[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 196 (Thursday, October 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57249-57250]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22287]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0096]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Renewal of an Approved
Information Collection: Electronic Logging Device (ELD) Vendor
Registration

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review and approval and invites public comment. FMCSA requests approval
to renew an ICR titled, ``Electronic Logging Device (ELD) Vendor
Registration.'' This ICR is necessary for ELD vendors to register their
ELDs with the Agency.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before December 13, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2021-0096 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC, 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the exemption process, see the Public
Participation heading below. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the
online instructions for accessing the dockets, or go to the street
address listed above.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Public Participation: The Federal eRulemaking Portal is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can obtain electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the ``help'' section
of the Federal eRulemaking Portal website. If you want us to notify you
that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed,
stamped envelope or postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that
appears after submitting comments online. Comments received after the
comment closing date will be included in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jose R. Cestero, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: On December 16, 2015, FMCSA published a final rule
titled ``Electronic Logging Devices and Hours of Service Supporting
Documents,'' (80 FR 78292) that established minimum performance and
design standards for hours-of-service (HOS) ELDs; requirements for the
mandatory use of these devices by drivers currently required to prepare
HOS records of duty status (RODS); requirements concerning HOS
supporting documents; and measures to address concerns about harassment
resulting from the mandatory use of ELDs.
    To ensure consistency among ELD vendors and devices, detailed
functional specifications were published as part of the December 2015
final rule. Each ELD vendor developing an ELD technology must register
online at a secure FMCSA website where the ELD provider can securely
certify that its ELD is compliant with the functional specifications.
Each ELD vendor must certify that each ELD model and version has been
sufficiently tested to meet the functional requirements in the rule

under the conditions in which the ELD would be used.
    ELD vendors must self-certify and register their devices with FMCSA
online via Form MCSA-5893, ``Electronic Logging Device (ELD) Vendor
Registration and Certification.'' FMCSA expects 100% of respondents to
submit their information electronically. Once completed, FMCSA issues a
unique identification number that the ELD vendor will embed in their
device(s). FMCSA maintains a list on its website of the current ELD
vendors and devices that have been certified (by the vendors) to meet
the functional specifications. The information is necessary for fleets
and drivers to easily find a compliant ELD for their use in meeting the
FMCSA regulation requiring the use of ELDs.
    Title: Electronic Logging Device (ELD) Vendor Registration.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0062.
    Type of Request: Renewal of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: ELD vendors.
    Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 75.
    Estimated Time per Response: 15 minutes.
    Expiration Date: March 31, 2022.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 150 hours [75 respondents x 2
devices per respondent x 4 updates per device x 15 minutes per
response].
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions; (2)
the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize or include your
comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87.
Thomas P. Keane,
Associate Administrator for Research, Technology and Registration.
[FR Doc. 2021-22287 Filed 10-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


October 24, 2003 Mr. Jeffrey Holmstead Assistant Administrator, US EPA Ariel Rios Building ( 6101A) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 RE: Changes to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing; Final Rule Dear Mr. Holmstead:

The National Paint & Coatings Association ( NPCA) is writing to request your intervention in the above referenced rulemaking. NPCA has identified a number of issues with the signed version of the final rule and communicated such to the project lead, Randy McDonald. NPCA believes that most of these changes must be addressed in the final regulations itself in order for facilities to comply with the rule. We would like to recognize the project lead on this rulemaking, Randy McDonald, and to express our appreciation to Mr. McDonald for his assistance in addressing these issues thus far. Through our conversations and communications with Mr. McDonald, we believe that these issues will be appropriately addressed, however, the timing of EPA's actions in this regard is still of great concern.

It is our understanding that changes to the final version will not be made prior to publication in the Federal Register, but thereafter through amendments. In addition, it is also our understanding that EPA intends to propose these amendments, subject to notice and comment rulemaking, and not before the 60 day time period with which to file for judicial appeal of the final rule has expired. For the reasons outlined below, NPCA reiterates our request that EPA make most of these changes prior to publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, as the majority of the changes are typographical and clarifying in nature and do not substantively change the regulations. In the alternative, for the same reasons, EPA should issue notice of correction or amendment for these changes at the same time or as soon as possible after the final rule's publication in the Federal Register. While we recognize and appreciate EPA's good faith attempt at resolving these issues, to wait until the judicial review period for the final rule has passed unfairly deprives stakeholders of a statutorily mandated remedy should the issues not be adequately addressed thereafter. Section 553( b) of title 5 of the United States Code ( U. S. C.) and Section 307 of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) permit EPA to forego notice and comment when " the Agency for good cause finds ( and incorporates the finding and brief statement of reasons therefore in the rule issues) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest." NPCA believes that the majority of the following errors/ omissions/ clarifications are minor technical corrections and notice and comment regarding such is unnecessary as the corrections are not controversial and do not substantively change the requirements under the rule.

The following is an outline of the corrections/ clarifications that need to be made; a statement of basis for good cause under 5 U. S. C. 553( b) and CAA 307 for a determination that the issuance of a notice and comment rulemaking is unnecessary; and a summary of our conversations with EPA on adequate resolutions of such. Lastly, we have included two issues that NPCA believes appropriate for notice and comment rulemaking. Thus, NCPA respectfully requests your assistance in ensuring the following technical amendments/ corrections be promulgated in, along with, or as soon as possible thereafter ( and before the expiration of the 60 day judicial review period), as the final rule's publication in the Federal Register in order to fully facilitate our good faith efforts to promulgate a clear and accurate final rule. NPCA believes the last two issues are appropriate for and can be fully addressed in a subsequent notice and comment amendment.

The following are believed to be errors/ omissions/ contradictions in the signed MCM final rule that need to be addressed in the final rule itself or shortly thereafter through technical corrections/ amendments.

1. In the regulation at Table 1  1a., 2. a., 2. b. and 3. a. ( process tanks) the wording is very problematic. The language states that the vessel must either be equipped with " a cover or lid that must be in place at all times when the vessel contains a HAP ( 1. a. and 2. a.); or " with a tightly fitting vented cover or lid that must be closed at all times when the vessel contains a HAP"( 2. b. and 3. a.) ( emphasis added). This appears to suggest that there is no allowance for any opening of lids/ covers during processing or cleaning, which would effectively make the rule impossible for any coating manufacturer to comply with. This also contradicts the preamble and regulation itself which specifically exempts manual cleaning operations and systems used with closed vent systems to " draw ambient air away from operators when vessels are opened..." ( emphasis added). See § 63.8105( g) and Part IV Summary of Responses to Major Comments under C. Standards for Process Vessels. * This concept is fully explored in the proposed regulation and response to comments of the final rule. The change merely corrects a contradiction in the regulation itself ( between the regulatory language itself and language used subsequently in a summary Table). * EPA proposed changing the language to read: " with a tightly fitting vented cover or lid that must be closed at all times when the vessel contains a HAP, except for material additions and sampling." NPCA agreed this would clarify the actual intent of the regulation and keep the terminology consistent throughout the process tanks sections.

2. § 63.7995( c)  " If you add equipment to your existing affected source after [ INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] you must comply with the requirements for existing sources in this subpart upon start up of the added equipment" ( emphasis added). This appears to be in error as there is no precedent either in the proposal or in the general provisions applicable to the subpart under the regulation at § 63.8095 ( listed at Table 10) for eliminating the three year compliance timeline for existing sources that add equipment after the date the final rule is published. Instead this language should be deleted in favor of the reference to the General Provisions ( § 63.6( c)( 1)( 2)) already provided for at Table 10 or the bracketed language must be replaced with the date 3 years after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. * This is clearly a mistake in the boilerplate language used in the standards as well as the general provisions to identify when an existing source or new source must comply with the regulations. * EPA proposed changing the language to address new sources and/ or when an existing source adds a modification after the compliance date of the rule. NPCA agreed this correction would be appropriate.

3. Part IV Summary of Responses to Major Comments under C. Standards for Process Vessels  " Finally, we have not required control of cleaning that is accomplished manually. However, emissions resulting from automatic wash systems are required to be considered and controlled." This is not carried forward into the regulations  the regulation itself makes no mention of manual vs. automatic cleaning operations, only stating at § 63.7985( b) that " Miscellaneous coating manufacturing operations also include cleaning operations." This statement appears to mandate all cleaning operations have to be controlled, contrary to the preamble language. * This concept is fully explored in the proposed regulation and response to comments of the final rule. The change merely corrects an inadvertent omission in the regulation and current contradiction between the preamble of the final rule and the regulation itself. * EPA initially stated that this would be corrected through implementation guidance, however, upon further review agreed that it needed to be addressed in the regulation itself and proposed changing the language to read: " Miscellaneous coating manufacturing operations also include automatic cleaning operations." NPCA agreed this would clarify the actual intent of the regulation, stating that since facilities would be held to the strict language of the regulation they could not merely rely on the preamble language or implementation tools in order to understand and implement the rule's standards and prove compliance.

4. In the regulation at Table 1  2. a. i. and 2. b. i. ( process tanks) the wording is problematic. Instead of using the " reduce emissions of total organic HAP ... 75% by weight for process vessels with a vapor pressure of ..., and 60% by weight for process vessels with a vapor pressure of...," that is used for the rest of the standards in Table 1, the terminology is changed and states "... reduce emissions by 75% by weight " for each HAP" with a vapor pressure... ( emphasis added)." This appears to suggests that the standard mandates a 75% reduction on each speciated HAP, instead of a total 75% reduction in total HAP emissions from the process vessel or, depending on the vapor pressure of HAPs contained in the vessel, a 60% reduction in total HAP emissions. * This is clearly a mistake in wording  there is no precedence for such in the proposed rule, nor mention of such in the final rule. * EPA initially stated that this would be corrected through implementation guidance, however, upon further review agreed that it needed to be addressed in the regulation itself and proposed changing the language to read: "... reduce emissions by 75% by weight " for HAPs" with a vapor pressure..." NPCA agreed this would clarify the actual intent of the regulation and keep the terminology consistent throughout the process tanks sections, again stating that since facilities would be held to the strict language of the regulation the final rule must be absolutely clear.

Lastly, two issues have been raised that NPCA feels would be appropriate to propose through notice and comment amendments.

5. § 63.8055( b) only allows the use of the alternative " weight percent HAP limit" if the 5 weight percent HAP is determined through testing or through an alternative " test" method approved by the administrator. There is no rationale or precedence in the final rule for only allowing test methods to be used to determine the HAP weight percent, nor was it proposed. In fact, the regulation allows the use of process knowledge in lieu of testing to determine whether or not undiluted and uncontrolled emissions streams contain less than the 50 ppmv HAP threshold for process vessel vents. See § 63.8105( g)  definition of process vessel vent. In addition, the same issue has been resolved by EPA in many of the surface coating regulations. Process knowledge and formulation data may be used in lieu of testing. If there is a discrepancy between the two for compliance purposes, the test method results prevail, unless, after consultation a demonstration is made to the satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the formulation data are correct. See Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, Metal Can, and Plastic Parts and Products signed final rules. * NPCA agrees this issue, since it was not adequately addressed by the proposed rule or in the response to comments of the final rule, is appropriate for notice and comment amendment.

6. § 63.8000( d)( v) eliminates the option of using total organic carbon measurements to demonstrate compliance. There is no rationale or precedence given in the final rule for removing this option between proposal and final rule, nor was the action proposed. * NPCA agrees this issue, since it was not adequately addressed by the proposed rule or in the response to comments of the final rule, is appropriate for notice and comment amendment.

In conclusion, NPCA greatly appreciates the good faith attempts Mr. McDonald has made to address these corrections. We believe that if addressed as per our discussions as outlined above, the final rule would be sound. However, if it is still EPA's impression that the changes can not be facilitated through changes before the publication of the final rule, NPCA requests that with the exception of the last two issues, the above corrections be issued at the same time as the final rule or as close as possible thereafter and before the time for petition for judicial review has expired. EPA has good cause to issue such without notice and comment. To do so after the time for judicial review of the final rule has expired unjustly deprives stakeholders of their right of appeal should the changes not be appropriately made. And to do so with notice and comment proposal unnecessarily hinders clarification that facilities and states need to implement this regulation.

NPCA has worked closely with the other industry stakeholders for this rulemaking, the Adhesive and Sealants Council ( ASC) and the National Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers ( NAPIM), who support our requests in this regard. We continue to explore ways of resolving these issues to the satisfaction of all parties and would be happy to meet with you to discuss such. We look forward to your prompt response, and thank you in advance for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Dave Darling at 202.462.6272 should you have any questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

/ s/ / s/

Alison Keane, Counsel David Darling, Director Government Affairs Environmental Affairs cc: Sally Shaver, EPA Randy Waite, EPA Kerry Rodgers, EPA Barry Elman, EPA Randy McDonald, EPA Marcia Mia, EPA Kevin Bromberg, SBA Keith Holman, SBA Edmond Toy, OMB Docket# A 96 04


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 123 (Friday, June 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36804-36805]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15670]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2015-0107; FRL-9929-08-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Identification, Listing and Rulemaking
Petitions (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``Identification, Listing and
Rulemaking Petitions (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 1189.26, OMB Control No.
2050-0053) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently
approved through June 30, 2015. Public comments were previously
requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 13372) on March 13, 2015
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 not conduct or 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 July 27, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2015-0107, 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: Narendra Chaudhari, Materials Recovery
and Waste Management Division, Office of Resource Conservation and
Recovery, (5304P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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, WJC 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: Under the authority of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended, Congress directed the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement a comprehensive
program for the safe management of hazardous waste. In addition,
Congress wrote that ``[a]ny person may petition the Administrator for
the promulgation, amendment or repeal of any regulation'' under RCRA
(section 7004(a)).
    40 CFR parts 260 and 261 contain provisions that allow regulated
entities to apply for petitions, variances, exclusions, and exemptions
from various RCRA requirements.
    The following are some examples of information required from
petitioners under 40 CFR part 260. Under 40 CFR 260.20(b), all
rulemaking petitioners must submit basic information with their
demonstrations, including name, address, and statement of interest in
the proposed action. Under Sec.  260.21, all petitioners for equivalent
testing or analytical methods must include specific information in
their petitions and demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that the proposed method is equal to, or superior to, the
corresponding method in terms of its sensitivity, accuracy, and
reproducibility. Under Sec.  260.22, petitions to amend part 261 to
exclude a waste produced at a particular facility (more simply, to
delist a waste) must meet extensive informational requirements. When a
petition is submitted, the Agency reviews materials, deliberates,
publishes its tentative decision in the Federal Register, and requests
public comment. EPA also may hold informal public hearings (if
requested by an interested person or at the discretion of the
Administrator) to hear oral comments on its tentative decision. After
evaluating all comments, EPA publishes its final decision in the
Federal Register.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Regulated businesses/industries.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (RCRA 7004(a)).
    Estimated number of respondents: 26,041 (total).
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 484,789 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $78,895,502 (per year), includes $51,648,460
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 346,943 hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This increase is due to the consolidation of ICRs
2127.03, 2455.01, and 2421.04 into this ICR 1189.26. The base ICR had a
decrease of 8,192 hours, which is due to estimates gathered from the
regulated community. This increase is also due to combining the burden

estimate for the Coal Combustion Residuals Final Rule from ICR 1189.25.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-15670 Filed 6-25-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 141)]
[Notices]
[Page 41853-41856]
[DOCID:fr24jy06-127]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54158; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed
Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto Relating to Listing
Standards for Broad-Based Index Options

July 17, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 1, 2006, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Phlx. On April 12,
2006, the Phlx filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\ On
July 14, 2006, the Phlx filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule
change.\4\ The

Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons and is
approving the proposal on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 replaced and superseded the original filing
in its entirety.
    \4\ In Amendment No. 2, the Phlx made technical and clarifying
changes to the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Phlx Rules 1000A (Applicability and
Definitions), 1001A (Position Limits) and 1009A (Designation of the
Index) to adopt ``generic'' listing standards pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e)
under the Act \5\ and position limits for broad-based index options.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Phlx's Web
site (http://www.phlx.com), at the Phlx's Office of the Secretary and

at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Phlx 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 III below. The Phlx 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 Phlx proposes to adopt Phlx Rule 1009A(d) to establish initial
listing standards for broad-based index options. The proposal will
allow the Phlx to list and trade, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the
Act,\6\ broad-based index options that meet the listing standards in
Phlx Rule 1009A(d). The listing standards require, among other things,
that the underlying index be broad-based, as defined in Phlx Rule
1000A(b)(11); \7\ that options on the index be a.m.-settled; that the
index be capitalization-weighted, price-weighted, modified
capitalization-weighted, or equal dollar-weighted; and that the index
be comprised of at least 50 securities, all of which must be ``NMS
stocks,'' as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS.\8\ In addition,
Phlx Rule 1009A(d) requires that the index's component securities meet
certain minimum market capitalization and average daily trading volume
requirements; that no single component account for more than 10% of the
weight of the index and that the five highest weighted components
represent no more than 33% of the weight of the index; that the index
value be widely disseminated at least every 15 seconds; and that the
Phlx have written surveillance procedures in place with respect to the
index options. Phlx Rule 1009A(d) also provides that non-U.S. index
components that are not subject to a comprehensive surveillance sharing
agreement between the Phlx and the primary market(s) trading the index
components may comprise no more than 20% of the weight of the index.
The Phlx represents that its surveillance procedures are adequate to
properly monitor the trading of broad-based index options and that it
intends to apply its existing surveillance procedures for index options
to monitor trading in broad-based index options listed pursuant to Phlx
Rule 1009A(d). Additionally, the Exchange must reasonably believe that
it has adequate system capacity to support the trading of any index
options listed pursuant to Phlx Rule 1000A(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e).
    \7\ The Exchange is also proposing to amend Phlx Rule 1000A to
clarify the definitions of broad-based (market) indexes as well as
narrow-based (industry) indexes.
    \8\ Rule 600 of Regulation NMS defines an ``NMS stock'' to mean
``any NMS security other than an option.'' An ``NMS security'' is
``any security or class of securities for which transaction reports
are collected, processed, and made available pursuant to an
effective transaction reporting plan, or an effective national
market system plan for reporting transactions in listed options.''
See 17 CFR 242.600.
    For purposes of consistency, the Exchange is also proposing to
amend Phlx Rule 1009A(b)(8), which indicates conditions that an
underlying index must satisfy for the Exchange to list narrow-based
index options pursuant to the generic Rule 19b-4(e) listing
standards, to reference ``NMS stock'' as defined in Rule 600 of
Regulation NMS under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Phlx also proposes to adopt Phlx Rule 1009A(e), which
establishes maintenance standards for broad-based index options listed
pursuant to Phlx Rule 1009A(d). In addition, the Phlx proposes to amend
Phlx Rule 1001A(a) to establish a position limit of 25,000 contracts on
the same side of the market for broad-based index options listed
pursuant to Phlx Rule 1009A(d).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-Phlx-2006-17 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2006-17. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in

the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will
be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Phlx. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
Phlx-2006-17 and should be submitted on or before August 14, 2006.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Change

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\11\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\12\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To list options on a particular broad-based index, the Phlx
currently must file a proposed rule change with the Commission pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act and Rule 19b-4 thereunder. However, Rule
19b-4(e) provides that the listing and trading of a new derivative
securities product by a self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') will not
be deemed a proposed rule change pursuant to Rule 19b-4(c)(1) if the
Commission has approved, pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act, the
SRO's trading rules, procedures, and listing standards for the product
class that would include the new derivative securities product, and the
SRO has a surveillance program for the product class.
    As described more fully above, the Phlx proposes to establish
listing standards for broad-based index options. The Commission's
approval of the Phlx's listing standards for broad-based index options
will allow options that satisfy the listing standards to begin trading
pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e), without constituting a proposed rule change
within the meaning of Section 19(b) of the Act and Rule 19b-4, for
which notice and comment and Commission approval is necessary.\13\ The
Phlx's ability to rely on Rule 19b-4(e) to list broad-based index
options that meet the requirements of Phlx Rule 1009A(d) potentially
reduces the time frame for bringing these securities to the market,
thereby promoting competition and making new broad-based index options
available to investors more quickly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ When relying on Rule 19b-4(e), the SRO must submit Form
19b-4(e) to the Commission within five business days after the SRO
begins trading the new derivative securities product. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 40761 (December 8, 1998), 63 FR 70952
(December 22, 1998) (File No. S7-13-98).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the Phlx has represented that it has
adequate trading rules, procedures, listing standards, and surveillance
program for broad-based index options. Phlx's existing index option
trading rules and procedures will apply to broad-based index options
listed pursuant to Phlx Rule 1009A(d). Other existing Phlx rules,
including provisions addressing sales practices and margin
requirements, also will apply to these options. In addition, the Phlx
proposes to establish position and exercise limits of 25,000 contracts
on the same side of the market for broad-based index options listed
pursuant to Phlx Rule 1009A(d).\14\ The Commission believes that the
proposed position and exercise limits should serve to minimize
potential manipulation concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Under Phlx Rule 1002A, exercise limits for index option
contracts are equivalent to the position limits described in Phlx
Rule 1001A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Phlx represents that its surveillance procedures are adequate
to properly monitor the trading of broad-based index options and that
it intends to apply its existing surveillance procedures for index
options to monitor trading in broad-based index options listed pursuant
to Phlx Rule 1009A(d). In addition, because Phlx Rule 1009A(d) requires
that each component of an index be an ``NMS stock,'' as defined in Rule
600 of Regulation NMS under the Act, each index component must trade on
a registered national securities exchange or through Nasdaq.\15\
Accordingly, the Phlx will have access to information concerning
trading activity in the component securities of an underlying index
through the Intermarket Surveillance Group (``ISG'').\16\ Phlx Rule
1009A(d) also provides that non-U.S. index components that are not
subject to a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement between the
Phlx and the primary market(s) trading the index components may
comprise no more than 20% of the weight of the index.\17\ The
Commission believes that these requirements will help to ensure that
the Phlx has the ability to monitor trading in broad-based index
options listed pursuant to Phlx Rule 1009A(d) and in the component
securities of the underlying indexes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Recently, the Commission approved The NASDAQ Stock Market
LLC's application to become a registered national securities
exchange. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53128 (January 13,
2006), 71 FR 3550 (January 23, 2006). At the time of the
Commission's consideration of this matter, The NASDAQ Stock Market
is still operating as a subsidiary of the National Association of
Securities Dealers (``NASD''), a registered national securities
association.
    \16\ The ISG was formed on July 14, 1983, to, among other
things, coordinate more effectively surveillance and investigative
information sharing arrangements in the stock and options markets.
All of the registered national securities exchanges and NASD are
members of the ISG. In addition, futures exchanges and non-U.S.
exchanges and associations are affiliate members of the ISG.
    \17\ However, such non-U.S. index components, as ``NMS stocks,''
would be registered under Section 12 of the Act and listed and
traded on a national securities exchange or Nasdaq, where there is
last sale reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the requirements in Phlx Rule 1009A(d)
regarding, among other things, the minimum market capitalization,
trading volume, and relative weightings of an underlying index's
component stocks are designed to ensure that the markets for the
index's component stocks are adequately capitalized and sufficiently
liquid, and that no one stock dominates the index. In addition, Phlx
Rule 1009A(d) requires that the underlying index be ``broad-based,'' as
defined in Phlx Rule 1000A(b)(11).\18\ The Commission believes that
these requirements minimize the potential for manipulating the
underlying index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Phlx Rule 1000A(b)(11) defines ``broad-based index'' to
mean ``an index designed to be representative of a stock market as a
whole or of a range of companies in unrelated industries.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the requirement in Phlx Rule 1009A(d)
that the current index value be widely disseminated at least once every
15 seconds by one or more major market data vendors \19\ during the
time an index option trades on the Phlx should provide transparency
with respect to current index values and contribute to the transparency
of the market for

broad-based index options. In addition, the Commission believes, as it
has noted in other contexts, that the requirement in Phlx Rule 1009A(d)
that an index option be settled based on the opening prices of the
index's component securities, rather than on closing prices, could help
to reduce the potential impact of expiring index options on the market
for the index's component securities.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Phlx stated that `` `[m]ajor market data vendor' for
the purposes of Phlx Rule 1009A(d)(11) includes, but is not limited
to, the Options Price Reporting Authority, the Consolidated Tape
Association (administers the Consolidated Tape and Consolidated
Quotation Plans), Nasdaq Index Dissemination Service, and securities
information vendors such as Bloomberg and Reuters.''
    \20\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 30944 (July
21, 1992), 57 FR 33376 (July 28, 1992) (order approving a Chicago
Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'') proposal to
establish opening price settlement for S&P 500 Index options).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule
change, as amended, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication
of the notice of filing in the Federal Register. The Exchange has
requested accelerated approval of the proposed rule change. The
proposal implements listing and maintenance standards and position and
exercise limits for broad-based index options substantially identical
to those recently approved for the International Securities Exchange,
Inc., the American Stock Exchange LLC and the CBOE.\21\ The Commission
does not believe that the Exchange's proposal raises any novel
regulatory issues. Therefore, the Commission finds good cause,
consistent with Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\22\ to approve the
proposed rule change, as amended, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 52578 (October 7,
2005), 70 FR 60590 (October 18, 2005) (SR-ISE-2005-27); 52781
(November 16, 2005), 70 FR 70898 (November 23, 2005) (SR-Amex-2005-
069); and 53266 (February 9, 2006), 71 FR 8321 (February 16, 2006)
(SR-CBOE-2005-59).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\23\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2006-17), as amended,
is hereby approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Nancy M. Morris,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-11682 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 92 (Thursday, May 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27680-27683]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11675]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64433; File No. SR-BYX-2011-011]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Extend a Pilot Program Related to
Trading Pauses Due to Extraordinary Market Volatility

May 6, 2011.
    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 May 4, 2011, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BYX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposal to extend a
pilot program previously approved by the Commission related to Rule
11.18, entitled ``Trading Halts Due to Extraordinary Market
Volatility,'' to include additional securities in the pilot by which
such rule operates. The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 11.8,
entitled ``Obligations of Market Makers,'' to conform certain of the

percentages thereunder consistent with the proposed changes to the
pilot.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to extend a pilot program previously approved
by the Commission related to Rule 11.18, entitled ``Trading Halts Due
to Extraordinary Market Volatility,'' to include additional securities
in the pilot by which such rule operates. The Exchange also proposes to
amend Rule 11.8, entitled ``Obligations of Market Makers,'' to conform
certain of the percentages thereunder consistent with the proposed
changes to the pilot.
    The Commission approved Rule 11.18(d) on a pilot basis on June 10,
2010 to allow other national securities exchanges and FINRA to pause
trading in an individual stock when the primary listing market for such
stock issues a trading pause due to extraordinary market volatility
(``Trading Pause'') in a security included within the S&P 500[reg]
Index (``S&P 500'') (``Trading Pause Pilot'' or ``Pilot'').\3\ Other
national securities exchanges and FINRA subsequently received approval
to add to the Pilot the securities included in the Russell 1000[supreg]
Index (``Russell 1000'') and a specified list of Exchange Traded
Products (``ETPs'').\4\ The Exchange adopted the Pilot prior to
commencing operations as a national securities exchange.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Prior to the Exchange's approval to register as a national
securities exchange, the Commission approved the Trading Pause Pilot
for all equities exchanges and FINRA. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 62252 (June 10, 2010), 75 FR 34186 (June 16, 2010) (File
Nos. SR-BATS-2010-014; SR-EDGA-2010-01; SR-EDGX-2010-01; SR-BX-2010-
037; SR-ISE-2010-48; SR-NYSE-2010-39; SR-NYSEAmex-2010-46; SR-
NYSEArca-2010-41; SR-NASDAQ-2010-061; SR-CHX-2010-10; SR-NSX-2010-
05; and SR-CBOE-2010-047) and Securities Exchange Act Release No.
62251 (June 10, 2010), 75 FR 34183 (June 16, 2010) (SR-FINRA-2010-
025).
    \4\ The Commission approved the addition to the Trading Pause
Pilot of the securities included in the Russell 1000 and ETPs, where
applicable, for all equities exchanges and FINRA. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 62884 (September 10, 2010), 75 FR 56618
(September 16, 2010) (File Nos. SR-BATS-2010-018; SR-BX-2010-044;
SR-CBOE-2010-065; SR-CHX-2010-14; SR-EDGA-2010-05; SR-EDGX-2010-05;
SR-ISE-2010-66; SR-NASDAQ-2010-079; SR-NYSE-2010-49; SR-NYSEAmex-
2010-63; SR-NYSEArca-2010-61; and SR-NSX-2010-08 and Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 62883 (September 10, 2010), 75 FR 56608
(September 16, 2010) (SR-FINRA-2010-033).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63097 (October 13,
2010), 75 FR 64767 (October 20, 2010) (SR-BYX-2010-002). The
Exchange submitted a proposed rule change shortly after the adoption
of the Pilot to extend the operation of the Pilot, which was set to
expire on December 10, 2010, until April 11, 2011. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 63513 (December 9, 2010), 75 FR 78784
(December 16, 2010) (SR-BYX-2010-007). More recently, the Exchange
submitted a proposed rule change to extend the operation of the
Pilot until the earlier of August 11, 2011 or the date on which a
limit up/limit down mechanism to address extraordinary market
volatility, if adopted, applies. Securities Exchange Act Release No.
64214 (April 6, 2011), 76 FR 20430 (April 12, 2011) (SR-BYX-2011-
007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has continued to assess whether additional securities
need to be added to the Pilot and whether the parameters of Rule 11.18
need to be modified to accommodate trading characteristics of different
securities. In consultation with other markets and the staff of the
Commission, the Exchange proposes to include all NMS stocks within the
Pilot that are not already included therein. Accordingly, the Exchange
proposes to modify the definition of ``Circuit Breaker Securities'' in
Interpretation and Policy .05 to Rule 11.18 to include all NMS stocks.
The Exchange is not proposing any other changes to the text of Rule
11.18 or the operation of the Pilot, and will continue to assess
whether the parameters for invoking a Trading Pause continue to be
appropriate and whether the parameters should be modified.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange notes that it does not currently calculate the
percentage necessary for a Trading Pause to be issued, but instead
relies on the primary listing market for each security to perform
such calculation and disseminate information if and when a Trading
Pause is in effect. Nonetheless, the Exchange supports the
percentages at which Trading Pauses will trigger, which are being
concurrently proposed by the primary listing markets with respect to
the NMS stocks that are being added to the Pilot. In particular, the
proposed additional stocks are those not currently included in the
S&P 500 Index, Russell 1000 Index, or specified ETPs, and therefore
are more likely to be less liquid securities or securities with
lower trading volumes. Accordingly, the Exchange agrees that broader
percentages to trigger a Trading Pause would be appropriate.
Similarly, because leveraged ETPs trade at a ratio against the
associated index, a broader percentage to trigger a Trading Pause
would also be appropriate for leveraged ETPs. Finally, the Exchange
agrees that lower-priced securities should be governed by a broader
percentage prior to triggering a Trading Pause than other NMS stocks
because lower-priced securities may tend to be more volatile, and
price movements of lower-priced stocks equate to a higher percentage
move than a similar price change for a higher-priced stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes to the Pilot, if approved, would require that
the text of Rule 11.8(d)(2)(D) and (E), which pertain to the pricing
obligations that Market Makers \7\ are required to adhere to, be
amended to ensure consistency with the percentage moves that will
trigger a Trading Pause on the primary listing markets (a ``Trigger
Percentage''). Specifically, in order to adopt the proposed changes to
the Pilot, the primary listing markets will apply different Trigger
Percentages to the newly added securities, including 30% for NMS stocks
priced equal to or greater than $1 per share that are not included in
the S&P 500, the Russell 1000 or the specified list of ETPs and 50% for
NMS stocks priced below $1 per share that are not included in the S&P
500, the Russell 1000 or the specified list of ETPs (``Low Priced
Securities''). In order to accommodate this change, the Exchange
proposes to modify the language of its quoting requirements for Market
Makers, which are intended to be within the bounds of the Trigger
Percentages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term Market Maker means a Member that acts as a Market
Maker on BYX pursuant to Chapter XI of the Exchange's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As set forth in the Exchange's current Rule, the pricing
obligations applicable to quotations of Market Makers are based on the
``Designated Percentage'' and the ``Defined Limit,'' which are
determined based on the applicable Trigger Percentage. Currently, the
Exchange's formula for calculating the Designated Percentage is the
Trigger Percentage minus 2%. The current formula for calculating the
Defined Limit is the Trigger Percentage minus 0.5%. The Exchange
proposes to apply the existing formulas for calculating the Designated
Percentage and Defined Limit to all NMS stocks other than Low Priced
securities. Thus, there will be no change to the existing Designated
Percentage of 8% and Defined Limit of 9.5% for securities included in
the S&P 500, the Russell 1000 or the specified list of ETPs (or 20% and
21.5% when trading pauses are not in effect). For newly added NMS
stocks priced $1 or above, this formula will mean a Designated
Percentage of 28% and a Defined Limit of 29.5%.
    The Exchange proposes to add language stating that for Low Priced
Securities the Designated Percentage

will be 20 percentage points less than the Trigger Percentage and the
Defined Limit will be 18.5 percentage points less than the Trigger
Percentage. Accordingly, the Designated Percentage and Defined Limit
would be 30% and 31.5%, respectively, for Low Priced Securities.
    Similarly, and consistent with the rules of the primary listing
markets, the Exchange proposes to state that with respect to securities
included in S&P 500, the Russell 1000 or the specified list of ETPs,
such products have different quotation requirements at the open and
close of trading each day. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to state
that with respect to such products, the quotation requirements apply
with a Designated Percentage of 20% and a Defined Limit of 21.5% for
times during Regular Trading Hours when stock pause triggers are not in
effect under the rules of the primary listing market. For all other NMS
stocks, the Designated Percentage and Defined Limit will not change for
the open or the close of trading.
    The Exchange notes that part of this proposed change would be
substantive, in that the percentages under Rule 11.8(d)(2)(D) and (E)
would decrease slightly for the proposed new NMS stocks priced at $1 or
greater. The Exchange believes that this proposed substantive change
would not have a significant impact on Market Maker pricing obligations
and is reasonable because it would ensure that the designated quoting
percentages in 11.18 are within a narrower range than the percentages
necessary to trigger a Trading Pause.
    The Exchange also proposes to modify Rule 11.8(e), which describes
an optional functionality that the Exchange offers to Exchange Market
Makers to assist such Market Makers with maintenance of their
quotations under Rule 11.8. Specifically, for Market Makers that
utilize the functionality, the Exchange enters bids and offers at the
Designated Percentage and cancels and replaces the bid or offer if it
drifts away from the NBBO to the Defined Limit or away from the
Designated Percentage towards the NBBO by a number of percentage points
determined by the Exchange. If a bid or offer entered pursuant to
proposed paragraph (e) is executed, the Exchange will re-enter a new
bid or offer on behalf of a Market Maker. In order to reduce the
operational burden on the Exchange, the Exchange proposes to use the
same Designated Percentage and Defined Limit for all NMS stocks that
are being added to the Pilot regardless of the price per share of such
stocks. Accordingly, for purposes of its optional quotation
functionality, the Exchange will use a consistent Designated Percentage
of 28% and a consistent Defined Limit of 29.5% for all NMS stocks not
included in S&P 500, the Russell 1000 or the specified list of ETPs.
Market Makers managing their own quoting on the Exchange may still
quote in accordance with the rule based on the Designated Percentage
and Defined Limit established for Low Priced Securities (30% and 31.5%,
respectively).
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to simplify Rule 11.18 by adopting
Interpretation and Policy .01, which will, in chart form, explicitly
state the percentages that are applicable under the Rule for different
types of securities and at different times.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\8\ In particular, the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ because it
would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system. The proposed rule change is also
consistent with Section 11A(a)(1) of the Act \10\ in that it seeks to
assure fair competition among brokers and dealers and among exchange
markets. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule meets these
requirements because it expands the scope of the Pilot to cover all NMS
stocks while adjusting the parameters of the rule for different
securities in a manner that will promote uniformity across markets
concerning decisions to pause trading in a security when there are
significant price movements. Additionally, the proposed changes would
ensure that the designated quoting percentages in Rule 11.18 are within
a narrower range than the percentages necessary to trigger a Trading
Pause on a primary listing market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
any burden on competition.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written 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 (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BYX-2011-011 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BYX-2011-011. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the

Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of 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 publicly available. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-BYX-2011-011 and should be submitted on or before June
2, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-11675 Filed 5-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 74)]
[Notices]
[Page 20621]
[DOCID:fr16ap08-37]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 11879-001[Ndash]Idaho]

Symbiotics, LLC; Notice of Availability of Final Environmental
Assessment

April 10, 2008.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
as amended, and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) regulations (18 CFR Part 380), Commission staff have reviewed the
license application for the Chester Diversion Hydroelectric Project
(FERC No. 11879) and have prepared a final environmental assessment
(EA) on the proposed action. The project is located on the Henry's Fork
of the Snake River in Fremont County, Idaho, downstream of some of the
most well-known fly fishing areas in the country.
    Symbiotics, LLC (applicant) filed an application for license with
the Commission for an original license for the 3.3-megawatt (MW)
Chester Diversion Hydroelectric Project, using the existing Cross Cut
Diversion dam (Chester Diversion dam).\1\ In this final EA, Commission
staff analyzes the probable environmental effects of construction and
operation of the project and have concluded that approval of the
license, with appropriate staff-recommended environmental measures,
would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Chester Diversion dam was initially constructed as the
``Cross Cut Diversion dam'' because it served as the diversion dam
for the Cross Cut irrigation canal. It now also serves as the
diversion dam for the Last Chance irrigation canal, and because of
its location near Chester, Idaho, is now referred to as the Chester
Diversion dam. While both names are appropriate, we use the
``Chester Diversion'' moniker for consistency and clarity in this
EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Copies of the final EA are available for review in Public Reference
Room 2-A of the Commission's offices at 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC. The final EA also may be viewed on the Commission's
Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary'' link.
Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or on the
Commission's Web site using the eLibrary link. For assistance with
eLibrary, contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free at (866)
208-3676, or for TTY contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-8143 Filed 4-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 53646]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23157]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4399-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001

Florida; Amendment No. 1 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 Florida (FEMA-4399-DR), dated October 11, 2018, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued October 12, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, 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 Florida is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of October 11, 2018.

    Calhoun, Gadsden, Jackson, and Liberty Counties for Individual
Assistance (already designated for debris removal and emergency
protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal
assistance under the Public Assistance program).

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.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-23157 Filed 10-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-11-P


[Federal Register: November 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 210)]
[Notices]
[Page 56605-56606]
[DOCID:fr02no09-33]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

October 23, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP09-922-001.
    Applicants: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC submits
Substitute Second Revised Sheet 30 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth
Revised Volume 1, to be effective March 1, 2010.
    Filed Date: 10/19/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091020-0022.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 2, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-39-001.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Company submits corrected redlined
amendment to Rate Schedule FSS negotiated rate agreement with BP Canada
Energy Marketing Corp, to be effective 10/8/09.
    Filed Date: 10/19/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091020-0021.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 2, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-1027-001.
    Applicants: White River Hub, LLC.
    Description: White River Hub, LLC submits Second Substitute First
Revised Sheet 243 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to be
effective 10/1/09.
    Filed Date: 10/22/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091023-0010.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 3, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-1029-001.
    Applicants: Questar Overthrust Pipeline Company.
    Description: Questar Overthrust Pipeline Company submits Second
Substitute First Revised Sheet No 211 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second
Revised Volume No 1-A.
    Filed Date: 10/22/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091023-0015.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 3, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-1028-001.
    Applicants: Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Company.
    Description: Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Company submits
Second Substitute First Revised Sheet No 130 to its FERC Gas Tariff,
Original Volume No 1.
    Filed Date: 10/22/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091023-0014.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 3, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-1030-001.
    Applicants: Questar Pipeline Company.
    Description: Questar Pipeline Company submits Substitute Fourth
Revised Sheet 201 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 10/22/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091023-0013.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 3, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-1037-001.
    Applicants: Questar Pipeline Company.
    Description: Questar Pipeline Company submits proposed Substitute
Eighth Revised Sheet 8 to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, to
be effective 10/7/09.
    Filed Date: 10/19/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091020-0023.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 2, 2009.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all
the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-26276 Filed 10-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 54 (Thursday, March 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15588-15590]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06116]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 13753-002; 13762-002; 13771-002; 13763-002; 13766-002;
13767-002]

Notice of Applications Tendered for Filing With the Commission
and Soliciting Additional Study Requests: FFP Missouri 16, LLC; FFP
Missouri 15, LLC; Solia 8 Hydroelectric, LLC; FFP Missouri 13, LLC;
Solia 5 Hydroelectric, LLC; Solia 4 Hydroelectric, LLC

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been
filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Applications: Original Major Licenses.
    b. Project Nos.: 13753-002; 13762-002; 13771-002; 13763-002; 13766-
002; 13767-002.
    c. Date Filed: February 27, 2014.
    d. Applicants: FFP Missouri 16, LLC; FFP Missouri 15, LLC; Solia 8
Hydroelectric, LLC; FFP Missouri 13, LLC; Solia 5 Hydroelectric, LLC;
Solia 4 Hydroelectric, LLC. All applicants are subsidiaries of Free
Flow Power Corporation.
    e. Names of Projects: Opekiska Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project,
13753-002; Morgantown Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project, 13762-002;
Point Marion Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project, 13771-002; Grays
Landing Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project, 13763-002; Maxwell Lock and
Dam Hydroelectric Project, 13766-002; and Monongahela Lock and Dam
Number Four Hydroelectric Project, 13767-002. These projects are
collectively referred to as the ``Monongahela River projects.''
    f. Locations: The proposed projects would be located at U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' (Corps) dams on the Monongahela River in Monongalia
County, West Virginia and Fayette, Greene, and Washington counties,
Pennsylvania (see table below for specific locations). The projects
would occupy 39.75 acres of federal land managed by the Corps.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Project No.         Projects      County and State      City/town
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P-13753...........  Opekiska Lock     Monongalia, WV..  Between Fairmont
                     and Dam.                            and Morgantown.
P-13762...........  Morgantown Lock   Monongalia, WV..  Morgantown.
                     and Dam.
P-13771...........  Point Marion      Fayette, PA.....  Point Marion.
                     Lock and Dam.
P-13763...........  Grays Landing     Greene, PA......  Near Masontown.
                     Lock and Dam.
P-13766...........  Maxwell Lock and  Washington, PA..  Downstream of
                     Dam.                                Fredericktown.
P-13767...........  Monongahela Lock  Washington, PA..  Charleroi.
                     and Dam Number
                     Four.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 USC 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Thomas Feldman, Vice President, Free Flow
Power Corporation, 239 Causeway Street, Suite 300, Boston, MA 02114; or
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Ramya Swaminathan, Chief Operating Officer, Free Flow Power
Corporation, 239 Causeway Street, Suite 300, Boston, MA 02114; or at
(978) 238-2822.
    Daniel Lissner, General Counsel, Free Flow Power Corporation, 239
Causeway Street, Suite 300, Boston, MA 02114; or at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Nicholas Ettema,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of
the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: April, 28 2014.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202)
502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy
to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
the docket number(s) for the project(s) (e.g., P-13753-002).
    m. The applications are not ready for environmental analysis at
this time.
    n. The proposed Opekiska Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project would
be the most upstream project at river mile (RM) 115.4 and would consist
of the following new facilities: (1) A 180-foot-long, 95-foot-wide
intake channel containing a 30-foot-long, 50-foot-high, 70-foot-wide
intake structure with 3-inch bar spacing trashracks; (2) a 120-foot-
long, 60-foot-high, 70-foot-wide reinforced concrete powerhouse on the
west bank of the river; (3) two turbine-generator units with a combined
capacity of 6.0 megawatts (MW); (4) a 280-foot-long, 64-foot-wide
tailrace; (5) a 40-foot-long by 40-foot-wide substation; (6) a 3,511-
foot-long, 12.5-kilovolt (kV), overhead transmission line to connect
the project substation to an existing distribution line; and (7)
appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation would be 25,300
megawatt-hours (MWh).
    The proposed Morgantown Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project would be
located at RM 102.0 and consist of the following new facilities: (1) A
280-foot-long, 80-foot-wide intake channel containing a 30-foot-long,
50-foot-high, 70-foot-wide intake structure with 3-inch bar spacing
trashracks; (2) a 120-foot-long, 60-foot-high, 70-foot-wide reinforced
concrete powerhouse on the east bank of the river; (3) two turbine-
generator units with a combined capacity of 5.0 MW; (4) a 200-foot-
long, 70-foot-wide tailrace; (5) a 40-foot-long by 40-foot-wide
substation; (6) a 2,600-foot-long, 12.5-kV, overhead transmission line
to connect the project substation to an existing distribution line; and
(7) appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation would be
18,900 MWh.
    The proposed Point Marion Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project would
be located at RM 90.8 and consist of the following new facilities: (1)
A 280-foot-long, 90-foot-wide intake channel containing a 30-foot-long,
50-foot-high, 70-foot-wide intake structure with 3-inch bar spacing
trashracks; (2) a 120-foot-long, 60-foot-high, 70-foot-wide reinforced
concrete powerhouse on the east bank of the river; (3) two turbine-
generator units with a combined capacity of 5.0 MW; (4) a 215-foot-
long, 90-foot-wide tailrace; (5) a 40-foot-long by 40-foot-wide
substation; (6) a 3,320-foot-long, 69-kV, overhead transmission line to
connect the project substation to an existing substation; and (7)
appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation would be 16,500
MWh.
    The proposed Grays Landing Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project would
be located at RM 82.0 and consist of the following new facilities: (1)
A 300-foot-long, 130-foot-wide intake channel containing a 100-foot-
long, 84-foot-wide intake structure with 3-inch bar spacing trashracks;
(2) a 576-foot-long, 2.5-foot-high adjustable crest gate on top of the
existing dam crest; (3) a 150-foot-long, 75-foot-high, 90-foot-wide
reinforced concrete powerhouse on the west bank of the river; (4) two
turbine-generator units with a combined capacity of 12.0 MW; (5) a 250-
foot-long, 84-foot-wide tailrace; (6) a 40-foot-long by 40-foot-wide
substation; (7) a 9,965-foot-long, 69-kV, overhead transmission line to
connect the project substation to an existing distribution line; and
(8) appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation would be
47,300 MWh.
    The proposed Maxwell Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project would be
located at RM 61.2 and consist of the following new facilities: (1) A
130-foot-long, 85-foot-wide intake channel located immediately
downstream of the Corps' 5th spillway gate on the east side of the
river; (2) a pair of spill gates totaling 84 feet wide located within
the proposed intake channel; (3) a 100-foot-long, 70-foot-high, 85-
foot-wide intake structure with 3-inch bar spacing trashracks; (4) a
150-foot-long, 70-foot-high, 90-foot-wide reinforced concrete
powerhouse; (5) two turbine-generator units with a combined capacity of
13.0 MW; (6) a 160-foot-long, 120-foot-wide tailrace; (7) a 40-foot-
long by 40-foot-wide substation; (8) a 350-

foot-long, 69/138 kV, overhead transmission line to connect the project
substation to an existing distribution line; and (9) appurtenant
facilities. The average annual generation would be 56,800 MWh.
    The proposed Monongahela Lock and Dam Number Four Hydroelectric
Project would be located at RM 41.5 and consist of the following new
facilities: (1) A 140-foot-long, 90-foot-wide intake channel located
immediately downstream of the Corps' 5th spillway gate on the west side
of the river; (2) a pair of spill gates totaling 84 feet wide located
within the proposed intake channel; (3) a 100-foot-long, 64-foot-high,
90-foot-wide intake structure with 3-inch bar spacing trashracks; (4) a
150-foot-long, 70-foot-high, 90-foot-wide reinforced concrete
powerhouse; (5) two turbine-generator units with a combined capacity of
12.0 MW; (6) a 210-foot-long, 130-foot-wide tailrace; (7) a 40-foot-
long by 40-foot-wide substation; (8) a 45-foot-long, 69-kV, overhead
transmission line to connect the project substation to an existing
distribution line; and (9) appurtenant facilities. The average annual
generation would be 48,500 MWh.
    Free Flow Power proposes to operate all six projects in a ``run-of-
river'' mode using flows made available by the Corps. The proposed
projects would not change existing flow releases or water surface
elevations upstream or downstream of the proposed projects.
    o. Location of the Applications: A copy of each application is
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Copies are
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    p. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the
schedule will be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Milestone                               Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Notice of Acceptance.............  April 2014.
Issue Scoping Document 1 for Comments..  May 2014.
Hold Scoping Meeting...................  June 2014.
Comments Due on Scoping Document 1.....  July 2014.
Issue Scoping Document 2...............  August 2014.
Issue Notice of Ready for Environmental  August 2014.
 Analysis.
Commission Issues EA...................  February 2015.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: March 13, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-06116 Filed 3-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P