 The Graphic Arts Coalition

   Representing the Graphic Communications Industries

September 14, 2000

To: Mike Trutna

From: 	Marci Kinter, Gary Jones, and Dale Kalina

Re: Comments On White Paper 3

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Operating Permits Program
White Paper Number 3, Design of Flexible Air Permits.  Overall, the
concepts and opportunities for flexibility outlined in the White Paper
are very encouraging and these opportunities will lead to more flexible
Title V operating permits for the printing industry.

We appreciate the considerable effort expended in revising the previous
draft. The examples incorporated into the document as well as the
formatting changes facilitate organization and readability of the
document as a whole and, in particular, the discussion of the
interrelationship of Title V and NSR. It is anticipated that these
improvements will lead to smoother implementation of the concepts and
approaches outlined in the White Paper.

While the document is much improved, there are additional revisions that
would further clarify how the White Paper’s “smart permitting”
approaches can be implemented by state permitting authorities. Due to
some continuing concerns, consideration should be given to deleting or
delaying the PAL discussion pending issuance of EPA’s NSR reform
rulemaking on this topic. The current proposal does not address several
questions identified in our previous comments and leaves several other
ones unanswered.  In addition, the White Paper states that any emission
caps established under these approaches will need to conform to whatever
rule is eventually issued, which could trigger significant revisions to
a PAL if it differs from the requirements in the final rule. To the
extent that this aspect of the White Paper is retained, suggestions have
been included for improvement of this section.

 The additional comments below are presented by page number and topic:

Page 3, Introduction and Overview

Under the Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting data summary, there
is a reference that the permit contain periodic monitoring requirements
sufficient to yield reliable data and where applicable requirements fail
to have periodic testing or monitoring, flexible permits must be
constructed to have such monitoring.  EPA needs to clarify that this
position is based on the text of 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and it does not
require a “sufficiency” review of underlying monitoring. This is
important to ensure that the guidance is not misconstrued as relying on
the periodic monitoring guidance, which was recently vacated by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Appalachian
Power Co. v. EPA, No.  (April 14, 2000).

Under the Anticipated Environmental Benefits from Flexible Permits
section, the first bulleted item discusses the improved knowledge of the
source’s emissions and compliance status through the application of
CEM systems or their equivalent. While many sources that take advantage
of the opportunities outline in this White Paper will have to increase
the frequency and detail of monitoring, there is real concern that all
sources will have to adopt CEM or its equivalent in order to utilize the
approaches contained in the White Paper.  CEMS are not necessary to
provide a “reasonable assurance of compliance” which is the standard
provide in Clean Air Act § 504 and adopted in EPA’s Compliance
Assurance Monitoring (CAM), 40 CFR § 64.3(a).  Indeed, these statements
in the White Paper are actually inconsistent with the CAM rule because
CAM focuses on providing an assurance that control devices are
functioning properly.  In promulgating the CAM rule, EPA stated:

[O]nce an owner or operator has shown that the installed control
equipment can comply with an emission limit, there will be a reasonable
assurance of ongoing compliance with the emission limit as long as the
emissions unit is operated under the conditions anticipated and the
control equipment is operated and maintained properly. This logical
assumption is the basis of EPA standard setting under the NSPS program
and serves as the model for the CAM approach as well.

EPA should adopt this same logic in the White Paper, rather than
arbitrarily mandating use of CEMS, which are costly to operate and
maintain, have been demonstrated to be viable in many operations,
including printing, and are not needed in many cases to provide a
reasonable assurance of compliance.

Page 8, Replacement Conditions, First Full Paragraph

While the revisions to this particular section provide a much better
discussion on the topic of revising restrictive NSR conditions to more
flexible ones, the section does not explicitly state that one such
approach would involve using an emissions based limit and that this
approach is not prohibited by the June 13, 1989, memo “Guidance on
Limiting Potential to Emit in New Source Permitting.”

Several state permitting authorities and one EPA Region have
misinterpreted the 1989 memo as not allowing a source to limit its PTE
with an emission based limit. In order to eliminate any potential
conflict in interpretations, the following statement should be included
in the White Paper: “

For example, a permit with individual material and VOC content limits
can be rewritten to limit the total emissions from the source or sources
such that the underlying emission limit is preserved.  In a typical
situation, a source would simply track VOC content as a method of
determining compliance, but limitations on content and throughput would
not be imposed, allowing the source to vary usage and content such that
it continues to meet emission limits on a rolling 12-month basis.

This example should be inserted after the sentence ending with
“…title V permit.” and before the final sentence beginning “You
may accomplish…” A statement of this nature would help clarify for
states how they can streamline permits with unnecessary VOC content
restrictions.

 EPA also should include more explicit instructions for states as to how
to accomplish the revision of underlying permits containing these types
of terms.  Specifically, EPA should expand on the statements made in
John Seitz’s May 20, 1999 memorandum to Mr. Robert Hodanbosi and Mr.
Charles Lagges which indicated EPA’s belief that Title V permits
cannot void or supersede underlying permits but that the Title V process
could be used to revise underlying permits at the same time that the
Title V permit is issued.  Including the following statements in the
White Paper regarding parallel processing of minor NSR permit revisions
and Title V issuance would be beneficial:

Specifically, this would involve using the Title V procedures to meet
any procedural requirements associated with revising the minor NSR
permit terms.  For example, you could include in the public notice for
the Title V permit a statement that this notice serves as a public
notice for issuing (or revising) the Title V permit as well as for
revising certain terms in previously-issued minor NSR permits.  You
could identify those terms in the Title V permit which represent revised
minor NSR terms with an asterisk or another appropriate designation and
make available the relevant documents in the public review file for the
permit.  In this way, the only additional step involved in revising the
minor NSR permit would be to change the permit terms in that permit to
be consistent with the Title V permit terms once the final permit
decisions have been made. EPA has approved a similar approach which was
developed in Illinois and is being implemented successfully in the
Illinois EPA Title V permits.

Page 8, Replacement Conditions, Case Example for Lithographic Printer

First paragraph, third sentence - Please insert the words “inks,
fountain solutions, fountain solution additives, cleaning solutions”
between “certain” and “coatings” so that the sentence reads
“…which were imposed to limit certain inks, fountain solutions,
fountain solution additives, cleaning solutions, coatings and other
solvents and the rates…”.

First paragraph, fourth sentence – Please delete the phrase “The
printer has demonstrated to you that it” and replace it with “Since
printing” as this could be interpreted that each and every printer
seeking to utilize this White Paper would have to prove in some manner,
their operations are highly variable. Also, there is no criteria
identified which would constitute situations that qualify as being
“highly variable.” Printing by its very nature is highly variable in
that no two jobs are the same and very little, if any exact repeat type
of work is printed. Thus, the printing operations, as a category, meet
the criteria of highly variable. Revising this sentence would clarify
that printing operations should be presumed to be sources that would
qualify for and benefit from flexible permitting options described in
the White Paper.

First paragraph, fifth sentence – Please delete the first word of the
sentence “Where” and replace it “As” since it would eliminate
the impression that a source must prove that each condition constrains
operational flexibility. Limits on material throughput and VOC content
are always constraining to printing operations. Those facilities that do
not need such flexibility would not enter into negotiation for flexible
permitting in the first instance. Once the process has begun, therefore,
individual demonstrations should not be necessary.

 The inclusion of the formula-based approach for revising existing NSR
conditions by allowing PTE limits to be based on emissions is strongly
supported. There is concern that this section might be misconstrued as
only being applicable to heatset web offset lithographic operations.
Therefore, it is important to state explicitly that the formula approach
is applicable to all industry sectors and the lithographic scenario is
provided as only an example. It would also be beneficial to use real
data and information to demonstrate more clearly how the formula-based
approach can be utilized enhanced the example.

Two items within the formula require clarification.

fficiency (ξ) is described as being the value determined during a
performance test. The control efficiency is generally established by
underlying regulations, RACT, BACT, or other regulatory requirements and
is not based solely on performance test results. The purpose of the
performance test is to establish that this efficiency is being met and
to demonstrate that the source is in compliance.  As such, the following
revision is suggested:

	ξ	=	Control Efficiency (90 - 95% minimum typically required) as
established in a permit or regulation and verified during an initial
performance test and through parameter monitoring.

b) The term for capture efficiency is described as being the value
determined during a Method 204 capture test. There has been clear
guidance issued by EPA for lithographic printing that presumptive
capture efficiencies for process materials may be used and capture
testing for lithographic printing is not required.  Although capture
testing may be required for other processes, statements that Method 204
testing applies to lithographic printing could undermine the previously
issued guidance.  Due to the inapplicability of Method 204 to the
lithographic industry, the reference to Method 204 should be deleted and
the following language be adopted:

	η	=	Capture efficiency for individual material emitted as allowed by
EPA Control Technology Guidance Document and Alternative Control
Techniques Document for Offset Lithography.

Page 9, Replacement Conditions, Case Example for Lithographic Printer,
First Full Paragraph, Second Sentence

Please replace the word “coating” in the parenthetical example with
“ink” and add the word “containing” after “VOC”, so that it
reads “ (e.g., use of a higher VOC containing ink).” Ink is the more
common input material that would vary.

Page 11, What are Advanced Approvals and How Do They Work, First
Paragraph

Since the concept of allowing for advanced approvals for changes not
specifically well known is a critical and important one, an example
would be very beneficial. Specifically, it would be helpful if EPA could
include an example of a “defined category of changes” in the paper.
Otherwise, states may be very reluctant to implement this type of
advance approval.  Because printers frequently make changes to existing
operations requiring minor NSR permitting, the ability to advance
approve such changes in the Title V permit could substantially enhance a
printers ability to respond rapidly to customer demand.

Page 11, Reasonably Anticipated Operating Scenarios Under Title V, First
Paragraph

It is not apparent what the definition of “current operating
scenario” is and what types of changes can occur within it. As we
understand advance approvals, a source would only need to obtain such an
approval if a new or different applicable requirement would apply to the
change. If there is no change in applicable requirements, no advance
approval would be needed and there would be no new operating scenario.
Thus, this sentence seems to be circular since an advance approval would
necessarily involve a new operating scenario with new or different
applicable requirements. Accordingly, this sentence should either be
deleted or clarified with an example as to how it would apply in
practice.

Page 12, Additional Requirements for Certain Advance Approvals, First
Paragraph

There are two typos in this paragraph. The fourth sentence appears to be
missing a verb from the part of the sentence “…advance approvals,
the permit meet the criteria…” The last sentence has two periods.

Page 15, Additional Requirements for Certain Advance Approvals, Second
Paragraph, Second Sentence

Please delete or revise the statement “but may go beyond compliance
obligations incorporated directly from applicable requirements.” While
most air pollution control authorities will exercise their discretion
appropriately, there is serious concern that this statement could be
used to set standards so high that facilities will be effectively
prevented from utilizing White Paper 3’s approaches. This statement
should be more clearly limited to those steps that are necessary to
provide a reasonable assurance of compliance with applicable
requirements and it should note any such steps must be consistent with
the recent Appalachian Power decision by the DC Circuit, cited above.
40 CFR 70.6(a)(9) does not provide independent monitoring authority
under Title V and does not allow imposition of any requirements beyond
those needed to assure compliance.

Page 16, Required Content of Title V Applications, General Requirements,
Third Bulleted Item

It appears that the tense of “bound” needs to be revised to
“bind.”

Page 19, Required Content of Title V Permits, Sixth Bulleted Item

The condition specifies that a 7-day advance notice is required for
changes that   alter the operating scenario to install an advanced
approved unit.  While the addition of a new unit that triggers a new
applicable requirement, which had been advanced approved in the permit,
constitutes an alternative operating scenario, there does not appear to
be a basis in the regulation to require a notice when the unit is
installed.  Under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(9), a source is required to record in
an on-site log when it shifts to a new operating scenario for a
particular emission unit.  There is no requirement for a seven-day
advance notice in the regulations.

In section 70.4(b)(12), EPA provided for a seven-day advance notice for
certain specified types of changes (i.e., changes that contravene a
permit term, emissions trading under a SIP, and emissions trading under
a Title V cap), none of which apply to the advance approval of an
emissions unit.  Moreover, even for off-permit changes under
70.4(b)(14), only a contemporaneous notice is required.  Thus, there
appears no regulatory basis for requiring a seven-day advance notice in
this situation.  As a practical matter, the permitting authority will
have reviewed the advance approved change during the construction permit
and Title V issuance processes.  Additional notification should not be
needed given the prior level of review.

Page 20, Menu of Choices, Third Bulleted Item

Is the concept of representative testing embodied in the phrase
“performance tests and/or engineering analyses to comply with the
applicable standards or limits?” If so, it should be stated explicitly
so that it is evident to the air pollution control authority and
permitted entity. If it was not meant to include representative testing,
then it should not be included in this item.

Representative testing includes the ability to conduct a performance
test on only one of two or more of the same or similar control devices,
testing process lines under normal and not maximum operating conditions,
and in some cases utilization of preapproved default destruction
efficiencies.

Page 20, Menu of Choices, Fifth Bulleted Item

There appears to be a typo with the words “for to” in “…are
approach for to each type…”.

Page 20, Replicable Operating Procedures

It would be beneficial if one or two examples of replicable operating
procedures could be provided.

Page 22, Synchronizing With Title V, First Paragraph, Third Sentence

A statement is included regarding the submission of the same information
otherwise required for an advanced notice not subject to for approval to
merely see if the proposed new unit would be of the type which was
advanced approved. However, there are no criteria or examples that would
provide an idea of the types of changes that would be subject to this
requirement. This notice requirement should be synchronized with the
other notice or no notice should be required as previously discussed.
Otherwise, there is a potential that an air pollution control authority
may require detailed notices prior to any change in operating scenario
or modifications.

Page 23, Clean Buildings, First Paragraph, Second Sentence

There seems to be a presumption that every “clean building” scenario
will be using some type of add-on control device to reduce emissions.
This is not always the case as many printers do not use control devices,
but rely upon input material limits and/or substitution to meet BACT and
LAER. Therefore, it would be better to state “…this control
technology (i.e., control device, material limits, etc.) meets…”
instead of “…this control device meets…”.

Page 23, Clean Buildings, First Paragraph, Second Sentence

The requirement to revisit BACT/LAER or state BAT determinations every
18 months should be deleted from the document. This requirement is
apparently based on the fact that many SIPs provide for expiration of
construction permits if construction is not begun within 18 months of
issuance.  As a practical matter, technology simply does not advance at
a pace that would change a determination in just 18 months time. To
provide certainty to sources participating in flexible permitting
approaches, these technology determinations should be valid for the life
of the permit.  As a legal matter, many SIPs do not require that a
permit expire after 18 months.  Most states with such requirements would
also have the discretion to extend a permit beyond the 18-month time
period.  Accordingly, this requirement should be deleted from the White
Paper.

If this requirement is retained, the White Paper should clearly indicate
that technology determinations would not need to be revisited once
construction begins. In addition, revisiting a determination should not
require a full analysis of BACT/LAER or BAT or a public notice permit
process. Instead, the state should simply review the determination and
verify that it is still consistent with the applicable technology
standard.

Page 24, Clean Buildings, Second Paragraph, Second Sentence

While examples were added in response to comments on the first draft of
the White Paper, concern still remains with the reference to
“ancillary sources.”  Although not defined, it is assumed that this
term is intended to include boilers, wastewater treatment and other up
or downstream utilities serving the clean building. The White Paper is
not clear, however, as to what it means to “take into account” the
emissions from such units. Site utilities, such as boilers, need to
provide resources to an entire facility and these units should not be
forced to accept restrictions to qualify for a “clean building”
approach. In no event should such units be subject to control
requirements when they are not undergoing physical or operational
changes.  Moreover, the cost associated with monitoring of emissions
(and allocating the appropriate portion to the “clean building”) for
up and downstream emission units may make the “clean building”
approach prohibitively expensive.  For the “clean building” approach
to be workable, it is important to clarify that control or emissions
monitoring requirements will not be imposed on up or downstream units.

Page 26, Section 112 Requirements, First Paragraph, First Sentence

As discussed above, there seems to be a presumption that every source
subject to MACT standards will be using some type of add-on control
device to reduce emissions. This is not always the case as many printers
do not use control devices exclusively to meet the Printing and
Publishing MACT Standard, but are relying upon input material limits
and/or substitution to meet it. Therefore, it would be better to include
a materials limit option as well so that the sentence reads
“…construction/operation time lines, planned control devices with
expected removal efficiencies or other compliance approaches (i.e.,
reformulation, input material limits, etc.) …”.

Likewise, the third bulleted item should be revised to reflect the other
control options used by sources.

Page 27, Additional Requirements for New or Modified Control Devices,
Second Paragraph, Third Sentence

The requirement for advance approving a thermal oxidizer describing the
design parameter requirements should be revised to reflect destruction
efficiency only. Since the goal is to reduce emissions and all
regulations for printers only specify a destruction or overall control
efficiency, there is no reason to specify other design parameters.
Destruction efficiency alone is all that is required for a thermal
oxidizer. It is not necessary to specify other design parameters, as
doing such will severely limit the ability of the printer and thermal
oxidizer manufacturer to be able to employ innovative approaches in
thermal oxidizers.

By setting the design parameter requirements to just the destruction
efficiency will also limit the amount of testing necessary as well
reduce or eliminate the potential for enforcement actions. Implied in
the statement “However, if subsequent performance tests show that
these initial operating parameter values were not sufficient to comply
with applicable requirements” is that the source will have to test and
verify each one of the specific parameters. This goes beyond current
common testing which tends to focus on destruction efficiency only.
There could be a dramatic increase in testing costs with no commensurate
environmental protection.

One of the most critical requirements that limit a printer’s
flexibility with add-on control devices is when an agency sets these
parameters in a permit. One of the agreements we have reached in the P4
project is that the printer will be allowed to set oxidizer operating
temperature at the time of testing and having it predetermined through a
permit condition would eliminate this flexibility.

Page 30, PTE Limits

As previously discussed, the approaches for limiting PTE should include
a reference that an emissions only limit can be used and that this
approach is consistent with the June 13, 1989, memo “Guidance on
Limiting Potential to Emit in New Source Permitting. It would also be
beneficial if the reader were referred to the Replacement Conditions
Section in the White Paper where this topic is discussed.

Page 30, Plantwide Applicability Limits

The printing industry strongly supports the PAL concept and EPA should
promote PAL implementation.  As noted in the introduction to these
comments, there are some unanswered questions and concerns with several
of the proposed conditions. Furthermore, there is also the potential for
the White Paper to effectively prejudge the outcome of the currently
pending rulemaking on PALs.  Accordingly, it may prudent to either
delete this section or delay it pending issuance of the final rule.  If
it is not deleted, however, it is important for EPA to explain the legal
basis for PALs under the existing regulations as well as to make the
recommended changes outlined below.

Page 31 and 32, Baseline/Pollutant, First and Second Bulleted Item

It appears that the policy on setting a source’s baseline will be
based on actual emissions and not allowable emissions. It is critical
that sources be allowed to set their baseline on allowable emissions.
Using allowable emissions to set the base is a much better methodology
since this is the level that the source was originally permitted at and
most importantly, it reflects the capability of the source. It is also
important to note that the allowable emissions are based on a careful
evaluation of the type and rate of emissions and deemed to be
acceptable. As a result, the source should be allowed to emit up to this
limit.

In printing, actual emission will fluctuate as customer and job demands
vary. Printers will experience different levels of material consumption
and thus emissions through the course of a year and over a period of
years. As a result, actual emissions are not reflective of the overall
potential of equipment utilization. Therefore, allowable emissions must
be used to set the baseline; otherwise a printer will end up
unnecessarily constraining operations to receive a small measure of
flexibility.

Additionally, using actual emissions penalizes those sources that have
gone beyond compliance requirements though an increase in control
efficiency, pollution prevention, or voluntarily controls. There is the
potential that using the last two years' historical emissions might
penalize a facility in setting the PAL.  In stating that the baseline
can be based on emissions "more representative of normal source
operation," EPA’s intent appears to be to allow an earlier time frame
more representative of source capability. This should be clarified in
the White Paper as discussed below.

Lastly, PALs may also be set using allowable emissions since:

The permitting authority has discretion to presume that source-specific
allowables are equivalent to actuals (40 CFR 52.21(b)(21)(iii)) and

 For sources that have obtained a major NSR permit, EPA has defined
creditable emissions increases to exclude any increases up to allowable
levels (40 CFR 52.21(b)(3)(iii)).

Page 32, Baseline/Pollutant, Second Bulleted Item

Clarification is still needed for the terms “… or a different time
period determined to be more representative of normal source
operation.” For facilities that do not operate on a consistent basis,
such as printing, definitive wording in the baseline discussion is
crucial to implementation. EPA should clarify its NSR regulations allow
both a different 2-year period than the immediately preceding two years
as well as a different time period (e.g., six months for a batch
operation where that period is representative or for a source that has
experienced atypical downtime, any one year period in the past ten years
as proposed in the NSR Reform rulemaking).

Page 32, Enforceability, Second Bulleted Item

As noted above, CEMS or CEM equivalent monitoring is not needed to
provide a reasonable assurance of compliance.  Therefore, this section
should be revised to reflect the regulatory requirement that the permit
provide a reasonable assurance of compliance. To the extent that this
language is retained, EPA needs to provide a definition of “CEMs
equivalent monitoring.” Very few, if any, members of the printing
industry conduct CEMs monitoring and most printers and other industries
will be conducting other “equivalent” monitoring. A clear
understanding of what this term means will eliminate potential conflicts
and problems associated with meeting these criteria.

Page 32, Enforceability, Third Bulleted Item

The inability of the PAL to address minor NSR requirements will limit
its utilization. If a facility cannot address all NSR issues associated
with establishing a PAL, the PAL will not be attractive as it will still
have to address the minor NSR review and approval process, which has
historically lead to permit issuance delays. Based on this guidance, it
appears that sources would still be required to obtain construction
permits for minor NSR activities. If this is true, then the benefit of
establishing a PAL considerably decreases.

Page 32, Duration, Second Bulleted Item

Based on the current discussion, it appears that once a facility has
entered into a PAL, the source cannot exceed the PAL level even after it
expires.  If this is the case, without definitive direction as to what
will occur upon renewal of a PAL, there is little incentive to
participate since the source will not be able to exceed the PAL level if
it elects not to renew.

Page 33, Making Changes

Although the White Paper refers to the ability to install a new unit
outside the PAL, there is no discussion of how or if this could be
included in the PAL at some later date.  Is there a mechanism for such a
consolidation and, if so, how might the new PAL be established?

Page 38, General Monitoring Requirements, First Paragraph, First
Sentence

Considerable confusion as to the correct definition of fugitive
emissions exists at the state level and within the regulated community.
Therefore, EPA’s formal definition should be included in this section
to help clarify what does or does not qualify as a fugitive emission.

Page 39, Interim Use of Emission Factors, First Full Paragraph

EPA states that if a source has not developed site-specific emission
factors for PALs or “emission cap” permit compliance, it must, on an
interim basis, use the most relevant factors available. While using
relevant factors seems appropriate, the White Paper is unreasonable in
requiring that relevant factors be doubled for debits and halved for
credits pending completion of site-specific tests.  EPA itself has
recognized that many processes are well defined and that emission
factors are an extremely accurate way of characterizing emissions. Thus,
the Agency has used emission factors to develop standards because the
cost of additional testing would be too high. It is inconsistent with
EPA’s prior actions to say now that sources may not use “relevant”
emission factors and must always conduct expensive site-specific testing
if they want to use the cap approaches embodied in the White Paper. No
arbitrary adjustment of emission factors or requirement for site
specific testing should be imposed. If additional conservatism is
required, it should occur only in cases where a factor is being
transferred from one type of process to another and it is determined
that the relevance of the factor is attenuated. If EPA does not adopt a
reasonable approach to deal with emission factors, sources will simply
not participate in this program.

 62 Fed. Reg. 54900, 54918 (October 22, 1997).

  The reliance on the June 1989 memo is questioned, given that it
predates the court decision which vacated EPA’s “potential to
emit” definition and has not been revised to reflect that decision.
Chemical Manufacturers Ass’n v. EPA, No. 89-1514 (D.C. Cir. Sept.
15,1995).

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register: November 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 214)]
[Notices]
[Page 67470-67471]
[DOCID:fr07no05-73]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

 November 1, 2005.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings
    Docket Numbers: ER03-1312-009.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc's proposed revisions to Schedule 20 & Module A of Midwest ISO
Access Transmission & Energy Markets Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff,
Third Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 10/24/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051026-0011.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Monday, November 14, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-747-000; ER05-1397-001.
    Applicants: American Ref-Fuel Company of Hempstead; Covanta
Hempstead Company.
    Description: American Ref-Fuel Co of Hempstead et al. submits a
revised Notice of Succession that contains the correct tariff
designation for the sheet that was previously submitted on 8/26/05.
    Filed Date: 10/24/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051026-0012.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Monday, November 14, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-150-003.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: The California Independent System Operator Corp
submits its compliance filing to FERC's Order issued 9/23/05.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051026-0096.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Monday, November 14, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1281-002.
    Applicants: FPL Energy Duane Arnold, LLC.
    Description: FPL Energy Duane Arnold LLC submits an amendment to
its market-based rate tariff.
    Filed Date: 10/24/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051026-0119.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Friday, November 4, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1283-001.
    Applicants: Participating Transmission Owners Administrative
Committee.
    Description: Participating Transmission Owners Administrative
Committee on behalf of New England's Participating Transmission Owners,
submits supporting materials to supplement its 7/29/05 informational
filing.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051026-0111.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Friday, November 11, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1349-001.
    Applicants: Western Systems Power Pool.
    Description: Western Systems Power Pool, Inc submits an erratum to
its 8/16/05 submittal of Substitute Fourteenth Revised Sheet No. 94.
    Filed Date: 10/24/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051026-0010.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Monday, November 14, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-855-000, -001, -002.
    Applicants: Duke Electric transmission.
    Description: Duke Electric Transmission's response to the
deficiency letter issued 9/22/05 involving its Large Generator
Interconnection Agreement with Power Ventures Group, LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/24/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051028-0123.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Monday, November 14, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1409-001.
    Applicants: The United Illuminating Company.
    Description: The United Illuminating Co submits information in
support of the 8/30/05 rate filing re the Middletown-Norwalk Project.
    Filed Date: 10/26/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051028-0113.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Wednesday, November 10, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1489-001.
    Applicants: Craven County Wood Energy Limited Partnership.
    Description: Craven County Wood Energy Limited Partnership
supplements its 9/16/05 application for order approving market-based
rates.

    Filed Date: 10/25/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051028-0109.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Tuesday, November 15, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-62-000; ER03-428-004.
    Applicants: ConocoPhillips Company,
    Description: ConocoPhillips Co submits Second Revised Sheet No. 1
et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff No. 1 pursuant to
section 205 of the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051026-0137.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Monday, November 14, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-63-000.
    Applicants: Take Two, LLC.
    Description: Take Two, LLC submits a Petition for Acceptance of
Initial Rate Schedule FERC No. 1, Waivers and Blanket Authority.
    Filed Date: 10/24/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051026-0138.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Monday, November 14, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-64-000.
    Applicants: Golden State Water Company.
    Description: Golden State Water Co submits notice of succession to
notify FERC that, effective 10/1/05, the name of Southern California
Water Co was changed to Golden State.
    Filed Date: 10/24/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051026-0139.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Monday, November 14, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-65-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.
    Description: Wisconsin Public Service Corp submits Third Revised
Sheet No. 227 to Second Revised Rate Schedule to FERC No. 51.
    Filed Date: 10/25/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051026-0123.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Tuesday, November 15, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-66-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: El Paso Electric Co submits a Notice of Cancellation
and a cancellation tariff sheet for the purpose of canceling its
Utility Service Contract with Holloman Air Force Base, Alamogordo, New
Mexico.
    Filed Date: 10/25/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051026-0122.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Tuesday, November 15, 2005.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other and the Applicant.
    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 should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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 dockets(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. E5-6150 Filed 11-4-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77694-77696]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30689]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2013-0949]

Information Collection Requests to Office of Management and
Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit Information Collection Requests
(ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a
revision to the following collection of information: 1625-0002,
Application for Vessel Inspection, Waiver, and Continuous Synopsis
Record. Our ICRs describe the information we seek to collect from the
public. Before submitting these ICRs to OIRA, the Coast Guard is
inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before February 24,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2013-0949] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). To avoid duplicate
submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely manner, mark the fax, to attention Desk Officer for the Coast
Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
COMMANDANT (CG-612), Attn Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, US Coast
Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Stop 7710, Washington DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Barbara Hairston, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collections. There is
one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be
granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the
Collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
information subject to the Collections; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the Collections on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. In response to your comments, we may revise these ICRs or
decide not to seek approval of revisions of the Collections. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2013-0949], and
must be received by February 24, 2014. We will post all comments
received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will
include any personal information you provide. We have an agreement with
DOT to use their DMF. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2013-0949], indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit
your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov), by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If
you submit a comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit
the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be
considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is
received at the DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing
address, an email address, or other contact information in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    You may submit your comments and material by electronic means,
mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES; but
please submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2013-0949'' in the
``Keyword'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by
mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and will address them accordingly.
    Viewing comments and documents: To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ``read comments'' box,
which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box
insert ``USCG-2013-0949'' and click ``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. You may also visit the DMF in Room
W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
    Information Collection Request.
    1. Title: Application for Vessels Inspection, Waiver, and
Continuous Synopsis Record.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0002.
    Summary: The collection of information requires the owner,
operator, agent, or master of a vessel to apply in writing to the Coast
Guard before the commencement of an inspection for certification, when
a waiver is desired from the requirements of navigation and vessel
inspection, or to request a Continuous Synopsis Record.
    Need: Title 46 United States Code (U.S.C.) 3306 authorize the Coast
Guard to establish regulations to protect life, property, and the
environment. These reporting requirements are part of the Coast Guard's
Marine Safety Program.
    Forms: CG-2633, CG-3752, CG-3752A, CG-6039.

    Respondents: Vessel owner, operator, agent, master or interested
U.S. Government agency.
    Frequency: On occasion, annually, or on a 5-year cycle.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 1,315
hours to 1,172 hours per year due to a decrease in the estimated annual
number of respondents.

    Dated: December 17, 2013.
R.E. Day,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2013-30689 Filed 12-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: November 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 229)]
[Notices]
[Page 67620-67621]
[DOCID:fr29no07-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Noise Compatibility Program Notice Baton Rouge Metropolitan
Airport, Ryan Field, Baton Rouge, LA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
findings on the noise compatibility program submitted by the Greater
Baton Rouge Airport District under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. (the
Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act, hereinafter referred to as
``the Act'') and 14 CFR part 150. These findings are made in
recognition of the description of Federal and nonfederal
responsibilities in Senate Report No. 96-52 (1980). On July 30, 2007,
the FAA determined that the noise exposure maps submitted by the
Greater Baton Rouge Airport District under part 150 were in compliance
with applicable requirements. On November 13, 2007, the FAA approved
the Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport, Ryan Field noise compatibility
program. Most of the recommendations of the program were approved. No
program elements relating to new or revised flight procedures for noise
abatement were proposed by the airport operator.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the FAA's approval of the
Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport, Ryan Field noise compatibility
program is November 13, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lance E. Key (ASW 615), 2601 Meacham
Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76137-4298. Documents reflecting this FAA
action may be reviewed at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA has given
its overall approval to the noise compatibility program for Baton Rouge
Metropolitan Airport, Ryan Field, effective November 13, 2007.
    Under section 47504 of the Act, an airport operator who has
previously submitted a noise exposure map may submit to the FAA a noise
compatibility program which sets forth the measures taken or proposed
by the airport operator for the reduction of existing non-compatible
land uses and prevention of additional non-compatible land uses within
the area covered by the noise exposure maps. The Act requires such
programs to be developed in consultation with interested and affected
parties including local communities, government agencies, airport
users, and FAA personnel.
    Each airport noise compatibility program developed in accordance
with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) part 150 is a local program,
not a Federal program. The FAA does not substitute its judgment for
that of the airport proprietor with respect to which measures should be
recommended for action. The FAA's approval or disapproval of FAR part
150 program recommendations is measured according to the standards
expressed in part 150 and the Act and is limited to the following
determinations:
    a. The noise compatibility program was developed in accordance with
the provisions and procedures of FAR part 150;
    b. Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the
goals of reducing existing non-compatible land uses around the airport
and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses;
    c. Program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate
or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes of
aeronautical uses, violate the terms of airport grant agreements, or
intrude into areas preempted by the Federal Government; and
    d. Program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can be
implemented within the period covered by the program without derogating
safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the
navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely
affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator
prescribed by law.
    Specific limitations with respect to FAA's approval of an airport
noise compatibility program are delineated in FAR part 150, section
150.5. Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability of
land uses under Federal, state, or local law. Approval does not by
itself constitute an FAA implementing

action. A request for Federal action or approval to implement specific
noise compatibility measures may be required, and an FAA decision on
the request may require an environmental assessment of the proposed
action. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to
financially assist in the implementation of the program nor a
determination that all measures covered by the program are eligible for
grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. Where federal funding is sought,
requests for project grants must be submitted to the FAA Regional
Office in Fort Worth, Texas.
    The Greater Baton Rouge Airport District submitted to the FAA on
May 14, 2007 the noise exposure maps, descriptions, and other
documentation produced during the noise compatibility planning study
conducted from May 2005 through May 2007. The Baton Route Metropolitan
Airport, Ryan Field noise exposure maps were determined by FAA to be in
compliance with applicable requirements on July 30, 2007. Notice of
this determination was published in the Federal Register on August 7,
2007.
    The Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport, Ryan Field Part 150 study
contains a proposed noise compatibility program comprised of actions
designed for phased implementation by airport management and adjacent
jurisdictions from November 2007 to the year 2011. It was requested
that the FAA evaluate and approve this material as a noise
compatibility program as described in section 47504 of the Act. The FAA
began its review of the program on August 7, 2007, and was required by
a provision of the Act to approve or disapprove the program within 180
days (other than the use of new or modified flight procedures for noise
control). Failure to approve or disapprove such program within the 180-
day period shall be deemed to be an approval of such program.
    The submitted program contained ten proposed actions for noise
mitigation located on and/or off the airport. The FAA completed its
review and determined that the procedural and substantive requirements
of the Act and FAR Part 150 have been satisfied. The overall program,
therefore, was approved by the FAA effective November 13, 2007.
    Outright approval was granted for nine of the specific program
elements. Only one program element, Land Use Element 3a, was
``Disapproved Pending Submittal of Additional Information to the FAA''.
Under this program element, the Airport District asked the FAA to
approve the voluntary land acquisition of one hundred eight (108) acres
of undeveloped land that was zoned to allow incompatible development
within the 2011 65 DNL around Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport, Ryan
Field. The acreage in question amounted to 13 separate parcels in
various locations northwest, northeast, east and southeast of the
airport. In disapproving this program element, the FAA found the land
in question to be zoned commercial or industrial (a compatible use
under Part 150 guidelines), however the involved local zoning districts
all permit a variety of noise-sensitive land uses; to include
libraries, nursing homes, assisted living residences and hospitals
(noncompatible use) within the areas described. In addition, it was
determined that undeveloped, residential-zoned land (noncompatible use)
northwest, northeast, and east of the Airport is inside the 65 DNL. The
FAA therefore determined that supporting documentation would need to be
provided showing that (1) the Airport is in compliance with its Grant
Assurance 31, (2) appropriate existing and proposed new local land use
controls are inadequate to prevent noncompatible development, and (3)
noncompatible development of the parcel(s) is highly likely.
    The nine program elements approved by the FAA included: Five Land
Use Elements that addressed City/Parish compatible use planning around
the airport; the development of an airport noise information program;
the acquisition of seven (7) homes at various locations around the
airport (within the 65 DNL); the offer to sound insulate ninety-two
(92) homes located with the 65 DNL contour; and the offer to purchase
noise servitudes from those owners who do not wish to participate in
the sound insulation program or who's house cannot accommodate the
sound insulation process.
    Four Program Management Elements were approved that established a
system for logging and tracking noise complaints; developing and
maintaining a log for recording engine maintenance run-ups on the
airport; periodically reviewing the Part 150 Study to determine if
changing airport conditions warrant further review; and preparing a
plan to deal with the disposal or development of noise lands acquired
by the airport under previous noise mitigation actions.
    These determinations are set forth in detail in a Record of
Approval signed by the Airports Division Manager on November 13, 2007.
The Record of Approval, as well as other evaluation materials and the
documents comprising the submittal, are available for review at the FAA
office listed above and at the administrative offices of the Baton
Rouge Metropolitan Airport, Ryan Field. The Record of Approval also
will be available on-line at http://www.faa.gov/apr/environmental/14cfr150/index14.cfm
.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, November 21, 2007.
Kelvin L. Solco,
Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 07-5873 Filed 11-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2261-2264]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00661]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76871; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2015-114]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To List and Trade
Shares of the Market Vectors Dynamic Put Write ETF Under NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 8.600

January 11, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On November 16, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to list and trade shares (``Shares'') of the
Market Vectors Dynamic Put Write ETF (the ``Fund'') under NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 8.600. The proposed rule change was published for comment
in the Federal Register on December 4, 2015.\3\ On December 11, 2015,
the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\4\ The
Commission received no

comments on the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on Amendment No. 1 from interested persons,
and is approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No.
1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76530 (Nov. 30,
2015), 80 FR 75883.
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange clarified: (1) That the
Fund may sell or invest in other U.S. exchange-traded put options on
stock indexes, put options on stock index futures contracts, put
options on the Fund (if available), or put options on exchange-
traded pooled investment vehicles (rather than shares of such
vehicles); (2) how the Fund's put options, U.S. Treasuries, and cash
equivalents generally would be valued to calculate the Fund's net
asset value (``NAV''); Amendment No.1 superseded the original filing
in its entirety. Amendment No. 1 is available at: http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2015-114/nysearca2015114-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. The Exchange's Description of the Proposed Rule Change \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commission notes that additional information regarding
the Trust, the Fund, its investments, and the Shares, including
investment strategies, risks, creation and redemption procedures,
fees, portfolios holding disclosure policies, calculation of NAV,
distribution, and taxes, among other things, can be found in
Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, and the Registration Statement, infra
note 6, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares under NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 8.600, which governs the listing and trading of Managed
Fund Shares. The Shares will be offered by Market Vectors ETF Trust
(``Trust''), which is registered with the Commission as an investment
company.\6\ Van Eck Absolute Return Advisers Corporation (``Adviser)
will serve as the investment adviser of the Fund. Van Eck Absolute
Return Advisers will also serve as the administrator for the Fund, and
The Bank of New York Mellon will serve as the custodian for the Fund.
Van Eck Securities Corporation will serve as the distributor of the
Shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange states that the Trust is registered under the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1) (``1940 Act''). On
August 19, 2015, the Trust filed with the Commission a registration
statement on Form N-1A under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C.
77a), and under the 1940 Act relating to the Fund (File Nos. 333-
123257 and 811-10325) (``Registration Statement''). The Exchange
states that the Commission has issued an order granting certain
exemptive relief to the Trust under the 1940 Act. See Investment
Company Act Release No. 29496 (November 3, 2010) (File No. 812-
13605).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Principal Investments

    The Fund's investment objective will be to seek a positive total
return and income. Under normal circumstances,\7\ the Fund will seek to
achieve its investment objective by selling only exchange-listed,
uncovered out-of-the-money put options, which typically expire between
30 and 60 days, on: (i) The S&P 500 Index; (ii) futures on the S&P 500
Index; and (iii) e-mini futures on the S&P 500 Index.\8\ The aggregate
notional value (i.e., the underlying value) of the Fund's put option
contracts (including those described below) will be approximately 200%
of the Fund's net assets.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term ``under normal circumstances'' includes, but is not
limited to, the absence of extreme volatility or trading halts in
the domestic equity markets or the financial markets generally;
operational issues causing dissemination of inaccurate market
information; or force majeure type events such as systems failure,
natural or man-made disaster, act of God, armed conflict, act of
terrorism, riot or labor disruption or any similar intervening
circumstance. For temporary defensive purposes, the Fund may hold
cash and cash equivalents, including U.S. Treasury bills and/or
invest without limit in money market instruments, repurchase
agreements, or other funds which invest exclusively in money market
instruments, as described further below. The Fund may take temporary
defensive positions in anticipation of or in an attempt to respond
to adverse market, economic, political or other conditions.
    \8\ Options on the S&P 500 Index are traded on the Chicago Board
Options Exchange. Options on futures on the S&P 500 Index and
options on e-mini futures on the S&P 500 Index are traded on the
Chicago Mercantile Exchange.
    \9\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Investments

    Cash and cash equivalents, in which the Fund may hold, include U.S.
Treasury Bills, repurchase agreements, money market instruments, or
investment companies and exchange-traded funds (``ETFs'') \10\ that
invest principally in money market instruments. The Fund also may
invest in other U.S. exchange-traded put options on stock indexes, put
options on stock index futures contracts, put options on the Fund (if
available) or put options exchange-traded pooled investment
vehicles,\11\ to the extent such investments are considered suitable
for the Fund by the Adviser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The ETFs in which the Fund may invest will be registered
under the 1940 Act and include Investment Company Units (as
described in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3)); Portfolio
Depositary Receipts (as described in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.100);
and Managed Fund Shares (as described in NYSE Arca Equities Rule
8.600). All ETFs in which the Fund invests will be listed and traded
in the U.S. on registered exchanges.
    \11\ Exchange-traded pooled investment vehicles include Trust
Issued Receipts (as described in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200);
Commodity-Based Trust Shares (as described in NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 8.201); Currency Trust Shares (as described in NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 8.202); Commodity Index Trust Shares (as described in
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.203); and Trust Units (as described in
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.500).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act \12\
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\13\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\
which requires, among other things, that the Exchange's rules be
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. The Commission notes that the Fund and the Shares must comply
with the requirements of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 for the Shares
to be listed and traded on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \13\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission
notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also finds that the proposal to list and trade the
Shares on the Exchange is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of
the Act,\15\ which sets forth Congress's finding that it is in the
public interest and appropriate for the protection of investors and the
maintenance of fair and orderly markets to assure the availability to
brokers, dealers, and investors of information with respect to
quotations for, and transactions in, securities. According to the
Exchange, quotation and last sale information for the Shares, ETFs and
pooled investment vehicles will be available via the Consolidated Tape
Association high-speed line. Quotation and last sale information for
exchange-listed options cleared via the Options Clearing Corporation
will be available via the Options Price Reporting Authority. Intra-day
and closing price information regarding exchange-traded options
(including options on futures) will be available from the exchange on
which these instruments are traded. Intra-day and closing price
information regarding money market instruments, repurchase agreements,
and cash equivalents, including U.S. Treasuries, will be available from
major market data vendors. Price information for non-exchange-traded
investment company securities will be available from major market data
vendors and from the Web site of the applicable investment company. In
addition, the Indicative Per Share Portfolio Value will be disseminated
every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Core Trading Session by major
market data vendors. On each business day, before commencement of
trading in Shares in the Core Trading Session (as defined in NYSE Arca

Equities Rule 7.34(a)(2)), the Fund will disclose on its Web site the
Disclosed Portfolio (as defined in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(c)(2))
that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end
of the business day.\16\ The Fund's NAV per Share will be calculated
daily every day the NYSE is open. A basket composition file, which will
include the security names and share quantities, if applicable,
required to be delivered in exchange for the Shares, together with
estimates and actual cash components, will be publicly disseminated
daily prior to the opening of the Exchange via the National Securities
Clearing Corporation. Information regarding market price and trading
volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis
throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic
services. Information regarding the previous day's closing price and
trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in
the financial section of newspapers. The Web site for the Fund will
include a form of the prospectus for the Fund and additional
quantitative information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(iii).
    \16\ On a daily basis, the Fund will disclose on the Fund's Web
site the following information regarding each portfolio holding, as
applicable to the type of holding: Ticker symbol, CUSIP number or
other identifier, if any; a description of the holding (including
the type of holding, such as the type of option); the identity of
the security, commodity, index or other asset or instrument
underlying the holding, if any; for options, the option strike
price; quantity held (as measured by, for example, par value,
notional value or number of shares, contracts or units); maturity
date, if any; coupon rate, if any; effective date, if any; market
value of the holding; and the percentage weighting of the holding in
the Fund's portfolio. This information will be publicly available at
no charge. See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission further believes that the proposal to list and trade
the Shares is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of
information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately and
to prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be
assured. The Commission notes that the Exchange will obtain a
representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share
will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio
will be made available to all market participants at the same time.\17\
In addition, trading in the Shares will be subject to NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 8.600(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under
which trading in the Shares may be halted. The Exchange may halt
trading in the Shares if the Indicative Per Share Portfolio Value is
not being disseminated as required, if the Exchange becomes aware that
the NAV for the Fund is not being disseminated to all market
participants at the same time, if trading is not occurring in the
securities and/or the financial instruments comprising the Disclosed
Portfolio of the Fund, or if other unusual conditions or circumstances
detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are
present.\18\ Further, the Commission notes that the Reporting Authority
that provides the Disclosed Portfolio of the Fund must implement and
maintain, or be subject to, procedures designed to prevent the use and
dissemination of material, non-public information regarding the actual
components of the portfolio.\19\ The Commission notes that the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA''), on behalf of the
Exchange,\20\ will communicate as needed regarding trading in the
Shares, options contracts and options on futures contracts with other
markets and other entities that are members of the Intermarket
Surveillance Group (``ISG''), and FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, may
obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares, options
contracts, and options on futures contracts from such markets and other
entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding
trading in the Shares, options contracts, and options on futures
contracts from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or
with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance
sharing agreement. The Exchange states that is has a general policy
prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its
employees. According to the Exchange, the Adviser is not a registered
broker-dealer but is affiliated with a broker-dealer whose primary
function is to serve as distributor and placement agent for its
products. The Exchange states that the Adviser has implemented a fire
wall with respect to its broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to
information concerning the composition and/or changes to the portfolio.
In the event (a) the Adviser or any sub-adviser becomes registered as a
broker-dealer or newly affiliated with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new
adviser or sub-adviser is a registered broker-dealer or becomes
affiliated with a broker-dealer, the Exchange states that such Adviser,
new adviser or sub-adviser, as applicable will implement a fire wall
with respect to its relevant personnel or broker-dealer affiliate
regarding access to information concerning the composition of or
changes to the portfolio and will be subject to procedures designed to
prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information
regarding the portfolio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(d)(1)(B).
    \18\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(d)(2)(C) (providing
additional considerations for the suspension of trading in or
removal from listing of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange). With
respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant
factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in
the Shares. Trading in the Shares will be halted if the circuit
breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 have been
reached. Trading also may be halted because of market conditions or
for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the
Shares inadvisable.
    \19\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(d)(2)(B)(ii).
    \20\ The Exchange states that, while FINRA surveils trading on
the Exchange pursuant to a regulatory services agreement, the
Exchange is responsible for FINRA's performance under this
regulatory services agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, which
subjects trading in the Shares to the Exchange's existing rules
governing the trading of equity securities.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of this proposal, the Exchange has made additional
representations, including:
    (1) The Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing
criteria under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions
in the Shares during all trading sessions.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) The Exchange represents that the trading in the Shares will be
subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by the
Exchange or FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to
detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities
laws. The Exchange represents that these procedures are adequate to
properly monitor Exchange trading of the Shares in all trading sessions
and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and federal
securities laws applicable to trading on the Exchange.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform
its Equity Trading Permit (``ETP'') Holders in an Information Bulletin
of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the
Shares. Specifically, the Bulletin will discuss the following: (a) The
procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Unit
(and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (b) NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its ETP
Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior
to trading the Shares; (c)

the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Opening and Late
Trading Sessions when an updated Intraday Indicative Value (``IIV'') or
Index value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (d) how
information regarding the IIV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be
disseminated; (e) the requirement that ETP Holders deliver a prospectus
to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently
with the confirmation of a transaction; and (f) trading
information.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See id. at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) For initial and continued listing, the Fund will be in
compliance with Rule 10A-3 \26\ under the Act, as provided by NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 5.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 240.10A-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (6) A minimum of 100,000 Shares for the Fund will be outstanding at
the commencement of trading on the Exchange.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 15.

This approval order is based on all of the Exchange's representations.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \28\ and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 1

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning whether Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the
Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an Email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2015-114 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2015-114. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of 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-NYSEArca-2015-114 and should
be submitted on or before February 5, 2016.

V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change as Modified by
Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day
after the date of publication of notice in the Federal Register.
Amendment No. 1 supplements the proposed rule change by, among other
things, clarifying the scope of the Fund's permitted investments and
adding additional information about the availability of prices for the
Shares and underlying assets. This clarifying information aided the
Commission in evaluating the likelihood of effective arbitrage in the
Shares. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\29\ to approve the proposed rule change,
as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\30\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2015-114), as
modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and it hereby is, approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-00661 Filed 1-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 46)]
[Notices]
[Page 12405-12406]
[DOCID:fr07mr08-68]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Project No. 2309-017]

Jersey Central Power and Light and PSEG Fossil LLC; Notice of
Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document,
Commencement of Licensing Proceeding, Scoping Meetings, Solicitation of
Comments on the Pad and Scoping Document, and Identification Issues and
Associated Study Requests

February 29, 2008.
    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application for
a New License and Commencing Licensing Proceeding.
    b. Project No.: 2309-017.
    c. Dated Filed: January 11, 2008.
    d. Submitted By: Jersey Central Power and Light and PSEG Fossil
LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Yards Creek Pumped Storage Project.
    f. Location: On Yards Creek, in the townships of Hardwick and
Blairstown, Warren County, New Jersey. No federal lands are involved.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR Part 5 of the Commission's
Regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Anthony Skicki, First Energy
Service Company, Environmental Department, 2800 Pottsville Pike, P.O.
Box 16001 Reading, PA 19612,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Steve Kartalia<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202)
502-6131.
    j. We are asking federal, state, local, and tribal agencies with
jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental
issues to cooperate with us in the preparation of the environmental
document. Agencies who would like to request cooperating status should
follow the instructions for filing comments described in paragraph o
below. Cooperating agencies should note the Commission's policy that
agencies that cooperate in the preparation of the environmental
document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ] 61,076 (2001).
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency
regulations thereunder at 50 CFR Part 402; and (b) the State Historic
Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historical
Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Jersey Central Power and
Light and PSEG Fossil LLC as the Commission's non-federal
representatives for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act.
    m. Jersey Central Power and Light and PSEG Fossil LLC filed a Pre-
Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and
schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the
Commission's regulations. The Commission issued Scoping Document on
February 28, 2008.
    n. A copy of the PAD and the scoping document are available for
review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed
on the Commission's Web site (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. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, of for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in
paragraph h.
    Register online at http://ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm to be notified
via e-mail of new filing and issuances related to this or other pending
projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and the
scoping document, as well as study requests. All comments on the PAD
and the scoping document, and study requests should be sent to the
address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD and
the scoping document, study requests, requests for cooperating agency
status, and all communications to and from Commission staff related to
the merits of the potential application (original and eight copies)
must be filed with the Commission at the following address: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. All filings with the Commission must
include on the first page, Yards Creek Pumped Storage Project) and
number (P-2309-017), and bear the heading ``Comments on Pre-Application
Document,'' ``Study Requests,'' ``Comments on Scoping Document 1,''
``Request for Cooperating Agency Status,'' or ``Communications to and
from Commission Staff.'' Any individual or entity interested in
submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or the scoping
document, and any agency requesting cooperating status must do so by
May 12, 2008.
    Comments on the PAD and the scoping document, study requests,
requests for cooperating agency status, and other permissible forms of
communications with the Commission may be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. See 18 CFR 85.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions
on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-
filing'' link.
    p. Although our current intent is to prepare an environmental
assessment (EA), there is the possibility that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) will be required. Nevertheless, this meeting will
satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of whether an EA or
EIS is issued by the Commission.

Scoping Meetings

    Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings in the vicinity of
the project at the time and place noted below. The daytime meeting will
focus on resource agency, Indian tribes, and non-governmental
organization concerns, while the evening meeting is primarily for
receiving input from the public. We invite all interested

individuals, organizations, and agencies to attend one or both of the
meetings, and to assist staff in identifying particular study needs, as
well as the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the
environmental document. The times and locations of these meetings are
as follows:

Daytime Scoping Meeting

Date: Wednesday April 2, 2008.
Time: 2 p.m.
Location: Blairstown Municipal Building, 106 Route 94, Blairstown, NJ
07825,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Evening Scoping Meeting

Date: Wednesday April 2, 2008.
Time: 7 p.m.
Location: Blairstown Municipal Building, 106 Route 94, Blairstown, NJ
07825,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    The scoping document, which outlines the subject areas to be
addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals
and entities on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of the scoping
document will be available at the scoping meetings, or may be viewed on
the web at http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. Follow the
directions for accessing information in paragraph n. Depending on the
extent of comments received, Scoping Document 2 may or may not be
issued.

Site Visit

    JCPL and PSEG will conduct a site visit of the project at 9 a.m. on
Wednesday, April 2, 2008. All participants should meet at the plant
entrance on Mount Vernon Rd., Blairstown, NJ. All participants are
responsible for their own transportation. Anyone with questions about
the site visit should contact Timothy Oakes at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Scoping Meeting Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Initiate scoping of the
issues; (2) review and discuss existing conditions and resource
management objectives; (3) review and discuss existing information and
identify preliminary information and study needs; (4) review and
discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-filing activity that
incorporates the time frames provided for in Part 5 of the Commission's
regulations and, to the extent possible, maximizes coordination of
federal, state, and tribal permitting and certification processes; and
(5) discuss the appropriateness of any federal or state agency or
Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency for development of an
environmental document.
    Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues
and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping
meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and the scoping
document are included in item n of this document.

Meeting Procedures

    The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will become
part of the formal record of the Commission proceeding on the project.

 Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-4499 Filed 3-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 204)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65229]
[DOCID:fr22oc10-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1050; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASW-40]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment and Establishment of Restricted Areas and Other Special
Use Airspace, Razorback Range Airspace Complex, AR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects a final rule published in the Federal
Register on July 29, 2010; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASW-40, FAA Docket
No. FAA-2009-1050. Subsequent to publishing the final rule, three
geographic coordinates along Arkansas State Highway 10 and three
geographic coordinates along Arkansas State Highway 22 that were used
in defining the boundary for restricted areas R-2402A, R-2402B, and R-
2402C changed in the aeronautical database. This action corrects those
coordinates in the respective airspace descriptions.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, November 18, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace Regulations and
ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On July 29, 2010, a final rule was published in the Federal
Register to establish two restricted areas (R-2402B and R-2402C) and
amend an existing restricted area (renaming R-2402 to R-2402A) in the
Razorback Range Airspace Complex, AR (75 FR 44719). As a result of
further review, the FAA's National Aeronautical Navigation Services
(formerly the National Aeronautical Charting Office) and Memphis air
route traffic control center determined that a minor refinement was
needed for the geographic coordinates used to define where the
restricted area boundaries intersected Arkansas State Highways 10 and
22. The correction adjusts the six geographic coordinates defining the
points where the restricted areas intersect and overlay those highways.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

Correction to Final Rule

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the legal
descriptions for R-2402A, R-2402B, and R-2402C, Fort Chaffee, AR, as
published in the Federal Register on July 29, 2010, (75 FR 44719), FR
Doc. 2010-18665, and incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 73, are
corrected as follows:

Sec.  73.24  [Amended]

0
On page 44720, columns 1 and 2, correct the boundaries descriptions for
R-2402A, R-2402B, and R-2402C, Fort Chaffee, AR, to read as follows:
* * * * *

R-2402A Fort Chaffee, AR [Corrected]

    By removing the boundaries description and substituting:
    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 35[deg]17'49'' N., long.
94[deg]03'01'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]17'00'' N., long. 94[deg]03'01''
W.; to lat. 35[deg]17'00'' N., long. 94[deg]01'01'' W.; to lat.
35[deg]10'05'' N., long. 94[deg]01'01'' W.; thence west along
Arkansas State Highway No. 10 to lat. 35[deg]11'35'' N., long.
94[deg]12'01'' W. to lat. 35[deg]13'50'' N., long. 94[deg]12'01''
W.; to lat. 35[deg]18'10'' N., long. 94[deg]12'01'' W.; to lat.
35[deg]18'10'' N., long. 94[deg]09'54'' W.; thence east along
Arkansas State Highway No. 22 to the point of beginning.
* * * * *

R-2402B Fort Chaffee, AR [Corrected]

    By removing the boundaries description and substituting:
    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 35[deg]18'22'' N., long.
93[deg]55'38'' W.; thence clockwise along a 7-NM radius circle
centered at lat. 35[deg]15'26'' N., long. 94[deg]03'24'' W.; to lat.
35[deg]10'42'' N., long. 94[deg]09'43'' W.; thence east along
Arkansas State Highway 10 to lat. 35[deg]10'05'' N., long.
94[deg]01'01'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]17'00'' N., long. 94[deg]01'01''
W.; to lat. 35[deg]17'00'' N., long. 94[deg]03'01'' W.; to lat.
35[deg]17'49'' N., long. 94[deg]03'01'' W.; thence east along
Arkansas State Highway 22 to the point of beginning.
* * * * *

R-2402C Fort Chaffee, AR [Corrected]

    By removing the boundaries description and substituting:
    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 35[deg]21'48'' N., long.
94[deg]06'59'' W.; thence clockwise along a 7-NM radius circle
centered lat lat. 35[deg]15'26'' N., long. 94[deg]03'24'' W.; to
lat. 35[deg]18'22'' N., long. 93[deg]55'38'' W.; thence west along
Arkansas State Highway 22 to lat. 35[deg]18'10'' N., long.
94[deg]09'54'' W.; to the point of beginning.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 14, 2010.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace Regulations and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2010-26568 Filed 10-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P