[Federal Register: December 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 246)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 78178-78179]
[DOCID:fr22de08-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0998; Airspace Docket No. 08-AAL-29]

Revision of Class E Airspace; Ketchikan, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action revises Class E airspace at Ketchikan, AK to
provide adequate controlled airspace to contain aircraft executing
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). Seven SIAPs, two
Standard Instrument Departure Procedures (SIDs) and a textual Obstacle
Departure Procedure (ODP) are being amended or drafted for the
Ketchikan International Airport. This action revises existing Class E
airspace upward from 700 feet (ft.) and 1,200 ft. above the surface at
Ketchikan International Airport, Ketchikan, AK.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, March 12, 2009. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, AAL-538G, Federal Aviation
Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587;
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet address: http://www.faa.gov/about/
office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/fs/
alaskan/rulemaking/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On Friday, October 17, 2008, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to revise Class E
airspace upward from 700 ft. above the surface and from 1,200 ft. above
the surface at Ketchikan, AK (73 FR 61749). The action was proposed in
order to create Class E airspace sufficient in size to contain aircraft
while executing instrument procedures for the Ketchikan International
Airport. Class E controlled airspace extending upward from 700 ft. and
1,200 ft. above the surface in the Ketchikan International Airport area
is revised by this action.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments were received. The rule is adopted as proposed with the
following exception. The airport location has been updated to reflect
new data obtained in a recent survey.
    The area will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot
reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1,200
ft. transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9S, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed October 3,
2008, and effective October 31, 2008, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in
this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 revises Class E airspace at the
Ketchikan International Airport, Alaska. This Class

E airspace is revised to accommodate aircraft executing amended
instrument procedures, and will be depicted on aeronautical charts for
pilot reference. The intended effect of this rule is to provide
adequate controlled airspace for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
operations at the Ketchikan International Airport, Ketchikan, Alaska.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Because this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Section 40103, Sovereignty and use of
airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable
airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it creates Class E airspace sufficient in size to contain aircraft
executing instrument procedures for the Ketchikan International Airport
and represents the FAA's continuing effort to safely and efficiently
use the navigable airspace.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9S, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, signed October 3, 2008, and effective October 31, 2008, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending Upward From 700 Feet or
More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Ketchikan, AK [Revised]

Ketchikan, Ketchikan International Airport, AK
    (Lat. 55[deg]21'15'' N., long. 131[deg]42'40'' W.)
Ketchikan Localizer
    (Lat. 55[deg]20'41'' N., long. 131[deg]41'43'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within 2 miles either side of the Ketchikan Localizer southeast
course, extending from the Ketchikan International Airport, AK, to 9
miles southeast of the Ketchikan International Airport, AK, and
within 1.9 miles either side of the Ketchikan Localizer northwest
course, extending from the Ketchikan International Airport, AK, to
10 miles northwest of the Ketchikan International Airport, AK.
* * * * *

    Issued in Anchorage, AK, on December 4, 2008.
Anthony M. Wylie,
Manager, Alaska Flight Services Information Area Group.
[FR Doc. E8-30171 Filed 12-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 149 (Tuesday, August 4, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 46190]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18996]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 73

[Docket Nos. FDA-2014-C-1616 and FDA-2015-C-0245]

Listing of Color Additives Exempt From Certification; Mica-Based
Pearlescent Pigments; Confirmation of Effective Date

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is confirming the
effective date of July 9, 2015, for the final rule that appeared in the
Federal Register of June 8, 2015, and that amended the color additive
regulations to expand the permitted uses of mica-based pearlescent
pigments prepared from titanium dioxide and mica as color additives in
cordials, liqueurs, flavored alcoholic malt beverages, wine coolers,
cocktails, non-alcoholic cocktail mixers and mixes, and in egg
decorating kits for coloring shell eggs.

DATES: Effective date of final rule published in the Federal Register
of June 8, 2015 (80 FR 32303), confirmed: July 9, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Anderson, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5100
Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of June 8, 2015 (80
FR 32303), we amended the color additive regulations in Sec.  73.350
Mica-based pearlescent pigments (21 CFR 73.350) to expand the permitted
uses of mica-based pearlescent pigments prepared from titanium dioxide
and mica as color additives in cordials, liqueurs, flavored alcoholic
malt beverages, wine coolers, cocktails, non-alcoholic cocktail mixers
and mixes, and in egg decorating kits for coloring shell eggs.
    We gave interested persons until July 8, 2015, to file objections
or requests for a hearing. We received no objections or requests for a
hearing on the final rule. Therefore, we find that the effective date
of the final rule that published in the Federal Register of June 8,
2015, should be confirmed.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 73

    Color additives, Cosmetics, Drugs, Foods, Medical devices.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 321, 341, 342, 343, 348, 351, 352, 355, 361, 362, 371, 379e) and
under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and
redelegated to the Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, we are
giving notice that no objections or requests for a hearing were filed
in response to the June 8, 2015, final rule. Accordingly, the
amendments issued thereby became effective July 9, 2015.

    Dated: July 29, 2015.
Susan Bernard,
Director, Office of Regulations, Policy and Social Sciences, Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 2015-18996 Filed 8-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 250 (Monday, December 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 79534]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31132]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71177; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-106]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change To Amend Rules 1064 and 1080 to More Specifically Address the
Number and Size of Counterparties to a Qualified Contingent Cross Order

December 23, 2013.
    On October 23, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
amend Rules 1064 and 1080 to more specifically address the number and
size of counterparties to a Qualified Contingent Cross Order (``QCC
Order''). The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on November 13, 2013.\3\ The Commission received two
comment letters on this proposal.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70821 (November 6,
2013), 78 FR 68126.
    \4\ See letters to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Benjamin R. Londergan, Chief Executive Officer, Group One
Trading, L.P., dated December 2, 2013 (``Group One Letter'') and
Angelo Evangelou, Associate General Counsel, Chicago Board Options
Exchange Incorporated, dated December 13, 2013 (``CBOE Letter'')
(collectively, the ``Comment Letters'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day for this filing is December 28, 2013. The Commission is
extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change, so that it has
sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change, including the
Comment Letters that have been submitted in connection with this
proposed rule change.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\6\ designates February 11, 2013, as the date by which the
Commission should either approve or disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule
change (File No. SR-Phlx-2013-106).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-31132 Filed 12-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 226)]
[Notices]
[Page 71127-71128]
[DOCID:fr25no05-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Temporary Amendment of License and
Soliciting Comments, Motions to Intervene, and Protests

November 16, 2005.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Request for temporary deviation from that
required to expand the operating limits for the upper reservoir from
December 1 through March 31, 2006, for the purpose of additional
operating flexibility under ISO-NE emergency conditions.
    b. Project No.: 2485-028.
    c. Date Filed: November 16, 2005.
    d. Applicant: Northeast Generation Company (NGC).
    e. Name of Project: Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage
Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the east side of the
Connecticut River, in the towns of Northfield and Erving, in Franklin
County, Massachusetts. The project does not utilize federal or tribal
lands.
    g. Filed pursuant to: 18 CFR 4.201.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. William J. Nadeau, Vice President and
Chief Operating Officer, Northeast Generation Services Company, 273
Dividend Road, Rocky Hill, Connecticut 06067,<PHONE_NUMBER> with
copies of all correspondence and communications to:
    Mr. John Howard, Station Manager, Northfield Mountain Station, 99
Millers Falls Road, Northfield, Massachusetts 01360,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
and
    Ms. Catherine E. Shively, Senior Counsel, Public Service Company of
New Hampshire, P.O. Box 330, Manchester, New Hampshire 03105, (603)
634-2326.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Diana Shannon<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene, protests, comments:
November 23, 2005.
    k. Description of Proposed Action: NGC seeks temporary
authorization to modify the upper reservoir's upper and lower water
service elevation limits from 1000.5 and 938 feet, to 1004.5 and 920
feet, respectively, and to allow maximum daily generation of 10,465
megawatt hours only under certain ISO-NE emergency operating conditions
from December 1, 2005-March 31, 2006. At all other times, the reservoir
would be operated between 1004.5 to 947.7 feet, with a maximum daily
generation of 8,475 MWh, which is the existing allowable generation
limit. The project uses some of the storage behind Turner Falls Dam
(FERC No. 1889) as the lower reservoir for the pumped storage
operations and proposes no changes in the operating limits of the
Turners Falls Reservoir. NOC requests that the temporary authority
become effective December 1, 2005.
    l. Locations of Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also
be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to

be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676
or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A
copy is also available for inspection and

reproduction at the address in item (h) above
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', OR ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers (P-2485-028). All documents (original and eight
copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC
20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each
representative of the Applicant specified in the particular
application.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6478 Filed 11-23-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 236 (Wednesday, December 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76591-76595]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30943]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76552; File No. SR-BATS-2015-108]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule 11.27 Regarding the
Quoting and Trading Requirements of the Tick Size Pilot Program

December 3, 2015.
    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 November 30, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``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 is proposing to adopt Exchange Rule 11.27 to implement
the Regulation NMS Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program
(``Plan'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange notes that proposed rule change is
substantially similar to that proposed by FINRA under their proposed
Rule 6191. See SR-FINRA-2015-047 (filed November 13, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at 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
    On August 25, 2014, NYSE Group, Inc., on behalf of the Exchange,
BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange,
Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA''), NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, the Nasdaq
Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE MKT LLC,
and NYSE Arca, Inc. (collectively ``Participants''), filed with the
Commission, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act \4\ and Rule 608 of
Regulation NMS thereunder, the Plan to implement a tick size pilot
program (``Pilot'').\5\ The Participants filed the Plan to comply with
an order issued by the Commission on June 24, 2014.\6\ The Plan \7\ was
published for comment in the Federal Register on November 7, 2014, and
approved by the Commission, as modified, on May 6, 2015.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \5\ See Letter from Brendon J. Weiss, Vice President,
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., to Secretary, Commission, dated
August 25, 2014.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72460 (June 24,
2014), 79 FR 36840 (June 30, 2014).
    \7\ Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms used in this
rule filing are defined as set forth in the Plan. The Exchange also
proposes supplementary material as part of this proposed rule change
to, among other things, provide that the terms used in proposed Rule
11.27 shall have the same meaning as provided in the Plan, unless
otherwise specified.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74892 (May 6, 2015),
80 FR 27514 (May 13, 2015) (``Approval Order'').

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

    The Plan is designed to allow the Commission, market participants,
and the public to study and assess the impact of increment conventions
on the liquidity and trading of the common stocks of small-
capitalization companies. Each Participant is required to comply with,
and to enforce compliance by its member organizations, as applicable,
with the provisions of the Plan. As is described more fully below, the
proposed rules would require Members \9\ to comply with the applicable
quoting and trading increments for Pilot Securities.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer, or any person associated with a registered broker or dealer,
that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange. A Member will
have the status of a ``member'' of the Exchange as that term is
defined in Section 3(a)(3) of the Act.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
    \10\ The Exchange proposes to add Information and Policy .03 to
Rule 11.27 to provide that the Rule shall be in effect during a
pilot period to coincide with the pilot period for the Plan
(including any extensions to the pilot period for the Plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Pilot will include stocks of companies with $3 billion or less
in market capitalization, an average daily trading volume of one
million shares or less, and a volume weighted average price of at least
$2.00 for every trading day. The Pilot will consist of a control group
of approximately 1400 Pilot Securities and three test groups with 400
Pilot Securities in each selected by a stratified sampling.\11\ During
the pilot, Pilot securities in the control group will be quoted and
traded at the currently permissible increments. Pilot Securities in the
first test group (``Test Group One'') will be quoted in $0.05 minimum
increments but will continue to trade at any price increment that is
currently permitted.\12\ Pilot Securities in the second test group
(``Test Group Two'') will be quoted in $0.05 minimum increments and
will trade at $0.05 minimum increments subject to a midpoint exception,
a retail investor order exception, and a negotiated trade
exception.\13\ Pilot Securities in the third test group (``Test Group
Three'') will be subject to the same restrictions as Test Group Two and
also will be subject to the ``Trade-at'' requirement to prevent price
matching by a market participant that is not displaying at a price of a
Trading Center's \14\ ``Best Protected Bid'' or ``Best Protected
Offer,'' unless an enumerated exception applies.\15\ In addition to the
exceptions provided under Test Group Two, an exception for Block Size
orders and exceptions that mirror those under Rule 611 of Regulation
NMS \16\ will apply to the Trade-at requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Section V of the Plan for identification of Pilot
Securities, including criteria for selection and grouping.
    \12\ See Section VI(B) of the Plan.
    \13\ See Section VI(C) of the Plan.
    \14\ The Plan incorporates the definition of ``Trading Center''
from Rule 600(b)(78) of Regulation NMS. Regulation NMS defines a
Trading Center as ``a national securities exchange or national
securities association that operates an SRO trading facility, an
alternative trading system, an exchange market maker, an OTC market
maker, or any other broker or dealer that executes orders internally
by trading as principal or crossing orders as agent.''
    \15\ See Section VI(D) of the Plan.
    \16\ 17 CFR 242.611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compliance With the Quoting and Trading Increments of the Plan
    The Plan requires the Exchange to establish, maintain, and enforce
written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply
with applicable quoting and trading requirements specified in the
Plan.\17\ Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing new Rule 11.27
(Compliance with Regulation NMS Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot
Program) to require Members to comply with the quoting and trading
provisions of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Exchange is also required by the Plan to develop
appropriate policies and procedures that provide for data collection
and reporting to the Commission of data described in Appendixes B
and C of the Plan. The Exchange intends to separately propose rules
that would require compliance by its Members with the collection of
data provisions of the Plan described in Section VII of the Plan,
and has reserved Paragraph (b) for such rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 11.27(a) (Compliance with Quoting and Trading
Restrictions) sets forth the requirements for the Exchange and Members
in meeting their obligations under the Plan. Rule 11.27(a)(1) will
require Members to establish, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with the applicable
quoting and trading requirements of the Plan. Rule 11.27(a)(2) provides
that the Exchange Systems \18\ will not display, quote or trade in
violation of the applicable quoting and trading requirements for a
Pilot Security specified in the Plan and this Rule, unless such
quotation or transaction is specifically exempted under the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The term ``System'' is defined as ``the electronic
communications and trading facility designated by the Board through
which securities orders of Users are consolidated for ranking,
execution and, when applicable, routing away.'' See Exchange Rule
1.5(aa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 11.27(a)(3) clarifies the treatment of Pilot
Securities that drop below $1.00 during the Pilot Period. In
particular, Rule 11.27(a)(3) provides that, if the price of a Pilot
Security drops below $1.00 during regular trading hours on any trading
day, such Pilot Security will continue to be a Pilot Security subject
to the Plan. However, if the Closing Price of a Pilot Security on any
given trading day is below $1.00, such Pilot Security will be moved out
of its Pilot Test Group into the Control Group, and may then be quoted
and traded at any price increment that is currently permitted for the
remainder of the Pilot Period. Rule 11.27(a)(3) also provides that,
notwithstanding anything contained within these rules to the contrary,
Pilot Securities (whether in the Control Group or any Pilot Test Group)
will continue to be subject to the data collection requirements of the
Plan at all times during the Pilot Period and for the six-month period
following the end of the Pilot Period.
    In approving the Plan, the Commission noted that the Participants
had proposed additional selection criteria to minimize the likelihood
that securities that trade with a share price of $1.00 or less would be
included in the Pilot, and stated that, once established, the universe
of Pilot Securities should stay as consistent as possible so that the
analysis and data can be accurate throughout the Pilot Period.\19\ The
Exchange notes that a Pilot Security that drops below $1.00 during
regular trading hours will remain in its applicable Test Group; a Pilot
Security will only be moved to the Control Group if its Closing Price
on any given trading day is below $1.00. The Exchange believes that
this provision is appropriate because it will help ensure that Pilot
Securities in Test Groups One, Two and Three continue to reflect the
Pilot's selection criteria, helping ensure the accuracy of the
resulting data. The Exchange also believes that this provision is
appropriate because it responds to comments that the Plan address the
treatment of securities that trade below $1.00 during the Pilot
Period.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Approval Order, supra note 7, 80 FR at 27535.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 11.27(a)(4) sets forth the applicable limitations for
securities in Test Group One. Consistent with the language of the Plan,
Rule 11.27(a)(4) provides that no Member may display, rank, or accept
from any person any displayable or non-displayable bids or offers,
orders, or indications of interest in any Pilot Security in Test Group
One in increments other than $0.05. However, orders priced to execute
at the midpoint of the national best bid and national best offer
(``NBBO'') or best protected bid and best protected offer (``PBBO'')
\21\ and orders entered in a

Participant-operated retail liquidity program may be ranked and
accepted in increments of less than $0.05. Pilot Securities in Test
Group One may continue to trade at any price increment that is
currently permitted by applicable Participant, SEC and Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Regulation NMS defines a protected bid or protected offer
as a quotation in an NMS stock that (1) is displayed by an automated
trading center; (2) is disseminated pursuant to an effective
national market system plan; and (3) is an automated quotation that
is the best bid or best offer of a national securities exchange, the
best bid or best offer of The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc., or the best
bid or best offer of a national securities association other than
the best bid or best offer of The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. See 17
CFR 242.600(57). In the Approval Order, the Commission noted that
the protected quotation standard encompasses the aggregate of the
most aggressively priced displayed liquidity on all Trading Centers,
whereas the NBBO standard is limited to the single best order in the
market. See Approval Order, supra note 7, 80 FR at 27539.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 11.27(a)(5) sets forth the applicable quoting and
trading requirements for securities in Test Group Two. This provision
states that no Member may display, rank, or accept from any person any
displayable or non-displayable bids or offers, orders, or indications
of interest in any Pilot Security in Test Group Two in increments other
than $0.05. However, orders priced to execute at the midpoint of the
NBBO or PBBO and orders entered in a Participant-operated retail
liquidity program may be ranked and accepted in increments of less than
$0.05.
    Proposed Rule 11.27(a)(5) also sets forth the applicable trading
restrictions for Test Group Two securities. Absent any of the
exceptions listed in the Rule, no Member may execute orders in any
Pilot Security in Test Group Two in price increments other than $0.05.
The $0.05 trading increment will apply to all trades, including
Brokered Cross Trades.
    Consistent with the language of the Plan, the Rule provides that
Pilot Securities in Test Group Two may trade in increments of less than
$0.05 under the following circumstances: (1) Trading may occur at the
midpoint between the NBBO or the PBBO; (2) Retail Investor Orders may
be provided with price improvement that is at least $0.005 better than
the PBBO; and (3) Negotiated Trades may trade in increments of less
than $0.05.
    Proposed Rule 11.27(a)(6) sets forth the applicable quoting and
trading restrictions for Pilot Securities in Test Group Three. The rule
provides that no Member may display, rank, or accept from any person
any displayable or non-displayable bids or offers, orders, or
indications of interest in any Pilot Security in Test Group Three in
increments other than $0.05. However, orders priced to execute at the
midpoint of the NBBO or PBBO and orders entered in a Participant-
operated retail liquidity program may be ranked and accepted in
increments of less than $0.05. The rule also states that, absent any of
the applicable exceptions, no Member that operates a Trading Center may
execute orders in any Pilot Security in Test Group Three in price
increments other than $0.05. The $0.05 trading increment will apply to
all trades, including Brokered Cross Trades.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ A brokered cross trade is a trade that a broker-dealer that
is a member of a Participant executes directly by matching
simultaneous buy and sell orders for a Pilot Security. See Section
I(G) of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 11.27(a)(6)(C) sets forth the exceptions pursuant to
which Pilot Securities in Test Group Three may trade in increments of
less than $0.05. First, trading may occur at the midpoint between the
NBBO or PBBO. Second, Retail Investor Orders may be provided with price
improvement that is at least $0.005 better than the PBBO. Third,
Negotiated Trades may trade in increments of less than $0.05.
    Proposed Rule 11.27(a)(6)(D) sets forth the ``Trade-at
Prohibition,'' which is the prohibition against executions by a Member
that operates a Trading Center of a sell order for a Pilot Security in
Test Group Three at the price of a Protected Bid or the execution of a
buy order for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the price of a
Protected Offer during regular trading hours, absent any of the
exceptions set forth in Rule 11.27(a)(6)(D). Consistent with the Plan,
the rule reiterates that a member that operates a Trading Center that
is displaying a quotation, via either a processor or an SRO quotation
feed, that is a Protected Bid or Protected Offer is permitted to
execute orders at that level, but only up to the amount of its
displayed size. A Member that operates a Trading Center that was not
displaying a quotation that is the same price as a Protected Quotation,
via either a processor or an SRO quotation feed, is prohibited from
price-matching protected quotations unless an exception applies.
    Consistent with the Plan, proposed Rule 11.27(a)(6)(D) also sets
forth the exceptions to the Trade-at prohibition, pursuant to which a
Member that operates a Trading Center may execute a sell order for a
Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the price of a Protected Bid or
execute a buy order for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the
price of a Protected Offer. The first exception to the Trade-at
Prohibition is the ``display exception,'' which allows a trade to occur
at the price of the Protected Quotation, up to the Trading Center's
full displayed size, if the order ``is executed by a trading center
that is displaying a quotation.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Section VI(D)(1) of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Rule 11.27(a)(6)(D), the Exchange proposes that a Member that
utilizes the independent aggregation unit concept may satisfy the
display exception only if the same independent aggregation unit that
displays interest via either a processor or an SRO Quotation Feed also
executes an order in reliance upon this exception. The rule provides
that ``independent aggregation unit'' has the same meaning as provided
under Rule 200(f) of SEC Regulation SHO.\24\ This provision also
recognizes that not all members may utilize the independent aggregation
unit concept as part of their regulatory structure, and still permits
such members to utilize the display exception if all the other
requirements of that exception are met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 242.200. Treatment as an independent aggregation
unit is available if traders in an aggregation unit pursue only the
particular trading objective(s) or strategy(ies) of that aggregation
unit and do not coordinate that strategy with any other aggregation
unit. Therefore, one independent aggregation unit within a Trading
Center cannot execute trades pursuant to the display exception in
reliance on quotations displayed by a different independent
aggregation unit. As an example, an agency desk of a Trading Center
cannot rely on the quotation of a proprietary desk in a separate
independent aggregation unit at that same Trading Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As initially proposed by the Participants, the Plan contained an
additional condition to the display exception, which would have
required that, where the quotation is displayed through a national
securities exchange, the execution at the size of the order must occur
against the displayed size on that national securities exchange; and
where the quotation is displayed through the Alternative Display
Facility or another facility approved by the Commission that does not
provide execution functionality, the execution at the size of the order
must occur against the displayed size in accordance with the rules of
the Alternative Display Facility of such approved facility (``venue
limitation'').\25\ Some commenters stated that this provision was anti-
competitive, as it would have forced off-exchange Trading Centers to
route orders to the venue on which the order was displayed.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73511 (November 3,
2014), 79 FR 66423, 66437 (November 7, 2014).
    \26\ See Approval Order, supra note 7, 80 FR at 27540.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving the Plan, the Commission modified the Trade-At
Prohibition to remove the venue limitation.\27\ The Commission noted
that the venue limitation was not

prescribed in its Order mandating the filing of the Plan.\28\ The
Commission also noted that the venue limitation would have
unnecessarily restricted the ability of off-exchange market
participants to execute orders in Test Group Three Securities, and that
removing the venue limitation should mitigate concerns about the cost
and complexity of the Pilot by reducing the need for off-exchange
Trading Centers to route to the exchange.\29\ The Commission also
stated that the venue limitation did not create any additional
incentives to display liquidity in furtherance of the purposes of the
Trade-At Prohibition, because the requirement that a Trading Center
could only trade at a protected quotation up to its displayed size
should be sufficient to incentivize displayed liquidity.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id.
    \28\ Id.
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with Plan and the SEC's determination to remove the
venue limitation, the Exchange is making clear that the display
exception applies to trades done by a Trading Center otherwise than on
an exchange where the Trading Center has previously displayed a
quotation in either an agency or a principal capacity. As part of the
display exception, the Exchange also proposes that a Trading Center
that is displaying a quotation as agent or riskless principal may only
execute as agent or riskless principal, while a Trading Center
displaying a quotation as principal (excluding riskless principal) may
execute either as principal or agent or riskless principal. The
Exchange believes this is consistent with the Plan and the objective of
the Trade-at Prohibition, which is to promote the display of liquidity
and generally to prevent any Trading Center that is not quoting from
price-matching Protected Quotations.\31\ Providing that a Trading
Center may not execute on a proprietary basis in reliance on a
quotation representing customer interest (whether agency or riskless
principal) ensures that the Trading Center cannot avoid compliance with
the Trade-at Prohibition by trading on a proprietary basis in reliance
on a quotation that does not represent such Trading Center's own
interest. Where a Trading Center is displaying a quotation at the same
price as a Protected Quotation in a proprietary capacity, transactions
in any capacity at the price and up to the size of such Trading
Center's displayed quotation would be permissible. Transactions
executed pursuant to the display exception may occur on the venue on
which such quotation is displayed or over the counter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The Exchange notes that proposed Rule 11.27(a)(6)(D)(ii) a.
is identical to that proposed by FINRA under their proposed Rule
6191(a)(6)(D)(ii) a. See SR-FINRA-2015-047 (filed November 13,
2015). The Exchange also notes that the New York Stock Exchange,
Inc. (``NYSE'') has recently proposed a rule that states the display
exception would only apply to trades done by a Trading Center
otherwise than on an exchange where the Trading Center has
previously displayed a quotation in a principal capacity only. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76229 (October 22, 2015), 80 FR
66065 (October 28, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-46) (proposing NYSE Rule
67(e)(4)(C)(i)). The Exchange does not believe proposed NYSE Rule
67(e)(4)(C)(i) is consistent with the SEC's modification of the
Trade-At Prohibition to remove the venue limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal also excepts Block Size orders \32\ and permits
Trading Centers to trade at the price of a Protected Quotation,
provided that the order is of Block Size at the time of origin and is
not an aggregation of non-block orders, broken into orders smaller than
Block Size prior to submitting the order to a Trading Center for
execution; or executed on multiple Trading Centers.\33\ The Plan only
provides that Block Size orders shall be exempted from the Trade-At
Prohibition. In requiring that the order be of Block Size at the time
of origin and not an aggregation of non-block orders, or broken into
orders smaller than Block Size prior to submitting the order to a
Trading Center for execution; or executed on multiple Trading Centers,
the Exchange believes that it is providing clarity as to the
circumstances under which a Block Size order will be excepted from the
Trade-At Prohibition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ ``Block Size'' is defined in the Plan as an order (1) of at
least 5,000 shares or (2) for a quantity of stock having a market
value of at least $100,000.
    \33\ Once a Block Size order or portion of such Block Size order
is routed from one Trading Center to another Trading Center in
compliance with Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, the Block Size order
would lose the proposed Trade-at exemption, unless the Block Size
remaining after the first route and execution meets the Block Size
definition under the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the Plan, the proposal also excepts an order that
is a Retail Investor Order that is executed with at least $0.005 price
improvement.
    The exceptions set forth in proposed Rule 11.27(a)(6)(D)(ii) d.
through l. are based on the exceptions found in Rule 611 of Regulation
NMS.\34\ The subparagraph d. exception applies when the order is
executed when the Trading Center displaying the Protected Quotation
that was traded at was experiencing a failure, material delay, or
malfunction of its systems or equipment. The subparagraph e. exception
applies to an order that is executed as part of a transaction that was
not a ``regular way'' contract. The subparagraph f. exception applies
to an order that is executed as part of a single-priced opening,
reopening, or closing transaction by the Trading Center. The
subparagraph g. exception applies to an order that is executed when a
Protected Bid was priced higher than a Protected Offer in a Pilot
Security. The subparagraph h. exception applies when the order is
identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order. The subparagraph i.
exception applies when the order is executed by a Trading Center that
simultaneously routed Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Orders to execute
against the full displayed size of the Protected Quotation that was
traded at. The subparagraph j. exception applies when the order is
executed as part of a Negotiated Trade. The subparagraph k. exception
applies when the order is executed when the Trading Center displaying
the Protected Quotation that was traded at had displayed, within one
second prior to execution of the transaction that constituted the
Trade-at, a Best Protected Bid or Best Protected Offer, as applicable,
for the Pilot Security with a price that was inferior to the price of
the Trade-at transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See 17 CFR 242.611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The exception proposed in subparagraph l. applies to a ``stopped
order.'' Both the Plan and Rule 11.27(a)(6) define a ``stopped order''
as an order that is executed by a Trading Center which, at the time of
order receipt, the Trading Center had guaranteed an execution at no
worse than a specified price, where (1) the stopped order was for the
account of a customer; (2) the customer agreed to the specified price
on an order-by-order basis; and (3) the price of the Trade-at
transaction was, for a stopped buy order, equal to the National Best
Bid in the Pilot Security at the time of execution or, for a stopped
sell order, equal to the National Best Offer in the Pilot Security at
the time of execution.
    Consistent with the Plan, the final exception to the Trade-At
Prohibition and its accompanying supplementary material applies to an
order that is for a fractional share of a Pilot Security. The
supplementary material provides that such fractional share orders may
not be the result of breaking an order for one or more whole shares of
a Pilot Security into orders for fractional shares or that otherwise
were effected to evade the requirements of the Trade-at Prohibition or
any other provisions of the Plan. In approving the Plan, the Commission
noted that this exception was appropriate, as there could be

potential difficulty in the routing and executing of fractional
shares.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Approval Order, supra note 7, 80 FR at 27541.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the Commission approves the proposed rule change, the proposed
rule change will be effective upon Commission approval and shall become
operative upon the commencement of the Pilot Period.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \36\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \37\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act
because it implements, interprets, and clarifies the provisions of the
Plan, and is designed to assist the Exchange and Members in meeting
regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. In approving the Plan, the
SEC noted that the Pilot was an appropriate, data-driven test that was
designed to evaluate the impact of a wider tick size on trading,
liquidity, and the market quality of securities of smaller
capitalization companies, and was therefore in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. To the extent that this proposal implements,
interprets, and clarifies the Plan and applies specific requirements to
Members, the Exchange believes that this proposal is in furtherance of
the objectives of the Plan, as identified by the SEC, and is therefore
consistent with the Act.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
notes that the proposed rule change implements the provisions of the
Plan, and is designed to assist the Exchange in meeting its regulatory
obligations pursuant to the Plan. The Exchange also notes that the
quoting and trading requirements of the Plan will apply equally to all
Members that trade Pilot Securities.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    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 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 proposal 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 No. SR-BATS-2015-108 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BATS-2015-108. 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 such filing will also 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 No. SR-BATS-2015-108 and should be
submitted on or before December 30, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\38\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-30943 Filed 12-8-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 210 (Monday, October 31, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 67181]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28086]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14256-000]

Windsor Machinery Co., Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On August 15, 2011, Windsor Machinery Co., Inc. filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the
Braendly Hydroelectric Project to be located on Fishkill Creek in
Dutchess County, New York. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if
issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license
application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not
authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities
or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the
owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would redevelop an abandoned project and
consist of: (1) An existing 130-foot-long, 18-foot-high cut stone with
a concrete cap dam creating a reservoir with a surface area of
approximately 3.04 acres and a total storage capacity of 15 acre-feet
at a normal maximum operating elevation of 119.5 feet mean sea level
(msl); (2) a new 5-foot-diameter, 200-foot-long penstock replacing an
existing penstock in its entirety; (3) a new 35-foot-long by 35-foot-
wide 3-storey high powerhouse at the site of an original powerhouse
containing one turbine unit with a rated capacity of 225 kilowatts; (4)
an existing 10-foot-long by 5-foot-wide tailrace; (5) a new 480-volt,
400-foot-long transmission line extending from the powerhouse to a
nearby building; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The project would have
an annual generation of 1,600 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Sarah L. Bower, Windsor Machinery Co., Inc., 16
Orbit Lane, Hopewell Junction, NY 12533; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Monir Chowdhury; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-(866) 208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14256-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: October 25, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-28086 Filed 10-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26029-26031]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10434]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9808-6; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-0398]

Toxicological Review of Methanol (Non-Cancer): In Support of
Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of a public comment period and peer review on the draft
non-cancer toxicological review of methanol.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing a 45-day public comment period and peer
review on the draft toxicological review titled ``Toxicological Review
of Methanol (Non-Cancer): In Support of Summary Information on the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)'' (EPA/635/R-11/001Ba). The
public comment period begins on or about May 3, 2013, and ends June 17,
2013. EPA will announce the date, time, and procedures for public
participation in the peer review in a separate Federal Register Notice,
or in an announcement on the IRIS Web site. EPA is releasing this draft
assessment for the purpose of public comment and peer review. This
draft assessment is not final, as described in EPA's information
quality guidelines, and it does not represent and should not be
construed to represent Agency policy or views.

DATES: The public comment period on the draft Toxicological Review of
Methanol (Non-Cancer) begins on or about May 3, 2013, and ends June 17,
2013. The draft review is posted to the IRIS Web site at http://www.epa.gov/IRIS. Comments should be in writing and received by EPA by
June 17, 2013. Comments received by June 17, 2013, will be provided to
the peer reviewers for their consideration.

ADDRESSES: The draft toxicological review titled ``Toxicological Review
of Methanol (Non-Cancer): In Support of Summary Information on the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)'' is available primarily via
the Internet on the IRIS Web site at http://www.epa.gov/IRIS. A limited
number of paper copies are available from the Information Management
Team (Address: Information Management Team, National Center for
Environmental Assessment [Mail Code: 8601P], U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>). If you request a
paper copy, please provide your name, mailing address, and the draft
assessment title. Comments may be submitted electronically via http://www.regulations.gov, by email, by mail, by facsimile, or by hand
delivery/courier. Please follow the detailed instructions provided in
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.
    Additional Information: For information on the draft assessment,
please contact Jeffrey Gift, Ph.D., U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Mail Code B243-
01, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Durham, NC 27711; telephone: 919-541-
4828; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The draft toxicological review was prepared by the National Center
for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) within the EPA Office of Research
and Development (ORD). The public has been provided an opportunity to
comment on previous external review drafts of the IRIS toxicological
review of methanol. In January 12, 2010, EPA released an external
review draft (EPA/635/R-09/013), containing both cancer

and non-cancer analyses, for public comment. EPA later placed this
external review on hold pending resolution of issues concerning a
specific set of data used in the cancer analysis. On April 18, 2011,
EPA released for public comment another external review draft (EPA/635/
R-11/001) which contained only a non-cancer analysis. The data and
studies used in the non-cancer analysis are unrelated to the issues
concerning the cancer analysis. On June 22, 2011, EPA released an
addendum to the April 18, 2011, non-cancer external review draft to
provide the public an opportunity to comment on the incorporation of
several new studies into the analysis. On July 22, 2011, Eastern
Research Group (ERG), an EPA contractor for external scientific peer
review, convened an independent panel of experts to conduct a public
peer review meeting on the non-cancer external review draft of the
toxicological review of methanol released on April 18, 2011, (EPA/635/
R-11/001) and the addendum released on June 22, 2011.
    The current draft toxicological review titled ``Toxicological
Review of Methanol (Non-Cancer): In Support of Summary Information on
the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)'' (EPA/635/R-11/001Ba),
which will be posted on NCEA's Web site, has been revised in response
to the peer review and public comments received on the external review
draft released on April 18, 2011, and the June 22, 2011, addendum. This
notice announces a new public comment period on the current revised
draft toxicological review in advance of an upcoming peer review and in
accordance with applicable information quality guidelines. The external
peer review comments and EPA responses on the previous draft assessment
are summarized in Appendix A of the draft. EPA is releasing this draft
assessment for the purpose of public comment and peer review. This
draft assessment is not final, as described in EPA's information
quality guidelines, and it does not represent and should not be
construed to represent Agency policy or views.
    In addition to a second opportunity for public comment announced in
this notice, EPA will also schedule a follow-up external letter peer
review of the draft toxicological review of methanol and will announce
the details of the peer review in an additional Federal Register notice
or on the IRIS Web site. To the extent possible, the Agency intends the
follow-up peer review to be conducted by the same experts that served
on the July 22, 2011, peer review panel. The public comments received
during the comment period announced in this notice will be provided to
the experts that will conduct the follow-up letter peer review. The
peer reviewers will be asked whether EPA adequately responded to the
comments from the July 22, 2011, peer review panel. The letter peer
review will include a public teleconference with a limited opportunity
for the public to address the peer reviewers. EPA will announce the
date, time and procedures for public participation in the
teleconference in a separate Federal Register Notice or in an
announcement on the IRIS Web site.

II. Information About IRIS

    EPA's IRIS is a human health assessment program that evaluates
quantitative and qualitative risk information on effects that may
result from exposure to chemical substances found in the environment.
Through the IRIS Program, EPA provides the highest quality science-
based human health assessments to support the Agency's regulatory
activities. The IRIS database contains information for more than 540
chemical substances that can be used to support the first two steps
(hazard identification and dose-response evaluation) of the risk
assessment process. When supported by available data, IRIS provides
oral reference doses (RfDs) and inhalation reference concentrations
(RfCs) for chronic noncancer health effects and cancer assessments.
Combined with specific exposure information, government and private
entities use IRIS to help characterize public health risks of chemical
substances and thereby support risk management decisions designed to
protect public health.

III. How To Submit Comments to the Docket at http://www.regulations.gov

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-
0398, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket
(Mail Code: 28221T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. The telephone number is
202-566-1752. If you provide comments by mail, please submit one
unbound original with pages numbered consecutively, and three copies of
the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number pages
consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original and
three copies.
     Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is located in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Deliveries are only accepted during the
docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information. If you provide comments by
hand delivery, please submit one unbound original with pages numbered
consecutively, and three copies of the comments. For attachments,
provide an index, number pages consecutively with the comments, and
submit an unbound original and three copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2009-0398. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will
be marked ``late,'' and may only be considered if time permits. It is
EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket
without change and to make the comments available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless comments include information claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The
http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means that EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comments. If you send email
comments directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comments that are placed in the public
docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit electronic
comments, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comments and with any disk or CD-ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your comments due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comments. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters and any form of encryption and be free of any
defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA

Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the
EPA Headquarters Docket Center.

    Dated: April 26, 2013.
Cheryl G. Itkin,
Acting Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. 2013-10434 Filed 5-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 120)]
[Notices]
[Page 35800-35801]
[DOCID:fr23jn10-77]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9167-1; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-0395]

Draft EPA's Reanalysis of Key Issues Related to Dioxin Toxicity
and Response to NAS Comments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Extension of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On May 21, 2010, EPA released the draft report entitled,
``EPA's Reanalysis of Key Issues Related to Dioxin Toxicity and
Response to NAS Comments'' (EPA/600/R-10/038A) for independent external
review, and public review and comment (75 FR 28610). Written comments
on the draft report were to be submitted to EPA by August 19, 2010 (a
90-day public comment period). Since release, the Agency has received
several requests for additional time to submit comments. In response to
these requests, the EPA is extending the public comment period another
30 days until September 20, 2010 (a 120-day public comment period).
    This draft report responds to the key recommendations and comments
included in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 2006 report. In
addition, it includes new analyses on potential human effects that may
result from exposure to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD).
These analyses have not been in previous versions of draft reports
related to EPA's dioxin reassessment activity. This draft report is now
considered to be under EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
program, and thus, the new IRIS process announced in May 2009 (http: //
www.epa.gov/iris/process/) is being followed. Per the May 2009 process,
this draft report is beginning Step 4--independent external peer review
and public review and comment. This draft dioxin report was prepared by
the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) within the EPA
Office of Research and Development (ORD).
    The draft document, ``EPA's Reanalysis of Key Issues Related to
Dioxin Toxicity and Response to NAS Comments,'' was also being provided
to EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB), a body established under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, for independent external peer review.
The SAB will convene an expert panel composed of scientists
knowledgeable about technical issues related to dioxins and risk
assessment. The SAB is holding a public teleconference on June 24,
2010, and a public panel meeting on July 13-15, 2010. The SAB peer
review meetings were announced by the SAB staff office in a separate
May 24, 2010, Federal Register Notice (75 FR 28805). EPA intends to
forward all public comments submitted before July 7, 2010, in response
to this notice to the SAB peer review panel for their consideration.
Members of the public who wish to ensure that their technical comments
are provided to the SAB expert panel before each meeting should also e-
mail their comments separately to Thomas Armitage, the SAB Designated
Federal Officer at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>following the procedures in
the Federal Register Notice announcing the SAB public meetings. When
completing this draft dioxin report, EPA will consider any written
public comments that EPA receives in accordance with the detailed
instructions provided under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION in Federal
Register notice (75 FR 28610). The public comment period and SAB
external peer review are independent processes that provide separate
opportunities for all interested parties to comment on the draft
report.
    EPA is releasing this draft report solely for the purpose of pre-
dissemination peer review under applicable information quality
guidelines. This draft report has not been formally disseminated by
EPA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any
Agency policy or determination.

DATES: The public comment period began on May 21, 2010, and ends on
September 20, 2010. Comments should be in writing and must be received
by EPA by September 20, 2010.
    Due to the timing of the SAB's peer review meeting, EPA can only
guarantee that those comments received by July 7, 2010, in response to
this Federal Register notice will be provided to the SAB panel prior to
the SAB meeting. Comments received after July 7, 2010, will still be
provided to the SAB panel and will also inform the Agency's revision of
the draft report.

ADDRESSES: The external review draft titled, ``EPA's Reanalysis of Key
Issues Related to Dioxin Toxicity and

Response to NAS Comments'' (EPA/600/R-10/038A) is available primarily
via the Internet on the NCEA home page under the Recent Additions and
Publications menus at http://www.epa.gov/ncea. A limited number of
paper copies are available from the Information Management Team
(Address: Information Management Team, National Center for
Environmental Assessment (Mail Code: 8601P), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>). If you request a
paper copy, please provide your name, mailing address, and the
assessment title.
    Comments may be submitted electronically via http://
www.regulations.gov, by e-mail, by mail, by facsimile, or by hand
delivery/courier. Please follow the detailed instructions provided in
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of Federal Register notice (75 FR
28610).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the docket,
regulations.gov or public comment period, please contact the Office of
Environmental Information (OEI) Docket (Mail Code: 2822T), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For information on the draft report, please contact Linda C. Tuxen,
National Center for Environmental Assessment (8601P), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 17, 2010.
Rebecca Clark,
Acting Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. 2010-15217 Filed 6-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 155)]
[Notices]
[Page 48973-48974]
[DOCID:fr12au10-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-D-0313]

Draft Guidance for Industry: Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis
in Shell Eggs During Production, Storage, and Transportation;
Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance entitled ``Prevention of Salmonella
Enteritidis in Shell Eggs During Production, Storage, and
Transportation'' (the draft guidance). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will provide guidance to egg producers on how to comply with
certain provisions contained in FDA's final rule ``Prevention of
Salmonella Enteritidis in Shell Eggs During Production, Storage, and
Transportation'' (the final rule), including how to implement
Salmonella

Enteritidis (SE) prevention measures, how to sample for SE, and how to
maintain records documenting compliance with the final rule.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see Sec.
10.115(g)(5) (21 CFR 10.115(g)(5))), to ensure that the agency
considers your comments on the draft guidance before it begins work on
the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written
comments on the draft guidance by October 12, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance to the Division of Plant and Dairy Food Safety/Office of Food
Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-315), Food
and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD
20740, or fax your request to<PHONE_NUMBER>. Send two self-addressed
adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request. See
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the
draft guidance. Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of
Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Bufano, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-316), Food and Drug Administration, 5100
Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of July 9, 2009 (74 FR 33030), FDA issued
the final rule requiring shell egg producers to implement measures to
prevent SE from contaminating eggs on the farm and from further growth
during storage and transportation, and requiring these producers to
maintain records concerning their compliance with the final rule and to
register with FDA. The final rule became effective September 8, 2009.
    FDA is issuing the draft guidance as a level 1 draft guidance
consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (Sec.
10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the
agency's current thinking on how to comply with certain measures
designed to prevent SE from contaminating eggs on the farm, as well as
how to sample for SE and maintain records documenting compliance with
the final rule. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any
person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative
approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the
applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

     This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR 118.5, 118.6, 118.10, and 118.11
have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0660.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no
longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify
comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance
at http://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: August 9, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-19905 Filed 8-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


F. Local Reliability Rule

      The local reliability rule for Northport Gas Burn (IR-5) for 2011 remains the same as last year and are provided as a guide for unit commitment. Use of information from the 2010 Summer Operating Study are still valid since there have been no significant system changes in the area. For the 2010 period an analysis was conducted to determine the Long Island load level up to which Northport units can be permitted to burn gas depending on how many units are online as well as the number of cables in service.  Power flow simulations were prepared to represent the instantaneous loss of fuel, with those units continuing to produce MVAR output for 20 minutes.  During this time, operators would be able to put quick start GTs online, increase remaining steam units to their DMNC capabilities, adjust phase shifters, and switch on capacitor banks as needed.

                                 TABLE II-F-1
                    Steam Generation Resources at Northport
                                     Unit
                                 Ratings (MW)

DMNC
Continuous
Northport Steam 1
                                                                          395.0
363
Northport Steam 2
                                                                          381.7
363
Northport Steam 3
                                                                          395.2
363
Northport Steam 4
                                                                          399.2
363
Total
1571.1
1452

      1. Assumptions

         Several base assumptions, depending on the case, were made to observe conservatism and to make a stressed case.  These assumptions are as follows:
          91% System Power Factor (note: it does vary by bus location)
          Northport Units online at DMNC
          One Barrett Steam Unit online
          Caithness CC online
          Dunwoodie and Sprainbook series reactors in service (Y49 series reactor bypassed)
          Four (4) shunt reactors in service on Y49 and Two (2) shunt reactors in service on Y50
          Northport Norwalk Harbor (NNC)
                    i.  In service
                        1. Importing 100 MW with only 2 Cable in Service
                        2. Importing 200 MW with 3 Cables in service
          Neptune import of 660 MW with 0 MVAR flow
          Contractual MVAR flow split on Y49, Y50 & NNC
          Capacitor banks and generation were adjusted based on load level

      1. Analysis

         Attached Tables and Diagrams:
          Diagrams II-F-2 (a-c) show the results of this analysis for two, three, and four Northport units,
          Tables II-F-2 (a-c) list the generation dispatch assumed to obtain operating limits
          Table II-F-2d is the listing of the reactive resource dispatch assumed
          Table II-F-2e is the guideline for how many units must be run on oil at various load levels depending on how many Northport units are online
         All charts included in the following section, assume 2 NNC cables in-service with 100 MW of imports.  Additional tests were performed with 3 NNC cables in-service and 200 MW of imports but are omitted here as the results are very similar.

         Additional Comments:
          At each load level, the loss of gas supply was simulated by reducing the MW output of the Northport steam units to zero and fixing their MVAR output to pre-fault levels.
          The point at which the voltage on the 138 kV system crossed 0.95 p.u. on contingency (violates criteria) was used as the operating limit.  Using a 5% safety margin from that point is the recommended Long Island system load level for running Northport units on gas.
          With the new NNC cables and LTE/STE ratings in place, the LTE overloads on the NNC for loss of three Northport units have been reduced from prior years.  With 2 cables in-service there is a small LTE overload and completed eliminated with 3 cables in-service.[,]   Adjusting inter-ties and on-island generation can be used to rebalance loadings if needed.
          For the loss of Northport units, turning on quick start GTs at Barrett and Holtsville and/or reducing the Con Edison wheel helps compensate for the MW loss.  After the quick start GTs are online, system voltages are within criteria.  Load flow simulations confirm that after the MVARs from the Northport units are lost, system voltages recover to acceptable levels.
          Installation of Caithness in 2009 provided additional voltage support on contingency since the unit has more MVAR capability than other on-island generators and with its higher efficiency, it is expected to be in operation.  This allowed for Northport units to burn gas at slightly higher load levels.
                                DIAGRAM II-F-2A
         Transmission Voltages for the Loss of Gas Supply at Northport
                   L/O 2 Northport Units with 2 Units Online
                       2 Cables In-Service 100 MW on NNC

                                 TABLE II-F-2A
                   Generation Dispatch for Diagram II-F-2A
                                DIAGRAM II-F-2B
         Transmission Voltages for the Loss of Gas Supply at Northport
                   L/O 3 Northport Units with 3 Units Online
                       2 Cables In-Service 100 MW on NNC

                                 TABLE II-F-2B
                    Generation Dispatch for Diagram II-F-2B
                                DIAGRAM II-F-2C
         Transmission Voltages for the Loss of Gas Supply at Northport
                   L/O 3 Northport Units with 4 Units Online
                       2 Cables In-Service 100 MW on NNC

                                 TABLE II-F-2C
                   Generation Dispatch for Diagram II-F-2C
                                  TABLE II-F-2D
           MVAR Reactive Resource Dispatch for Loss of Northport Units
                         2Cables In-Service 100 MW on NNC
                                   Bus Name
                                     Max
                                   Dispatch
BARRETT1    138.00
                                                                            -75
                                                                              0
NRTHPT2     138.00
                                                                            -75
                                                                              0
PILGRIM     138.00
                                                                            104
                                                                              0
HOLBROOK    138.00
                                                                            104
                                                                              0
HOLTS GT    138.00
                                                                            104
                                                                              0
RVRHD       138.00
                                                                            -27
                                                                              0
FARRCK1     69.000
                                                                             54
                                                                             54
VLYSTRM2    69.000
                                                                             54
                                                                             54
E.G.C.2     69.000
                                                                             54
                                                                              0
GLNWD SO    69.000
                                                                             54
                                                                             54
MASPEQUA    69.000
                                                                             54
                                                                             54
NEWBRGE1    69.000
                                                                             54
                                                                             54
NEWBRGE2    69.000
                                                                             54
                                                                              0
FLWRFLD     69.000
                                                                             27
                                                                             27
INDIANHD    69.000
                                                                             27
                                                                              0
PILGRM      69.000
                                                                            108
                                                                            108
RULND RD    69.000
                                                                            108
                                                                             54
WOLFHILL    69.000
                                                                             27
                                                                              0
BRGHTWTR    69.000
                                                                             54
                                                                              0
BRNTWOOD    69.000
                                                                             54
                                                                              0
STERLING    69.000
                                                                             54
                                                                              0
WATSON      69.000
                                                                             54
                                                                             54
HOLBRK1     69.000
                                                                             54
                                                                             54
HOLBRK2     69.000
                                                                             54
                                                                              0
JAMESPRT    69.000
                                                                             14
                                                                              0
MORICHES    69.000
                                                                           28.8
                                                                           28.8
PECONIC     69.000
                                                                             14
                                                                             14
PTCHOGUE    69.000
                                                                             27
                                                                              0
RIDGE       69.000
                                                                           28.8
                                                                              0
SOUTHOLD    69.000
                                                                         -23.31
                                                                              0
WILDWOOD    69.000
                                                                           28.8
                                                                              0
BRGHMPTN    69.000
                                                                             14
                                                                              0
BUELL       69.000
                                                                             14
                                                                              0
EHAMP       69.000
                                                                             14
                                                                              0
RIV 1       69.000
                                                                             27
                                                                             27
RIV2        69.000
                                                                             27
                                                                              0
SOHMPTN     69.000
                                                                          22.55
                                                                             14
TEMPLE      69.000
                                                                           24.5
                                                                           24.5
TIANA       69.000
                                                                             27
                                                                             27
GRN ACRE    34.500
                                                                             12
                                                                             12
MONTAUK     23.000
                                                                            7.2
                                                                              0
TOTAL
                                                                        1641.65
                                                                          714.3

                                                                            %On
                                                                            43%

                                                                           %Off
                                                                            57%

                                TABLE II-F-2E [6]
                   Guideline for Running Northport Units on Oil

                                  NNC In-Service
                       2 Cables In-Service 100 MW Import or
                        3 Cables In-Service 200 MW Import

                                  Load Level
                            Northport Units Online

                                      One
                                      Two
                                     Three
                                     Four
                                    0-2950
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       1
                                   2951-3250
                                       0
                                       1
                                       1
                                       1
                                   3251-5450
                                       0
                                       1
                                       1
                                       2
                                   5451-6000
                                       0
                                       1
                                       2
                                       3
         Note1: Differences between 2 and 3 cable operation are not significant
         Note2: Northport Gas Burn Rule Guideline for NNC In Service in 2011 was provided as a guide and are based on the 2010 Summer Operating study since there have been no significant system changes.

         6 - Values in table II-F-2E above indicate the number of units that can be run on oil.  For example, with NNC In-Service, if three Northport units are online, none have to be run on oil (all three can be on gas) up to a load level of 2950 MW.  Starting at 2951 MW, only one of the three units must be on oil (2 on gas) up to a load level of 5450 MW after which 2 units must be on oil.