[Federal Register: November 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 211)]
[Notices]
[Page 56921]
[DOCID:fr03no09-111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) has received a request for a waiver of compliance from certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

Canadian National Railway

[Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-1999-5756]

    The Canadian National Railway (CN) seeks to expand a previously
granted waiver of compliance with the Locomotive Safety Standards, 49
CFR 229.47(a), which requires each car body-type road locomotive be
equipped with an emergency brake valve adjacent to each end exit door,
and the brake pipe valve locations shall be stencilled as ``EMERGENCY
BRAKE VALVE'' or shall be identified on an adjacent badge plate.
    CN's original request was for 178 car body locomotives built
between 1985 and 1990. It was utilized to haul freight that have never
been equipped with an emergency brake valve at the rear exit door. The
original waiver received conditional approval from FRA's Safety Board
on April 14, 2000. Subsequent to the approval, CN acquired 40
additional car body-type locomotives when they acquired ownership of BC
Rail Ltd., which did not meet the requirements of 49 CFR 229.47(a). CN
requests that these 40 locomotives be added to the 178 locomotives that
were previously granted relief under waiver Docket Number FRA-1999-
5756.
    Since the original granting of the waiver for the 178 car body-type
locomotives, CN has been unaware of any problems arising from the lack
of an emergency brake valve adjacent to the rear end exit door.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
1999-5756) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC on October 28, 2009.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. E9-26442 Filed 11-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 67474]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24329]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-327-000]

Arroyo Energy Storage LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Arroyo Energy Storage LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is November 22, 2022.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    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 the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 2, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-24329 Filed 11-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 121 (Wednesday, June 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 36328]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15490]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Project No. 308-007]

PacifiCorp Energy; Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft and Final
Environmental Assessment and Revised Procedural Schedule

    On February 28, 2014, PacifiCorp Energy (PacifiCorp) filed an
application for the continued operation of the 1.1-megawatt Wallowa
Falls Hydroelectric Project (Wallowa Falls Project) No. 308. On
February 10, 2015, PacifiCorp filed an updated application that
included modifications to its proposed action. On March 6, 2015, the
Commission issued a Notice of Application Ready for Environmental
Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Preliminary Terms
and Conditions, and Preliminary Fishway Prescriptions (REA Notice). The
REA notice included a procedural schedule that included preparation of
a single Environmental Assessment (EA).
    Based on the comments received in response to the REA notice,
Commission staff has determined that its analysis of the proposed
relicensing action will require preparation of a Draft and Final EA. A
Draft EA will be issued and circulated for review by all interested
parties. All comments filed on the Draft EA will be analyzed by staff
and considered in the Final EA. Staff's conclusions and recommendations
will be available for the Commission's consideration in reaching its
final licensing decision.
    The application will be processed according to the following
revised procedural schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as
appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Draft EA............................  November 2015.
Comments on Draft EA due..................  December 2015.
Modified terms and conditions due.........  January 2016.
Commission issues Final EA................  April 2016.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Matt Cutlip
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 18, 2015.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-15490 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 134)]
[Notices]
[Page 40860-40861]
[DOCID:fr14jy10-116]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62462; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2010-65]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Amex LLC Amending Rule
46--NYSE Amex Equities To Permit the Exchange Chairman To Designate
More or Less Than Twenty (20) Floor Governors, as Needed

July 7, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)\1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, \3\ notice is hereby
given that on June 25, 2010, NYSE Amex LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Amex'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 46--NYSE Amex Equities to
permit the Exchange Chairman to designate more or less than twenty (20)
Floor Governors, as needed. The text of the proposed rule change is
available at the Exchange, the Commission's Web site at http://
www.sec.gov, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://
www.nyse.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 46--NYSE Amex Equities (Floor
Officials--Appointment) to permit the Exchange Chairman to designate
more or less than twenty (20) Floor Governors, as needed.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange's corporate affiliate, New York Stock Exchange
LLC (``NYSE''), submitted a companion rule filing proposing
corresponding amendments to NYSE Rule 46. See SR-NYSE-2010-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current Rule 46--NYSE Amex Equities:
    NYSE Amex Equities Rule 46 permits the Chairman of the Exchange to,
in consultation with the Executive Floor Governors of the Exchange and
the NYSE Regulation (``NYSER'') Board of Directors, designate twenty
(20) individual members as Floor Governors, subject to approval by the
Exchange's Board of Directors.
    Pursuant to NYSE Amex Equities Rules 46 and 46A, Floor Governors
are one of several ranks of the broader category of Floor Officials,
including, in order of increasing seniority, Floor Officials, Senior
Floor Officials, Executive Floor Officials, Floor Governors and
Executive Floor Governors. As such, Floor Governors are drawn from the
ranks of experienced NYSE Amex Equities Floor members.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57627 (April 4,
2008), 73 FR 19919 (April 11, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-19, describing
amendments to NYSE Rule 46, on which NYSE Amex Equities Rule 46 is
based).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the NYSER Board's advisory function, NYSER staff examine
the fitness of the individuals designated as prospective Floor
Officials and administer a mandatory education program, which all
candidates for Floor Official, including Floor Governor, must complete.
NYSER also administers a qualifying examination to newly-named Floor
Officials, who must pass the exam prior to being recommended by the
NYSER Board for appointment; however, upon being named as a Floor
Governor, an individual does not need to retake the exam.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57627 (April 4,
2008), 73 FR 19919 (April 11, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to their regular obligations as either Floor brokers or
Designated Market Makers, Floor Governors, who serve as volunteers, are
empowered to perform such duties as are prescribed to them under the
Rules of the Exchange. As noted above, under Rule 46--NYSE Amex
Equities Floor Governors are also considered Floor Officials and may
perform such duties as are prescribed to Floor Officials under Exchange
Rules. In addition, Floor Governors may, as needed, perform any duty,
make any decision, or take any action assigned to or required of an
Executive Floor Governor in accordance with Exchange Rules, or as may
be designated by the Exchange Board.
    For example, Floor Governors play a role in managing the Exchange's
Trading Floor during unusual or volatile market situations. Under Rule
123D--NYSE Amex Equities, members are to consult with a Floor Governor
when the opening (reopening) price in a stock is anticipated to be at a
significant disparity from the prior close. In addition, under Rule
123D--NYSE Amex Equities an intra-day trading halt requires approval
from a Floor Governor (or two Floor Officials). Under Rule 18--NYSE
Amex Equities, Floor Governors are part of the Compensation Review
Panel for resolving claims due to Exchange system failures. Pursuant to
Rule 75--NYSE Amex Equities, Floor Governors are sometimes involved in
the resolution of certain trade disputes. And, pursuant to Rule
123C(9)--NYSE Amex Equities, a Floor Governor is sometimes also needed
to supervise extreme order imbalances at the Close of trading when an
Executive Floor Governor is unavailable.
    Proposed Amendments to Rule 46--NYSE Amex Equities:
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 46--NYSE Amex Equities to
permit the Chairman of the Exchange to appoint more or less than twenty
(20) Floor Governors, as needed.
    Currently, the Exchange has seventeen (17) Floor Governors. At the
present time, the Exchange believes that adding more Floor Governors,
as needed, will help the Exchange to manage the Trading Floor more
effectively and, consequently, to better serve investors and the public
interest. As the recent market events of May 6, 2010, demonstrated,
swift response to unusual and volatile market events on the Trading
Floor helped to limit the disruption of the market for Exchange-listed
securities and the harm to Exchange customers, as well as the market as
a whole, and Floor Governors were involved in this process.
    Notwithstanding the foregoing, removing the requirement to appoint
a specific number of Floor Governors will not change the Exchange's
goal of having, at all times, enough personnel on the Trading Floor,
including Floor Officials, Senior Floor Officials, Executive Floor
Officials, Floor Governors and Executive Floor Governors, as well as
Exchange officers

and staff, to properly oversee the NYSE Amex Equities market.\7\ In
addition, the Exchange does not propose to change in any way the nature
of Floor Governor duties or responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ While the Exchange currently seeks the ability to appoint
more than 20 Floor Governors, it reserves the right to have fewer
than 20 Floor Governors as conditions warrant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the ``Act''),\8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change supports the
objectives of the Act and will provide a benefit to the market while
also protecting investors and the public interest. By having more Floor
Governors, as currently needed, the Exchange believes it will be better
able to manage the Trading Floor, particularly in unusual market
conditions. In addition, while the Exchange currently seeks the ability
to appoint more than 20 Floor Governors, it reserves the right to have
fewer than 20 Floor Governors as conditions warrant and as required to
protect investors and the public interest.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)\11\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Commission is waiving this five-day pre-filing requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the five-day
prefiling requirement and the 30-day operative delay so that the
proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange has
stated that it is requesting these waivers in light of recent market
events and in connection with the Russell rebalancing on June 25, 2010,
on which day the Exchange has stated that it expects an increase in
trading volume and market volatility. The Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, because such waiver will enable the
Exchange to appoint more than twenty (20) Floor Governors to help the
Exchange to manage the Trading Floor more effectively in time for the
Russell rebalancing on June 25, 2010. For this reason, the Commission
hereby waives the 30-day operative delay requirement and designates the
proposed rule change as operative upon filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comment

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2010-65 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2010-65. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on
official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 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; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2010-65 and should be submitted on or before
August 4, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-17113 Filed 7-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


Federal Regulations.

Appendices to Revisions to Prohibitions and Restrictions on Proprietary
Trading and Certain Interests in, and Relationships With, Hedge Funds
and Private Equity Funds--Commission Voting Summary and Commissioners'
Statements

Appendix 1--CFTC Voting Summary

    On this matter, Chairman Tarbert and Commissioners Quintenz and
Stump voted in the affirmative. Commissioners Behnam and Berkovitz
voted in the negative. The document submitted to the CFTC
Commissioners for a vote did not include Section V.F. SEC Economic
Analysis or Section V.G. Congressional Review Act.

Appendix 2--Statement of CFTC Chairman Heath Tarbert in Support of
Revisions to the Volcker Rule

    I have voted to approve revisions to the Volcker Rule, among the
most well-intentioned but poorly designed regulations in the history
of American finance. My involvement with the Volcker Rule started
nearly a decade ago when I served as special counsel to the Senate
Banking Committee before the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act. In fact,
I was the staff member responsible for arranging for former Federal
Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker to testify before the committee on the
original version of the rule that now bears his name. Having had the

opportunity to interact with Chairman Volcker at various points
throughout my career, I have always had immense respect for him. He
had a clear-cut vision: Banks should be barred from speculating in
the markets (a practice known as proprietary trading) and from
running hedge funds and private-equity firms. ``If you are doing
this stuff,'' he would say, ``you should not be a commercial bank.''
    Five federal agencies--the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the OCC,
the SEC, and the CFTC (together, the ``Agencies'')--issued final
regulations in December 2013 to implement the statutory language of
the Volcker Rule in Title VI of the Dodd-Frank Act. The basic
premise of this law is to restrict financial institutions with
deposits insured by the Federal Government from engaging in
proprietary trading, but permit trading for market making, hedging,
and other traditional financial services activities.
    We now have five years of experience with the initial version of
the regulations implementing the Volcker Rule, and over that time, a
number of legitimate concerns have arisen. In my view, the initial
regulations adopted by the Agencies have metastasized from Mr.
Volcker's original, simple vision to the degree where his
distinction between proprietary and non-proprietary trading is
hardly recognizable. I agree with Mr. Volcker that the rule has
become overly complex and hard to understand; \1\ at this point it
is also nearly unadministrable. Among other things, the regulations
create confusion over what is acceptable activity for banking
entities.\2\ Indeed, the Agencies have had to issue 21 sets of
frequently asked questions (``FAQs'') in the first three years since
the regulations were adopted.\3\ This is not a model of clear
rulemaking. Furthermore, the Volcker Rule imposes highly intensive
compliance burdens that unfairly benefit large Wall Street banks
over smaller regional ones. No one ever intended these results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, e.g., ``Why Paul Volcker Soured on His Own Rule,'' Time
(Oct. 25, 2011), available at: http://business.time.com/2011/10/25/why-paul-volcker-soured-on-the-volcker-rule; ``Paul Volcker Says
Volcker Rule Too Complicated,'' Reuters (Nov. 9, 2011), available at
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-regulation-volcker/paul-volcker-says-volcker-rule-too-complicated. This is not to suggest that Mr.
Volcker agrees with the proposed changes now before the interagency
process. See ``Volcker the Man Blasts Volcker the Rule in Letter to
Fed Chair,'' Bloomberg (Sept. 10, 2019), available at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-10/volcker-the-man-blasts-volcker-the-rule-in-letter-to-fed-chair (describing a private letter
purportedly criticizing the proposed amendments to the current
regulations).
    \2\ I have written a number of legal articles over the years to
help market participants make sense of the Volcker Rule and how it
might apply to them. See, e.g., The Vagaries of the Volcker Rule,
Int'l Fin. L. Rev. (Sept. 2010); The Volcker Rule and the Future of
Private Equity (co-author), Rev. of Banking & Fin. Serv. (May 2011);
and CLOs and the Volcker Rule (co-author), Rev. of Banking & Fin.
Serv. (Aug. 2015).
    \3\ See FAQ on Conformance Period (June 10, 2014); FAQ on
Foreign Public Fund Seeding Vehicles (June 10, 2014); FAQ on Loan
Securitization Servicing Assets (June 10, 2014); FAQ on Namesharing
Prohibition (June 10, 2014); FAQ on Metrics Reporting Date (June 10,
2014); FAQ on Trading Desk (June 10, 2014); FAQ on Mortgage-Backed
Securities of Government-Sponsored Enterprises (November 12, 2014);
FAQ on Metrics Reporting During the Conformance Period (Nov. 13,
2014); FAQ on Annual CEO Attestation (Sept. 10, 2014); FAQ on
Metrics Reporting and Confidentiality (Dec. 23, 2014); FAQ on
Treasury STRIPS (Jan. 29, 2015); FAQ on 30-Day Metrics Reporting
During the Conformance Period (Jan. 29, 2015); FAQ on SOTUS Covered
Fund Exemption: Marketing Restriction (Feb. 27, 2015); FAQ on
Foreign Public Funds Sponsored by Banking Entities (June 12, 2015);
FAQ on Joint Venture Exclusion for Covered Funds (June 12, 2015);
FAQ on Seeding Period Treatment of Registered Investment Companies
and Foreign Public Funds (June 16, 2015); FAQ on CEO Certification
for Prime Brokerage Transactions (Sept. 25, 2015); FAQ on Compliance
for Market Making and the Identification of Covered Funds (Sept. 25,
2015); FAQ on Termination of Market-making Activity (Nov. 20, 2015);
FAQ on Applicability of the Restrictions in Section 13(f) of the BHC
Act (Nov. 20, 2015); FAQ on Capital Treatment of Banking Entity
Investments in TruPS CDOs (Mar. 4, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Volcker Rule has an extraterritorial reach that
is breathtaking in its expansiveness, something I witnessed
personally several years ago in Australia. There I met with a senior
executive at a local, Australian financial institution. He handed me
his business card, and it listed his title as ``Head of Volcker Rule
Compliance.'' In Australia! We have created a mess not just for the
United States, but for the whole world.
    I do not doubt the good intentions of the original drafters of
both the Volcker Rule and its implementing regulations. I continue
to affirm that deposit insurance underwritten by the FDIC and
discount window access provided by the Federal Reserve--both
ultimately backstopped by U.S. taxpayers--should not subsidize non-
banking activities.\4\ I will not raise the related question whether
non-banks affiliated with insured depository institutions should be
allowed to engage in proprietary trading. I recognize that this is a
decision for Congress, not me.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Hearing Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs, United States Senate, 150th Congress, Session 1 (May
17, 2017) at 22 (``I [Heath Tarbert] believe that Federal deposit
insurance should not subsidize nonbanking activities. . . . [This]
should not be controversial.'').
    \5\ It is worth noting that the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 contained
a provision addressing the specific issue of insured banks engaging
in trading activities perceived to go beyond traditional banking
services. The ``push-out'' rule of Section 716, also known as the
Lincoln Amendment, would have confined an insured depository
institution's trading of swaps to those used for hedging or
otherwise related to the well-known list of eligible (and
appropriately conservative) investments permissible for national
banks. Exotic and non-traditional products such as credit default
swaps, equity swaps, and most physical commodity swaps would have
been effectively ``pushed out'' out of insured banks and into non-
bank affiliates not directly backstopped by U.S. taxpayers. Whatever
the merits of the Lincoln Amendment, no one can deny that it was a
clear rule aimed at an equally clear and widely-shared policy
objective. But it was not to last. In December 2014, a bipartisan
Congress passed--and President Obama signed into law--a budget bill
containing a provision that largely gutted the original push-out
rule of the Dodd-Frank Act. See Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2015, Public Law 113-235, 128 Stat. 2130 at
section 630 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As Chairman of the CFTC, my job is to ensure that the
derivatives markets are liquid, resilient, and vibrant so they can
serve the price discovery and risk management functions critical to
our real economy. I have seen reports that liquidity in bond markets
may have been adversely affected by the Volcker Rule.\6\ I am
concerned that the Volcker Rule may also affect liquidity in the
derivatives markets. This could negatively impact the ability of
agricultural, energy, manufacturing, and other companies in the real
economy to engage in risk mitigation activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., M. Allahrakha & J. Cetina, et al., ``The Effects
of the Volcker Rule on Corporate Bond Trading: Evidence from the
Underwriting Exemption,'' OFR Working Paper (Aug. 6, 2019); J. Bao,
& M. O'Hara, et al., The Volcker Rule and Market-Making in Times of
Stress, J. of Fin. Econ. (2018); H. Bessembinder & S. Jacobsen, et
al., Capital Commitment and Illiquidity in Corporate Bonds, J. of
Fin. (Aug. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I am happy to say that the amended regulations we have now
adopted help to simplify the Volcker Rule and include a number of
important amendments that lessen the burden on smaller regional
banks and benefit end users of derivatives. The amendments seek to
tailor the Volcker Rule to increase efficiency, right-size firms'
compliance obligations, and allow banking entities--especially
smaller ones--to provide services to clients more efficiently.
    The amended regulations adopt a risk-based approach that relies
on a set of clearly articulated standards for prohibited and
permitted activities and investments. In particular, the new
regulations revise elements of the prohibition on proprietary
trading to provide banking entities--including CFTC-registered swap
dealers and futures commission merchants (``FCMs'')--with greater
flexibility in their trading activities and simplified compliance
procedures.
    The final regulations also expand existing, and include
additional, exclusions from the definition of proprietary trading.
For example, the amended regulations add an exclusion for matched
derivatives transactions to facilitate customer-driven swaps,
especially by customers of small regional banks, which should
benefit end users who rely on derivatives to hedge their commercial
risks. The amended final regulations also expand the list of
permissible products for the liquidity management exclusion to
include FX forwards/swaps and cross-currency swaps. Banking entities
commonly purchase and sell these instruments for the purpose of
managing their liquidity and funding needs. This can ultimately
benefit commercial firms who use banks for loans and other products
to hedge their foreign exchange risks arising from import and export
transactions.
    In addition, the final regulations tailor the compliance and
metrics reporting requirements of the Volcker Rule to focus on
entities with relatively large trading operations. As a result,
financial institutions on Wall Street will retain their reporting
procedures, while smaller and more traditional commercial banks
without major trading operations will get some relief. What

is more, the new regulations simplify requirements by clarifying
prohibited and permissible activities, so that all institutions--
including those headquartered abroad but who lend and deploy capital
in the United States--have a better understanding of how to comply
with our laws.
    I believe laws should be as clear and concise as possible. The
point of having laws is for people to follow them, but before they
can follow them they first have to understand them. As Judge Learned
Hand put it 90 years ago, ``The language of the law must not be
foreign to the ears of those who are to obey it.'' \7\ For too long
the Volcker Rule has been just that--very peculiar and virtually
unintelligible to market participants and regulators alike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Hand, L. Is There a Common Will? in The Spirit of Liberty:
Papers and Addresses of Learned Hand 56 (I. Dilliard, 3d ed. 1960)
(quoting from address before the American Law Institute in 1929).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In short, the amended regulations will provide banking entities
and their affiliates (including a number of swap dealers, FCMs, and
commodity pools subject to CFTC oversight) with greater clarity and
certainty about what activities are permitted under the Volcker
Rule. The revised regulations will also generally reduce the
compliance burden for these entities, which will benefit those end
users of derivatives who are critical to our real economy. These
changes, which will make the Volcker Rule simpler without reducing
its fundamental benefits, are something we should all support.

Appendix 3--Supporting Statement of CFTC Commissioner Brian Quintenz

    I support today's targeted amendments to the Volcker Rule, which
I believe will simplify firms' compliance with the statutory ban on
proprietary trading and improve the agencies' supervision of banking
entities. Based upon the agencies' implementation experience since
2013, it has become apparent that the rule as originally adopted has
resulted in ambiguity over permissible activities, an overbroad
application, and unnecessarily complex compliance processes. The
revised rule before us today tailors and simplifies the rule to
enable banking entities to effectively provide traditional banking
services to their clients in a manner that is consistent with the
statute.
    Adopting a risk-based approach, the revised rule tailors the
scale of a banking entity's compliance program to be commensurate
with the firm's size and level of trading activities. Under the
final rule, the most stringent compliance requirements apply to
those entities with the most significant amount of trading
activities, while banks with simpler business models and more
limited trading operations would be subject to tiered compliance
requirements tailored to the complexity and scope of their
activities. As a result, firms with little or no activity subject to
the Volcker Rule's prohibitions will face lower compliance costs and
reduced regulatory burdens. However, because activity implicated by
the Volcker Rule is concentrated in a small number of banks, the
agencies estimate that, even under this tiered approach,
approximately 93% of the trading assets and liabilities in the U.S.
banking system would continue to be held by firms subject to the
strictest compliance standards.
    The final rule also clarifies and simplifies the application of
the short-term intent prong. Under the 2013 rule, the purchase (or
sale) of a financial instrument by a banking entity was presumed to
be for the trading account if the banking entity held the financial
instrument for fewer than sixty days (or substantially transferred
the risk of the financial instrument within 60 days of purchase or
sale). In practice, firms have found it difficult to rebut the
presumption, with the result that the short term intent prong has
captured many activities that should not be included in the
definition of proprietary trading. The final rule addresses this
issue by reversing the rebuttable presumption, providing that the
purchase or sale of a financial instrument presumptively lacks
short-term trading intent if the banking entity holds the financial
instrument for 60 days or longer. In addition, the final rule
includes new or expanded exclusions from the definition of
proprietary trading for liquidity management programs, certain
customer-driven swaps, error trades, and certain traditional banking
activities, such as the hedging of mortgage servicing rights. These
modifications clarify the scope of permissible activities and ensure
that the application of the proprietary trading ban is not
overbroad.
    I believe today's final rule serves as an example of effective
cooperation among five regulators: The CFTC; the Securities and
Exchange Commission; the Federal Reserve Board; the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency; and the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation. The agencies have come together to address many of the
unintended consequences of the prior rule, while continuing to
comply with statutory requirements. Finally, I would like to thank
the staff of the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight
for their efforts on this matter.

Appendix 4--Dissenting Statement of CFTC Commissioner Rostin Behnam

    I respectfully dissent as to the Commission's decision to
approve revisions to the Volcker Rule. In June 2018, when I voted
against the proposed rule, I expressed that my biggest concern was
that our action would encourage a return to the risky activities
that led to the financial crisis, and perhaps further consolidate
trading activity into a few institutions.\1\ My concern last June
was that we were weakening the Volcker Rule around the edges, and I
raised specific issues regarding unnecessary complexity, lack of
clarity, and a flawed process that chilled dissent. Unfortunately,
today's final rule does not do anything to assuage these concerns.
To make matters worse, while the proposal merely threatened to kill
Volcker through a thousand little cuts, the final rule goes for the
throat. It significantly weakens the prohibition on proprietary
trading by narrowing the scope of financial instruments subject to
the Volcker Rule. What remains is so watered down that it leaves one
questioning whether it should be called the Volcker rule at all. To
that point, Paul Volcker himself recently sent a letter to the
Chairman of the Federal Reserve criticizing the rule and stating
that the rule ``amplifies risk in the financial system, increases
moral hazard and erodes protections against conflicts of interest
that were so glaringly on display during the last crisis.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Opening Statement of Commissioner Rostin Behnam Before the
Open Commission Meeting on June 4, 2018 (Jun. 4, 2018), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/behnamstatement060418.
    \2\ Jesse Hamilton and Yalman Onaran, ``Vocker the Man Blasts
Volcker the Rule in Letter to Fed Chair,'' Bloomberg (Sep. 10,
2019), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-10/volcker-the-man-blasts-volcker-the-rule-in-letter-to-fed-chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In my dissent last June, I pointed out that the proposal further
complicated the Volcker rule while calling it simplification. We do
the same thing in the final rule. Where once there was one set of
rules for all banking entities, there will now be three categories
of banking entities with different rules for each: Banking entities
with Significant trading assets and liabilities, banking entities
with Limited trading assets and liabilities, banking entities in
between with Moderate trading assets and liabilities. While numerous
commenters expressed concerns with this three-tiered compliance
framework, we nonetheless are finalizing this needlessly complex
system. In addition, the majority today makes ``targeted
adjustments'' that further complicate matters. In some instances,
these adjustments are at least requested by the commenters. In
others, they are invented seemingly out of whole cloth.
    The most troubling aspect of today's rule, though, is something
new. The final rule includes changes to the definition of ``trading
account'' that will significantly reduce the scope of financial
instruments subject to the Volcker Rule's prohibition on proprietary
trading. This change is described in the preamble to the final rule
as avoiding having the trading account definition ``inappropriately
scope in'' certain financial instruments, almost as if they were
included in the proposal's scope by mistake. However, these
financial instruments were within the scope of the 2013 rule, and
they were within the scope of the proposal. Removing them now limits
the scope of the Volcker rule so significantly that it no longer
will provide meaningful constraints on speculative proprietary
trading by banks. As such, I cannot vote for the rule.

Appendix 5--Dissenting Statement of CFTC Commissioner Dan M. Berkovitz

    Congress adopted the statute commonly known as the ``Volcker
Rule'' in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis to prevent banks
that benefit from federal depository insurance or other government
support from taking excessive risks that could lead to future
taxpayer bailouts. The Volcker Rule prohibits proprietary trading
and the owning of hedge funds and private equity funds by banks and
their subsidiaries (``banking entities''), with certain exceptions
and exemptions. In 2013 the Commission and other financial
regulators adopted regulations to implement

the Volcker Rule. The final rule before the Commission today
(``revised Volcker Rule'') substantially weakens these implementing
regulations.
    The revised Volcker Rule eliminates or reduces a variety of
substantive standards in the current rule. The revised Volcker Rule
will render enforcement of the rule difficult if not impossible by
leaving implementation of significant requirements to the discretion
of the banking entities, creating presumptions of compliance that
would be nearly impossible to overcome, and eliminating numerous
reporting requirements. The revised Volcker Rule also substantially
reduces the bank trading activity covered by the rule. Finally, the
revised Volcker Rule includes a number of changes and additions not
contemplated or adequately discussed in the notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act
(``APA'') requirements for public notice and comment for
rulemakings.
    For these reasons, I dissent.

Weak Regulation and Enforceability Concerns

    Nearly every amending provision of the revised Volcker Rule
adopts the weakened provisions from the NPRM, further weakens the
proposed changes, or makes new changes that weaken or eliminate
existing requirements and standards. New presumptions of compliance
favoring the banking entities, regulatory determinations left to the
banking entities, and reductions in reporting requirements by the
banking entities will make the revised Volcker Rule more difficult
to enforce. The cumulative effect of this myriad of changes is a set
of regulations that is ineffective and unenforceable. Although a
single chip off a sculpture, by itself, may not create a noticeable
blemish, widespread chiseling will disfigure the object. Such is the
result here.
    The ``trading account'' definition and related regulatory
exclusions in the 2013 rule determine which financial transactions
are subject to the restrictions on proprietary trading. Financial
transactions of banking entities are subject to the Volcker
regulations if they fall within certain ``prongs'' established in
the trading account provision. The revised Volcker Rule rejects the
``accounting prong'' proposed in the NPRM and effectively jettisons
the existing ``short-term intent prong'' for most entities.\1\ In
addition, there are a number of newly created outright exclusions of
whole types of transactions and broadening of existing exclusions
under the revised Volcker Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ While the short-term intent prong remains for a limited
number of banks not subject to the market risk capital rules in
banking regulations, compliance with the short-term intent prong is
now optional if those banking entities instead elect to comply with
the market risk capital rules for Volcker compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDIC Commissioner Martin Gruenberg provided an analysis of how
these changes will significantly reduce the banking activity subject
to Volcker oversight. ``By excluding these financial instruments
from the Volcker Rule, the final rule . . . opens up vast new
opportunity--hundreds of billions of dollars of financial
instruments--at both the bank and bank holding company level, for
speculative proprietary trading funded by the public safety net.''
\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Statement by Martin J. Gruenberg, Member, FDIC Board of
Directors, The Volcker Rule (Aug. 20, 2019) at 3, available at
https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/speeches/spaug2019b.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2013 Volcker rules define the ``trading desk'' as the
``smallest discrete unit of organization'' that purchases and sells
financial instruments. The revised Volcker Rule removes the quoted
text, and instead provides four broad criteria for designating a
trading desk. The rule then allows the banking entities to designate
the trading desks for purposes of Volcker.
    The new trading desk designation criteria appear to be broad
enough that a ``trading desk'' could include whole business lines,
divisions, or an entire swap dealer. The opportunities for
undertaking greater amounts of proprietary trading expand
significantly when the limits (which are set by the banking entities
themselves), the desk-specific positions being hedged, and reporting
requirements are applied to much larger trading portfolios. Because
the revised Volcker Rule effectively presumes that these trading
desk designations by the banking entities are valid, it will be more
difficult for the applicable regulator to reign in proprietary
trading undertaken by more expansively designated trading desks.
    How much proprietary trading can occur under the market making
exemption in the revised Volcker Rule will be determined by the risk
limits set for each trading desk. The risk limits are to be
established at the discretion of each banking entity and, as noted
above, the scope of a trading desk also will be determined by the
banking entity within broad criteria. ``Reasonably expected near-
term demand'' (``RENTD'') of customers is included in the Volcker
statute to establish the level of market making permissible. While
the RENTD concept is still in the revised Volcker Rule, a
presumption has been added that the RENTD levels set by each banking
entity are correct.
    Because these determinations will be established by the banking
entity and presumed to be compliant, it will be difficult for any
regulator to challenge them or take any enforcement action--even if
a banking entity experiences large losses from proprietary trading--
so long as the trading is found to be within the set limits.
    These concerns about enforcement and oversight are exacerbated
by the reduced metrics and other reporting, documentation, and
compliance requirements. Numerous changes are made both as proposed
and added on in this final rule. To name a few, stressed value at
risk, daily risk factor sensitivities, and risk limit breaches need
not be reported. In some cases, changes to reporting requirements
make sense if experience shows a metric has little or no regulatory
value. But most of these changes in the revised Volcker Rule are
purportedly justified because they reduce the burden on banking
entities and the cumulative effect on the ability of a regulator to
monitor for compliance and potential significant issues is not
addressed.

Logical Outgrowth Concerns

    The revised Volcker Rule includes a number of new rules and
amendments that were not mentioned or adequately described in the
NPRM. The APA requires that a proposed rulemaking be published in
the Federal Register and that interested persons be given an
opportunity to comment.\3\ A ``notice of proposed rulemaking must
provide sufficient factual detail and rationale for the rule to
permit interested parties to comment meaningfully.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (c).
    \4\ Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. EPA, 372 F.3d 441, 445 (D.C. Cir.
2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In comparing the revised Volcker Rule to the NPRM, there are a
number of changes that were either not addressed in the NPRM or at
best are based on comments received in response to general
questions. For example, the NPRM included a proposal to replace the
short-term intent prong with what is commonly referred to as the
``accounting prong.'' In the revised Volcker Rule, the accounting
prong was rejected, but the short-term interest prong also is
eliminated for most banking entities.\5\ While replacing the short-
term intent prong was discussed in the proposal, effectively
eliminating the prong without a replacement was not proposed.
Similarly the option for certain banking entities to now elect to
comply with the market risk capital rule prong rather than the
short-term intent prong was not discussed as an alternative. Nor was
the replacement of the rebuttable presumption of proprietary trading
for positions held shorter than 60 days with the opposite
presumption that positions held longer than 60 days are not
proprietary trading for purposes of the Volcker Rule. Agencies
cannot ``pull a surprise switcheroo'' in the rulemaking process.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Firms subject to, or which elect to be subject to, the
market risk capital rule prong are no longer subject to the short-
term intent prong.
    \6\ Environmental Integrity Project v. EPA, 425 F.3d 992, 996
(D.C. Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the NPRM appears to not even contemplate excluding
government bond assets and liabilities, mortgage servicing rights
hedges, or financial instruments that are not trading assets or
trading liabilities from counting as proprietary trading. Other
changes, such as the elimination of incentive compensation limits,
the matched derivatives transaction exclusion, and elimination of
risk factor sensitivity metrics reporting appear to be based on
general questions in the NPRM. In each case, no draft rule text or
adequate discussion of such amendments was provided that would allow
the public to have anticipated those amendments. Rather, many of
these changes appear to be based on de novo comments made by banks
or their trade organizations. ``[I]f the final rule `substantially
departs from the terms or substance of the proposed rule,' the
notice is inadequate.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Chocolate Manufacturers Assoc. of the United States v.
Block, 755 F.2d 1098, 1105 (4th Cir. 1985) (quoting Rowell v.
Andrus, 631 F.2d 699, 702 n.2 (10th Cir. 1980).

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

Conclusion

    Self-regulation failed us in the early part of this century.
Dodd-Frank, including the Volcker Rule, has helped this country
rebuild a strong and better managed financial sector. To maintain a
robust financial sector that benefits the American people, we must
maintain strong standards and vigorous oversight. Otherwise, it is
only a matter of time before the memory of the huge losses and
resulting pressures for a taxpayer bailout fades and excessive risk
taking comes home to roost. While the Dodd-Frank regulations may not
be perfect and modest adjustments may be appropriate, the wholesale
revision of regulations that greatly weaken the enforceability of
those regulations such as we have before us today will, in the long
run, weaken the financial sector and pose risks to the American
public.

[FR Doc. 2019-22695 Filed 11-13-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 191 (Monday, October 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 61129]
[FR Doc No: C1-2011-23721]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65317; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2011-127]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify Fees for Members Using the NASDAQ Options Market

September 12, 2011.

Correction

    In notice document 2010-23721 beginning on page 57778 the issue of
Friday, September 16, 2011 make the following correction:
    On page 57781, in the first column, in the 8th line from the bottom
of the page, ``October 6, 2011'' should read ``October 7, 2011''.

[FR Doc. C1-2011-23721 Filed 9-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on March 3, 2005

      NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN – DOCKET 1996-1273

________________________________________________________________________
______________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applications of   Northwest Airlines, Inc.      filed  1/28/05  to:

XX  Amend and renew for two years exemption under 49 U.S.C. 40109, last
granted by Notice of Action Taken dated June 24, 2003, in this Docket,
so as to authorize Northwest to provide the following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail (1)
from points behind the United States, via the United States and
intermediate points to a point or points in India and beyond; and (2)
for all-cargo service between India and any point or points.   Northwest
seeks the authority to operate its own flights as well as offering
code-share service with any of its existing code-share partners, to the
extent consistent with the new U.S.-India Open Skies Air Transport
Agreement.

Applicant rep:   Megan Rae Rosia,<PHONE_NUMBER> 	   DOT  Analyst:  Sylvia
Moore,<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted in part (subject to conditions, see below)

XX  Granted route integration authority sua sponte (subject to
conditions, see below; see also remarks

         below)

XX  Balance dismissed (see remarks below)

The above action was effective when taken:   March 3, 2005,  through
March 3, 2007

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and India, which is being provisionally
applied on the basis of comity and reciprocity, pending its formal entry
into force.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:   XX Holder’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

	    XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

	    XX  Statements of authorization approving Northwest/foreign carrier
code-share

            operations, and conditions therein

2

Conditions:  The route integration authority granted is subject to the
condition that any service provided under this exemption shall be
consistent with all applicable agreements between the United States and
the foreign countries involved.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in the award
of the route integration authority requested should be construed as
conferring upon Northwest rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate
and/or beyond rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is
limited unless Northwest notifies the Department of its intent to serve
such a market and unless and until the Department has completed any
necessary carrier selection procedures to determine which carrier(s)
should be authorized to exercise such rights; and (b) should there be a
request by any carrier to use the limited-entry route rights that are
included in Northwest’s authority by virtue of the route integration
exemption granted here, but that are not then

being used by Northwest, the holding of such authority by route
integration will not be considered as providing any preference for
Northwest in a competitive carrier selection proceeding to determine
which carrier(s) should be entitled to use the authority at issue.

The authority to serve intermediate and beyond points is limited to
countries with which the United States has signed open-skies agreements
and/or countries for which the carrier holds authority to serve under
certificates or exemptions issued by the Department, and for which it
holds route integration authority by virtue of either the present action
or other action of the Department.

Remarks:  The route integration authority granted here will permit
Northwest to combine its existing certificate and exemption authority
with the broad U.S.-India authority granted in this docket, which
includes authority to operate via intermediate points and beyond India
subject to the conditions set forth in this notice.

We dismissed Northwest’s application to the extent that it requests
authority from points behind the United States.  The authority to
conduct operations from points behind the United States is inherent in
the authority that we award U.S. carriers to perform foreign air
transportation.  We also dismissed Northwest’s application to the
extent that it seeks authority between India and any point or points for
all-cargo service.  This authority is not considered in foreign air
transportation, and thus needs no license from the Department of
Transportation.

________________________________________________________________________
______________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our

action was consistent with Department policy; and (2) grant of the
authority was consistent with the public interest; and (3) grant of the
authority would not constitute a major regulatory action under the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.  To the extent not granted,
or dismissed, we denied all requests in the referenced Dockets.  We may
amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any
time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

																		  05/2004

 This condition is not applicable to flights operated by KLM on which
Northwest is holding out service on a code-share basis with KLM.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16543-16544]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6792]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC12-80-000.
    Applicants: Pioneer Trail Wind Farm, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, Requests for Waivers of Filing Requirements,
Expedited Review and Confidential Treatment of Pioneer Trail Wind Farm,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120314-5019.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/12.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2179-007; ER10-2181-007; ER10-2182-007.
    Applicants: R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, LLC, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC.
    Description: Supplemental Filing of the CENG Nuclear Entities.
    Filed Date: 2/29/12.
    Accession Number: 20120229-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2502-002; ER11-2724-002; ER11-4436-001; ER10-
2472-002; ER10-2473-002.
    Applicants: Black Hills Colorado IPP, LLC, Black Hills/Colorado
Electric Utility Company, LP, Black Hills Power, Inc., Black Hills
Wyoming, LLC, Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power Company.
    Description: Notification of Non-Material Change in Status of Black
Hills/Colorado Electric Utility Company, LP, et al.
    Filed Date: 3/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120314-5034.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-733-001.
    Applicants: Promet Energy Partners, LLC.
    Description: Compliance Filing for MBR Tariff Baseline to be
effective 12/30/2011.
    Filed Date: 3/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120314-5057.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1255-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., American Electric Power
Service Corporation.
    Description: AEPSC revises PJM OATT Attachments H-14 and H-20
merging CSPC into Ohio Power to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 3/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120314-5041.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1256-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc. CMEEC Capacity Supply Obligation
Resource Termination.
    Filed Date: 3/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120314-5046.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1257-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc. Longfellow Capacity Supply
Obligation Resource Termination.
    Filed Date: 3/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120314-5047.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1258-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Services, Inc. submits Notice of Termination
of FERC Rate Schedule No. 198.
    Filed Date: 3/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120314-5049.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1259-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Potomac-Appalachian
Highline Transmission.
    Description: PATH submits PJM OATT Att H-19A & Refund Report per 2/
16/2012 Order in ER08-386 to be effective 1/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 3/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120314-5055.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1260-000.
    Applicants: Stephentown Spindle, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Succession to be effective 3/7/2012.
    Filed Date: 3/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120314-5060.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/12.

    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: March 14, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-6792 Filed 3-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 281]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33735]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2090-008]

Green Mountain Power Corporation; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Types of Application: Amendment of License.
    b. Project No.: 2090-008.
    c. Date Filed: November 16, 2011.
    d. Applicants: Green Mountain Power Corporation.
    e. Name of Projects: Waterbury Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Little River in Washington County, Vermont.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Jason Lisai, Green Mountain Power
Corporation, 163 Acorn Lane, Colchester, Vermont 05446. Tel: (802) 655-
8723.
    i. FERC Contact: Mr. Vedula Sarma,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests, is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. All
documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. If unable to be filed
electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an
original and seven copies should be mailed to: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426. 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.
    Please include the project numbers (P-2090-008) on any comments,
motions, or recommendations filed.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee in 2009 replaced the
project's turbine runner with a more efficient runner identical in
design to the original runner. The runner replacement has not changed
the project's generating capacity but the hydraulic capacity of the
unit increased by 14 percent from 586 cfs to 670 cfs.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-(866) 208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``Comments'', ``Protest'', or
``Motion to Intervene'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to project works which are the subject of the license surrender.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.

    Dated: December 28, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-33735 Filed 1-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P