, if the legs were required to be executed in
$0.05 increments, for example, and the legs were instead executed in
$0.01 increments, it would be a violation. Here, however, the situation
is reversed--$0.01 increments are allowed, which automatically allows
larger increment executions. Furthermore, the Exchange believes the
reason single legged non-SPX combinations are generally executed in
$0.05 or $0.10 increments is because executing a single leg non-SPX
combination portion in $0.01 increments makes it difficult to attain a
net execution price in $0.05 increments for the entire package.\12\ For
example, if the net execution price of the SPX combination is $5.00,
the execution price of a single leg non-SPX combination portion cannot
be $1.01, $1.02, $1.03, or $1.04 for example, because the net execution
price for the entire package would be in a net price increment less
than $0.05. Additionally, a single legged non-SPX combination that is
tied to an SPX combination is thought of in the same way as any single
leg SPX option that is tied to an S&P 500 futures position. That is--an
SPX option that is tied to an actual S&P 500 futures position would
have to execute in $0.05 or $0.10 increments. Similarly, a single
legged non-SPX combination is tied to an SPX combination that is
equivalent to the futures; thus, it follows that the single legged non-
SPX combination should be executed in the same increment that would be
applicable if a customer was using the actual S&P 500 futures instead
of the SPX combination. Customers reasonably should expect to receive
an execution price on an individual leg that is in $0.05 or $0.10
increments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Because the current interpretation is an SPX Combo Order is
a complex order for purposes of the minimum increment, the entire
SPX Combo Order package must be executed in net price increments no
smaller than $0.05 in accordance with Rule 6.42(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, in order to provide clarity regarding the minimum increment
applicable to SPX Combo Orders, as well as to modify the Exchange's
above interpretation in order to match the general practice of
executing SPX Combo Orders, the Exchange proposes to add Rule 24.20.02
to provide as follows:

    The minimum increment applicable to SPX Combo Orders under Rule
6.42 is as follows:
    (a) The legs of the SPX combination portion of an SPX Combo
Order may be executed in $0.01 increments and the entire SPX
combination must be executed in net price increments no smaller than
$0.05.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Paragraph (a) will have no effect on customers as the
current practice is in accordance with paragraph (a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) If the non-SPX combination portion of an SPX Combo Order
consists of one leg, the leg must be executed in increments no
smaller than $0.05 if the execution price is below $3.00 and
increments no smaller than $0.10 if the execution price is at or
above $3.00.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Paragraph (b) is unlikely to have any effect on customers
as the current practice is generally in accordance with paragraph
(b); however, on very rare occasions members of the trading crowd
currently execute a single legged non-SPX combination portion of an
SPX Combo Order in $0.01 increments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) If the non-SPX combination portion of an SPX Combo Order
consists of multiple legs, the individual legs may be executed in
$0.01 increments and the entire non-SPX combination portion of the
SPX Combo Order must be executed in net price increments no smaller
than $0.05.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Paragraph (c) will have no effect on customers as the
current practice is in accordance with paragraph (c).

    When an SPX Combo Order is treated as a complex order for purposes
of the minimum increment, as is currently the case, then the entire
package may be executed at $0.05 increments and each individual leg may
be executed at $0.01 increments.\16\ For example, an SPX Combo Order
consisting of the purchase of one SPX 2000 call for $41.35 and the
offsetting SPX combination consisting of a sale of one SPX 2065 call
for $23.02 and the purchase of one SPX 2065 put for $21.02 would have a
net debit price of $39.35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Rule 6.42(4) (stating that bids and offers on complex
orders in options on the S&P 500 Index (SPX), p.m.-settled S&P 500
Index (SPXPM) or on the S&P 100 Index (OEX and XEO), except for box/
roll spreads, shall be expressed in decimal increments no smaller
than $0.05 and that the legs of a complex order may be executed in
$0.01 increments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applying the proposed rule to the above example provides that the
non-SPX combination (the SPX 2000 call) is one leg that executes above
$3.00; thus, it must be executed in $0.10 increments, which means it
would have to execute at $41.30 or $41.40, instead of $41.35. The
Exchange notes that the customer may in fact receive a better execution
price because of this rule change because, in the above example, market
participants may be willing to sell to a customer at $41.30 instead of
$41.35. If instead the SPX Combo Order contained a non-SPX combination
with two legs--one leg to buy an SPX 2000 call and one leg to buy an
SPX 2010 call--tied to an SPX combination, each leg of the non-SPX
combination could be executed in $0.01 increments, and the net
execution price of the non-SPX combination package could be in net
price increments of $0.05.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ This is similar to how complex orders must be executed in
net price increments no smaller than $0.05. See Rule 6.42(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the priority requirements of Rule
24.20(b)(2) will still apply to the entire SPX Combo Order. Thus, an
SPX Combo Order will still be able to execute at the best net debit or
credit so long as (A) no leg of the order would trade at a price
outside the currently displayed bids or offers in the trading crowd or
bids or offers in the SPX limit order book and (B) at least one leg of
the order would trade at a price that is better than the corresponding
bid or offer in the SPX limit order book.
    Furthermore, as noted above, for an SPX Combo Order comprised of a
non-SPX combination portion with one leg, the trading crowd's practice
is generally to execute the non-SPX combination portion of an SPX Combo
Order in $0.05 or $0.10 increments, because executing a single leg non-
SPX combination portion in $0.01 increments makes it difficult to
attain a net execution price in $0.05 increments for the entire
package. As noted above, if the net execution price of the SPX
combination is $5.00, the execution price of a single leg non-SPX
combination portion cannot be $1.01, $1.02, $1.03, or $1.04 for
example, because the net execution price for the entire package would
be in a net price increment less than $0.05. Thus, the practice for the
non-SPX combination portion, which is completely reasonable, is to
provide markets in increments of $0.05 and $0.10 to ensure that the
entire package is executed in a net execution price of $0.05
increments. Thus, the Exchange believes customers will not be adversely
impacted by this rule change. The rules are simply being modified to
meet the existing, general practice of the trading crowd. The Exchange
notes that it is the trading crowd and their practices that have
created a vibrant ecosystem for customers to execute SPX Combo Orders
and modifying the rules to match the practice that has helped to create
this ecosystem is logical and desirable.
Conclusion
    The Exchange believes this proposal will provide clarity with
regards to the minimum increment applicable to SPX Combo Orders and
will prevent the inconsistent application of the minimum increment.
Also, customers that want to hedge a single leg SPX option order with
S&P 500 futures would be required to execute the SPX option in either
$0.05 or $0.10 increments; therefore, customers reasonably should
expect to be required to execute a single leg SPX option in either
$0.05 or $0.10 increments when the single leg SPX option is tied to an
SPX combination because the SPX

combination is equivalent to an underlying futures level.
    Upon approval of this rule change, the Exchange will announce the
implementation date of the proposed rule change in a Regulatory
Circular to be published no later than 90 days following the approval
date. The implementation date will be no later than 180 days following
the approval date.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'').\18\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \19\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
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 regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \20\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes it is not clear from the rules
what minimum increment applies to SPX Combo Orders and that specifying
the minimum increment applicable to SPX Combo Orders will help to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system. Furthermore, the Exchange believes
that essentially treating the non-SPX combination portion and the SPX
combination as separate orders for purposes of the applicable minimum
increment is consistent with the nature of SPX Combo Orders, which
consist of a non-SPX combination tied to an underlying S&P Index value
via the SPX combination. The Exchange believes maintaining consistency
throughout its rules in this manner helps eliminate confusion in the
marketplace, which helps to protect investors and the public interest
generally. The consistency and clarity provided by this amendment will
help to protect investors and the public interest generally. Finally,
the Commission has already determined that it's consistent with the Act
to require orders in SPX with only one leg (i.e., orders that are not
complex orders or SPX Combo Orders) to be executed in increments no
smaller than $0.05 for option series below $3.00 and $.10 for all
options series at or above $3.00.\21\ Thus, it follows that requiring a
one legged non-SPX combination portion of an SPX Combo Order to be
executed in $0.05 and $0.10 in the same manner is consistent with the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Rule 6.42(1)-(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change
will apply to all SPX Combo Orders, and all TPHs that represent and
compete for those orders, in the same manner. The Exchange believes
that specifying the minimum increment applicable to SPX Combo Orders,
and clarifying the manner in which these orders execute on the
Exchange, promotes fair and orderly markets, as well as assists the
Exchange in its ability to effectively attract order flow and liquidity
to its market, and ultimately benefits all TPHs and all investors.
Furthermore, any perceived burden on customers due to the fact that the
single legged non-SPX combination portion of an SPX Combo Order must be
executed in $0.05 or $0.10 increments pursuant to this rule (instead of
$0.01 increments as is currently the Exchange's interpretation) is
outweighed by the fact that the current practice of the trading crowd
is to execute the single legged non-SPX combination in $0.05 or $0.10
increments and that the current practice enables the trading crowd to
more quickly provide bids and offers that meet the minimum increment
requirements. Furthermore, customers may in fact receive a better
execution price on their SPX Combo Orders because TPHs competing for
the order may improve their market by $0.05 or $0.10 instead of just
$0.01. This rule change will only prevent the rare situation where a
member is determined to execute a single legged non-SPX combination
portion of an SPX Combo Order in $0.01 increments, which, again, is not
a frequent occurrence. Furthermore, customers that want to hedge a
single leg SPX option order with S&P 500 futures would be required to
execute the SPX option in either $0.05 or $0.10 increments; therefore,
customers reasonably should expect to be required to execute a single
leg SPX option in either $0.05 or $0.10 increments when the single leg
SPX option is tied to an SPX combination because the SPX combination is
equivalent to an underlying futures level. Finally, the Commission has
already determined that it's not unduly burdensome to competition to
require orders in SPX with only one leg (i.e., orders that are not
complex orders or SPX Combo Orders) to be executed in increments no
smaller than $0.05 for option series below $3.00 and $.10 for all
options series at or above $3.00.\22\ Thus, it follows that requiring a
one legged non-SPX combination portion of an SPX Combo Order to be
executed in $0.05 and $0.10 in the same manner is also not unduly
burdensome on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Rule 6.42(1)-(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2016-064 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-CBOE-2016-064. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2016-064 and should be
submitted on or before October 17, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-23044 Filed 9-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37895-37896]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15405]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG12-76-000.
    Applicants: NRG Solar Avra Valley, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status NRG Solar Avra Valley, LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120613-5096.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: EG12-77-000.
    Applicants: Spearville 3, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Spearville 3, LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120613-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/12.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER12-753-001.
    Applicants: RITELine Indiana, LLC.
    Description: RITELine Indiana 20120613 Compliance to be effective
3/4/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120613-5128.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2019-000
    Applicants: NRG Solar Avra Valley LLC
    Description: Application for Market-Based Rate Authority to be
effective 8/13/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120613-5082.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2020-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Modification to Section 3 of the APS LGIP to be
effective 8/14/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120613-5083.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2021-000.
    Applicants: Klamath Generation LLC.
    Description: Tariff Revisions to be effective 6/14/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120613-5088.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2022-000.
    Applicants: Klondike Wind Power LLC.
    Description: Tariff Revisions to be effective 6/14/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120613-5102.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2023-000.
    Applicants: Sierra Pacific Power Company.
    Description: Rate Schedule No. 33 Amended & Restated Operating
Agrmt No. 3 Mt Wheeler to be effective 7/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120613-5103.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2024-000.
    Applicants: Klondike Wind Power II LLC.
    Description: Tariff Revisions to be effective 6/14/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120613-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2025-000.
    Applicants: Klondike Wind Power III LLC.
    Description: Tariff Revisions to be effective 6/14/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120613-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2026-000.
    Applicants: Leaning Juniper Wind Power II LLC.
    Description: Tariff Revisions to be effective 6/14/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120613-5123.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2027-000.
    Applicants: Lempster Wind, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Revisions to be effective 6/14/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120613-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2028-000.
    Applicants: Locust Ridge Wind Farm, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Revisions to be effective 6/14/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120613-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/12.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 14, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-15405 Filed 6-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 141)]
[Corrections]
[Page 41862]
[DOCID:fr24jy06-139]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54094; File No. SR-Amex-2006-42]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Granting Approval To a Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto
Relating to a Retroactive Suspension of Transaction Charges for
Specialist Orders in the Nasdaq-100 Tracking Stock[reg] (QQQQ)

Correction

    In notice document E6-10762 appearing on page 39135 in the issue of
Tuesday, July 11, 2006, make the following correction:
    In the second column, directly below the subject line should appear
``July 3, 2006.''.

[FR Doc. Z6-10762 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 73639]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29831]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2794-009; ER10-2849-008; ER11-2028-009; ER12-
1825-007; ER11-3642-008.
    Applicants: EDF Trading North America, LLC, EDF Industrial Power
Services (NY), LLC, EDF Industrial Power Services (IL), LLC, EDF
Industrial Power Services (CA), LLC, Tanner Street Generation, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of EDF Trading
North America, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/3/12.
    Accession Number: 20121203-5192.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3576-006; ER11-3401-007.
    Applicants: Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc., Golden Spread
Panhandle Wind Ranch, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Golden
Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Golden Spread Panhandle Wind
Ranch, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/3/12.
    Accession Number: 20121203-5191.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-281-000.
    Applicants: Star Energy Partners LLC.
    Description: Supplemental Information of Star Energy Partners.
    Filed Date: 11/23/12.
    Accession Number: 20121123-5024.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/10/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-504-000.
    Applicants: Electricity NH, LLC.
    Description: Electricity NH, LLC submits tariff filing per 35.1:
Electricity New Hampshire FERC Tariff to be effective 12/4/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/3/12.
    Accession Number: 20121203-5167.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-505-000.
    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.
    Description: 2nd Amended and Restated Participation Agreement Rev
to be effective 4/17/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/4/12.
    Accession Number: 20121204-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-506-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.,
Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., a Division of MDU Resources Group, Inc.
    Description: SA 2493 MDU-Merricourt Power Partners FSA to be
effective 11/30/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/4/12.
    Accession Number: 20121204-5025.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-507-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Revised Rate Schedule No. 336 to be effective 1/1/
2013.
    Filed Date: 12/4/12.
    Accession Number: 20121204-5026.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-508-000.
    Applicants: Carolina Power & Light Company.
    Description: Rate Schedule No. 196 of Carolina Power and Light
Company to be effective 12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/4/12.
    Accession Number: 20121204-5035.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-509-000.
    Applicants: Carolina Power & Light Company.
    Description: Carolina Power & Light Company submits Notice of
Cancellation of Rate Schedule No. 96 with Virginia Electric and Power
Company.
    Filed Date: 12/4/12.
    Accession Number: 20121204-5045.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-510-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Corrections to Conform Tariff Language--Appendix A to
be effective 4/17/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/4/12.
    Accession Number: 20121204-5046.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-511-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation.
    Description: Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin Corporation
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2012--12--4--NSPW DPC ACIF-
Chief, Great North-135 to be effective 9/17/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/4/12.
    Accession Number: 20121204-5048.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-512-000.
    Applicants: Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc.
    Description: Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc. submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Amendment of Fulton County REMC Rate
Schedule to be effective 2/4/2013.
    Filed Date: 12/4/12.
    Accession Number: 20121204-5051.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/12.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 4, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-29831 Filed 12-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60078-60079]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24914]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4031-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

New York; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New York (FEMA-4031-DR), dated September 13, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 19, 2011.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New York is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of August 31, 2011.

Chemung County for Individual Assistance.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling;

97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-24914 Filed 9-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: January 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 14)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 3656-3658]
[DOCID:fr22ja10-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0044; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-084-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300,
and -300F Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes. This proposed
AD would require inspecting to verify the part number of the low-
pressure flex-hoses of the flightcrew and supernumerary oxygen system
installed under the oxygen mask stowage box at a flightcrew and
supernumerary oxygen mask location, and replacing the flex-hose with a
new non-conductive low-pressure flex-hose if necessary. This proposed
AD results from reports of a low-pressure flex-hose of the flightcrew
oxygen system that burned through due to inadvertent electrical current
from a short circuit in an adjacent audio select panel. We are
proposing this AD to prevent inadvertent electrical current, which can
cause the low-pressure flex-hoses used in the flightcrew and
supernumerary oxygen systems to melt or burn, resulting in oxygen
system leakage and smoke or fire.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 8, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
425-227-1152.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Hettman, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle
ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6457; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0044;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-084-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received reports of a low-pressure flex-hose of the
flightcrew oxygen system that burned through due to inadvertent
electrical current from a short circuit in an adjacent audio select
panel. An electrical current went through the support structure to a
flightcrew mask stowage box and through the low-pressure oxygen hose.
This caused the spring inside the low-pressure oxygen hose to act as an
electrical conductor and heat up, causing the hose to burn through.
This condition, if not corrected, could cause the low-pressure flex-
hose of the flightcrew or supernumerary oxygen system to melt or burn,
resulting in oxygen system leakage and smoke or fire.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 767-35A0034, Revision 1,
dated June 22, 2000. The service bulletin describes procedures for
replacing the existing low-pressure flex-hoses of the flightcrew and
supernumerary oxygen systems installed under the oxygen mask stowage
box at the flightcrew and supernumerary oxygen mask locations, with new
non-conductive low-pressure flex-hoses of the oxygen system.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type
designs. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions
specified in the service information described previously, except as
discussed under ``Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service
Bulletin.''

Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin

    Although Boeing Service Bulletin 767-35A0034, Revision 1, dated
June 22, 2000, recommends accomplishing the replacement ``at the
earliest opportunity when manpower, material and facilities are
available,'' we have determined that this imprecise compliance time
would not address the identified unsafe condition in a timely manner.
In developing an appropriate compliance time for this proposed AD, we
considered not only the manufacturer's recommendation, but the degree
of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, the
average utilization of the affected fleet, and the time necessary to
perform the modifications. In light of all of these factors, we find a
compliance time of 36 months for completing the required actions to be
warranted, in that it represents an appropriate interval of time for
affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety.
This difference has been coordinated with Boeing.

Other Rulemaking

    The oxygen mask installations on certain Model 737, 747, and 757
airplanes are almost identical to those on the affected Model 767
airplanes. Therefore, all of these airplanes may be subject to the
identified unsafe condition. We are considering similar rulemaking
related to the identified unsafe condition for certain Model 737, 747,
and 757 airplanes.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 297 airplanes of
U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours
per product to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is
$80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this
proposed AD to the U.S. operators to be $47,520, or $160 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2010-0044; Directorate Identifier
2009-NM-084-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by March 8, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300,
and -300F series airplanes, certificated in any category; line
numbers 1 through 763 inclusive, except line number 758, which was
accomplished in production.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35: Oxygen.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from a report of a low-pressure flex-hose of
the flightcrew oxygen system that burned through due to inadvertent
electrical current from a short circuit in an adjacent audio select
panel. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadvertent electrical
current, which can cause the low-pressure flex-hoses used in the
flightcrew and supernumerary oxygen systems to melt or burn,
resulting in oxygen system leakage and smoke or fire.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Inspection

    (g) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do an
inspection to determine whether any low-pressure flex-hose of the
flightcrew and supernumerary oxygen systems installed under the
oxygen mask stowage location has a part number identified in Table 1
of this AD. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable
in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the low-pressure
flex-hoses of the flightcrew and supernumerary oxygen system can be
conclusively determined from that review.
    (1) For any hose having a part number identified in Table 1 of
this AD, before further flight, replace the hose with a new or
serviceable part, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-35A0034, Revision 1, dated June 22,
2000.
    (2) For any hose not having a part number identified in Table 1
of this AD, no further action is required by this paragraph.

                                        Table 1--Applicable Part Numbers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Equivalent Boeing supplier part numbers
Boeing specification  part number ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Sierra engineering       Spencer fluid        Puritan bennett     Hydraflow
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60B50059-70......................  835-01-70...........  9513-20S5-18.0......  ZH784-20............     38001-70
60B50059-81......................  Not applicable......  Not applicable......  Not applicable......     38001-81
60B50059-94......................  Not applicable......  Not applicable......  Not applicable......     38001-94
60B50059-101.....................  Not applicable......  Not applicable......  Not applicable......    38001-101
60B50059-130.....................  Not applicable......  Not applicable......  Not applicable......    38001-130
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parts Installation

    (h) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
flightcrew or supernumerary oxygen hose with a part number
identified in Table 1 of this AD on any airplane.

Actions Accomplished According to Previous Issue of Service Bulletin

    (i) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-35A0034, dated
September 2, 1999, are considered acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding actions specified in this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (j)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
ATTN: Robert Hettman, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and
Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-
6457; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Or, e-mail information to 9-ANM-Seattle-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 8, 2010.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-1174 Filed 1-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 39 (Wednesday, February 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 13335]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04432]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER13-895-001.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Amendment to MR Chges to Modify DA Energy Market Sch.
to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 2/19/13.
    Accession Number: 20130219-5168.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-949-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Revised Added Facilities Rate for Agmts under WDAT 1
of 4 to be effective 1/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 2/19/13.
    Accession Number: 20130219-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/12/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-950-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Revised Added Facilities Rate for Agmts under WDAT 2
of 4 to be effective 1/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 2/19/13.
    Accession Number: 20130219-5116.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/12/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-951-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Revised Added Facilities Rate for Agmts under WDAT 3
of 4 to be effective 1/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 2/19/13.
    Accession Number: 20130219-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/12/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-952-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Revised Added Facilities Rate for Agmts under WDAT 4
of 4 to be effective 1/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 2/19/13.
    Accession Number: 20130219-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/12/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-953-000.
    Applicants: Mesquite Solar 1, LLC.
    Description: Mesquite Solar 1 LLC Joinder Agreement and Amendment
to be effective 2/22/2013.
    Filed Date: 2/19/13.
    Accession Number: 20130219-5139.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/12/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-954-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation,
Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation.
    Description: 2013 Interchange Agreement to be effective 1/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 2/19/13.
    Accession Number: 20130219-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/12/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-955-000.
    Applicants: Mesquite Power, LLC.
    Description: Mesquite Power, LLC Concurrence to Joinder Agreement
and Amendment to be effective 2/22/2013.
    Filed Date: 2/19/13.
    Accession Number: 20130219-5151.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/12/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-956-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Arizona Public Service files three Mead Phoenix
Project Service Agreements to be effective 4/22/2013.
    Filed Date: 2/19/13.
    Accession Number: 20130219-5155.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/12/13.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 19, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-04432 Filed 2-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 78850]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30524]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[9920-71-OEI]

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision
Approval, State of Maryland

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of
Maryland's request to revise its EPA Administered Permit Programs: The
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System EPA-authorized program
to allow electronic reporting.

DATES: EPA's approval is effective December 31, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop
2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-
1175<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR.
CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory
alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure
that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper
counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local
government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving,
electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to
EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA
approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on
consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the
state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic
reporting. Additionally, Sec.  3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3,
subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and
modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option
of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures
available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An
application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the
state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to
implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered
by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems
that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.
    On November 19, 2013, the Maryland Department of the Environment
(MDE) submitted an application titled ``National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) ePermits'' for revision of its EPA-
authorized authorized Part 123 program under title 40 CFR. EPA reviewed
MDE's request to revise its EPA-authorized Part 123--EPA Administered
Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
program and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application
met the standards for approval of authorized program revision set out
in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this
notice of EPA's decision to approve Maryland's request to revise its
Part 123--EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System program to allow electronic reporting
under 40 CFR part 122 is being published in the Federal Register.
    MDE was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application
with respect to the authorized program listed above.

Matthew Leopard,
Acting Director, Office of Information Collection.
[FR Doc. 2014-30524 Filed 12-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 102 (Thursday, May 26, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30604-30605]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13102]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037; FRL-9311-7]
RIN 2060-AN33

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public hearings.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA published in the Federal Register on May 20, 2011, the
proposed rule, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production. The EPA is announcing
two public hearings to be held for the proposed rule.

DATES: The public hearings will be held on June 7, 2011, and June 9,
2011.

ADDRESSES: Public hearings will be held on June 7, 2011, in Houston,
Texas, and on June 9, 2011, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The Houston,
Texas, public hearing will be held at the Houston Marriott South at
Hobby Airport in the Port Aransas/Brownsville Room, located at 9100
Gulf Freeway, Houston, Texas 77017; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The June
9, 2011, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, public hearing will be held in the
Galvez Building, Olliver Pollock Room, Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality, located at 602 N. Fifth Street, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana 70802. Parking is available in the garage located on North
Street. A map of the Galvez Building can be found at the following
link: http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The two public hearings will convene at 9 a.m. and continue until 8
p.m. (local time). The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all
speakers that arrive and register before 8 p.m. A lunch break is
scheduled from 12:30 p.m. until 2 p.m. and a dinner break is scheduled
from 5 p.m. until 6:30 p.m. during the hearings. The EPA Web site for
the rulemaking, which includes the proposal and information about the
public hearings, can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pvc/pvcpg.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you would like to present oral
testimony at the public hearing, please contact Ms. Teresa Clemons,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D205-01),
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone: (919) 541-
0252, fax

number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(preferred method for registering), no later than the close of business
Tuesday, May 31, 2011, to register to present oral testimony. If using
e-mail, please provide the following information: time you wish to
speak (morning, afternoon, evening), name, affiliation, address, e-mail
address, and telephone and fax numbers.
    Questions concerning the May 20, 2011, proposed rule should be
addressed to Ms. Jodi Howard, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Refining and Chemicals Group (E143-01), Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Public hearing: The proposal for which EPA is holding the public
hearings was published in the Federal Register on May 20, 2011, and is
available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pvc/pvcpg.html, and also in
the docket identified below. The public hearings will provide
interested parties the opportunity to present oral comments regarding
the EPA's proposed national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants, including data, views, or arguments concerning the
proposal. The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral
presentations, but will not respond to the presentations at that time.
Written statements and supporting information submitted during the
comment period will be considered with the same weight as any oral
comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing.
    Commenters should notify Ms. Clemons if they will need specific
equipment, or if there are other special needs related to providing
comments at the hearings, such as a translator. The EPA will provide
equipment for commenters to show overhead slides or make computerized
slide presentations if we receive special requests in advance. Oral
testimony will be limited to 5 minutes for each commenter. The EPA
encourages commenters to provide the Agency with a copy of their oral
testimony electronically (via e-mail or CD), or in hard copy form.
    The hearing schedules, including lists of speakers, will be posted
on EPA's Web sites http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pvc/pvcpg.html. Verbatim
transcripts of the hearings and written statements will be included in
the docket for the rulemaking.
    EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as
possible on the day of the hearings; however, please plan for the
hearing to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.

How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The EPA has established a docket for the proposed rule, National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl Chloride
and Copolymers Production, under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037
(available at http://www.regulations.gov).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: May 20, 2011.
Alan Rush,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2011-13102 Filed 5-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23562-23563]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10682]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0502; FRL-9993-23-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste
Incinerators (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NSPS for Hospital/Medical/
Infectious Waste Incinerators (EPA ICR Number 1730.11, OMB Control
Number 2060-0363), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through May 31, 2019. Public comments were previously requested via the
Federal Register on May 30, 2018 during a 60-day comment period. This
notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 21, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2012-0502, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460: and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov, or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Hospital/
Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec) were
proposed on February 27, 1995, promulgated on September 15, 1997, and
amended on both October 6, 2009, and February 27, 2014. The original
standards applied to either owners or operators of Hospital/Medical/
Infectious

Waste Incinerators (HMIWI) for which construction commenced after June
20, 1996, or for which modification commenced after March 16, 1998, but
no later than April 6, 2010. Sources subject to the original standards
are now covered under the revised Emission Guidelines for HMIWI at 40
CFR part 60, subpart Ce. This information request covers the reporting
and recordkeeping requirements associated with the revised NSPS, which
apply to new facilities only. New facilities include those that
commenced construction after December 1, 2008 or commenced modification
after April 6, 2010. This information is being collected to assure
compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec.
    In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications,
performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the
affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and
records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of
all affected facilities subject to NSPS.
    Form numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Hospital/medical/infectious waste
incinerators.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart Ec).
    Estimated number of respondents: 11 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, semiannually and annually.
    Total estimated burden: 7,410 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1,360,000 (per year), which includes
$519,000 in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance
costs.
    Changes in the estimates: There is an increase in the total
estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently-approved by
OMB. This is due to an increase in the estimated number of sources
subject to the regulations and is not caused by program changes. We
estimate the industry will continue to grow at the rate of one new
source per year. This results in increases in the respondent labor
hours, number of responses, and capital and O&M costs.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-10682 Filed 5-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17180-17181]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06431]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0183]

Special Local Regulations; Seventh Coast Guard District, Blessing
of the Fleet--St. Augustine

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations for the
Blessing of the Fleet--St. Augustine on April 10, 2022, to provide for
the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our
regulation for marine events within the Seventh Coast Guard District
identifies the regulated area for this event in St. Augustine, FL.
During the enforcement periods, the operator of any vessel in the
regulated area must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or
any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.701, Table 1 to Sec.  100.701,
section (c), Item 8, will be enforced from 12:00 p.m. until 3:00 p.m.,
on April 10, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notification of enforcement, call or email MST2 Shawn Keeman, Sector
Jacksonville, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce special local
regulations in 33 CFR 100.701, Table 1 to Sec.  100.701, section (c),
Item 8, for the Blessing of the Fleet--St. Augustine regulated from
12:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m., on April 10, 2022. This action is being
taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during
the event. Our regulation for recurring marine events within the
Seventh Coast Guard District, Sec.  100.701, Table 1 to Sec.  100.701,
section (c), Item 8, specifies the location of the regulated area for
the Blessing of the Fleet--St. Augustine which encompasses portions of
the Matanzas River at the St. Augustine Municipal Marina. During the
enforcement periods, as reflected in in Sec.  100.701, if you are the
operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with
directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying
a Coast Guard ensign.
    In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this
enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information
broadcasts, local radio stations and area newspapers.

    Dated: March 22, 2022.
M.R. Vlaun,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Jacksonville.
[FR Doc. 2022-06431 Filed 3-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 102 (Wednesday, May 27, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31758-31759]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11332]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM16-17-000]

Data Collection for Analytics and Surveillance and Market-Based
Rate Purposes; Notice of Extension of Time

    On May 6, 2020, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) submitted a
motion requesting that the Commission extend the effective date of
Order No. 860 and the deployment of the market-based rate database (MBR
Database) by four months to February 1, 2021 and the due date for
initial baseline submission until June 1, 2021.
    EEI asserts that good cause exists to grant the extension because
the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic creates challenges in
meeting the implementation schedule established in Order No. 860.
    Upon consideration, notice is hereby given that the effective date
of Order No. 860 is extended to and including six months to April 1,
2021, and the deadline for baseline submissions is extended to and
including August 2, 2021. Further, other implementation dates in Order
No. 860 are extended as shown in the attached appendix.

    Dated: May 20, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

Appendix

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Revised, six-month
            Activity                 Order No. 860         extension
                                       schedule            schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testing period for the MBR        Through Sept. 30,   Through Mar. 31,
 Database.                         2020.               2021.
Effective date of Order No. 860.  Oct. 1, 2020......  Apr. 1, 2021.
``Go-live'' date of MBR Database  Oct. 1, 2020......  Apr. 1, 2021.
Sellers should create needed      Oct. 1, 2020-Dec.   Apr. 1, 2021-June
 identifiers (FERC Generated IDs   31, 2020.           30, 2021.
 and Asset IDs) in the MBR
 Portal and prepare their
 baseline submissions.
Baseline submissions are due....  By Feb. 1, 2021...  By Aug. 2, 2021.
First change in status filings    By Feb. 28, 2021..  By Aug. 31, 2021.
 under new timelines are due.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-11332 Filed 5-26-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 50 (Thursday, March 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16262-16263]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05860]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER13-1047-000]

Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC's application for market-
based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, 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 March 27, 2013.
    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(s) 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 email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 7, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-05860 Filed 3-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                 Federal Emergency Management Agency Region 6
                                  TRIP REPORT
                            Date / author of Report
                                    4/14/16

                         Shanene Thomas/NORMA E. REYES

Meeting called by
Regional Tribal Liaison scheduled the meeting for the purpose of consultation on the Second Draft of Tribal Declaration Pilot Guidance.
Subject of meeting
Consultation on the Second Draft of Tribal Declaration Pilot Guidance.
Meeting Date(s)/Location
March 22, 2016, Coushatta Administration Building, Elton, LA
Attendees
Coushatta Tribe Attendees: 4  -  Tribal Councilwoman, Emergency Manager, Tribal Administrator, Planner

FEMA: Norma Reyes, RTL and Shanene Thomas Mitigation Tribal Liaison/Hazard Mitigation Planner.

                                   OVERVIEW

BACKGROUND
This is the third round of consultation with the Coushatta Tribe.

PURPOSE
Consultation on the Second Draft of Tribal Declaration Pilot Guidance.

Meeting Summary
Norma Reyes and Shanene Thomas both conducted the session using the power point provided by HQ.

There was a lot of discussion on the current policy and the process they would use at this time should they need to do so.  They asked many questions about the different administrative plans.  It appeared that at some point they may consider coming direct.

They are in process of completing their Hazard Mitigation Plan.

They are interested in the L-583 course and will get back to the RTL to schedule a session.

The participants listened patiently and had very few comments regarding the proposed changes.

They indicated that they were fine with the proposed changes.

RTL provided a packet to each participant that included all the documents sent to their Tribal leader at the beginning of the comment period.

RTL encouraged them please submit any additional comments that they may think of after the meeting.
COMMENTS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED CONSULATION POLICY
IA Eligibility:
 Coushatta Tribe has a housing policy in place that can be used to determine eligibility.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 92 (Monday, May 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20881-20882]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09774]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9993-46-Region 1]

2019 Spring Joint Meeting of the Ozone Transport Commission and
the Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
announcing the joint 2019 Spring Meeting of the Ozone Transport
Commission (OTC) and the Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-
VU). The meeting agenda will include topics regarding reducing ground-
level ozone precursors and matters relative to Regional Haze and
visibility improvement in Federal Class I areas in a multi-pollutant
context.

DATES: The meeting will be held on June 11, 2019 starting at 9:30 a.m.
and ending at 4:00 p.m.
    Location: Hotel DuPont, 42 West 11th Street, Wilmington, DE 21202,
302-594-3100.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For documents and press inquiries contact: Ozone Transport
Commission, 800 Maine Avenue SW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20024; (202)
318-0190; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website: http://www.otcair.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 contain
Section 184 provisions for the Control of Interstate Ozone Air
Pollution. Section 184(a) establishes an Ozone Transport Region (OTR)
comprised of the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Vermont, parts of Virginia and the District of Columbia. The
purpose of the OTC is to address ground-level ozone formation,
transport, and control within the OTR.
    The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) was formed at
in 2001, in response to EPA's issuance of the Regional Haze rule. MANE-
VU's members include: Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
the Penobscot Indian Nation, the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe along with EPA
and Federal Land Managers.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Agenda: Copies of the final agenda will be available from the OTC
office<PHONE_NUMBER>; by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or via the OTC
website at http://www.otcair.org.

    Dated: May 6, 2019.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2019-09774 Filed 5-10-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P