[Federal Register: June 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 106)]
[Notices]
[Page 31452-31453]
[DOCID:fr02jn08-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL08-64-000; ER08-921-000]

Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Complainant v. Pacific Gas
and Electric Company, Respondent; Notice of Complaint

May 27, 2008.
    Take notice that on May 23, 2008, pursuant to sections 206 and 212
of the Rules and Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR sections 385.206 and
385.212 and section 206 of the Federal Power Act, Sacramento Municipal
Utility District (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against Pacific
Gas and Electric Company (Respondent) seeking termination of the $7,000
monthly customer service charge found in Service Schedule E of the
Interconnection Agreement between the Respondent and the Complainant.
    The Complainant also request that this complaint be consolidated
with the Respondent's filing in Docket No. ER08-921-000.
    The Complainant states that a copy of the complaint has been served
on the Respondent.
    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. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests
must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer,
motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
    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 June 12, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-12201 Filed 5-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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

    Accordingly, based on the record before us, the Commission finds
that the

proposal is consistent with Section 6(c)(4) of the Exchange Act and
does not constitute an effort by CBOE to decrease the number of CBOE
members.

V. Pending State Court Litigation

    The Commission wants to emphasize the limited nature of our
position on the state law issues we have addressed. The Commission is
aware of the state court litigation between the CBOE and members of the
CBOT and the state court's decision to stay the litigation until the
Commission acts on the CBOE rule proposal. We stress that our
consideration of the state law questions in this matter should in no
way prejudice or affect the state court's consideration of those
questions. As we explained, the state law questions played a role in
our analysis of the federal law considerations the Commission is
charged with deciding under the Exchange Act. To carry out our
responsibilities under the Exchange Act (and also to avoid an endless
cycle of our deference to the state court on the state law issues and
the state court's deference to us on the federal law issues) we have
proceeded to review the CBOE rule proposal. Our decisions about state
law matters, however, are only those required to serve as a basis for
carrying out our Exchange Act responsibilities.
    We also recognize that our review of the CBOE proposed rule
involves procedures different from those the state court uses in the
pending litigation. This review process is not a forum to litigate
state law issues that may arise regarding an SRO's rule proposal.
Rather, our review of a proposed rule of an SRO employs public notice
and comment, the receipt of written submissions from the SRO and the
public, and the possibility of a proceeding to determine whether it
should be disapproved. To this process, we bring familiarity with SROs
and their rules and extensive knowledge and experience with the
relevant provisions of the Exchange Act. The state court applies the
range of procedures used in traditional adversarial litigation,
including discovery, rules of evidence, witnesses, cross-examination,
motions, and the like. It has deep and specialized knowledge of
Delaware corporate law.
    The state court thus is free to find the relevant facts and
determine and apply the relevant state law in its normal fashion
without according weight to our evaluation of the state law questions,
which was done employing different procedures and for different
purposes.\190\ And, as we have explained, if the state law decision
calls into question the basis on which our decision here with respect
to these state law issues or any other relevant state law issues was
made, we would expect CBOE to respond appropriately, or we will act on
our own as necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ The Delaware court discussed possible ways in which the
Commission's jurisdiction and the court's state law authority might
interact. As the court emphasized, the court ``has jurisdiction to
consider the `economic rights' issues by the Complaint because those
claims emerge from and are governed by state contract or fiduciary
duty law.'' See Memorandum of Opinion, supra note 68, at 29. The
court also noted that ``even if it turns out that the SEC's mandate
requires that CBOT Full Members be excluded from trading on the
CBOE,'' then ``it does not ineluctably follow that, in these unique
circumstances, they are also divested of whatever economic (or
contractual) rights they hold as a result of that status.'' Id. at
note 48. We agree with the Delaware court and welcome its expert
determination of these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act,\191\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2006-106), as
amended, be, and hereby is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \191\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

By the Commission.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-954 Filed 1-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 55401-55402]
[DOCID:fr10se10-115]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property
at the Air Park South Airport (2K2), Ozark, MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Request To Release Airport Property.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the
release of land at the Air Park South Airport (2K2) under the
provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 12, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Nicoletta S. Oliver, Airports
Compliance Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports
Division, ACE-610C, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to: Gary A. Cyr, Sr., A.A.E., Director of Aviation,
Springfield-Branson National Airport, 5000 West Kearney, Suite 15,
Springfield, MO 65803,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicoletta S. Oliver, Airports
Compliance Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports
Division, ACE-6100, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    The request to release property may be reviewed, by appointment, in
person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release approximately 235 acres of property known as the Air
Park South Airport (2K2) under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2).
On September 25, 2007, the Director of Aviation at the Springfield-
Branson National Airport notified the FAA that because of the Sponsor's
inability to acquire land necessary to safely and effectively operate
the airport, he requested full release of the affected property from
Federal obligations. On March 16, 2010, the FAA determined that the
request to release property at Air Park South Airport (2K2) submitted
by the Sponsor meets the procedural requirements of the Federal
Aviation Administration. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or
in part, no sooner than thirty days after the publication of this
Notice.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    Air Park South Airport (2K2) is proposing the release of the entire
airport property and associated facilities. The release of land is
necessary to comply with Federal Aviation Administration Grant
Assurances that do not allow Federally acquired airport property to be
used for non-aviation purposes. The sale and permanent abandonment of
the subject property will result in the lands of the Air Park South
Airport (2K2) being changed from aeronautical to nonaeronautical use
and release the lands from the conditions of the AlP Grant Agreement
Grant Assurances. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(2)(B)(i) and
(iii), the airport will receive fair market value for the property,
which will be subsequently reinvested in another eligible airport
improvement project for general aviation facilities at the Springfield-
Branson National Airport.
    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect the

application, notice and other documents determined by the FAA to be
related to the application in person at the Springfield-Branson
National Airport.

    Issued in Kansas City, MO, on September 1, 2010.
Jim A. Johnson,
Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-22541 Filed 9-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 246 (Friday, December 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75679-75680]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30791]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Appendix F to Rule 15c3-1; SEC File No. 270-440; OMB Control No.
3235-0496.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Appendix F to Rule 15c3-1
(``Appendix F'' or ``Rule 15c3-1f'') (17 CFR 240.15c3-1f) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The Commission
plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office
of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.

    Appendix F requires a broker-dealer choosing to register, upon
Commission approval, as an OTC derivatives dealer to develop and
maintain an internal risk management system based on Value-at-Risk
(``VaR'') models. It is anticipated that a total of four (4) broker-
dealers registering as OTC derivatives dealers will spend 1,000 hours
on a one-time basis complying with the system development requirements
of Rule 15c3-1f, for an estimated one-time initial stratup burden of
approximately 4,000 hours. Appendix F also requires the OTC derivatives
dealer to maintain its system model according to certain prescribed
standards. It is anticipated that a total of eight (8) broker-dealers
will spend 1,000 hours per year maintaining the system model required
by Rule 15c3-1f, for an estimated recurring annual burden of
approximately 8,000 hours. Thus, the total industry-wide burden is
estimated to be approximately 12,000 hours (4,000 hours + 8,000 hours)
for the first year and 8,000 hours for each subsequent year.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission estimates that a total of eight entities will
be registered as OTC derivatives dealers at the end of the next
three years, consisting of the four current OTC derivatives dealers
and four anticipated registrants. This is in contrast with the prior
estimate of five OTC derivatives dealers, consisting of four current
OTC derivatives dealers and one anticipated registrant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a
valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: December 17, 2012.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-30791 Filed 12-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P