[Federal Register: December 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 238)]
[Notices]
[Page 74505]
[DOCID:fr12de06-68]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-83-000]

Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Filing of
Cash-Out Report

December 5, 2006.
    Take notice that, on November 30, 2006, Southern Star Central Gas
Pipeline, Inc. (Southern Star) tendered for filing, pursuant to section
9.7(d) of the general terms and conditions of its FERC Gas Tariff, its
report of net cash-out activity.
    Southern Star states that copies of the filing were served on all
jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the dates as indicated
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 12, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-21076 Filed 12-11-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 25007]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08961]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL22-37-000]

Idaho Power Company; Notice of Institution of Section 206
Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On April 21, 2022, the Commission issued an order in Docket No.
EL22-37-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16
U.S.C. 824e, instituting an investigation into whether Idaho Power
Company's formula rate protocols are unjust, unreasonable, unduly
discriminatory or preferential, or otherwise unlawful. Idaho Power
Company, 179 FERC ] 61,054 (2022).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL22-37-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL22-37-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in
accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2021), within 21 days of the date of
issuance of the order.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://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. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
[email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFile'' link at
http://www.ferc.gov. In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a
paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be
addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    Dated: April 21, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-08961 Filed 4-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 119 (Thursday, June 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 37269]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14830]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Order of Suspension of Trading; iTrackr Systems, Inc.

June 18, 2013.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
iTrackr Systems, Inc. (``iTrackr'') because it has not filed a periodic
report since it filed its Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2012, filed on November 6, 2012.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of iTrackr. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section
12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the
securities of iTrackr is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT,
June 18, 2013 through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on July 1, 2013.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-14830 Filed 6-18-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                              EPA and DoD Meeting
                               February 28, 2013

Attendees
EPA  -  Mark Barolo, Linda Gerber, Erin Knighton, Liz McDermott, Tim Smith, Cho Yi Kwan
DoD  -  Ed Miller
Army  -  Bob Luther
DLA Energy  -  Laura Fleming, Matt Young, Scott Allan, Everett Bowl, Diane Parks

EPA and DoD met to discuss a number of issues from the proposed revisions to the UST regulations.  The discussion included the inventory of airport hydrant systems and field constructed tanks as well as different release detection methods for these systems.


[Federal Register: December 31, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 250)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 69259-69260]
[DOCID:fr31de09-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0328; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-44-AD;
Amendment 39-16103; AD 2009-24-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company (GE) CF34-1A,
CF34-3A, and CF34-3B Series Turbofan Engines; Delay of Effective Date

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is delaying the effective date of the final rule
airworthiness directive (AD) 2009-24-11, which published in the Federal
Register, for an additional 30 days, from January 4, 2010 to February
3, 2010. The FAA is delaying the effective date to allow us a
sufficient amount of time to make corrections to the compliance text of
the final rule.

DATES: The effective date for the final rule published in the Federal
Register on November 30, 2009 (74 FR 62481) is delayed until February
3, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Frost, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 30, 2009 (74 FR 62481), we
published a final rule AD, FR Doc. E9-28236, in the Federal Register.
That AD applies to GE CF34-1A, CF34-3A, and CF34-3B series turbofan
engines. We are delaying the effective date to allow us a sufficient
amount of time to make corrections to the compliance text of the final
rule. Since AD 2009-24-11 was issued, we discovered that when we
recodified the compliance section as part of our response to a comment
received on the proposed AD, we inadvertently left out of the AD
certain fan blade effectivity information from paragraphs (f) and (g)
and (j). Paragraphs (f) and (g) are missing information on fan blades,
P/Ns 6018T30P14 or 4923T56G08, that have any fan blade S/Ns listed in
Appendix A of General Electric Aircraft Engines (GEAE) Service Bulletin
(SB) No. CF34-AL S/B 72-0245, Revision 01, dated July 30, 2008. Also,
paragraph (j) is missing

information on fan blades, P/N 6018T30P14 or P/N 4923T56G08, that have
any fan blade S/Ns listed in Appendix A of GEAE SB No. CF34-BJ S/B72-
0229, Revision 01, dated July 30, 2008.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on December 23, 2009.
Francis A. Favara,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-30978 Filed 12-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 106 (Friday, June 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 36302]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11763]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas & Oil Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP23-786-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 20230525 Miscellaneous Filing
to be effective 6/25/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/25/23.
    Accession Number: 20230525-5117.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/6/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-787-000.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: VXP--Request for Tariff Waiver to
be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 5/25/23.
    Accession Number: 20230525-5167.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/6/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-788-000.
    Applicants: Enable Mississippi River Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Amended NRA--WRB Refining to
be effective 6/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/26/23.
    Accession Number: 20230526-5030.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-789-000.
    Applicants: Kinetica Deepwater Express, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Petition for Approval of Settlement
to be effective 11/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/26/23.
    Accession Number: 20230526-5057.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-790-000.
    Applicants: White River Hub, LLC.
    Description: Annual Fuel Gas Reimbursement Report of White River
Hub, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/26/23.
    Accession Number: 20230526-5075.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-791-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement--5/
27/2023 to be effective 5/27/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/26/23.
    Accession Number: 20230526-5079.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-792-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: REX 2023-05-26 Annual Penalty
Charge Reconciliation to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 5/26/23.
    Accession Number: 20230526-5118.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-793-000.
    Applicants: Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: TIGT 2023-05-26 Annual Penalty
Charge Reconciliation to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 5/26/23.
    Accession Number: 20230526-5119.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/23.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP23-694-001.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Compliance filing: FOSA Updates Compliance Filing to
be effective 6/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/26/23.
    Accession Number: 20230526-5088.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/23.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 26, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-11763 Filed 6-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 222 (Monday, November 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 55102]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25091]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 9691-004]

Matthew W. Foley, Elizabeth E. Rapalee; 8 Church Lane, LLC;
Notice of Transfer of Exemption

    1. By letter filed August 24, 2017, Matthew W. Foley informed the
Commission that the exemption from licensing for the Wadhams
Hydroelectric Project No. 9691, originally issued August 13, 1986 \1\
has been transferred to 8 Church Lane, LLC. The project is located on
the Boquet River in Essex County, New York. The transfer of an
exemption does not require Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Order Granting Exemption From Licensing (5 MW or Less).
Matthew W. Foley and Elizabeth E. Rapalee, 36 FERC 62,190 (1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. 8 Church Lane, LLC is now the exemptee of the Wadhams
Hydroelectric Project No. 9691. All correspondence should be forwarded
to: Mr. Matthew W. Foley and Ms. Elizabeth E. Rapalee, 8 Church Lane,
LLC, 2531 County Route 10, Wadhams, NY 12993, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email: [email protected].

    Dated: November 14, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-25091 Filed 11-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 98 (Friday, May 20, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29179-29180]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12361]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0359; Airspace Docket No. 11-AWP-1]

Proposed Modification of Class D and E Airspace; Fort Huachuca,
AZ

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify Class D and Class E airspace at
Fort Huachuca, AZ, to accommodate aircraft departing and arriving under
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) at Fort Huachuca, Sierra Vista Municipal
Airport-Libby Army Airfield. This action, initiated by the biennial
review of the Fort Huachuca airspace area, would enhance the safety and
management of aircraft operations at the airport. This action would
also update the airport name.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-
0359; Airspace Docket No. 11-AWP-1, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Roberts, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA 2011-0359 and Airspace Docket No. 11-AWP-1) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2011-0359 and Airspace Docket No. 11-AWP-1.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA
98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class D airspace, and Class E
airspace designated as an extension to Class D surface area, and
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, at Fort
Huachuca, AZ. This action was initiated by the FAA's biennial review of
the airspace, in which they found additional controlled airspace
necessary for the safety and management of aircraft departing and
arriving under IFR operations at Fort Huachuca, Sierra Vista Municipal
Airport-Libby Army Airfield. This action would also update the
geographic coordinates and the airport name from Fort Huachuca, Libby
AAF/Sierra Vista Municipal Airport, to Fort Huachuca, Sierra Vista
Municipal Airport-Libby Army Airfield.
    Class D airspace and Class E airspace designations are published in
paragraph 5000, 6004 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9U,
dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace and
Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in this Order.
    The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation; (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. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when
promulgated, would 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 U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, section 106, describes
the authority for 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 I, section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it creates additional controlled airspace at Fort Huachuca, Sierra
Vista Municipal Airport-Libby Army Airfield, Fort Huachuca, AZ.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

    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]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the
Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September
15, 2010 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D airspace.

* * * * *

AWP AZ D Fort Huachuca, AZ [Modified]

Fort Huachuca, Sierra Vista Municipal Airport-Libby Army Airfield,
AZ
    (Lat. 31[deg]35'19'' N., long. 110[deg]20'40'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
7,200 feet MSL within a 4.7-mile radius of the airport. This Class D
airspace is effective during the specific dates and times
established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and
time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/
Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6004 Class E airspace areas designated as an extension to
Class D or Class E surface area.

* * * * *

AWP AZ E4 Fort Huachuca, AZ [Modified]

Fort Huachuca, Sierra Vista Municipal Airport-Libby Army Airfield,
AZ
    (Lat. 31[deg]35'19'' N., long. 110[deg]20'40'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.6 miles
each side of the Airport 088[deg] bearing, extending from the 4.7-
mile radius of the airport to 7 miles east of the airport, and that
airspace extending upward from the surface within 1 mile each side
of the Airport 270[deg] bearing, extending from the 4.7-mile radius
of the airport to 5.5 miles west of the airport. This Class E
airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times
established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and
time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/
Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AWP AZ E5 Fort Huachuca, AZ [Modified]

Fort Huachuca, Sierra Vista Municipal Airport-Libby Army Airfield,
AZ
    (Lat. 31[deg]35'19'' N., long. 110[deg]20'40'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.3-mile radius of the airport, and within 3.5 miles each
side of the Airport 270[deg] bearing extending 9 miles west of the
airport, and that airspace 4 miles south and 8 miles north along the
Airport 088[deg] bearing extending 15.5 miles east of the airport,
excluding that area within Restricted Area R-2312. That airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within 25-mile
radius of Fort Huachuca-Sierra Vista Municipal Airport-Libby Army
Airfield, excluding that area within Mexican airspace.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on May 12, 2011.
John Warner,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2011-12361 Filed 5-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 11192]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05110]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14868-000]

Pioneer Valley Renewables; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On February 13, 2018, Pioneer Valley Renewables, 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
Scotlandville Bend Project (Scotlandville Project or project) to be
located on the Mississippi River, in West Baton Rouge and East Baton
Rouge Parishes, Louisiana. 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 consist of the following: (1) Four
underwater, carbon fiber shroud and blade design turbine-generating
units, each with a diameter of 18 meters and a cross section of 4
meters; (2) each pair of units will be mounted on a riverbed secured
piling, 30 meters apart; (3) flexible cables would convey power to a
metering station; and (4) a transmission line would interconnect with
the power grid. Each unit would have an installed capacity of 1.5
megawatts for a total generating capacity of 6 megawatts. The proposed
project would have an estimated average annual generation of 40,000
megawatt-hours, which would be sold.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Mark D. Farb, Pioneer Valley Renewables, 240
Central Avenue, 1J, Lawrence, New York 11559; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected]
    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.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at 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 protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14868-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the eLibrary link of
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14868) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: March 7, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-05110 Filed 3-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 34)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 7560]
[DOCID:fr22fe10-19]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 156

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0635; FRL-8813-3]

Public Availability of Identities of Inert Ingredients in
Pesticides; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM); extension of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued an ANPRM in the Federal Register of December 23,
2009, concerning the initiation of rulemaking to increase public
availability of the identities of the inert ingredients in pesticide
products. Two requests for a 90-day extension of the comment period
were submitted by the Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment and
Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. Based on these requests, EPA is
extending the comment period for 60 days, from February 22, 2010, to
April 23, 2010.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2009-0635, must be received on or before April 23, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES
in the Federal Register document of December 23, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kerry B. Leifer, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is extending for 60 days the comment
period on the initiation of rulemaking to increase public availability
of the identities of the inert ingredients in pesticide products. Two
requests for a 90-day extension of the comment period were submitted by
the Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment and Syngenta Crop
Protection, Inc. Both of these requests are in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-
0635, accessible via http://www.regulations.gov. This document extends
the public comment period established in the Federal Register of
December 23, 2009 (74 FR 68215) (FRL- 8803-3). In that document, EPA
proposed to initiate rulemaking to increase public availability of the
identities of the inert ingredients in pesticide products. EPA is
hereby extending the comment period, which was set to end on February
22, 2010, to April 23, 2010.
    To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the
detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES in the December 23,
2009 Federal Register document. If you have questions, consult the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 156

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: February 16, 2010.
James Jones,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances.

[FR Doc. 2010-3415 Filed 2-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: October 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 207)]
[Notices]
[Page 55593-55594]
[DOCID:fr28oc09-122]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60840; File No. SR-Phlx-2009-77]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order Approving Proposed Rule
Change by NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. Regarding Listing Certain Options at $1
Strike Price Intervals Below $200 and Listing Certain Options at $2.50
Strike Price Intervals Below $200

October 20, 2009.
    On September 4, 2009, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ a
proposed rule change to permit the listing of certain option series at
$1 and $2.50 strike price intervals for strike prices below $200. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on September 16, 2009.\4\ There were no comments on the proposed rule
change. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60637 (September 9,
2009), 74 FR 47634 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Phlx Rules 1012 and 1101A to permit
the Exchange to list eight index options (the ``$1 Indexes'') at $1
strike price intervals below $200.\5\ The Exchange believes that $1
strike price intervals in these option series will provide investors
with greater flexibility by allowing them to establish positions that
are better tailored to meet their investment objectives. The Exchange
also proposes to amend Rule 1101A to permit the Exchange to list
options on two indexes at $2.50 strike price intervals below $200.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange is proposing $1 strike price intervals for the
following sector indexes: PHLX Gold/Silver Index (XAU), PHLX Housing
Index (HGX), PHLX Oil Service Index (OSX), SIG Oil Exploration &
Production IndexTM (EPXSM), PHLX Semiconductor
Index (SOX), KBW Bank Index (BKX),\5\ SIG Energy MLP
IndexSM (SVOTM), and Reduced Value Russell
2000[supreg] Index (RMN).
    \6\ The Exchange is proposing $2.50 strike price intervals for
the following sector indexes: The NASDAQ China IndexSM
(CNZ) and the Reduced Value Russell 2000[supreg] Index (RMN).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For initial series in options on the $1 Indexes, the Exchange will
list at least two strike prices above and two strike prices below the
current value of the $1 Index at or about the time a series is opened
for trading on the Exchange. Series listed at the time of initial
listing must be within five (5) points of the closing value of the $1
Index on the preceding day. The Exchange will be permitted to list up
to sixty (60) additional series, subject to certain guidelines,\7\ when
the Exchange deems it necessary to maintain an orderly market, to meet
customer demand, or when the underlying $1 Index moves substantially
from the initial exercise price or prices. In all cases, however, $1
strike price intervals may be listed on $1 Index options only where the
strike price is less than $200. The Exchange is also proposing to set
forth a delisting

policy with respect to $1 Index options.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Additional strike prices shall be within thirty percent
(30%) above or below the closing value of the $1 Index; however, the
Exchange will be permitted to open additional strike prices that are
more than 30% above or below the current $1 Index value provided
that demonstrated customer interest exists for such series, as
expressed by institutional, corporate or individual customers or
their brokers. Market-Makers trading for their own account will not
be considered when determining customer interest. See Proposed Rule
1101A Commentary .03(b).
    \8\ For each $1 Index the Exchange will regularly review series
that are outside a range of five (5) strikes above and five (5)
strikes below the current value of the $1 Index and may delist
series with no open interest in both the put and the call series
having a: (i) Strike higher than the highest strike price with open
interest in the put and/or call series for a given expiration month;
and (ii) strike lower than the lowest strike price with open
interest in the put and/or call series for a given expiration month.
However, customer requests to add strikes and/or maintain strikes in
$1 Index options in series eligible for delisting may be granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\9\ In
particular, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange stated in its proposal that it has received numerous
requests from traders of the $1 Index options for series listed in $1
strike price increments. The Exchange believes that allowing the
listing of these options at $1 increments as proposed, particularly
given the recent decline in values of the $1 Indexes, should provide
investors with added flexibility in the trading of options and further
the public interest by allowing investors to establish positions that
are better tailored to meet their investment objectives.
    The Commission notes that the Exchange has analyzed its capacity
and represented its belief that it and the Options Price Reporting
Authority have the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional
traffic associated with listing and trading $1 strike intervals options
series on the $1 Indexes.
    In light of the foregoing, the Commission believes that the
proposal strikes a reasonable balance between the Exchange's desire to
accommodate market participants by offering a wider array of investment
opportunities and the need to avoid unnecessary proliferation of
options series and the corresponding increase in quotes. The Commission
expects that the Exchange will monitor the trading volume associated
with the additional options series listed as a result of this proposal
and the effect of these additional series on market fragmentation and
on the capacity of the Exchange's, OPRA's and vendors' automated
systems.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\11\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2009-77) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-25826 Filed 10-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 15 (Thursday, January 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4051-4054]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01097]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88003; File No. SR-NYSE-2019-54]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a
Proposed Rule Change To Permit the Exchange To List and Trade Exchange
Traded Products

January 17, 2020.
    On October 3, 2019, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``Exchange'' or
``NYSE'') 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 list and trade Exchange Traded Products that
have a component NMS Stock listed on the Exchange or that are based on,
or represent an interest in, an underlying index or reference asset
that includes an NMS Stock listed on the Exchange. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on October 23,
2019.\3\ On December 5, 2019, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer period within which to
approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\5\ The Commission has received no comment letters
on the proposal. This order institutes proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to

determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87329 (Oct. 17,
2019), 84 FR 56864 (``Notice'').
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87671 (Dec. 5,
2019), 84 FR 67763 (Dec. 11, 2019). The Commission designated
January 21, 2020, as the date by which it should approve or
disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Summary Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to expand the Exchange Traded Products
(``ETPs'') that would be eligible to list and trade on the Exchange to
include ETPs that have a component NMS Stock \7\ or that are based on,
or represent an interest in, an underlying index or reference asset
that includes an NMS Stock listed on the Exchange. To effectuate this
change, the Exchange proposes to delete the preambles to NYSE Rules 5P
and 8P currently providing that the Exchange will not list such ETPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NMS Stock is defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS, 17 CFR
242.600(b)(48) as ``any NMS security other than an option.'' ``NMS
Security'' means any security or class of securities for which
transaction reports are collected, processed, and made available
pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan, or an effective
national market system plan for reporting transactions in listed
options.'' See 17 CFR 242.600(b)(47). ``NMS Security'' refers to
``exchange-listed equity securities and standardized options, but
does not include exchange-listed debt securities, securities
futures, or open-end mutual funds, which are not currently reported
pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan.'' See Question
1.1 in the ``Responses to Frequently Asked Questions Concerning
Large Trader Reporting,'' available at: https://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/large-trader-faqs.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal would permit the Exchange to list and trade on the
NYSE Trading Floor \8\ both ETPs and one or more component NMS Stocks
forming part of the underlying ETP index or portfolio (``side-by-side
trading'' \9\). Because listed securities are assigned to a Designated
Market Maker (``DMM''), the proposed elimination of the current
restriction could result in DMMs being assigned ETPs that may have one
or more component NMS Stocks forming part of the underlying ETP index
or portfolio that are also assigned to the DMM (``integrated market
making'').\10\ The Commission has approved integrated market making and
side-by-side trading for ``broad-based'' ETPs and related options.\11\
According to the Exchange, the test for whether a product is ``broad-
based'', and therefore is not readily susceptible to manipulation, is
whether the individual components of the ETP are sufficiently liquid
and well-capitalized and the product is not over-concentrated.\12\ When
an ETP meets both criteria, and therefore can be considered ``broad-
based,'' the Commission has explicitly permitted integrated market
making and side-by-side trading in both the ETP and related options,
with no requirement for information barriers or physical or
organizational separation.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``Trading Floor'' is defined in NYSE Rule 6A to
mean the restricted-access physical areas designated by the Exchange
for the trading of securities, commonly known as the ``Main Room''
and the ``Buttonwood Room.''
    \9\ ``Side-by-side trading'' refers to the trading of an equity
security and its related derivative product at the same physical
location, though ``not necessarily by the same specialist or
specialist firm.'' Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46213 (July
16, 2002), 67 FR 48232, 48233 (July 23, 2002) (SR-Amex-2002-21)
(``Release No. 46213'') (order approving side-by-side trading and
integrated market making of broad index-based ETFs and related
options); see also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 45454
(February 15, 2002), 67 FR 8567, 8568 n.7 (February 25, 2002) (SR-
NYSE-2001-43) (``Release No. 45454'') (order approving approved
person of a specialist to act as a specialist or primary market
maker with respect to an option on a stock in which the NYSE
specialist is registered on the Exchange).
    \10\ ``Integrated market making'' refers to the practice of the
same person or firm making markets in an equity security and its
related option. See Release No. 45454, 67 FR at 8568 n.7.
    \11\ See Release No. 46213, 67 FR at 48232 (approving side-by-
side trading and integrated market making for certain Exchange
Traded Funds (``ETF'') and Trust Issued Receipts (``TIR'') and
related options);  see also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
62479 (July 9, 2010), 75 FR 41264 (July 15, 2010) (SR-Amex-2010-31)
(``Release No. 62479'') (order approving side-by-side trading and
integrated market making in the QQQ ETF and certain of its component
securities where the QQQs met the composition and concentration
measures to be classified as a broad-based ETF).
    \12\ See Release No. 62479, id., 75 FR at 41272. The Commission
has expressed its belief ``that, when the securities underlying an
ETF consist of a number of liquid and well-capitalized stocks, the
likelihood that a market participant will be able to manipulate the
price of the ETF is reduced.'' See id. See generally Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 56633 (October 9, 2007), 72 FR 58696
(October 16, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-60) (order approving generic listing
standards for ETFs based on both U.S. and international indices,
noting they are ``sufficiently broad-based in scope to minimize
potential manipulation.''); 55621 (April 12, 2007), 72 FR 19571
(April 18, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-86); 54739 (November 9, 2006), 71
FR 66993 (November 17, 2006) (SR-Amex-2006-78); 57365 (February 21,
2008), 73 FR 10839 (February 28, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2007-109) (order
approving generic listing standards for ETFs based on international
indices, noting they are ``sufficiently broad-based in scope to
minimize potential manipulation.''); 56049 (July 11, 2007), 72 FR
39121 (July 17, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2007-20); 55113 (January 17, 2007),
72 FR 3179 (January 24, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2006-101); and 55269
(February 9, 2007), 72 FR 7490 (February 15, 2007) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-
50).
    \13\ See note 11, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In making a determination of whether an ETP is broad-based, the
Commission has relied on an exchange's listing standards. According to
the Exchange, in permitting integrated market making and side-by-side
trading for two types of ETPs and their related options, the Commission
looked to the American Stock Exchange LLC's listing standards that are
very similar to the Exchange's current listing standards.
    The Exchange notes that the relationship between an ETP and its
underlying listed NMS Stock component or components is fundamentally
different than that between an ETP and its related option. In the
latter case, a small move in the price of the listed security can
trigger a large move in the price of the related option, increasing the
incentive for a market maker or specialist to manipulate the security
or coordinate trading with the options market maker or specialist.
Here, the Exchange asserts that there is no similar outsized
correlation between a move in the price of a listed ETP and one or more
of its underlying NMS Stock components. The potential for manipulation
or coordinated trading is significantly attenuated for listed ETPs and
their underlying NMS Stock components because the Exchange's generic
listed standards are designed to ensure that the Exchange will only
list ETPs that are ``broad-based''--that is, the ETP's underlying
component securities must be sufficiently liquid and well-capitalized,
and the ETP must not be unduly concentrated.
    According to the Exchange, the listing standards for Units based on
an index of both US Component Stocks and Non-US Component Stocks; \14\
Equity-Index Linked securities (commonly referred to as Exchange Traded
Notes or ``ETNs''); \15\ Portfolio Depositary Receipts under NYSE Rule
8.100 with underlying component stocks consisting of an index or
portfolio of US Component Stocks; \16\ and actively managed funds under
NYSE Rule 8.600 \17\ are all broadly similar. The Exchange could not
list an ETP that does not meet these generic listing requirements
without a proposed rule change being filed with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See NYSE Rule 5.2(j)(3), Supp. Material .01(a)(B)(1)-(5).
The index or portfolio must include a minimum of 20 component
stocks.
    \15\ See NYSE Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I).
    \16\ See NYSE Rule 8.100.
    \17\ See NYSE Rule 8.600.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that listed ETPs meeting these composition
and concentration measures would be sufficiently broad-based to allow
integrated market making and side-by-side trading in both the ETP and
the component NMS securities with no requirement for information
barriers or physical or organizational separation.
    As noted by the Exchange, equity-based ETPs that do not meet the
applicable generic listing standards would require a rule filing with
the Commission prior to commencement of Exchange listing or trading.
The rule filing would set forth the initial and continued listing
requirements in order for such a product to be listed and traded on the
Exchange. In order for a rule proposal to be consistent with the

Act, it must, among other things, further the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \18\ in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices. The Exchange believes that equity-
based ETPs whose underlying component composition varies greatly from
the generic listing standards, i.e., an ETP whose components are
insufficiently liquid or well-capitalized or unduly concentrated, would
be unlikely to meet this requirement. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that ETPs listed and traded via the rule filing process would
also be sufficiently broad-based in order to minimize potential
manipulation, thus justifying integrated market making and side-by-side
trading in both the ETP and the component NMS securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    While the ``broad-based'' nature of listed ETPs under either the
generic listing standards or via a rule filing makes manipulation less
likely, the Exchange also believes that the potential for manipulation
of listed ETPs is minimal because ETP pricing is based on an
``arbitrage function'' performed by market participants that affects
the supply of and demand for ETP shares and, thus, ETP prices. This
``arbitrage function'' is effectuated by creating new ETP shares and
redeeming existing ETP shares based on investor demand; thus, ETP
supply is open-ended. As the Commission has acknowledged, the arbitrage
function helps to keep an ETP's price in line with the value of its
underlying portfolio, i.e., it minimizes deviation from NAV. Generally,
the higher the liquidity and trading volume of an ETP, the more likely
the ETP's price will not deviate from the value of its underlying
portfolio. Market makers registered in ETPs play a key role in this
arbitrage function and DMMs, along with other market participants,
would perform this role for ETPs listed on the Exchange. In short, the
Exchange believes that the arbitrage mechanism is an effective and
efficient means of ensuring that intraday pricing in ETPs closely
tracks the value of the underlying portfolio or reference assets.
    The Exchange believes that the price regulating function played by
the arbitrage mechanism renders attempts to influence or manipulate the
price of an ETP more difficult and more susceptible to immediate
detection and correction. The fact that an ETP and one or more of its
underlying components are traded in the same physical space on the
Exchange or by the same DMM on the Exchange does not alter this dynamic
in the slightest, nor does it make price manipulation more likely.
Rather, the Exchange believes the arbitrage mechanism would make price
manipulation more difficult and, thus, less likely. Attempts by Floor-
based market participants to influence the price of an ETP by, for
instance, manipulating one or more component securities would be
reflected in the deviation of the price from the NAV just as similar
attempts today by upstairs traders would be reflected in the deviation
of the price from the NAV. Moreover, the Exchange asserts that a broad-
based ETP would, as shown above, be even less susceptible to price
manipulation. The Exchange thus believes that the type of broad-based
equity ETPs eligible for listing under the generic listing standards,
coupled with the arbitrage mechanism, sufficiently minimize the
potential for manipulation of ETPs listed and traded on the Trading
Floor.
    With respect to integrated market making, the Commission has
approved changes to NYSE Rule 98 that permit a DMM unit to engage in
integrated market making with off-Floor market making units in related
products.\19\ NYSE Rule 98(c)(6) prohibits DMM units from operating as
a specialist or market maker on the Exchange in related products,
unless specifically permitted in Exchange rules. NYSE Rule 98(b)(7)
defines ``related products'' as ``any derivative instrument that is
related to a DMM security.'' \20\ Accordingly, consistent with the
proposal, the Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 98(b)(7) to
specifically exclude ETPs from the definition of ``related products.''
The Exchange believes that ETPs are different from other types of
related products such as single-stock options or futures and that,
given the broad-based nature of listed ETPs, integrated market making
and side-by-side trading in both the ETP and underlying NMS stock
components is appropriate with no requirement for information barriers
or physical or organizational separation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58328 (August 7,
2008), 73 FR 48260 (August 18, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-45) (order
approving amendments to NYSE Rule 98 that permit specialist firms to
integrate with off-Floor trading desks that trade in ``related
products,'' as that term is defined in NYSE Rule 98).
    \20\ Under NYSE Rule 98(b)(7), derivative instruments include
options, warrants, hybrid securities, single-stock futures,
security-based swap agreement, a forward contract, or ``any other
instrument that is exercisable into or whose price is based upon or
derived from a security traded at the Exchange.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, trading on the Exchange is subject to a
comprehensive regulatory program that includes a suite of surveillances
and routine examinations that review trading by DMMs and other market
participants on the Exchange's trading Floor. Market participants on
the trading Floor, including DMMs, are also required to implement
policies and procedures reasonably designed to detect and to deter
inappropriate conduct and prevent the misuse of material, non-public
information or disclosure of Floor-based non-public order
information.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See, e.g., NYSE Rule 98(c)(3) (setting forth restrictions
on trading for member organizations operating a DMM unit).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-NYSE-
2019-54 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \22\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues raised by the proposed rule change. Institution of proceedings
does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with
respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as described below, the
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide comments
on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\23\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be ``designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade,'' and ``to protect investors and the public
interest.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Id.
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the
Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth
in the Notice,\25\ in addition to any other comments they may wish to
submit about the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission
seeks comment on the following questions and asks commenters to submit
data where appropriate to support their views.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Notice, supra note 3.

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

    1. What are commenters' views generally on whether the Exchange's
proposal to implement side-by-side trading and integrated market making
for ETPs to be listed and traded on the Exchange is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires that the Exchange's rules be
designed to, among other things, prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices?
    2. With respect to ETPs that meet their respective generic listing
requirements, is the ``broad-based'' test as outlined by the Exchange
the appropriate standard that should be equally applied to all ETPs,
including ETFs, TIRs, and ETNs? Specifically, are the ETPs included in
the proposal ``broadly similar'' as the Exchange asserts and therefore
subject to the same analysis? If so, why? If not, what factors, if any,
should the Commission consider in its review of side-by-side trading
and integrated market making related to each category of ETPs, such as
ETFs, TIRs, and ETNs?
    3. What are commenters' views about whether, as a result of the
proposal to implement side-by-side trading and integrated market
making, certain Exchange members may acquire an informational advantage
over other market participants with respect to trading in the ETP and
the underlying securities? What are commenters' views on whether such
informational advantage, if any, presents concerns regarding the
potential for misuse of material, non-public information?
    4. What are commenters' views on the Exchange's assertion that ETPs
listed and traded via the rule filing process ``would also be
sufficiently broad-based'' in order to minimize potential manipulation,
thus justifying integrated market making and side-by-side trading in
both the ETP and the component NMS securities? Specifically, what are
commenters' views on whether the Exchange's application of the ``broad-
based'' test to equity-based ETPs that do not comply with their
respective generic listing requirements is appropriate? If not, why
not? What are other factors, if any, that ought to be considered with
respect to these types of equity-based ETPs, specifically? What are
other factors, if any, that ought to be considered for all ETPs,
including ETPs that are not primarily based on equity securities, but
nevertheless include NMS stocks in their indexes or portfolios, that do
not satisfy their respective generic listing requirements in some form
or manner?
    5. What are commenter's views on the Exchange's assertions that the
potential for manipulation of listed ETPs would be minimal because ETP
pricing is based on an ``arbitrage function'' performed by market
participants that affects the supply of, and demand for, ETP shares
and, thus, ETP prices?

III. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or
the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to
be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be
facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the
Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an
opportunity to make an oral presentation.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by February 13, 2020. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
February 27, 2020. The Commission asks that commenters address the
sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in
addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the
proposed rule change.
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2019-54 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2019-54. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2019-54 and should be submitted by
February 13, 2020. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by February
27, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-01097 Filed 1-22-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 87)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 24500-24502]
[DOCID:fr05my08-3]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2008-0116-200807a; FRL-8560-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia:
Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the Georgia State Implementation
Plan (SIP), submitted by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources
(GA DNR), through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA
EPD), on December 28, 2007. The revisions include minor changes to
Georgia's Air Quality Rules found at Chapter 391-3-20-.17, pertaining
to rules for Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M). Enhanced I/M
was required for 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious
and above, under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The enhanced I/M program is
not a required measure for Atlanta for the 8-hour ozone standard
pursuant to the CAA because the area is classified as a moderate
nonattainment area (73 FR 12013). However, the enhanced I/M program was
approved into the SIP for the 1-hour ozone standard and will remain in
the SIP until such time that the State removes the requirement. To
remove the requirement from the SIP, the State would have to make a
demonstration that removal of this program would not interfere with or
delay attainment, consistent with section 110(1) of the CAA. The I/M
program is a way to ensure that vehicles are maintained properly and
verify that the emission control system is operating correctly, in
order to reduce vehicle-related emissions. This action is being taken
pursuant to section 110 of the CAA.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective July 7, 2008 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by June 4, 2008. If adverse
comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct
final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule
will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number, ``EPA-
R04-OAR-2008-0116,'' by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2008-0116,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Stacy Harder, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Number, ``EPA-R04-
OAR-2008-0116.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be

able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. 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 electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacy Harder, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9042. Ms. Harder can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. EPA's Action
II. Analysis of the State's Submittal
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. EPA's Action

    EPA is approving a SIP revision submitted by the GA DNR, through GA
EPD on December 28, 2007, pertaining to rules for Georgia's enhanced I/
M program. The changes include changes to Georgia's Air Quality Rules,
found at Chapters 391-3-20-.17 ``Waivers,'' subparagraph (2)(a). These
revisions became State effective on September 26, 2007.

II. Analysis of the State's Submittal

    Rule 391-3-20-.17 ``Waivers,'' is being revised to update the set
dollar amount for repair costs that may qualify for a waiver from the
inspection requirements for the 2008 test year. Specifically, for the
2008 test year, the waiver limit is revised from $738 to $755, of
qualifying repairs. For vehicles which otherwise qualify for waivers
during the 2007 test year, the waiver limit is revised from $710 to
$738, of qualifying repairs. These revisions, which Georgia submits on
an annual basis, are based upon consumer price index data, as published
by the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (see, CAA section
182(c)(3)(C)(iii)). This change does not impose any additional cost to
the regulated industry or the public. Additionally, this change has no
effect on the emissions reductions claimed in the SIP.

III. Final Action

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve the aforementioned
revisions, specifically, Chapters 391-3-20-.17 subparagraph (2)(a) into
the Georgia SIP. These revisions were submitted by GA EPD on December
28, 2007.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective July 7, 2008
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by
June 4, 2008.
    If EPA receives such comments, EPA will then publish a document
withdrawing the direct final rule and informing the public that such
rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA
will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in
commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received,
the public is advised that this rule will be effective on July 7, 2008
and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211.
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the national government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 7, 2008. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See, section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 17 2008.
Russell L. Wright, Jr.
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart L--Georgia

0
2. Section 52.570(c) is amended by revising the entry for ``391-3-20''
to read as follows:

Sec.  52.570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA--Approved Georgia Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State        EPA approval
        State citation               Title/subject      effective date        date           Explanation date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
391-3-20......................  Enhanced inspection         09/26/2007  05/05/2008
                                 and Maintenance.                        [Insert
                                                                         citation of
                                                                         publication].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E8-9735 Filed 5-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M