[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 243 (Thursday, December 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 82002-82005]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27727]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90646; File No. SR-FINRA-2020-034]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Modify TRACE
Dissemination Protocols for Agency Pass-Through MBS or SBA-Backed ABS
Traded in Specified Pool Transactions

December 11, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On October 15, 2020, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') 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
modify the Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (``TRACE'')
dissemination protocols for Agency Pass-Through Mortgage-Backed
Securities or Small Business Administration (``SBA'')-Backed Asset-
Backed Securities traded in Specified Pool Transactions. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on
October 29, 2020.\3\ The Commission received one comment letter in
support of the proposed rule change.\4\ This order approves 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. 90264 (October 23,
2020), 85 FR 68607 (October 29, 2020) (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Letter from Wendell J. Chambliss, Vice President and
Deputy General Counsel, Mission, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs,
Legal Division, Freddie Mac, to J. Matthew DeLesDernier, Assistant
Security, Commission, dated November 18, 2020 (``Freddie Mac
Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    FINRA commenced public dissemination of Specified Pool Transactions
in 2013 after the Commission approved FINRA's proposal to do so in
2012.\5\ FINRA's rules define a ``Specified Pool Transaction'' as a
transaction in an Agency Pass-Through Mortgage-Backed Security
(``Agency Pass-Through MBS'') \6\ or an SBA-Backed Asset-Backed
Security (``SBA-Backed ABS'') \7\ requiring the delivery at settlement
of a pool or pools that is identified by a unique pool identification
number at the Time of Execution.\8\ As described in the FINRA-2012-042
Approval, when disseminating information of a Specified Pool
Transaction, FINRA does not identify the specific bond transacted by
disclosing its CUSIP code.\9\ Instead, FINRA disseminates more general
information about the bond and the pool underlying the bond, including
approximations of information widely used to project cash flows and
prepayment rates of the underlying mortgages, such as loan-to-value
(``LTV'') information.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68084 (October 23,
2012), 77 FR 65436 (October 26, 2012) (``FINRA-2012-042 Approval'').
This filing provided for, among other things, public dissemination
of transactions in Agency Pass-Through Mortgage-Backed Securities
traded in specified pools and transactions in SBA-Backed Asset-
Backed Securities traded in specified pools or to be announced, and
reduced the reporting timeframe for such transactions.
    \6\ FINRA Rule 6710(v) defines an ``Agency Pass-Through MBS'' as
``a type of Securitized Product issued in conformity with a program
of an Agency as defined in [FINRA Rule 6710(k)] or a Government-
Sponsored Enterprise (`GSE') as defined in [FINRA Rule 6710(n)], for
which the timely payment of principal and interest is guaranteed by
the Agency or GSE, representing ownership interest in a pool (or
pools) of mortgage loans structured to `pass through' the principal
and interest payments to the holders of the security on a pro rata
basis.''
    \7\ FINRA Rule 6710(bb) defines an ``SBA-Backed ABS'' as ``a
Securitized Product issued in conformity with a program of the SBA,
for which the timely payment of principal and interest is guaranteed
by the SBA, representing ownership interest in a pool (or pools) of
loans or debentures and structured to `pass through' the principal
and interest payments made by the borrowers in such loans or
debentures to the holders of the security on a pro rata basis.''
    \8\ See FINRA Rule 6710(x).
    \9\ See FINRA-2012-042 Approval, 77 FR at 65437.
    \10\ See id. FINRA stated that, in developing the approach to
public dissemination described in the FINRA-2012-042 Approval, it
considered industry feedback, including concerns that dissemination
of the CUSIP code in a Specified Pool Transaction might result in
information leakage regarding trading strategies, positions, and
other sensitive information, which could negatively impact trading
interest and liquidity in the market for these securities. See
Notice, 85 FR at 68607.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under its public dissemination protocol for Specified Pool
Transactions, FINRA groups the pools underlying the transacted bonds
into cohorts, using data elements that are integral to describing and
valuing the bonds based on these pools, such as the LTV ratio. The
cohort groupings are established using rounded or truncated figures for
the underlying data elements, so that numeric values within each cohort
can be understood within defined ranges. Each cohort is assigned a
unique identification number--the Reference Data Identifier (``RDID'').
After a member reports a Specified Pool Transaction to TRACE, FINRA
disseminates the corresponding RDID in lieu of disseminating the
transacted bond's CUSIP code. The underlying data elements that
correspond to each RDID are made available to members through the TRACE
system.\11\ FINRA rounds or truncates certain cohort groupings to
reduce the risk that the specific bond traded and the market
participant that engaged in the transaction might be identified.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ FINRA uses the following ten data elements to form the RDID
cohorts that describe the security traded in a Specified Pool
Transaction: (1) Issuer; (2) Product Type; (3) Amortization Type;
(4) Coupon; (5) Original Maturity; (6) Weighted Average Coupon
(``WAC''); (7) Weighted Average Maturity (``WAM''); (8) Weighted
Average Loan Age (``WALA''); (9) Current Average Loan Size
(``ALS''); and (10) Original LTV. For example, RDID #A1234 might
represent: (1) Issuer = FNMA; (2) Product Type = Co-Op; (3)
Amortization Type = ARM; (4) Coupon = 2.0; (5) Original Maturity =
360; (6) WAC = 2.5; (7) WAM = 200; (8) WALA = 160; (9) ALS = 100;
and (10) Original LTV = 50. See id., 85 FR at 68607-08.
    \12\ Currently, the rounding and truncation conventions that are
used for Specified Pool Transactions are the following: (1) Coupon--
Rounded down to the nearest quarter percentage point--e.g., an
interest rate of 5.12% is rounded to 5%; (2) Original Maturity--
Rounded up to the nearest 10--e.g., an original maturity of 358
months is rounded to 360 months; (3) WAC--Truncated to a single
decimal--e.g., a WAC of 7.13% is truncated to 7.1%; (4) WAM--Rounded
down to the nearest 10--e.g., a WAM of 87 months is rounded to 80
month; (5) WALA--Rounded up to the nearest 10--e.g., a WALA of 163
months is rounded to 170 months; (6) ALS--Rounded down to the
nearest 25--e.g., an ALS of 113 (i.e., $113,000 average loan size)
is rounded to 100 (i.e., $100,000 average loan size); and (7) LTV--
Rounded down to the nearest 25--e.g., an original LTV of 72% is
rounded to 50%. See id., 85 FR at 68608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes ``that the transaction information disseminated
through TRACE should provide investors with sufficient information to
assess the value and price of a security, which for Securitized
Products, includes information necessary to make assumptions about cash
flows and prepayment rates.'' \13\ The elements described above are
intended to provide market participants with the information necessary
to perform such an analysis.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
    \14\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA stated that, since commencing public dissemination of
Specified Pool Transactions, it has continued to evaluate the relevant
market and the value of the information disseminated to market
participants.\15\ As a result of these efforts, which included
discussions with market participants, FINRA is now proposing changes to
the LTV rounding convention used in the public dissemination of
Specified Pool Transactions.\16\ Specifically, FINRA proposes to create
more granular cohorts for LTV to increase the precision of the
information regarding the LTV of the pool traded. In place of the
current LTV rounding convention, which is rounded down to the nearest
25%, FINRA will organize the cohorts such that each cohort represents
the LTV as the upper limit of the applicable category, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See id.
    \16\ FINRA has not proposed changes to the rounding or
truncation conventions utilized for the other data elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. For an LTV up to 20%, the cohorts would represent the LTV as 20%
(such that an original LTV of 12% would be shown as 20%);
    2. for an LTV between 21% and 40%, the cohorts would represent the
LTV as 40% (such that an original LTV of 21% would be shown as 40%);
    3. for an LTV between 41% and 60%, the cohorts would represent the
LTV as 60% (such that an original LTV of 60% would be shown as 60%);
    4. for an LTV between 61% and 80%, the cohorts would represent the
LTV as 80% (such that an original LTV of 70% would be shown as 80%);
    5. for an LTV between 81% and 93%, the cohorts would represent the
LTV as

93% (such that an original LTV of 90% would be shown as 93%);
    6. for an LTV between 94% and 100%, the cohorts would represent the
LTV as 100% (such that an original LTV of 100% would be shown as 100%);
    7. for an LTV between 101% and 120%, the cohorts would represent
the LTV as 120% (such that an original LTV of 105% would be shown as
120%); and
    8. for an LTV of 121% or greater, the cohorts would represent the
LTV as 121+ (such that an original LTV of 125% would be shown as 121+).
    Thus, as a result of the proposed rule change, FINRA will
disseminate the LTV ratio cohorts at 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 93%, 100%,
120%, and 120%+. FINRA stated that, in developing the new LTV approach,
it sought to balance the goal of making more detailed information
available to the market against the potential risk of identifying the
particular security being traded and the market participant that
engaged in the transaction.\17\ FINRA believes that the new LTV
rounding convention is a ``measured change'' that will provide more
granular and meaningful information on the LTV of the Specified Pool
Transaction, which should increase the value of the disseminated
information to market participants.\18\ FINRA also anticipates that the
new cohorts will improve how disseminated TRACE data reflects the role
of LTV ratios in MBS valuations.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Notice, 85 FR at 68608.
    \18\ See id., 85 FR at 68609.
    \19\ See id., 85 FR at 68608. FINRA stated, for example, that
separating pools with LTV ratios at or below 80% from those with LTV
ratios of 81% or higher delineates the pools with mortgages that
might require mortgage insurance from those that might not require
mortgage insurance. See id. Similarly, FINRA believes that the
cohorts for LTV ratios of 81% or more are more consistent with the
way mortgage originators view loan characteristics and the way that
the market determines pricing. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has stated that it will announce the effective date of the
rule change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later than 60
days following a Commission approval, and the effective date will be no
later than 270 days following publication of that Regulatory
Notice.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See id., 85 FR at 68609.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
association.\21\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\22\ which
requires, among other things, that FINRA rules be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors
and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When it issued the FINRA-2012-042 Approval, the Commission found
that the protocols for publicly disseminating Specified Pool
Transactions proposed by FINRA--specifically, eschewing dissemination
of CUSIP codes and instead providing more generic information about the
bond transacted and the underlying pool--were consistent with the
Act.\23\ The Commission stated that the dissemination protocols for the
specified data elements ``strike an appropriate balance between
providing meaningful post-trade transparency and, at the same time,
reducing the potential for `reverse engineering' of transaction data
that could permit identification of a market participant and/or its
trading strategy.'' \24\ The Commission also noted that FINRA could in
the future determine to propose dissemination of additional data
elements that it believes would improve transparency for Specified Pool
Transactions.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See FINRA-2012-042 Approval, 77 FR at 65437-38.
    \24\ Id., 77 FR at 65437.
    \25\ See id., 77 FR at 65438.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is now proposing to revise the dissemination protocol for
Specified Pool Transactions by increasing the precision of the LTV
cohort groupings. In place of the current rounding convention used for
LTV (i.e., rounded down to the nearest 25%), FINRA will utilize eight
cohorts, with each cohort representing the LTV as the upper limit of
the applicable grouping. FINRA believes that the tighter bands around
LTVs will benefit market participants by increasing the value of price
information as it relates to LTV.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Notice, 85 FR at 68610.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the current proposal is consistent with
the Act because it represents a measured adjustment to the overall
public dissemination protocols for Specialized Pool Transactions that
the Commission previously found consistent with the Act in the FINRA-
2012-042 Approval. Establishing additional cohorts utilizing the
proposed LTV thresholds appears reasonably designed to provide market
participants and other market observers with more useful information
about the transacted bonds while minimizing the potential for adverse
market impact. The Commission notes that it received no comments
suggesting that the proposal would have adverse market impact; the one
comment letter received on the proposal was supportive.\27\ Moreover,
FINRA has represented that it will continue to evaluate the market for
Specified Pool Transactions and evaluate the conventions that it uses
for disseminating information on these transactions.\28\ The Commission
also notes that, under this proposal, FINRA members will not incur any
administrative burdens to report transactions differently; the creation
and distribution of the new LTV cohorts will be performed by FINRA
through the TRACE system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Freddie Mac Letter at 1 (stating that ``[a]dopting the
proposed approach of segmenting LTV ratios into eight categories
would align TRACE data with pooling practices and would enhance
market transparency while maintaining sufficient anonymity'').
    \28\ See Notice, 85 FR at 68610.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(5) of the Act,\29\ the Commission
consulted with and considered the views of the Treasury Department in
determining to approve the proposed rule change. The Treasury
Department indicated its support for the proposal.\30\ Pursuant to
Section 19(b)(6) of the Act,\31\ the Commission has considered the
sufficiency and appropriateness of existing laws and rules applicable
to government securities brokers, government securities dealers, and
their associated persons in approving the proposal. As discussed above,
the proposed rule change appears reasonably designed to improve the
value to market participants and other market observers of the LTV
information disseminated for Specified Pool Transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(5) (providing that the Commission ``shall
consult with and consider the views of the Secretary of the Treasury
prior to approving a proposed rule filed by a registered securities
association that primarily concerns conduct related to transactions
in government securities, except where the Commission determines
that an emergency exists requiring expeditious or summary action and
publishes its reasons therefor'').
    \30\ Email from Treasury Department staff to Michael Gaw,
Assistant Director, Division of Trading and Markets, Commission
(November 30, 2020).
    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\32\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2020-034) is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-27727 Filed 12-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 109)]
[Notices]
[Page 32519]
[DOCID:fr08jn10-154]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Miracor Diagnostics, Inc., Monaco Finance, Inc., MPEL Holdings
Corp. (f/k/a Computer Transceiver Systems, Inc.), MR3 Systems, Inc.,
Mutual Risk Management, Ltd.; Order of Suspension of Trading

June 4, 2010.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Miracor Diagnostics, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended September 30, 1996.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Monaco Finance, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended September 30, 1999.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
MPEL Holdings Corp. (f/k/a Computer Transceiver Systems, Inc.) because
it has not filed any periodic reports since September 30, 1999.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
MR3 Systems, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended September 30, 2005.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Mutual Risk Management Ltd. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended December 31, 2001.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT
on June 4, 2010, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on June 17, 2010.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-13823 Filed 6-4-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: January 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 4)]
[Notices]
[Page 764-765]
[DOCID:fr08ja07-41]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC07-2-000; FERC Form 2]

Commission Information Collection Activities, Proposed
Collection; Comment Request; Extension

December 27, 2006.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c) (2) (a)
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is soliciting public comment
on the specific aspects of the information collection described below.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due March 9, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Copies of sample filings of the proposed collection of
information can be obtained from the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filings/elibrary.asp
) or from the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, Attn: Michael Miller, Office of the Executive
Director, ED-34, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments
may be filed either in paper format or electronically. Those parties
filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. For paper
filing, the original and 14 copies of such comments should be submitted
to the Secretary of the Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 and refer to
Docket No. IC07-2-000.
    Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in
WordPerfect, MS Word, Portable Document Format, or ASCII format. To
file the document, access the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
 and click on ``Make an E-filing'', and then follow the

instructions for each screen. First time users will have to establish a
user name and password. The Commission will send an automatic
acknowledgement to the sender's e-mail address upon receipt of
comments.
    All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the
Internet through FERC's homepage using the eLibrary link. For user
assistance, contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at (866)
208-3676 or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Miller may be reached by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information collected under the
requirements of FERC Form 2 ``Annual Report for Major Natural Gas
Companies'' (OMB No. 1902-0028) is used by the Commission to carry out
its responsibilities in implementing the statutory provisions of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) 15 U.S.C. 717. The FERC Form 2 is a financial and
operating report for natural gas rate regulation for major pipeline
owners. ``Major'' is defined as companies having combined gas sold for
resale and gas transported or stored for a fee that exceeds 50 million
Dth in each of the three previous calendar years. Under the Form 2, the
Commission investigates, collects and records data and prescribes rules
and regulations concerning accounts, records and memoranda as necessary
to administer the NGA. The Commission is empowered to prescribe a
system of accounts for jurisdictional gas pipelines and after notice
and opportunity for hearing, may determine the accounts in which
particular outlays the receipts will be entered, charged or credited.
Commission staff uses the data in the continuous review of the
financial condition of jurisdictional companies, in various rate
proceedings and in the Commission's audit program. FERC Form 2 data are
also used to compute annual charges which are necessary to recover the
Commission's annual costs. The annual charges are required by section
3401 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986.
    The NGA mandates the collection of information needed by the
Commission

to perform its regulatory responsibilities in the setting of just and
reasonable rates. The Commission could be held in violation of the NGA
if the information was not collected.
    The annual financial information filed with the Commission is a
mandatory requirement submitted in a prescribed format which is filed
electronically. The Commission implements these filing requirements in
18 CFR Parts 158, 201, 260.1 and 385.2011.
    Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the
current expiration date, with no changes to the existing collection of
data.
    Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this collection is
estimated as:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Number of          Number of       Average burden     Total annual
   respondents       responses per        hours per     burden hours (1)
   annually (1)      respondent (2)     response (3)       x (2) x (3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
72                 1                  1,570             113,040
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated cost burden to respondents is $6,637,676. (113,040 hours/
2080 hours per year times $122,137 per year average per employee = $
6,637,676). The cost per respondent is $ 92,190 (rounded off).
    The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing,
acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining,
disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways
to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
(4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5)
searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of
information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the
information.
    The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for
professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect
overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to
providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost
for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs
incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs
apply to activities, which benefit the whole organization rather than
any one particular function or activity.
    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-22667 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 11)]
[Notices]
[Page 2273-2274]
[DOCID:fr18ja07-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP03-36-023]

Dauphin Island Gathering Partners; Notice of Negotiated Rates

January 10, 2007.
    Take notice that on January 8, 2007, Dauphin Island Gathering
Partners (Dauphin Island) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, Twenty-Ninth Revised Tariff Sheet
No. 9, to become effective February 8, 2007.
    Dauphin Island states that this tariff sheet reflects changes to
its statement of negotiated rates tariff sheets.
    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 in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
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>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-569 Filed 1-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 176 (Monday, September 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56192-56193]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23229]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2592-002.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Joint Progress Report of PG&E and SCE and Request for
Extension of Temporary Waiver of Certain CAISO Tariff Provisions.
Replaces Accession No.<PHONE_NUMBER>14.
    Filed Date: 09/01/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110901-5129.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 22, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3697-001.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits tariff
filing per 35: Compliance Filing--Transmission Owner Tariff Rate Filing
(TO6) to be effective 8/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/01/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110901-5111.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 22, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4419-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc. Resource Termination Filing--
United Illuminating.
    Filed Date: 09/01/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110901-5095.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 22, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4420-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc. Resource Termination Filing--
EnerNOC.
    Filed Date: 09/01/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110901-5096.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 22, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4421-000.

    Applicants: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.
    Description: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Columbia Hydro Filing to be effective 8/
31/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/01/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110901-5145.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 22, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4421-000.
    Applicants: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.
    Description: Supplemental Information/Request of South Carolina
Electric & Gas Company.
    Filed Date: 09/01/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110901-5221.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 22, 2011.

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

    Dated: September 2, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-23229 Filed 9-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 72 (Thursday, April 14, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20838-20840]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9059]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 358

[Docket No. RM07-1-003; Order No. 717-D]

Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Order on rehearing and clarification.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued
Order No. 717-A to address requests for rehearing and make clearer the
Standards of Conduct as implemented by Order No. 717. The Commission
issued Order No. 717-B to address expedited requests for rehearing and
clarification concerning paragraph 80 of Order No. 717-A and whether an
employee who is not making business decisions about contract non-price
terms and conditions is considered a ``marketing function employee.''
Order No. 717-C addressed requests for rehearing and clarification
concerning Order No. 717-A. This order addresses an additional request
for rehearing and clarification concerning Order No. 717-C.

DATES:  Effective Date: This rule will become effective May 16, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Susan Miller, Office of the General
Counsel--Energy Markets, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Marc Spitzer,
Philip D. Moeller, John R. Norris, and Cheryl A. LaFleur.

    Issued April 8, 2011.

I. Introduction

    1. On October 16, 2008, the Commission issued Order No. 717
amending the Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers (the
Standards of Conduct or the Standards) to make them clearer and to
refocus the rules on the areas where there is the greatest potential
for abuse.\1\ On October 15, 2009, the Commission issued Order No. 717-
A to address requests for rehearing and clarification of Order No. 717,
largely affirming the reforms adopted in Order No. 717.\2\ On November
16, 2009, the Commission issued Order No. 717-B to address expedited
requests for rehearing and clarification concerning paragraph 80 of
Order No. 717-A and whether an employee who is not making business
decisions about contract non-price terms and conditions is considered a
``marketing function employee''.\3\ On April 16, 2010 the

Commission issued Order No. 717-C to provide additional clarification
concerning matters petitioners raised regarding the Commission's
determinations in Order No. 717-A.\4\ In this order, the Commission
addresses an additional request for rehearing and clarification
concerning Order No. 717-C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No.
717, 73 FR 63796 (Oct. 27, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,280
(Order No. 717).
    \2\ Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No.
717-A, 74 FR 54463 (Oct. 22, 2009), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,297
(Order No. 717-A).
    \3\ Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No.
717-B, 74 FR 60153 (Nov. 20, 2009), 129 FERC ] 61,123 (2009) (Order
No. 717-B). On October 30, 2009, Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
filed a request for expedited clarification of a single issue
addressed in Order No. 717-A. The Commission determined that it
should address this issue expeditiously even though the time allowed
under the regulations for filing rehearing requests had not yet
expired. For this reason, the Commission issued Order No. 717-B on
November 16, 2009, in which it addressed a single clarification
request of EEI, Western Utilities, Otter Tail and Central Vermont.
All other timely requests for rehearing, i.e. those filed by
November 16, 2009, were addressed in Order No. 717-C.
    \4\ Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No.
717-C, 75 FR 20909 (Apr. 22, 2010), 131 FERC ] 61,045 (2010) (Order
No. 717-C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    2. In paragraph 16 of Order No. 717-C, the Commission clarified
that ``a system impact study performed pursuant to a request for energy
resource interconnection service or network resource interconnection
service is similar to long-range planning and therefore not a
transmission function, because the focus of such a study is to
determine the impact of the proposed interconnection on the safety and
reliability of the transmission provider's transmission system, but
without conveying a right to transmission service''.\5\ As a result,
the Commission concluded that the performance of a system impact study
in the context of evaluating an energy resource interconnection service
and network resource interconnection service is not a transmission
function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id. P 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The Transmission Access Policy Study Group (TAPS) requests
rehearing and clarification of one aspect of Order No. 717-C.
Specifically, TAPS requests that the Commission grant rehearing to hold
that employees who perform system impact studies (or other studies) in
connection with interconnection service requests are transmission
function employees. TAPS argues that the consequence of a finding that
``performance of a system impact study in the context of evaluating an
energy resource interconnection service and network resource
interconnection service is not a transmission function'' is that the
studies may be performed by the Transmission Provider's ``merchant-
function'' personnel.
    4. TAPS further argues that the Commission created an inconsistency
with its regulatory text when it clarified in Order No. 717-C that the
performance of a system impact study in the context of evaluating an
energy resource interconnection service and network resource
interconnection service is not a transmission function. Specifically,
TAPS cites 18 CFR 358.3(h), which defines ``transmission functions'' as
``the planning, directing, organizing or carrying out of day-to-day
transmission operations, including the granting and denying of
transmission service requests.'' TAPS then argues that because 18 CFR
358.3(f) defines ``transmission'' as ``the interconnection with
jurisdictional transmission facilities,'' employees who perform studies
that identify upgrades needed for interconnection, or who otherwise
help to determine the terms on which interconnection may occur, perform
a transmission function.
    5. Alternatively, TAPS requests that the Commission clarify that
system study information be treated like other planning information,
which the Commission requires transmission providers to make available
on a non-discriminatory basis to all interested transmission customers.
TAPS is concerned that if ``merchant-function'' personnel are permitted
to conduct interconnection-related studies and have access to customer
information, ``merchant-function'' personnel would obtain undue
competitive advantages over any other transmission customer.
    6. TAPS further requests clarification of paragraph 17 of Order No.
717-C to make clear that where an employee performs system impact
studies in response to transmission service requests, the employee's
designation as a transmission-function employee does not turn on the
duration of the requested transmission service.

Commission Determination

    7. We deny TAPS' request that we classify employees who perform
system impact studies in connection with interconnection service
requests as transmission function employees.\6\ Whether an employee
performing a system impact study is a transmission function employee
depends upon the purpose for which that study is being performed. The
key factor in determining whether the employee is performing a
transmission function in conducting the system impact study is whether
the performance of that study implicates the day-to-day operation of
the transmission system. Thus, an employee performing system impact
studies that do not implicate the day-to-day operations of the
transmission system would not be a transmission function \7\ employee,
even in those instances where the system impact study pertains to
interconnection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In a footnote, TAPS contends that employees who perform
facility studies and feasibility studies in response to requests for
interconnection service should be transmission function employees.
TAPS, Motion for Rehearing at p. 3-4 n.4. TAPS concedes that Order
No. 717-C does not address the performance of these types of
studies. Given that TAPS failed to proffer this argument during
previous stages of the process and that Order No. 717-C does not
address this issue, TAPS cannot raise this argument at this juncture
in the proceeding. See, e.g., PJM Interconnection, LLC, 126 FERC ]
61,030, at P 15 & n.10 (2009) (A request for rehearing of a new
issue is outside the proper scope of the rehearing). See also,
Wholesale Competition in Regions with Organized Electric Markets,
129 FERC ] 61,252, at P 9 & n.18 (2009).
    \7\ 18 CFR 358.3(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. In Order No. 717-C, we found that a system impact study
performed pursuant to a request for energy resource interconnection
service or network resource interconnection service is similar to long-
range planning and therefore not a transmission function because it
does not involve the conveyance of a right to transmission service.
Contrary to the argument raised by TAPS, our focus in reaching this
determination was not based on a distinction between transmission and
interconnection. Our conclusion was based upon our finding that these
types of system impact studies are analogous to transmission long range
planning studies, and that neither type of study implicates day-to-day
transmission operations.\8\ The performance of a system impact study is
not a transmission function so long as the performance of this system
impact study is not carried out as part of day-to-day transmission
operations, including the granting or denying of transmission
service.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Order No. 717-C, 131 FERC ] 61,045 at P 11-17. See also
Order No. 717, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,280 at P 146-147.
    \9\ Order No. 717-C, 131 FERC ] 61,045 at P 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. TAPS is also incorrect that the Commission's clarification in
Order No. 717-C concerning the performance of system impact studies
created an inconsistency with its regulatory text. The definition of
``transmission functions'' includes ``the planning, directing,
organizing or carrying out of day-to-day transmission operations,
including the granting and denying of transmission service
requests.''\10\ ``Transmission'' is defined to include ``the
interconnection with jurisdictional transmission facilities.''\11\
Thus, the definition of transmission functions includes the planning,
directing, organizing or carrying out of day-to-day interconnection
operations with jurisdictional transmission facilities. Because of the
limiting phrase ``day-to-day transmission operations,'' TAPS is
incorrect in its conclusion that ``transmission functions'' always
include

interconnection-related system impact studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 18 CFR 358.3(h).
    \11\ 18 CFR 358.3(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Similarly, we deny TAPS's request that the information from
system impact studies be made available on a non-discriminatory basis
to all interested transmission customers. TAPS erroneously assumes that
the Commission determined that system impact studies (or other studies)
performed in response to interconnection requests are planning
activities that may be conducted by marketing function employees.
Marketing function employees may not perform system impact studies (or
other studies) in response to interconnection requests since the
studies would involve the use and analysis of non-public transmission
information. As we stated in Order No. 717, planning personnel who do
not qualify as marketing function employees may discuss information
with transmission function employees.\12\ However, we reiterated that
the No Conduit Rule applied in this situation, stating that if
transmission employees share transmission function information with
planning personnel, the planning personnel may not pass such
information on to marketing function employees. The clear implication
of these statements is that while planning studies may be conducted by
personnel who are not transmission function employees, marketing
function employees may not participate in the preparation of studies
which involve the use and analysis of non-public transmission
information.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Order No. 717, FERC Stats. & Regs ] 31,280 at P 151.
    \13\ Order No. 717 specifically recognized that there are
employees who are neither transmission function employees nor
marketing function employees. See, e.g., Order No. 717, FERC Stats.
& Regs. ] 31,280 at P 174 (``Transmission function employees are no
longer barred from interacting with all the employees of a marketing
or energy affiliate (only marketing function employees)'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. We grant TAPS's clarification request that when an employee
performs a system impact study in response to a transmission service
request, that employee is a transmission function employee regardless
of the duration of the requested transmission service. This
clarification is consistent with our previous conclusion that the
designation of an employee as a transmission function employee does not
depend upon the duration of the requested transmission service.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order
No. 717-A, 74 FR 54463 (Oct. 22, 2009), FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,297, at P 27 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Document Availability

    12. 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 FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
    13. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    14. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's
website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
IV. Effective Date

    15. Changes to Order No. 717-C adopted in this order on rehearing
and clarification are effective May 16, 2011.

    By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-9059 Filed 4-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 186)]
[Notices]
[Page 55064-55065]
[DOCID:fr24se08-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER99-2311-010; ER97-2846-013]

Carolina Power & Light Company; Florida Power Corporation; Notice
of Filing

September 17, 2008.
    Take notice that on September 11, 2008, Progress Energy Inc.
(Progress Energy), on behalf of its public utility affiliates, Carolina
Power & Light Company (PEC) and Florida Power Corporation (PEF) filed a
supplemental filing to its September 2, 2008 filing to revise three
additional market-based rate (MBR) tariffs on file with the Commission
but no longer used by PEC and PEF. Progress Energy is also submitting
clean and redlined versions of PEF's and PEC's MBR tariffs that were
not submitted in its September 2, 2008 filing.
    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, 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 comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    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 October 2, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-22285 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30513-30514]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11900]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on a Land Release Request at Saratoga
County Airport (5B2), Ballston Spa, NY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release airport land.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the
application for a release of approximately 1.79 acres of federally
obligated airport property at Saratoga County Airport, Ballston Spa,
Saratoga County, NY, from conditions, reservations, and restrictions
contained in Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants that would
restrict the use of said land to aeronautical purposes. This acreage is
composed of a portion of a parcel that was acquired by Saratoga County
though AIP Grant 3-36-0004-05-1987. It is requested that FAA approval
be given to release the 1.79 acres for disposal to allow a currently
existing non-aeronautical use on the parcel to continue. The land is
not

needed for aeronautical purposes and the Federal share of the proceeds
from the sale of land would be dedicated to a future AIP eligible
airport effort.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 8, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be submitted to Robert
Costa, Federal Aviation Administration, New York Airports District
Office via phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or at the email address
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments on this application may also be mailed
or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Evelyn Martinez,
Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, New York Airports District
Office, Federal Register Comment, 1 Aviation Plaza, Jamaica, New York
11434.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Costa, Assistant Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration, New York Airports District Office, 1
Aviation Plaza, Jamaica, New York 11434. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the Wendell H. Ford
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21),
Public Law 106-181 (Apr. 5, 2000; 114 Stat. 61), this notice must be
published in the Federal Register 30 days before the Secretary may
waive any condition imposed on a federally obligated airport by surplus
property conveyance deeds or grant agreements. The following is a brief
overview of the request.
    The County of Saratoga has requested release from grant assurance
obligations of approximately 1.79 acres of airport property at Saratoga
County Airport to permit the disposal of the land at fair market value
to allow an existing not-for-profit hospice facility to continue to
operate on site. The airport has no plans to utilize the parcel for
aviation use. The 1.79 acres sits on a larger 5.48-acre parcel
currently owned by the airport. The 5.48-acre parcel will be split into
two parcels; a 3.69-acre parcel that will be retained by the airport,
as it includes a portion of the Runway 23 Runway Protection Zone, and
the 1.79-acre parcel that is outside of the Runway Protection Zone and
currently houses the not-for-profit hospice facility and associated
parking area. As a condition of the release, the proposed use must not
interfere with the airport or its operations. The Federal share of the
proceeds of the disposal would be distributed towards approved AIP
eligible efforts, with the remaining proceeds to be utilized to operate
the airport. For these reasons, it is not anticipated that this acreage
will be needed for aeronautical purposes in the future.

    Issued in Jamaica, New York, on June 2, 2021.
Evelyn Martinez,
Manager, New York Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2021-11900 Filed 6-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P