EPRI Species List with Life History Information for Equivalent Adult and Production Foregone Analysis

Marine species
   1. American shad
   2. Blueback herring
   3. Bay Anchovy
   4. Atlantic menhaden
   5. Gulf menhaden
   6. Atlantic silverside
   7. Striped bass
   8. White perch
   9. Atlantic croaker
   10. Spot
   11. Weakfish
   12. Red drum
   13. Winter flounder
   14. White croaker
   15. Blue crab
   16. White, pink, and brown shrimp
   17. Pacific sardine
   18. Cunner
   19. Tautog
   20.  Naked goby
   21. Hogchoker
   22. Three-spine stickleback
   23. Alewife
   24. Cutlassfish
   25. Mojarra
   26. Silver perch
   27. Silver hake

Top entrained marine species per EPRI I&E Survey (not ranked; excludes Hawaii and Puerto Rico)
   1. Gobies
   2. Northern anchovy
   3. Cunner
   4. Bay anchovy
   5. Atlantic menhaden
   6. Tautog
   7. White perch
   8. White, brown and pink shrimp

Top impinged marine species per EPRI I&E Survey (not ranked; excludes Hawaii and Puerto Rico)
   1. Queenfish
   2. Northern anchovy
   3. Red rock shrimp
   4. Round stingray
   5. Topsmelt
   6. Atlantic menhaden
   7. Atlantic silverside
   8. Winter flounder
   9. Blue crab
   10. Atlantic croaker
   11. White, brown and pink shrimp
   12. Hogchoker

Freshwater species
   1. Great Lakes alewife
   2. Channel catfish
   3. Freshwater drum
   4. White bass
   5. Gizzard shad
   6. Threadfin shad
   7. Emerald shiner
   8. Rainbow smelt
   9. Yellow perch
   10. Black crappie
   11. Round goby
   12. Smallmouth bass
   13. Bluegill
   14. Shovelnose sturgeon
   15. Bigmouth buffalo
   16. Shorthead redhorse
   17. Brown bullhead
   18. Slimy sculpin
   19. Burbot
   20. Lake whitefish
   21. logperch
   22. Walleye
   23. Great Lakes white perch

Top entrained freshwater species per EPRI I&E Survey (not ranked):
   1. Alewife
   2. Gizzard shad
   3. Cyprinids
   4. Round goby
   5. Yellow perch
   6. Brook silverside
   7. Catostomids (suckers)
   8. Lepomis species (bluegill)

Top impinged freshwater species per EPRI I&E Survey (not ranked):
   1. Gizzard shad
   2. Threadfin shad
   3. Alewife
   4. Bluegill
   5. Channel catfish
   6. Emerald shiner
   7. Yellow perch
   8. Threespine stickleback
   9. White crappie
   10. Largemouth bass
   11. Freshwater drum
   12. Inland silverside


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 25 (Monday, February 8, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6447-6448]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02285]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-7483; Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-23]

Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Michigan Towns:
Alpena, MI; and Muskegon, MI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the legal description of the Class E
surface area airspace and Class E airspace designated as an extension
at Alpena County Regional Airport, Alpena, MI, and Muskegon County
Airport, Muskegon, MI, eliminating the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part-
time status, and updates the geographic coordinates of Muskegon County
Airport, to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, March 31, 2016. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 29591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace at Alpena County Regional Airport,
Alpena, MI, and Muskegon County Airport, Muskegon, MI.

History

    In a review of the airspace, the FAA found the airspace for Alpena
County Regional Airport, Alpena, MI, and Muskegon County Airport,
Muskegon, MI, as published in FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, does not require part time status. This is an
administrative change removing the part time NOTAM information from the
legal descriptions for the above airports.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and
6004, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and
effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this
document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B,
C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting
points.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by eliminating the NOTAM information that reads, ``This Class E
airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established
in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will
thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility
Directory.'' from the regulatory text of the Class E surface area
airspace and Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D, at
Alpena County Regional Airport, Alpena, MI, and Muskegon County
Airport, Muskegon, MI. Additionally, the geographic coordinates of the
Muskegon County Airport are being updated to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database.
    This is an administrative change amending the description for the
above Michigan airports to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical
database, and does not affect the boundaries, or operating requirements
of the airspace; therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C.
553(b) are unnecessary.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015,
effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

AGL MI E2 Alpena, MI (Amended)

Alpena County Regional Airport
    (Lat. 45[deg]04'41'' N., long. 83[deg]33'37'' W.)
Alpena VORTAC
    (Lat. 45[deg]04'58'' N., long. 83[deg]33'25'' W.)

    Within a 4.4-mile radius of the Alpena County Regional Airport,
and within 2.5 miles each side of the Alpena VORTAC 350[deg] radial,
extending from the 4.4-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles north
of the VORTAC, and within 2.5 miles each side of the Alpena VORTAC
187[deg] radial, extending from the 4.4-mile radius of the airport
to 7 miles south of the VORTAC.

AGL MI E2 Muskegon, MI (Amended)

Muskegon County Airport, MI
    (Lat. 43[deg]10'04'' N., long. 086[deg]14'08'' W.)

    Within a 4.2-mile radius of the Muskegon County Airport and
within 1.3 miles each side of the Muskegon VORTAC 271[deg] radial
extending from the VORTAC to the 4.2-mile radius of Muskegon County
Airport.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to
a Class D or Class E Surface Area.

* * * * *

AGL MI E4 Alpena, MI (Amended)

Alpena County Regional Airport, MI
    (Lat. 45[deg]04'41'' N., long. 83[deg]33'37'' W.)
Alpena VORTAC
    (Lat. 45[deg]04'58'' N., long. 83[deg]33'25'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.5 miles
each side of the Alpena VORTAC 350[deg] radial, extending from the
4.4-mile radius of Alpena County Regional Airport to 7 miles north
of the VORTAC, and within 2.5 miles each side of the Alpena VORTAC
187[deg] radial, extending from the 4.4-mile radius of the airport
to 7 miles south of the VORTAC.

AGL MI E4 Muskegon, MI (Amended)

Muskegon County Airport, MI
    (Lat. 43[deg]10'04'' N., long. 086[deg]14'08'' W.)
Muskegon VORTAC
    (Lat. 43[deg]10'09'' N., long. 086[deg]02'22'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.3 miles
each side of the Muskegon VORTAC 271[deg] radial extending from the
VORTAC to the 4.2-mile radius of the Muskegon County Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 27, 2016.
Robert W. Beck,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-02285 Filed 2-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 173 (Friday, September 6, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54794-54795]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20095]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0315; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-006-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; GROB-WERKE Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: This document withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
that would have applied to GROB-WERKE GMBH & CO KG Model G 115E
airplanes. The proposed airworthiness directive (AD) would have
required a one-time inspection to verify correct cable routing behind
the LH cockpit instrument panel and, depending on findings, correction
and replacement of damaged parts. Since issuance of the NPRM, the FAA
has re-evaluated this airworthiness concern and determined that the
airplanes affected are not type certificated in the United States. This
withdrawal does not prevent the FAA from initiating future rulemaking
on this subject.

DATES: As of September 6, 2013, the proposed rule published April 9,
2013 (78 FR 21082), is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Taylor Martin, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 9, 2013 (78 FR
21082). The NPRM proposed to require you to do a one-time inspection to
verify correct cable routing behind the LH cockpit instrument panel
and, depending on findings, correction and replacement of damaged
parts.
    Because of the comments received on the NPRM (78 FR 21082, April 9,
2013) that pointed out the Model G 115E airplane is not type
certificated in the United States, the FAA re-evaluated the
airworthiness concern and determined that the airplanes affected are
not certificated in the United States and concluded that:
     An unsafe condition warranting AD action does not exist;
and
     the associated level of risk does not warrant AD action.
    Withdrawal of this NPRM (78 FR 21082, April 9, 2013) constitutes
only such action and does not preclude the agency from issuing future
rulemaking on this issue, nor does it commit the agency to any course
of action in the future.

Regulatory Findings

    Since this action only withdraws an NPRM, it is neither a proposed
nor a final rule and therefore, is not covered under Executive Order
12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Withdrawal

    Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), FAA-2013-
0315, published in the Federal Register on April 9, 2013 (78 FR 21082),
is withdrawn.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 13, 2013.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-20095 Filed 9-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 9, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54035-54037]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21701]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2019-0339; FRL-10000-76-Region 7]

Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Revocation of Kansas City Area
Transportation Conformity Requirements Plans

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
the State of Missouri. This final action will amend the SIP to remove
the transportation conformity rule for the Kansas City Area--Clay,
Platte and Jackson Counties.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 8, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2019-0339. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jed D. Wolkins, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
III. The EPA's response to comments
IV. What action is the EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by reference
VI. Statutory and executive order reviews

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    The EPA is approving the removal of 10 CSR 10-2.390 Kansas City
Area Transportation Conformity Requirements from the Missouri State
Implementation Plan (SIP). Missouri submitted the SIP revision on
January 14, 2019. Pursuant to the code of Federal regulations at 40 CFR
93.102 (b) transportation conformity must be conducted in all
nonattainment and maintenance areas and States must adopt State Plans
to conduct transportation conformity. The Kansas City Area--Clay,
Jackson, and Platte Counties--was designated nonattainment for the 1979
one-hour (1-hr) ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) (43
FR 8962, March 3, 1978). On July 23, 1992, the Kansas City Area was
redesignated as attainment of the 1979 1-hr NAAQS and its first 10-year
maintenance plan was approved (57 FR 27939, June 23, 1992). Pursuant to
CAA section 175A, the first 10-year maintenance period began on July
23, 1992, the effective date of the redesignation approval. The second
maintenance period plan was effective February 12, 2004 (69 FR 1921,
January 13, 2004). On April 30, 2004, EPA revoked the 1-hr standard (69
FR 23951, April 30, 2004). Upon the effective date of the revocation,
both the second 10-year maintenance period and the requirement for
transportation conformity in the Kansas City Area ended. Pursuant to 40
CFR 51.905(e)(3), because the Kansas City Area is in attainment for all
NAAQS, the Kansas City Area Transportation Conformity Requirements are
no longer required. If in the future, the Kansas City Area was
determined to be nonattainment with a standard requiring conformity,
the State would have to develop new transportation conformity
requirements. Furthermore, the Kansas City Area Transportation
Conformity Requirements are not relied on in any other maintenance or
attainment plan. The proposed rule did not include this detail of the
history of the 1-hr standard however, we have included it here for
completeness. This additional history supports EPA's final action.

II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The
submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V. The state provided public notice from May 15, 2018 to
August 2, 2018 and received no comments on this rule. In addition, the
revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including
section 110 and implementing regulations.

III. The EPA's Response to Comments

    The public comment period on the EPA's proposed rule opened July 9,
2019, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and closed
on August 8, 2019. During this period, the EPA received two comments.
One comment was in support of the action and the other was adverse. The
EPA is providing response to the adverse comment. Both comments can be
found in the docket to this rulemaking.
    Comment 1: One commenter supported the action.
    Response 1: Because this comment is in support of the action, no
response is necessary.
    Comment 2: One commenter suggested EPA review a variety of Missouri
State Implementation Plans for reliance on the Kansas City Area
Transportation Conformity Requirements.
    Response 2: We believe the commenter's reference to ``50 CFR
52.1320'' is a typographical error and should instead reference 40 CFR
part 52. EPA has reviewed the Missouri plans listed in the comment.
Only two of those plans relied on the Kansas City Area transportation
conformity requirements. The plans are listed at 40 CFR 52.1320(e)(46)
Maintenance Plan for the 1-hour ozone standard in the Missouri portion
of the Kansas City maintenance area for the second ten-year period; and
40 CFR 52.1320(e)(50) Revision to Maintenance Plan for the 1-hour ozone
standard in the Missouri portion of the Kansas City maintenance area
for the second ten-year period. Both regulatory citations relate to the
Maintenance Plan for the 1-hr ozone standard in the Missouri portion of
the Kansas City maintenance area for the second ten-year period, and
that period has ended. (69 FR 1921, January 13, 2004, and 71 FR 36210,
June 26, 2006). The Kansas City Area transportation conformity
requirements are not relied on in any other maintenance or attainment
plan. As discussed above and in the proposed action for this
rulemaking, Kansas City Area transportation conformity requirements are
no longer required because the Kansas City Area is in attainment for
all NAAQS.

IV. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is taking final action to amend the Missouri SIP to remove
the transportation conformity rule for the Kansas City Area.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is amending regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. As described in the amendments to 40 CFR
part 52 set forth below, the EPA is removing provisions of the EPA-
Approved Missouri Regulations from the Missouri State Implementation
Plan, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with the
requirements of 1 CFR part 51.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly,
this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 9, 2019. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 30, 2019.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

Sec.  52.1320  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by removing
the entry for ``10-2.390'' under the heading ``Chapter 2--Air Quality
Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the Kansas City
Metropolitan Area''.

[FR Doc. 2019-21701 Filed 10-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20448-20453]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09506]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85772; File No. SR-NYSE-2019-22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No.
1, To Amend Rule 7.31 To Add a New Order Type, Capital Commitment
Order, and Make Related Changes to Rules 7.16, 7.34, 7.36, and 7.37

May 3, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on April 18, 2019, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. On May 1, 2019, the Exchange filed Amendment
No. 1 to the proposal. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment
No. 1, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31 (Orders and Modifiers) to
add a new order type, Capital Commitment Order, and make related
changes to Rules 7.16, 7.34, 7.36, and 7.37. The

Exchange proposes to further amend Rule 7.31 to specify that Market
Orders and the Last Sale Peg Modifier are not available to Designated
Market Makers. This Amendment No. 1 supersedes the original filing in
its entirety. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31 (Orders and Modifiers) to
add a new order type, Capital Commitment Order, and make related
changes to Rules 7.16, 7.34, 7.36, and 7.37. The Exchange proposes to
further amend Rule 7.31 to specify that Market Orders and the Last Sale
Peg Modifier would not be available to Designated Market Makers
(``DMMs''). This Amendment No. 1 supersedes the original filing in its
entirety.
    Currently, the Exchange trades UTP Securities on its Pillar trading
platform, subject to Pillar Platform Rules 1P-13P.\4\ In the next phase
of Pillar, the Exchange proposes to transition trading of Exchange-
listed securities to the Pillar trading platform, which means that DMMs
would be trading on Pillar in their assigned securities.\5\ Once
transitioned to Pillar, such securities will also be subject to the
Pillar Platform Rules 1P-13P. The Exchange has separately filed a
proposed rule change to support the transition of Exchange-listed
securities to the Pillar Trading Platform, including adding the DMM as
a Participant under the Pillar Platform Rules.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``UTP Security'' is defined as a security that is listed on
a national securities exchange other than the Exchange and that
trades on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading privileges. See
Rule 1.1.
    \5\ The Exchange has announced that, subject to rule approvals,
the Exchange will begin transitioning Exchange-listed securities to
Pillar on August 5, 2019, available here: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/Revised_Pillar_Migration_Timeline.pdf.
The Exchange will publish by separate Trader Update a complete
symbol migration schedule.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85176 (February 22,
2019), 84 FR 6868 (February 28, 2019) (Notice of Filing) (SR-NYSE-
2019-05) (``NYSE Tape A Pillar Filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes an additional
order type that would be available to DMMs when Exchange-listed
securities transition to Pillar.
Proposed Capital Commitment Order
    The proposed new order type, Capital Commitment Order, or ``CCO,''
is based in part on the current Capital Commitment Schedule \7\
(``CCS''), which is currently available only to DMMs trading in
Exchange-listed securities. The Exchange proposes to make related
changes to Rules 7.16 (Short Sales), 7.34 (Trading Sessions), 7.36
(Order Ranking and Display), and 7.37 (Order Execution and Routing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Rule 1000(d)-(g). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release Nos. 75578 (July 31, 2015), 80 FR 47008 (August 6, 2015)
(SR-NYSE-2015-26) (Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change
Making Permanent the Rules of the NYSE New Market Model Pilot and
the NYSE Supplemental Liquidity Providers Pilot) (``Approval
Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed CCO would be available to DMMs when the Exchange
transitions Exchange-listed securities to Pillar. Like CCS interest,
the CCO would enable DMMs to provide additional, non-displayed
liquidity at specific price points in their assigned securities on
Pillar.
    The operation of the existing CCS is set forth in Rules 1000(d)-
1000(g). Under Rule 1000(d), a DMM may, for each security in which it
is registered, place within Exchange systems a pool of non-displayed
liquidity--the CCS--to be available to fill or partially fill incoming
orders in automatic executions.\8\ Rule 1000(d) also provides that CCS
interest is used to trade at the Exchange BBO, at prices better than
the Exchange BBO, and at prices outside the Exchange BBO. CCS interest
must be for a minimum of one round lot of a security and entered at
price points that are at, inside, or away from the Exchange BBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ CCS interest supplements displayed and non-displayed
interest of the DMM in Exchange systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 1000(e) governs executions at and outside the Exchange BBO and
specifies how CCS interest would interact with such executions. Rule
1000(e)(iii) specifies how CCS would trade with an incoming order that
sweeps multiple price points outside the Exchange BBO, and
specifically, how CCS trades at a single price point to provide price
improvement for completing the incoming order. Rule 1000(f) specifies
how CCS interest may provide price improvement inside the Exchange BBO
with interest arriving in the Exchange market. Under Rule 1000(g), CCS
interest may trade with non-marketable \9\ interest if the non-
marketable interest betters the Exchange BBO (or cancels in the case of
an arriving IOC order) and if the incoming interest may be executed in
full by all available trading interest on the Exchange, including CCS
interest and d-quotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Under Rule 1000(g)(1), ``non-marketable'' means trading
interest (i.e., displayable and non-displayable) that is at a price
higher than the current Exchange bid (but below the current Exchange
offer) or lower than the current Exchange offer (but above the
current Exchange bid), including better bids and offers on other
market centers. See NYSE Rule 1000(g)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Pillar, the Exchange proposes to offer DMMs functionality
similar to the CCS in the form of CCOs. However, the Exchange proposes
to simplify and streamline CCO functionality on Pillar as compared to
how the CCS functions. Among other things, unlike CCS, the proposed CCO
would be an order type that includes a limit price, rather than a
schedule of non-displayed liquidity, and would be eligible to execute
only at its limit price on an order-by-order basis. Multiple CCOs
would, therefore, not be aggregated at the same price or multiple
prices like CCS interest is today pursuant to Rules 1000(f) and (g).
While the purpose of the CCO is the same as CCS--a tool for DMMs to
provide additional, non-displayed liquidity in their assigned
securities--the operation of CCOs would be based in part on how
Tracking Orders function on the Exchange's affiliated exchanges that
currently operate on Pillar, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') and NYSE
National, Inc. (``NYSE National'').\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(d)(4) and NYSE National Rule
7.31(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed CCO would be described under paragraph (d)(5) of Rule
7.31 for Exchange-listed securities trading on Pillar. Proposed Rule
7.31(d)(5) would set forth the general requirements for CCOs and would
provide that a CCO is a Limit Order that is not displayed, does not
route, must be entered in a minimum of one round lot, and must be
designated Day. This proposed rule text is based in part on how the CCS
currently functions, but unlike CCS, the proposed CCO would be a Limit
Order rather than a schedule of

non-displayed liquidity. This proposed rule text uses Pillar
terminology and is also based in part on the first half of the first
sentence of NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(d)(4) and NYSE National Rule
7.31(d)(4) relating to Tracking Orders.
    Proposed Rule 7.31(d)(5) would also provide that a CCO would be
ranked Priority 5--CCOs. The Exchange would make a related amendment to
Rule 7.36(e) to add this additional priority category. Proposed Rule
7.36(e)(5) would provide that Priority 5--CCOs would have fifth
priority after Priority 4--Yielding Orders.\11\ The Exchange believes
that this proposed priority category is consistent with current CCS
functionality \12\ because CCOs would be ranked behind all other
displayed and non-displayed orders. This proposed rule change is also
based in part on how Tracking Orders function on NYSE Arca and NYSE
National, as Tracking Orders similarly have a priority ranking behind
all other displayed and non-displayed orders at a price.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Pursuant to Section 11(a)(1)(G) of the Act and Rule 11a1-
1(T)(a) thereunder, an order for the account of a member (i.e., a
Yielding Order), does not need to yield priority, parity, or
precedence in execution to orders for the account of another member.
15 U.S.C. 78k(a)(1)(G) and 17 CFR 240.11a1-1(T)(a). Consistent with
these requirements, under current rules, G Orders do not always
yield to DMM interest. See, e.g., Rule 115A(a)(1)(D) (at the same
price, G Orders do not yield to DMM interest in the opening
transaction).
    \12\ See Rule 1000(e)(ii)(B) and (e)(iii)(A)(2) (providing that
CCS interest yields to all displayed and non-displayed interest when
trading at the BBO or outside the BBO).
    \13\ See NYSE Arca Rule 7.36-E(e)(4) and NYSE National Rule
7.36(e)(4) (Tracking Orders have fourth priority behind all other
orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7.31(d)(5) would further provide that CCOs would be
available only to DMMs in their assigned securities, eligible to be
traded in the Core Trading Session \14\ only, and not eligible to
participate in any Auctions. This proposed rule text is based on
current rules that the CCS is available only to DMMs. The requirement
that CCOs would be eligible to trade in the Core Trading Session only
is consistent with current CCS functionality for Exchange-listed
securities, which trade during regular trading hours only,\15\ and
proposed functionality that Exchange-listed securities would not be
eligible to participate in the Early Trading Session on Pillar.\16\ The
Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 7.34(c)(1)(A) (Trading Sessions)
to specify that CCOs are not eligible to participate in the Early
Trading Session and that CCOs entered during the Early Trading Session
would be rejected. The proposal that CCOs would not be eligible to
participate in any Auctions is also consistent with current CCS
functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Core Trading Session begins at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time
and ends at the conclusion of Core Trading Hours. See Rule
7.34(a)(2). The term ``Core Trading Hours'' means ``the hours of
9:30 a.m. Eastern Time through 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time or such other
hours as may be determined by the Exchange from time to time.'' See
Rule 1.1(d).
    \15\ See Rule 51(a).
    \16\ See NYSE Tape A Pillar Filing, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7.31(d)(5)(A) would describe how CCOs function on
arrival and would provide that a CCO to buy (sell) does not trade on
arrival and is triggered to trade by an Aggressing Order \17\ to sell
(buy) that (i) has exhausted all other interest eligible to trade at
the Exchange at the CCO's working price, and (ii) has a remaining
quantity equal to or less than the size of a resting CCO (i.e.,
completely fills an Aggressing Order). This proposed rule text is based
in part on how Tracking Orders function, as described in NYSE Arca Rule
7.31-E(d)(4)(A) and NYSE National Rule 7.31(d)(4)(A). This proposed
functionality is also similar to how CCS operates, as it is a schedule
of resting non-displayed liquidity, and does not trade with resting
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ An Aggressing Order is a buy (sell) order that is or
becomes marketable against sell (buy) interest on the Exchange Book.
See Rule 7.36(a)(6). A resting order may become an Aggressing Order
if its working price changes, if the PBBO or NBBO is updated,
because of changes to other orders on the Exchange Book, or when
processing inbound messages. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7.31(d)(5)(A)(1) would provide that a CCO to buy
(sell) may be designated to trade with an Aggressing Order to sell
(buy) that has a remaining quantity greater than the size of the
resting CCO (i.e., partially fills an Aggressing Order). This is
similar to the operation of CCS interest, which the DMM can similarly
designate for partial execution.\18\ The Exchange believes that this
optional functionality should continue to be available to DMMs as it
would increase execution opportunities for incoming orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Rule 1000(e)(iii)(A)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7.31(d)(5)(A)(2) would provide that an arriving CCO
to buy (sell) with a limit price in the discretionary price range, as
defined in paragraph (d)(4)(C)(i) of Rule 7.31, can trigger a resting D
Order to sell (buy) to exercise discretion. This would be new
functionality that would provide an execution opportunity for a resting
D Order. Specifically, pursuant to Rule 7.31(d)(4)(C)(i), a D Order to
buy (sell) would be triggered to exercise discretion if the price of an
Aggressing Order to sell (buy) is above (below) the PBB (PBO) and at or
below (above) the Midpoint Price (defined as the ``discretionary price
range'').
    Even though a CCO is not, by its terms, an Aggressing Order, the
Exchange believes that a CCO should be eligible to provide liquidity if
its limit price is in the discretionary price range of a resting D
Order. A CCO that would trigger a resting D Order to exercise
discretion will not receive execution priority over any resting orders
that are on the same side as the CCO and are eligible to trade with the
D Order because any such orders would have already traded with the D
Order. Specifically, pursuant to Rule 7.31(d)(4)(C)(1), a D Order to
buy (sell) will be triggered to exercise discretion if the price of an
Aggressing Order to sell (buy) is above (below) the PBB (PBO) and at or
below (above) the Midpoint Price, which is defined as the discretionary
price range. This includes resting contra-side orders that become an
Aggressing Order, e.g., an MPL that receives a new working price
because of an update to the PBBO, because if such orders are within the
discretionary price range of a D Order, the D Order would be triggered
to exercise discretion by such Aggressing Order. Accordingly, if a CCO
order arrives and is within the discretionary price range of a D Order,
any other same-side resting orders eligible to trade with such D Order
would have already executed. Because a CCO does not meet the terms of
an Aggressing Order and therefore would not be addressed by Rule
7.31(d)(4)(C)(i), the Exchange proposes to specify this behavior
separately in proposed Rule 7.31(d)(5)(A)(2). This would be new
functionality on Pillar that the Exchange believes is consistent with
the purpose of a CCO, which is to provide additional liquidity that
would not trade ahead of other orders eligible to trade at that price.
    Proposed Rule 7.31(d)(5)(B) would provide that the working price of
the CCO would be equal its limit price and sets forth when a COO would
not be eligible to trade. Proposed Rule 7.31(d)(5)(B)(1) would provide
that a buy (sell) CCO would not be eligible to trade if its limit price
is equal to or higher (lower) than the PBO (PBB), NBO (NBB), Upper
(Lower) Price Band, or the working price of any resting sell (buy)
order on the Exchange Book. Proposed Rule 7.31(d)(5)(B)(2) would
provide that a CCO would also not be eligible to trade when the PBBO or
NBBO is locked or crossed. The Exchange believes that by making a CCO
ineligible to trade in the above-described circumstances, the Exchange
would reduce the potential to trade through the PBBO or BBO. This would
be new functionality on Pillar and is not based on how CCS currently

function. This proposed rule change is based in part on how Tracking
Orders function, which are not eligible to trade when the PBBO is
locked or crossed.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(d)(4) and NYSE National Rule
7.31(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7.31(d)(5)(C) would describe how CCOs would function
when resting on the Exchange Book and would provide that multiple CCOs
with the same limit price would be ranked by time. Proposed Rule
7.31(d)(5)(C)(1) would provide that at the same price, a CCO with a
later working time would trade ahead of a CCO with an earlier working
time that is not designated as eligible for a partial execution and
cannot execute in full against the Aggressing Order. In such case, the
CCO with a later working time would execute first because the CCO with
the earlier working time chose to forego a partial execution in favor
of executing against another incoming order that is large enough to
execute against its total quantity. This would be new functionality on
Pillar and is not based on how CCS currently function. This proposed
rule text is based in part on how Tracking Orders function, as
described in the second sentence of NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(d)(4)(B) and
NYSE National Rule 7.31(d)(4)(B).
    Proposed Rule 7.31(d)(5)(C)(2) would describe how an Aggressing
Order to buy (sell) with a Minimum Trade Size (``MTS'') Modifier \20\
would interact with a resting CCO. Rule 7.31(i)(3)(F) generally
provides that if a sell (buy) order does not meet the MTS, the order
with an MTS Modifier will not trade and will be ranked in the Exchange
Book. Proposed Rule 7.31(d)(5)(C)(2) would provide that an Aggressing
Order to buy (sell) with an MTS Modifier would ignore a resting CCO to
sell (buy) if the CCO does not meet the order's MTS. This would be new
functionality and is consistent with the operation of CCOs, which is to
allow the DMM to provide additional, supplemental liquidity of last
resort that is ranked behind all other displayed and non-displayed
orders. If a CCO does not meet the MTS of the Aggressing Order, the
order with an MTS would ignore the CCO and seek to execute against the
next available order resting on the Exchange Book, which may be at
another price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ In sum, an order with an MTS Modifier would only trade with
contra-side orders that, either individually or in the aggregate,
satisfy the order's minimum trade size condition. See Rule
7.31(i)(3) for a full description of the MTS Modifier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7.31(d)(5)(D) would provide that a CCO may be
designated with a Self Trade Prevention (``STP'') Modifier and would be
rejected if combined with any other modifiers. This proposed
functionality is new, as CCS interest cannot currently be designated
with an STP Modifier.\21\ The Exchange believes that making STP
Modifiers available for CCOs would provide DMMs with more tools to
reduce the potential for two orders to interact if they are from the
same entity. By specifying that CCOs cannot be combined with other
modifiers, the rule provides transparency that a CCO cannot be combined
with other modifiers defined in Rule 7.31(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Rule 13(f)(3)(B) (stating that the STP modifier is not
available for d-Quotes or DMM interest).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 7.16 establishes requirements relating to short sale orders.
Rule 7.16(f)(5) sets forth how short sale orders are processed during a
Short Sale Period, which is defined in Rule 7.16(f)(4). Proposed new
Rule 7.16(f)(5)(E) would provide that, during a Short Sale Period, the
working price of CCOs would not be adjusted and that CCOs would not
trade at or below the NBB. This proposed text is based on how Tracking
Orders function during a Short Sale Period, as described in NYSE Arca
Rule 7.16-E(f)(5)(E) and NYSE National Rule 7.16(f)(5)(E), which both
provide that, during a Short Sale Period, the working price of Tracking
Orders will not be adjusted and that Tracking Orders will not be
eligible to trade at or below the NBB.
    Rule 7.37(b) describes how an Aggressing Order is allocated among
contra-side orders at each price. The Exchange maintains separate
allocation wheels on each side of the market for displayed and non-
displayed orders at each price. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule
7.37(b) to set forth how CCOs would participate in the allocation
process.
    Consistent with the proposed amendment to Rule 7.36(e), described
above, to add a new Priority category for CCOs, the Exchange proposes
to amend Rule 7.37(b)(1) to add that CCOs would be allocated after all
other interest at that price.\22\ Multiple CCOs at that price would be
allocated on time. To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to
amend Rule 7.37(b)(1) to add new sub-paragraph (I) to provide that
next, CCOs ranked Priority 5--CCOs would be allocated based on time.
This proposed functionality is based in part on how CCS functions, as
CCS interest yields to all other interest when trading at the Exchange
BBO or at prices outside the BBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Rule 7.37(b)(1) sets forth the following allocation
sequence: (1) Market Orders trade first based on time; (2) orders
with Setter Priority as described in Exchange Rule 7.36(h) receive
an allocation; (3) orders ranked Priority 2--Displayed Orders are
allocated on parity by Participant; (4) orders ranked Priority 3--
Non-Display Orders, other than Mid-Point Liquidity (``MPL'') Orders
with an MTS Modifier, are allocated on parity by Participant; (5)
MPL Orders with an MTS Modifier are allocated based on MTS size
(smallest to largest) and time; (6) D Orders trading at a
discretionary price will be allocated on parity by Floor Broker
Participant; (7) the display quantity of orders ranked Priority 4--
Yielding Orders will be allocated based on time; and then (8) the
non-display quantity of orders ranked Priority 4--Yielding Orders
will allocated based on time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Orders Not Available to Designated Market Makers
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(a)(1), which describes
Market Orders, and Rule 7.31(i)(4), which describes the Last Sale Peg
Modifier, to specify that neither of these order types would be
available to DMMs when the Exchange transitions Exchange-listed
securities to Pillar. These proposed changes are based on Rule
104(b)(vi), which states that DMMs may not enter Market Orders or Buy
Minus Zero Plus instruction \23\ in Exchange-listed securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The Last Sale Peg Modifier is based on the Buy Minus Zero
Plus instruction. See Rule 13(f)(4). See also Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 85158 (February 15, 2019), 84 FR 5794 (February 22,
2019) (SR-NYSE-2018-52) (Approval Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    Subject to approval of this proposed rule change, the Exchange
proposes to implement this proposed rule change when the Exchange
transitions NYSE-listed securities to the Pillar trading platform,
which is anticipated to begin in the third quarter of 2019.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\25\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\26\ in particular, because it is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of,
a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest and because it is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

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

Proposed Capital Commitment Order
    The Exchange believes that the proposed CCO would remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market
and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest because it would provide DMMs with functionality
currently available on the Exchange when Exchange-listed securities
transition to Pillar. The proposed CCO would therefore promote
continuity for the DMMs in the tools they have available to meet their
affirmative obligation to maintain depth and continuity. The proposed
rule change is based on existing functionality with differences in rule
text to reflect Pillar terminology and to streamline and simplify the
operation of CCOs as compared to CCS interest.
    The proposed CCO is based in part on current CCS functionality,
including that it would only be available to DMMs in their assigned
securities and would be non-displayed liquidity of last resort at a
price. Like CCS interest, the CCO would enable DMMs to provide
additional liquidity at specific price points in their assigned
securities when NYSE-listed securities transition to Pillar. The
Exchange notes that there is no need to offer this modifier to non-DMMs
because they are the only member organizations on the Exchange with the
affirmative obligation to engage in a course of dealings for their own
accounts to assist in the maintenance, so far as practicable, of a fair
and orderly market, including the maintenance of price continuity with
reasonable depth.\27\ Specifically, DMMs have an obligation to use
their own capital when lack of price continuity, lack of depth, or
disparity between supply and demand exists or is reasonably to be
anticipated.\28\ Like CCS interest, the CCO would allow DMMs to trade
in their assigned securities at the CCO's working price without
contributing to visible depth of market.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Rule 104(f)(ii).
    \28\ Id.
    \29\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 75578 (July 31,
2015), 80 FR 47008, 47013 at n. 61 (August 6, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-
26) (Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Making
Permanent the Rules of the NYSE New Market Model Pilot and the NYSE
Supplemental Liquidity Providers Pilot).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed differences to how the CCO
would function as compared to CCS would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system because the proposed differences are designed to streamline the
functionality and simplify the operation of such liquidity, while still
achieving the same goal to provide the DMMs with a tool to meet their
unique affirmative obligations. To achieve this goal, the Exchange
proposes that the CCO would function similarly to Tracking Orders, as
described in NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(d)(4) and NYSE National Rule
7.31(d)(4), in that a CCO would be a Limit Order that is not displayed,
it would not trade on arrival, and instead would be triggered to trade
by a contra-side Aggressing Order that has exhausted all other interest
eligible to trade at the CCO's working price and is equal to or less
than the size of the CCO. Also similar to the Tracking Order, a CCO
with a later working time would trade ahead of a CCO with an earlier
working time (which can only be from the same DMM) if not designated
for a partial execution and could not execute in full against the
Aggressing Order. The Exchange believes it promotes just and equitable
principles of trade for the CCO with the later working time to trade
ahead of a same-priced CCO Order with an earlier working time if the
earlier CCO chose to forgo the option for a partial execution,
particularly since all CCOs in a security are entered by the same DMM.
For similar reasons, the Exchange believes that it would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system for an Aggressing Order with an MTS to ignore
a CCO because if an Aggressing Order with an MTS has a condition that
it is not eligible to trade, the Exchange does not believe that the
Aggressing Order with an MTS should be denied an opportunity to trade
if the MTS could otherwise be met by other orders on the Exchange Book.
    The Exchange believes it would remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system to
retain the optional functionality currently available for CCS for a CCO
to provide a partial execution to an incoming order, as such option
would provide for more execution opportunities at the Exchange.
Similarly, the Exchange believes it would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system for an arriving CCO to trigger a resting D Order to trade
because it would provide for additional execution opportunities for D
Orders. Because CCOs would trade at their limit price, the Exchange
believes that the proposal to make such orders ineligible to trade if
the limit price is equal to or through the PBBO, NBBO, Price Bands, or
resting orders on the Exchange Book, or if the PBBO or NBBO is crossed,
would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system because it would reduce the
potential for a CCO to trade through the PBBO, NBBO or resting orders
on the Exchange Book.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed processing of sell short
CCOs during a Short Sale Period under proposed Rule 7.16(f)(5)(E) would
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a fair and orderly
market because it would provide that CCOs would not trade at or below
the NBB during a Short Sale Period in violation of Rule 201 of
Regulation SHO. Proposed Rule 7.16(f)(5)(E) is also based on NYSE Arca
Rule 7.16-E(f)(5)(E) and NYSE National Rule 7.16(f)(5)(E) for Tracking
Orders.
    Lastly, the Exchange believes the proposed changes to Rules 7.36
and 7.37 describing how CCOs would be ranked and allocated would remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market
and a national market system because having CCOs as an interest of last
resort is consistent with how CCS currently functions when trading at
prices equal to the BBO or outside the BBO. Prioritizing CCOs behind
Yielding Orders \30\ complies with subsection (G) of Section 11(a)(1)
\31\ of the Act (the ``G Rule'') because CCOs represent DMM interest
only. In sum, the G Rule requires orders entered by DMMs or Floor
Brokers to yield priority to all orders entered by non-members of the
Exchange at the same price. Therefore, the G Rule does not require that
Yielding Orders yield priority to CCOs, which may only be entered by
DMMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Rule 7.31(i)(5). Yielding Orders aid Floor brokers in
complying with the G Rule when trading on Pillar by yielding
priority to all displayed and non-displayed orders at the same
price.
    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78k(a)(1)(G).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Orders Not Available to Market Makers
    The Exchange believes the proposed changes to Rule 7.31(a)(1) to
specify that Market Orders would not be available to DMMs and Rule
7.31(i)(4) to specify that the Last Sale Peg Modifier would not be
available to DMMs would promote just and equitable principles of trade
because these changes would provide additional transparency by
specifying that Market Orders and the Last Sale Peg Modifier would not
be available to DMMs when the Exchange transitions Exchange-listed
securities to Pillar. These proposed changes are based on current
functionality, as described in Rule 104(d)(iv), which states that
Market Orders and the Buy Minus Zero

Plus modifier are not available to DMMs trading in Exchange-listed
securities.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\32\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The proposed change would provide DMMs with
functionality currently available on the Exchange when Exchange-listed
securities transition to Pillar. The Exchange does not believe that the
proposed CCO would impose any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate because such orders are designed to provide
additional liquidity on the Exchange without providing DMMs with any
execution priority for CCOs over other orders. This order type thus
does not confer any execution priority benefits to DMMs, but rather,
would assist the DMM in meeting its affirmative obligation to maintain
depth and continuity in its assigned securities. The proposed rule
change also specifies that Market Orders and the Last Sale Peg Modifier
would continue to be unavailable to DMMs when Exchange-listed
securities transition to Pillar, as is the case today under Rule
104(d)(iv). The Exchange does not believe this proposed rule change
would impose any burden on competition because these order types are
not necessary for the DMMs to meet their affirmative obligations
pursuant to Rule 104 and are not currently available to DMMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory
organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as modified by 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-NYSE-2019-22 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2019-22. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2019-22 and should be submitted on
or before May 30, 2019.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-09506 Filed 5-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 32)]
[Notices]
[Page 7722-7724]
[DOCID:fr19fe09-89]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59394; File No. SR-NYSEALTR-2009-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Alternext U.S. LLC; Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 903

February 11, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\

notice is hereby given that on February 10, 2009, NYSE Alternext US LLC
(``NYSE Alternext,'' ``NYSE Amex'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NYSE Alternext US LLC is proposing to amend Rule 903, Series of
Options Open for Trading, to expand the $1 Strike Program. Changes to
the rule text are shown in Exhibit 5 of the filing. A copy of this
filing is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.nyse.com,
at the Exchange's principal office and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The $1 Strike Program currently allows NYSE Amex to select a total
of 10 individual stocks on which options series may be listed at $1
strike price intervals. In order to be eligible for selection into the
Program, the underlying stock must close below $50 in its primary
market on the previous trading day. If selected for the Program, the
Exchange may list strike prices at $1 intervals from $3 to $50, but no
$1 Strike Price may be listed that is greater than $5 from the
underlying stock's closing price on its primary market on the previous
day. The Exchange may also list $1 strikes on any other option class
designated by another securities exchange that employs a similar
Program under their respective rules. The Exchange may not list long-
term option series (``LEAPS'') at $1 strike price intervals for any
class selected for the Program. The Exchange is also restricted from
listing any series that would result in strike prices being $.50 apart.
    The Exchange now proposes to expand the Program to allow NYSE Amex
to select a total of 55 individual stocks on which option series may be
listed in $1 strike price intervals, and to expand slightly the price
range on which the Exchange may list $1 strikes, i.e., from $1 to $50.
The existing restrictions on listing $1 strikes would continue, i.e.,
no $1 strike price may be listed that is greater than $5 from the
underlying stock's closing price in its primary market on the previous
day, and NYSE Amex is restricted from listing any series that would
result in strike prices being $.50 apart.
    NYSE Amex believes that $1 strike price intervals provide investors
with greater flexibility in the trading of equity options that overlie
lower price stocks by allowing investors to establish equity options
positions that are better tailored to meet their investment objectives.
The Exchange notes that current market conditions, in which the number
of securities trading below $50 has increased dramatically, further
warrant the expansion of the Program.
    The Exchange is also proposing to set forth a delisting policy.
Specifically, the Exchange would, on a monthly basis, review series
that were originally listed under the $1 Strike Program with strike
prices that are more than $5 from the current values of the options
classes in the Program. The Exchange would delist series with no open
interest in both the put and the call series having a: (i) Strike
higher than the highest strike price with open interest in the put and/
or call series for a given expiration month; and (ii) strike lower than
the lowest strike price with open interest in the put and/or call
series for a given expiration month.
    Notwithstanding the proposed delisting policy, NYSE Amex could
grant ATP Holder requests to add strikes and/or maintain strikes in
certain options classes in series eligible for delisting.
    Further, in connection with the proposed delisting policy, if the
Exchange identifies series for delisting, the Exchange shall notify
other options exchanges with similar delisting policies regarding
eligible series for listing, and shall work with such other exchanges
to develop a uniform list of series to be delisted, so as to ensure
uniform series delisting of multiply listed options classes. NYSE Amex
expects that the proposed delisting policy will be adopted by other
options exchanges that amend their rules to employ a similar expansion
of the Program.
    With regard to the impact on system capacity, NYSE Amex has
analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the Options Price
Reporting Authority have the necessary systems capacity to handle the
additional traffic associated with the listing and trading of an
expanded number of options series as proposed by this filing.
    The Exchange believes that the $1 Strike Program has provided
investors with greater trading opportunities and flexibility and the
ability to more closely tailor their investment strategies and
decisions to the movement of the underlying security. Furthermore, the
Exchange has not detected any material proliferation of illiquid
options series resulting from the narrower strike price intervals. For
these reasons, NYSE Amex requests an expansion of the current Program.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, in that it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest, in that it provides for a greater number of available
strike prices in lower priced underlying issues, and thus allows
investors to better tailor their investments to meet their needs.

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

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

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

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

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such

longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so
finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents,
the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form http://
www.sec.gov/rules.sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEALTR-2009-11 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEALTR-2009-11. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on business days
between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m., located at 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such 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-NYSEALTR-2009-11 and should
be submitted on or before March 12, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\3\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. E9-3465 Filed 2-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 60 (Thursday, March 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18970-18972]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07079]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF12-8-000]

Trunkline LNG Company, LLC; Trunkline LNG Export, LLC; Trunkline
Gas Company, LLC; Supplemental Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Lake Charles
Liquefaction Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    As previously noticed on September 14, 2012, and supplemented
herein, the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that
will discuss the environmental impacts of the Lake Charles Liquefaction
Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Trunkline
LNG Company, LLC; Trunkline LNG Export, LLC; and Trunkline Gas Company,
LLC (collectively referred to as Trunkline) in Louisiana and
Mississippi. The Commission will use this EIS in its decision-making
process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience
and necessity.
    This Supplemental Notice of Intent (NOI) announces the opening of a
second scoping period the Commission will use to gather input from the
public and interested agencies on additional pipeline, compression, and
metering facilities planned by Trunkline, which will be included in the
EIS. Your input will help determine what issues need to be evaluated in
the EIS. Please note that the scoping period will close on April 22,
2013.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project, including the newly affected landowners
along the pipeline routes or near the aboveground facilities. State and
local government representatives should notify their constituents of
this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of
concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities.
The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement.
However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that approval
conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement
negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could
initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses
a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent
domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

Summary of the Planned Project

    As previously noticed, Trunkline plans to expand its existing
liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana to
liquefy natural gas and export the LNG. The planned facility would be
capable of processing approximately 2.4 billion cubic feet per day of
natural gas, and exporting approximately 15 million metric tons of LNG
per year. In addition, in January 2013, Trunkline expanded its project
to include plans to construct and modify certain pipeline facilities to
supply natural gas to the liquefaction facility.
    The Lake Charles Liquefaction Project would consist of the
following:
     LNG facilities in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, include:
    [cir] a new liquefaction facility including three liquefaction
trains (each train contains metering and gas treatment facilities,
liquefaction and refrigerant units, safety and control systems, and
associated infrastructure);
    [cir] modifications and upgrades at the existing LNG terminal; and
    [cir] about 0.5 mile of 48-inch-diameter feed gas line in Calcasieu
Parish, Louisiana to supply natural gas to the liquefaction facility
from existing gas transmission pipelines.
     Pipeline facilities now included as part of the project,
include:
    [cir] an 11.6-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter greenfield natural gas
pipeline (Mainline Connector) in Jefferson Davis and Calcasieu
Parishes, Louisiana;
    [cir] a 6.5-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline loop
\1\ (Mainline 200-3 Loop Line) in Jefferson Davis and Calcasieu
Parishes, Louisiana; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A pipeline ``loop'' is a segment of pipeline that is
installed adjacent to or in the vicinity of an existing pipeline and
connected to the existing pipeline at both ends. A loop increases
the volume of gas that can be transported through that portion of
the system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] ancillary facilities associated with the pipeline.
     Compression and metering facilities now included as part
of the project, include:
    [cir] a new 59,840-horsepower (hp) compressor station (Compressor
Station 203-A) in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana;
    [cir] modifications to the existing Longville Compressor Station in
Beauregard Parish, Louisiana, involving retirement of an existing
3,000-hp unit and installation of a new 15,000-hp unit, as well as
piping modifications to make the station bi-directional;
    [cir] piping modifications at the existing Pollock, Epps, and Shaw
Compressor Stations in Grant and West Carroll Parishes, Louisiana and
Bolivar County, Mississippi, respectively, to make the stations bi-
directional;
    [cir] four new meter stations in Calcasieu, Acadia, and Richland
(2) Parishes, Louisiana; and
    [cir] modifications to six existing meter stations in Calcasieu,
Jefferson Davis (2), Cameron, and Beauregard (2) Parishes, Louisiana to
make the stations bi-directional.
    Trunkline plans to initiate construction of the planned
liquefaction facilities in August 2014, and construction of the
pipelines, compressor stations, and metering facilities are planned to
take place in the second and third quarters of 2017. Trunkline plans to
commence operation of the planned facilities in August 2018. The
general location of the project facilities is shown in appendices 1 and
2.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    The planned liquefaction facilities would be constructed on a 268-
acre site that is largely undeveloped and located immediately north of
and adjacent to the existing LNG terminal. The majority of the site
would be required for both construction and operation of the facility.
An additional 200-acre area, at a location yet to be determined, would
be required during construction of the liquefaction facilities for
materials storage and contractor facilities. Modifications to take
place at the

existing LNG terminal would occur within the existing terminal
boundaries.
    Construction of the 0.5-mile-long gas feed line would occur within
the LNG facility sites. Construction of the Mainline Connector and
Mainline 200-3 Loop Line would disturb about 223 acres of land.
Following construction, about 106 acres would be maintained for
permanent operation of the pipelines. Approximately 60.0 acres of land
would be disturbed to construct the new Compressor Station 203-A,
including about 10 acres to be used temporarily during construction and
about 50 acres to be retained for permanent operation of the facility.
Modifications to be made at the existing compressor stations would take
place within the existing facility sites. Construction and operation of
the four new meter stations would affect about 4.0 acres of land (1.0
acre for each meter station). The modifications at the six existing
meter stations would disturb a total of about 9.0 acres during
construction. Following construction, operation of the modified meter
stations would not require additional permanent easements. The existing
meter station modification in Cameron Parish would, however, require an
additional 1.1-acre permanent impact for operation.

The EIS Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\3\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EIS on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EIS. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EIS we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the planned project under these
general headings:
     geology and soils;
     land use;
     water resources and wetlands;
     cultural resources;
     vegetation, fisheries, and wildlife;
     socioeconomics;
     air quality and noise;
     endangered and threatened species; and
     public safety.
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned project
or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen
or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Although no formal application has been filed, we have already
initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process.
The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement
of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before
the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we
have begun to contact federal and state agencies to discuss their
involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EIS. In
addition, representatives from the FERC participated in the public open
houses sponsored by Trunkline in Lake Charles, Louisiana on July 19,
2012; Iowa, Louisiana on February 4, 2013; and Jennings, Louisiana on
February 5, 2013, to explain the environmental review process to
interested stakeholders. On October 3, 2012, the FERC held a public
scoping meeting in Sulphur, Louisiana, to solicit comments regarding
the planned liquefaction facility.
    The EIS will present our independent analysis of the issues. We
will publish and distribute the draft EIS for public comment. After the
comment period, we will consider all timely comments and revise the
document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. To ensure we have
the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully
follow the instructions in the Public Participation section beginning
on page 6.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues
related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the
preparation of the EIS.\4\ Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice. Currently, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S.
Department of Transportation have expressed their intention to
participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS to
satisfy their NEPA responsibilities related to this project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Office and the
Mississippi Department of Archives and History (SHPOs), and to solicit
their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian
tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic
properties.\5\ We will define the project-specific Area of Potential
Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPOs as the project develops.
On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all
areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction
right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and
access roads). Our EIS for this project will document our findings on
the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of
consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register for Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and
the environmental information provided by Trunkline. This preliminary
list of issues may change based on your comments and our analysis.
Issued identified include:
     potential effects of construction workforce on local
housing, infrastructure, public services, and economy;
     potential impacts on recreational fishing and aquatic
resources in the Calcasieu Ship Channel;
     potential impacts on wetland and waterbody resources at
facility locations;
     potential impacts on residences in the vicinity of the
pipelines;
     potential impacts on agricultural lands crossed by the
pipelines;
     potential visual effects on surrounding areas;
     potential noise impacts in the vicinity of the new
compressor station; and

     public safety and hazards associated with the transport of
natural gas and LNG.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so
that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before April
22, 2013. This is not your only public input opportunity; please refer
to the Environmental Review Process flowchart in appendix 3.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
project docket number (PF12-8-000) with your submission. The Commission
encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available
to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for interested
persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
planned project.
    Copies of the completed draft EIS will be sent to the environmental
mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to
receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the
attached Information Request (appendix 4).

Becoming an Intervenor

    Once Trunkline files its application with the Commission, you may
want to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in
the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web
site. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for
intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission
receives a formal application for the project.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., PF12-
8). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: March 21, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-07079 Filed 3-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P