[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37806-37807]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16180]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

 [Project No. 14213-000]

 Ashton Hydro, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On June 13, 2011, Ashton Hydro, LLC, filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Ashton Hydroelectric
Project (Ashton Dam Project or project) to be located on the Blackstone
River, in the Town of Cumberland, in Providence County, Rhode Island.
The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the
permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit
term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to
perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or
waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed run-of-the-river project would consist of: (1) The
existing 400-foot-long, 20-foot-high Ashton Dam, which is owned by the
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management and includes a 250-
foot-long main spillway, a two-gated outlet structure, and a 150-foot-
long auxiliary spillway; (2) an existing 35 acre reservoir having a
normal storage capacity of about 112 acre-feet (ac-ft) at elevation of
74 feet above mean sea level and a maximum storage capacity of about
200 ac-ft; (3) a new intake on the upstream face of the existing dam;
(4) a new powerhouse that would be integrated into the existing dam at
the existing auxiliary spillway and outlet structure containing a
single 1.0 megawatt bulb turbine-generating unit; (5) a new 0.25-mile-
long, 13.8-kilovolt transmission line extending from the new
switchyard/substation to the existing utility pole number 47 in
Cumberland, Rhode Island; and (6) fish passage/protection measures. The
estimated annual generation of the project would be 3.5 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Bruce DiGennaro, Managing Partner, Essex
Energy Partners, LLC, 27 Vaughan Ave., Newport, Rhode Island 02840;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: John Ramer; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14213-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: June 21, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-16180 Filed 6-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 13, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 28648]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10200]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4531-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Minnesota; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Minnesota (FEMA-4531-DR), dated April 7, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued May 4, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Minnesota is hereby amended to include Individual
Assistance limited to the Crisis Counseling Program for those areas
determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a
major disaster by the President in his declaration of April 7, 2020.

    Individual Assistance limited to the Crisis Counseling Program
for all areas in the State of Minnesota (already designated for
emergency protective measures [Category B] not authorized under
other Federal statutes, including direct Federal assistance).
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-10200 Filed 5-12-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 30, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24714-24716]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11567]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0390; FRL-9978-59-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; KY; Redesignation
of the Kentucky Portion of the Louisville Unclassifiable Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On May 4, 2018, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the
Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, Division for Air Quality
(KDAQ), submitted a request for the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to redesignate the portion of Kentucky that is within the bi-
state Louisville, KY-IN fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
unclassifiable area (hereinafter referred to as the ``bi-state
Louisville Area'' or ``Area'') to unclassifiable/attainment for the
2012 primary annual PM2.5 national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS). The bi-state Louisville Area consists of Jefferson
County and a portion of Bullitt County in Kentucky as well as Clark and
Floyd Counties in Indiana. EPA now has sufficient data to determine
that the bi-state Louisville Area is in attainment of the 2012 primary
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve
Kentucky's request and redesignate the Area to unclassifiable/
attainment for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS based
upon complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air monitoring
data showing that the PM2.5 monitors in the bi-state
Louisville Area are in compliance with the 2012 primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 29, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2017-0390 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madolyn Sanchez, Air Regulatory
Management Section, in the Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Madolyn Sanchez may be reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) establishes a process for air
quality management through the establishment and implementation of the
NAAQS. After the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is
required to designate areas, pursuant to section 107(d)(1) of the CAA,
as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable. On December 14, 2012,
EPA revised the primary annual NAAQS for PM2.5 at a level of
12 micrograms per cubic meter

([mu]g/m\3\), based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations. See 78 FR 3085 (January 15, 2013). EPA established the
standard based on significant evidence and numerous health studies
demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures
to particulate matter.
    The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. On
December 18, 2014, EPA designated the majority of areas across the
country as nonattainment, unclassifiable/attainment, or unclassifiable
\1\ for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS based upon air quality
monitoring data from monitors for calendar years 2011-2013. See 80 FR
2206 (January 15, 2015). EPA's January 15, 2015, rulemaking also
described a process by which EPA would evaluate any complete, quality-
assured, certified air quality monitoring data from 2014 that a state
submitted for consideration before February 27, 2015. EPA stated that
it would evaluate whether, with the inclusion of certified 2014 data,
the 3-year design value for 2012-2014 suggests that a change in the
initial designation would be appropriate for an area. If EPA agreed
that a change in the initial designation would be appropriate, EPA
would withdraw the designation announced in the January 15, 2015,
document for such area before the effective date and issue another
designation reflecting the inclusion of 2014 data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For the initial PM area designations in 2014 (for the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS), EPA used a designation category of
``unclassifiable/attainment'' for areas that had monitors showing
attainment of the standard and were not contributing to nearby
violations and for areas that did not have monitors but for which
EPA had reason to believe were likely attaining the standard and not
contributing to nearby violations. EPA used the category
``unclassifiable'' for areas in which EPA could not determine, based
upon available information, whether or not the NAAQS was being met
and/or EPA had not determined the area to be contributing to nearby
violations. EPA reserves the ``attainment'' category for when EPA
redesignates a nonattainment area that has attained the relevant
NAAQS and has an approved maintenance plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a follow-up designation action published on April 7, 2015 (80 FR
18535), EPA designated five areas as unclassifiable/attainment in
Georgia, including two neighboring counties in the bordering states of
Alabama and South Carolina, that were initially deferred in EPA's
January 15, 2015, rulemaking. In the same action, EPA changed the
designations for one area in Ohio, two areas in Pennsylvania, and one
bi-state area with portions in Kentucky and Ohio from nonattainment to
unclassifiable/attainment. The bi-state Louisville Area was changed
from nonattainment to unclassifiable.
    EPA initially designated the bi-state Louisville Area as
nonattainment in its January 15, 2015, rulemaking based on ambient air
quality data collected from 2011-2013. In that time period, a monitor
in Clark County, Indiana, showed a violation of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. Per its policy, EPA explained that it would
change the designation for the Area if data showed that the monitor in
Clark County, Indiana, met the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for the
design value period 2012-2014, and Indiana elected to early certify
2014 ambient air quality data. Indiana submitted complete, quality-
assured, and certified 2014 data from the ambient air quality monitor
in Clark County, Indiana, by the prescribed deadline of February 27,
2015, showing that the monitor was attaining the NAAQS. However, as
noted in the final technical support document (TSD) for the Area
included in the docket for the January 15, 2015, rulemaking,\2\ EPA
explained that because air quality data in the Jefferson County,
Kentucky portion of the Area were invalid due to issues with the
collection and analysis of PM2.5 filter-based samples, EPA
could only change the designation to unclassifiable. Therefore, EPA
changed the designation of the Area from nonattainment to
unclassifiable in the action published on April 15, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Available in the January 15, 2015, rulemaking docket as
document number EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0918-0322.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What are the criteria for redesignating an area from unclassifiable
to unclassifiable/attainment?

    Section 107(d)(3) of the CAA provides the framework for changing
the area designations for any NAAQS pollutants. Section 107(d)(3)(A)
provides that the Administrator may notify the Governor of any state
that the designation of an area should be revised ``on the basis of air
quality data, planning and control considerations, or any other air
quality-related considerations the Administrator deems appropriate.''
The Act further provides in section 107(d)(3)(D) that even if the
Administrator has not notified a state Governor that a designation
should be revised, the Governor of any state may, on the Governor's own
motion, submit a request to revise the designation of any area, and the
Administrator must approve or deny the request.
    When approving or denying a request to redesignate an area, EPA
bases its decision on the air quality data for the area as well as the
considerations under section 107(d)(3)(A).\3\ In keeping with section
107(d)(1)(A), areas that are redesignated to unclassifiable/attainment
must meet the requirements for attainment areas and thus must meet the
relevant NAAQS. In addition, the area must not contribute to ambient
air quality in a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS. The relevant
monitoring data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS)
database. The designated monitors generally should have remained at the
same location for the duration of the monitoring period.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ While CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) also lists specific
requirements for redesignations, those requirements only apply to
redesignations of nonattainment areas to attainment and therefore
are not applicable in the context of a redesignation of an area from
unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment.
    \4\ See Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, EPA Air Quality
Management Division, entitled ``Procedures for Processing Requests
to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' (September 4, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is EPA's rationale for proposing to redesignate the area?

    In order to redesignate the Area from unclassifiable to
unclassifiable/attainment for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5
NAAQS, the 3-year average of annual arithmetic mean concentrations
(i.e., design value) over the most recent 3-year period must be less
than or equal to 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\ at all monitoring sites in the Area
over the full 3-year period, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR
50.18 and Appendix N of Part 50. EPA reviewed PM2.5
monitoring data from monitoring stations in the bi-state Louisville
Area for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the 3-year
period from 2014-2016. These data have been quality-assured, certified,
and recorded in AQS by Kentucky and Indiana, and the monitoring
locations have not changed during the monitoring period. As summarized
in Table 1, the design values for all monitors in the Area for the
2014-2016 period are below the 2012 primary annual PM2.5
NAAQS.

  Table 1--2012 Annual PM2.5 Design Values for Monitors in the Bi-State
                      Louisville Area for 2014-2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              2014-2016
                                                                design
                    County                       Monitoring     value
                                                    site      ([mu]g/m3)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clark County, IN..............................    180190006         10.6
                                                  180190008          8.7
Floyd County, IN..............................    180431004          9.3

Jefferson County, KY..........................    211110043         10.4
                                                  211110051         10.3
                                                  211110067          9.5
                                                  211110075         10.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the 3-year design values, based on complete, quality-
assured data, demonstrate that the Area meets the 2012 primary annual
PM2.5 standard, EPA is proposing to redesignate the Kentucky
portion of the Louisville Area from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/
attainment for this NAAQS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The State of Indiana has not yet submitted a redesignation
request for its portion of the Louisville Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's May 4, 2018, request to
redesignate the Kentucky portion of the bi-state Louisville Area from
unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment for the 2012 primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. If finalized, approval of the redesignation
request would change the legal designation, found at 40 CFR part 81, of
the portion of Bullitt County located in the Area and Jefferson County,
Kentucky, from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment for the 2012
primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to unclassifiable/
attainment is an action that affects the status of a geographical area
and does not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources
beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to unclassifiable/
attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to redesignate an
area to unclassifiable/attainment and does not impose additional
requirements. For that reason, this proposed 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 redesignations 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 section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Will not have disproportionate human health or
environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994).
    The proposed action is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where 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 as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

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

    Dated: May 15, 2018.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2018-11567 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 150)]
[Notices]
[Page 39376]
[DOCID:fr06au09-106]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Office of Analysis, Research, and Technology Forum

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting/forum.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA's Office of Analysis, Research, and Technology (ART)
invites interested persons to participate in a forum regarding updating
it's 5-Year Strategic Plan (2010-2015). FMCSA is seeking input from
industry leaders via two public Stakeholder Forums in order to identify
and discuss key safety related challenges and opportunities facing the
motor carrier industry, and to solicit ideas on research objectives
that FMCSA should consider in developing it's strategic plan--as well
as on potential projects and programs that would help meet those safety
research objectives. As a participant in the forum, attendees will have
an opportunity to comment on the proposed mission, vision and strategic
objectives (goals) for the 5-Year Strategic Plan, and provide any
additional insights they feel will be important to the FMCSA.
    Where and When:
    Meeting # 1. Hyatt Place Denver Airport, 16250 E. 40th Ave.,
Aurora, CO 80011, on Thursday August 13, 2009 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
    Meeting # 2. Booz Allen Hamilton Conference Center, Hamilton 2011,
8283 Greensboro Dr., McLean, VA 22102, on Tuesday, August 18, 2009,
from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
    Registration: Space will be limited to the first 30 registered
participants for each forum. To attend the forum, send an e-mail to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Martin R. Walker, Office of
Analysis, Research and Technology, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave, SW., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Or, contact
Karen Robin in the same office at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., E.S.T.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ART is currently in the process of updating
its 5-Year Strategic Plan, which was last issued in 2005. The updated
plan seeks to articulate the ART's mission to reduce the number and
severity of commercial motor vehicle crashes by expanding FMCSA's
knowledge portfolio of available technological, behavioral, and
operational approaches for addressing safety challenges in the motor
carrier industry.
    Forum attendees will receive an Information Packet on current
programs the Office of Research and Technology is working on. While the
forum will be open to the public, it will be limited to the space
available. Individuals requiring special needs/accommodations (sign,
reader, etc.), please call Karen Robin at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued On: July 28, 2009.
David Anewalt,
Acting Associate Administrator for Research and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. E9-18770 Filed 8-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 11, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44182-44183]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14653]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Receipt of Noise Compatibility Program Update and Request for
Review; Westfield-Barnes Regional Airport (BAF), Westfield,
Massachusetts

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation
(DOT).

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces that it is
reviewing a proposed Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) Update submitted
by the City of Westfield, Massachusetts, through its Aviation
Department, for Westfield-Barnes Regional Airport and has found it in
compliance with applicable requirements. This NCP Update was submitted
subsequent to a determination by the FAA that the associated Noise
Exposure Maps (NEMs) for the Westfield-Barnes Regional Airport, were
prepared in compliance with applicable requirements. The NCP Update
will be approved or disapproved on or before November 22, 2023.
Finally, this notice announces that the proposed NCP Update will be
available for public review and comment for 60 days from the
publication date of this notice.

DATES: The effective start date of the FAA's 180-day review period for
the associated NCP Update is May 26, 2023. The FAA must issue an
approval or disapproval of the NCP Update on or before November 22,
2023. The public review and comment period ends 60 days from the
publication date of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl Quaine, Federal Aviation
Administration, New England Regional Office Environmental Protection
Specialist, Airports Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts, 01803. Phone number: 781-
238-7613. Comments on the proposed NCP Update should also be submitted
to the above office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA is
reviewing a proposed NCP Update for the Westfield-Barnes Regional
Airport. As required by title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, part 150
(hereinafter referred to as part 150), the NCP Update will be approved
or disapproved on or before November 22, 2023. This notice also
announces the availability of this NCP Update for public review and

comment for 60 days from the publication date of this notice.
    Under the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act (49 U.S.C. 47501
et seq.), an airport operator (hereinafter referred to as Sponsor) who
has submitted NEMs that are found by the FAA to be in compliance with
the requirements of part 150 may submit for FAA approval a NCP or NCP
Update that sets forth the measures the Sponsor has taken, or proposes
to take, to reduce existing noncompatible uses and prevent the
introduction of additional noncompatible uses within the area covered
by the NEMs. The FAA has formally received the NCP Update for the
Westfield-Barnes Regional Airport effective on May 26, 2023. The City
of Westfield, Massachusetts, through its Aviation Department, requested
the FAA review this material and that the noise mitigation measures, to
be implemented jointly by the Sponsor and surrounding communities, be
approved as NCP Update under the Act. Preliminary review of the
submitted material indicates that it conforms to part 150 requirements
for the submittal of an NCP, but that further review is necessary prior
to approval or disapproval of the NCP Update. The formal review period,
limited by law to a maximum of 180 days, will be completed on or before
November 22, 2023.
    A public information meeting on the NCP Update was held by the
Sponsor on March 16, 2022, and a public hearing was held on February 1,
2023. The FAA's detailed evaluation will be conducted under the
provisions of part 150, Sec.  105.33. The primary considerations in the
evaluation process are whether the proposed measures may reduce the
level of aviation safety or create an undue burden on interstate or
foreign commerce, and whether they are reasonably consistent with
obtaining the goal of reducing existing noncompatible land uses and
preventing the introduction of additional noncompatible land uses.
    Each airport NCP/NCP Update developed in accordance with part 150
is a local program, not a Federal program. The FAA does not substitute
its judgment for that of the Sponsor with respect to which measures
should be recommended for action. The FAA's approval or disapproval of
each specific measure proposed by a Sponsor in an NCP/NCP Update is
determined by applying approval criteria prescribed in Sec.  150.35(b)
of part 150. Only measures that meet the approval criteria can be
approved and considered for Federal funding eligibility. FAA approval
or disapproval of a measure only indicates whether that measure would,
if implemented, be consistent with the purposes of part 150. When a
measure is disapproved by the FAA, Sponsors are encouraged to work with
their communities and the FAA, outside of the part 150 process as
necessary, to implement initiatives that provide noise benefits for the
surrounding community.
    Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed NCP
Update with specific reference to these factors. To maximize the
effectiveness of comments and the FAA's understanding of them, comments
should be as specific as possible, identifying the concern(s) as well
as suggested or desired resolution to the concern(s). When possible,
quote text and cite details such as page and section numbers, NCP
Update measure number, etc. to which the comment(s) pertain. This
commenting procedure is intended to ensure that substantive comments
and concerns are made available to the FAA in a timely manner so that
the FAA has an opportunity to address them in its Record of Approval.
All comments in their entirety become part of the public record,
including any personal information provided in the comment including
name, address, phone number, etc. All relevant comments, other than
those properly addressed to local land use authorities, will be
considered by the FAA to the extent practicable.
    Copies of the proposed NCP Update are available for examination
online at: www.barnesairport.com and hard copy is available at
Westfield-Barnes Regional Airport, 110 Airport Road, Suite 207,
Westfield, MA 01085.
    Please direct questions or requests to arrange an appointment to
review the NCP Update document to the individual named above under the
heading, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in New England Regional Office, Burlington, MA, on July
6, 2023.
Julie Seltsam-Wilps,
Deputy Director, ANE-600.
[FR Doc. 2023-14653 Filed 7-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 202 (Friday, October 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 62345]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24507]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2305-000]

Sabine River Authority of Texas; Sabine River Authority, State of
Louisiana; Notice of Authorization for Continued Project Operation

    On September 30 2011, the Sabine River Authority of Texas and
Sabine River Authority, State of Louisiana (Sabine River Authorities),
licensee(s) for the Toledo Bend Hydroelectric Project, filed an
Application for a New License pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA)
and the Commission's regulations thereunder. The Toledo Bend
Hydroelectric Project affects lands and waters in Panola, Shelby,
Sabine, and Newton Counties, Texas, and Desoto, Sabine, and Vernon
Parishes, Louisiana.
    The license for Project No. 2305 was issued for a period ending
September 30, 2013. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1),
requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue
from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee under the
terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is
issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section
15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior
license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based
on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c),
and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project
has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may
continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license
expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee
of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent
license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to
continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a
license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2305 is issued to
the licensee for a period effective October 1, 2013 through September
30, 2014 or until the issuance of a new license for the project or
other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance of
a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before
September 30, 2014, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR
16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is
renewed automatically without further order or notice by the
Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that the licensee(s), Sabine River Authorities, are
authorized to continue operation of the Toledo Bend Hydroelectric
Project, until such time as the Commission acts on its application for
a subsequent license.

    Dated: October 9, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24507 Filed 10-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 148 (Tuesday, August 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46283-46284]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19466]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR11-3-001]

Peoples Natural Gas Company LLC; Notice of Baseline Filing

    Take notice that on July 20, 2011, Peoples Natural Gas Company LLC
submitted a revised baseline filing of their Statement of Operating
Conditions for services provided under Section 311 of the Natural Gas
Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA).
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a

copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention
or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday August 1, 2011.

    Dated: July 26, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-19466 Filed 8-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 248 (Monday, December 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80854-80857]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32539]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76711; File No. SR-EDGA-2015-46]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for Use of EDGA Exchange, Inc.

December 21, 2015.
    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 December 17, 2015, EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the Market Data section of
its fee schedule to: (i) Adopt definitions for the terms ``Non-Display
Usage'' and ``Trading Platforms''; and (ii) amend the fees for EDGA
Depth, to increase the Internal Distributor fee and adopt a new fee for
Non-Display Usage.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.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 Exchange 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 these 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Market Data section of its fee
schedule to: (i) Adopt definitions for the terms ``Non-Display Usage''
and ``Trading Platforms''; and (ii) amend the fees for EDGA Depth to
increase the Internal Distributor fee and adopt a new fee for Non-
Display Usage.
Definitions
    The Exchange proposes to adopt definitions for the terms ``Non-
Display Usage'' and ``Trading Platforms''. The proposed definitions are
designed to provide greater transparency with regard to how the
Exchange assesses fees for market data. Non-Display Usage would be
defined as ``any method of accessing a Market Data product that
involves access or use by a machine or automated device without access
or use of a display by a natural person or persons.'' \5\ The term
Trading Platform would be defined as ``any execution platform operated
as or by a registered National Securities Exchange (as defined in
Section 3(a)(1) of the Exchange Act), an Alternative Trading System (as
defined in Rule 300(a) of Regulation ATS), or an Electronic
Communications Network (as defined in Rule 600(b)(23) of Regulation
NMS).'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The proposed definition of Non-Display Usage is
substantially similar to Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') Rule
7023(a)(2)(B), which defines Non-Display Usage as ``any method of
accessing Depth-of-Book data that involves access or use by a
machine or automated device without access or use of a display by a
natural person or persons.
    \6\ The proposed definition of Trading Platform is identical the
definition of Trading Platform under Nasdaq Rule 7023(a)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDGA Depth Fees
    EDGA Depth is an uncompressed market data feed that provides depth-
of-book quotations and execution information based on equity orders
entered into the System.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Exchange Rule 11.22(a) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Internal Distributor Fee. Currently, the Exchange charges fees for
both internal and external distribution of EDGA Depth. The cost of EDGA
Depth for an Internal Distributor \8\ is currently

$500 per month. The Exchange also separately charges an External
Distributor \9\ of EDGA Depth a flat fee of $2,500 per month. The
Exchange does not charge Internal and External Distributors separate
display User \10\ fees. The Exchange now proposes to increase the fee
for Internal Distributors from $500 per month to $1,000 per month. The
Exchange does not propose to amend its fees for External Distributors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ An ``Internal Distributor'' is defined as ``a Distributor
that receives the Exchange Market Data product and then distributes
that data to one or more Users within the Distributor's own
entity.'' See the Exchange Fee Schedule available at http://batstrading.com/support/fee_schedule/edga/. A ``Distributor'' is
defined as ``any entity that receives the Exchange Market Data
product directly from the Exchange or indirectly through another
entity and then distributes it internally or externally to a third
party.'' Id.
    \9\ An ``External Distributor'' is defined as ``a Distributor
that receives the Exchange Market Data product and then distributes
that data to a third party or one or more Users outside the
Distributor's own entity.'' Id.
    \10\ A ``User'' is defined as ``a natural person, a
proprietorship, corporation, partnership, or entity, or device
(computer or other automated service), that is entitled to receive
Exchange data.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Non-Display Usage Fee. The Exchange also proposes to adopt a new
fee for Non-Display Usage by Trading Platforms, which is similar to
fees currently being charged by Nasdaq and the New York Stock Exchange,
Inc. (``NYSE'').\11\ As proposed, subscribers to EDGA Depth would pay a
fee of $2,000 per month for Non-Display Usage of EDGA Depth by its
Trading Platforms. Trading Platforms, as defined above, include
registered National Securities Exchanges, Alternative Trading Systems
(``ATSs''), and Electronic Communications Networks (``ECNs'') as those
terms are defined in the Exchange Act and regulations and rules
thereunder. The fee would be assessed in addition to existing
Distributor fees. The fee of $2,000 per month would represent the
maximum charge per subscriber regardless of the number of Trading
Platforms the subscriber operates and receive the data for Non-Display
Usage. For example, if a subscriber operates three Trading Platforms
that receives EDGA Depth for Non-Displayed Usage, that subscriber would
continue to pay a total fee of $2,000 per month, rather than paying
$6,000 per month for its three Trading Platforms ($2,000 for each
Trading Platform).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Nasdaq Rule 7023(d) (setting forth a Trading Platform
Fee of $5,000 per trading platform up to a maximum of three trading
platforms for depth-of-book data). See also NYSE Market Data Fees,
November 2015 (providing a monthly fee for non-display usage of
$5,000 for NYSE OpenBook).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement the proposed changes to its fee
schedule on January 4, 2016.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\12\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\13\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and other recipients of
Exchange data. The Exchange believes that the proposed rates are
equitable and non-discriminatory in that they apply uniformly to all
recipients of Exchange data. The Exchange believes the proposed fees
are competitive with those charged by other venues and, therefore,
reasonable and equitably allocated to recipients. Lastly, the Exchange
also believes that the proposed fees are reasonable and non-
discriminatory because they will apply uniformly to all recipients of
Exchange data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 11(A) of the Act \14\ in that it supports (i)
fair competition among brokers and dealers, among exchange markets, and
between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets and
(ii) the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information
with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities.
Furthermore, the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 603 of
Regulation NMS,\15\ which provides that any national securities
exchange that distributes information with respect to quotations for or
transactions in an NMS stock do so on terms that are not unreasonably
discriminatory. In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted
self-regulatory organizations and broker-dealers increased authority
and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It
was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data
available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for
the provision of market data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \15\ See 17 CFR 242.603.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed fees would not permit unfair
discrimination because all of the Exchange's subscribers will be
subject to the proposed fees on an equivalent basis. EDGA Depth is
distributed and purchased on a voluntary basis, in that neither the
Exchange nor market data distributors are required by any rule or
regulation to make this data available. Accordingly, Distributors and
Users can discontinue use at any time and for any reason, including due
to an assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. Firms have a
wide variety of alternative market data products from which to choose,
such as similar proprietary data products offered by other exchanges
and consolidated data. Moreover, the Exchange is not required to make
any proprietary data products available or to offer any specific
pricing alternatives to any customers.
    In addition, the fees that are the subject of this rule filing are
constrained by competition. As explained below in the Exchange's
Statement on Burden on Competition, the existence of alternatives to
EDGA Depth further ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable
fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when subscribers
can elect such alternatives. That is, the Exchange competes with other
exchanges (and their affiliates) that provide similar market data
products. If another exchange (or its affiliate) were to charge less to
consolidate and distribute its similar product than the Exchange
charges to consolidate and distribute EDGA Depth, prospective Users
likely would not subscribe to, or would cease subscribing to, EDGA
Depth.
    The Exchange notes that the Commission is not required to undertake
a cost-of-service or rate-making approach. The Exchange believes that,
even if it were possible as a matter of economic theory, cost-based
pricing for non-core market data would be so complicated that it could
not be done practically.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange believes that cost-based pricing would be
impractical because it would create enormous administrative burdens
for all parties, including the Commission, to cost-regulate a large
number of participants and standardize and analyze extraordinary
amounts of information, accounts, and reports. In addition, it is
impossible to regulate market data prices in isolation from prices
charged by markets for other services that are joint products. Cost-
based rate regulation would also lead to litigation and may distort
incentives, including those to minimize costs and to innovate,
leading to further waste. Under cost-based pricing, the Commission
would be burdened with determining a fair rate of return, and the
industry could experience frequent rate increases based on
escalating expense levels. Even in industries historically subject
to utility regulation, cost-based ratemaking has been discredited.
As such, the Exchange believes that cost-based ratemaking would be
inappropriate for proprietary market data and inconsistent with
Congress's direction that the Commission use its authority to foster
the development of the national market system, and that market
forces will continue to provide appropriate pricing discipline. See
Appendix C to NYSE's comments to the Commission's 2000 Concept
Release on the Regulation of Market Information Fees and Revenues,
which can be found on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/s72899/buck1.htm. See also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 73816 (December 11, 2014), 79 FR 75200
(December 17, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-64) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Establish an
Access Fee for the NYSE Best Quote and Trades Data Feed, Operative
December 1, 2014).

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

    The proposed amendment to the Internal Distributor fee for EDGA
Depth is also equitable and reasonable as, despite the increase, the
fee proposed continues to be less than similar fees currently charged
by Nasdaq and NYSE for their depth-of-book data products.\17\ In
addition, the proposed Non-Display Usage fee by Trading Platforms for
EDGA Depth is equitable and reasonable as the fees proposed are equal
to, and in some cases less than, similar fees currently charged by
Nasdaq for its depth-of-book data. Like as proposed by the Exchange,
Nasdaq charges subscribers to its depth-of-book data utilized by
trading platforms on a non-displayed basis $2,000 per month.\18\
However, unlike the Exchange, a subscriber utilizing Nasdaq depth-of-
book data on more than one Trading Platform would pay $5,000 per month
for each up to a maximum fee of $15,000. The Exchange proposes to
charge the same rate regardless of the number of Trading Platforms
receiving the data for Non-Display Usage operated by that subscriber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Nasdaq Rule 7023(c) (providing for fees of $25,000 to
$500,000 to internal distributors of Nasdaq Depth-of-Book products).
See also NYSE Market Data Fees, November 2015 (providing a $5,000
per month access fee for NYSE OpenBook).
    \18\ See Nasdaq Rule 7023(d). See also NYSE Market Data Fees,
November 2015 (providing a monthly fee for non-display usage of
$5,000 for NYSE OpenBook).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Trading Platform fee is also equitable and reasonable in that
it ensures that heavy users of the EDGA Depth pay an equitable share of
the total fees. Currently, External Distributors pay higher fees than
Internal Distributors based upon their assumed higher usage levels. The
Exchange believes that Trading Platforms are generally high users of
the data, using it to power a matching engine for millions or even
billions of trading messages per day.
    Lastly, the Exchange believes that the proposed definitions are
reasonable because they are designed to provide greater transparency to
Members with regard to how the Exchange would assess the proposed fee
for Non-Display Usage of EDGA Depth by Trading Platforms. The Exchange
believes that Members would benefit from clear guidance in its fee
schedule describing the manner in which is assess fees. These
definitions are intended to make the fee schedule clearer and less
confusing for investors and eliminate potential investor confusion,
thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system, and, in general,
protecting investors and the public interest. Lastly, the proposed
definitions are based on existing rules of Nasdaq.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Nasdaq Rules 7023(a)(1)(B) [sic] and (a)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The
Exchange's ability to price EDGA Depth is constrained by: (i)
Competition among exchanges, other trading platforms, and Trade
Reporting Facilities (``TRF'') that compete with each other in a
variety of dimensions; (ii) the existence of inexpensive real-time
consolidated data and market-specific data and free delayed data; and
(iii) the inherent contestability of the market for proprietary data.
    The Exchange and its market data products are subject to
significant competitive forces and the proposed fees represent
responses to that competition. To start, the Exchange competes
intensely for order flow. It competes with the other national
securities exchanges that currently trade equities, with electronic
communication networks, with quotes posted in FINRA's Alternative
Display Facility, with alternative trading systems, and with securities
firms that primarily trade as principal with their customer order flow.
    In addition, EDGA Depth competes with a number of alternative
products. For instance, EDGA Depth does not provide a complete picture
of all trading activity in a security. Rather, the other national
securities exchanges, the several TRFs of FINRA, and ECNs that produce
proprietary data all produce trades and trade reports. Each is
currently permitted to produce depth-of-book information products, and
many currently do, including Nasdaq and NYSE.
    In sum, the availability of a variety of alternative sources of
information imposes significant competitive pressures on Exchange data
products and the Exchange's compelling need to attract order flow
imposes significant competitive pressure on the Exchange to act
equitably, fairly, and reasonably in setting the proposed data product
fees. The proposed data product fees are, in part, responses to that
pressure. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees would reflect an
equitable allocation of its overall costs to users of its facilities.
    In addition, when establishing the proposed fees, the Exchange
considered the competitiveness of the market for proprietary data and
all of the implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that
it has considered all relevant factors and has not considered
irrelevant factors in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not
unreasonably discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees
among all Users. The existence of alternatives to EDGA Depth, including
existing similar feeds by other exchanges, consolidated data, and
proprietary data from other sources, ensures that the Exchange cannot
set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory,
when subscribers can elect these alternatives or choose not to purchase
a specific proprietary data product if its cost to purchase is not
justified by the returns any particular vendor or subscriber would
achieve through the purchase.
    The Exchange believes the proposed increase to the Internal
Distributor fee and adoption of the fee for Non-Display Usage by
Trading Platforms for EDGA Depth would increase competition amongst the
exchanges that offer depth-of-book products. The Exchange notes that,
despite the proposed increase, the Internal Distribution fee for EDGA
Depth continues to be less than similar fees currently charged by
Nasdaq and NYSE for its depth-of-book data.\20\ In addition, the
proposed Non-Display Usage fee by Trading Platforms is equal to, and in
some cases less than, similar fees currently charged by Nasdaq for its
Depth-of-Book data.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra note 17.
    \21\ See supra note 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the proposed definitions will not result in any burden on
competition. The Exchange believes that Members would benefit from
clear guidance in its fee schedule describing the manner in which is
assess fees. These definitions are intended to make the fee schedule
clearer and less confusing for investors and are not designed to have a
competitive impact.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \22\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\23\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGA-2015-46 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-EDGA-2015-46. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2015-46, and should be
submitted on or before January 19, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-32539 Filed 12-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2436-2437]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00573]

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

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section
3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C.
552b:

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

DATE AND TIME: January 16, 2014, 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: Room 2C, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Agenda. * Note--Items listed on the agenda
may be deleted without further notice.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the
meeting, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It
does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on
the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link,
or may be examined in the Commission's Public Reference Room.

                                                 1001st--Meeting
                                 [Regular Meeting, January 16, 2014, 10:00 a.m.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Item No.                          Docket No.                               Company
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 ADMINISTRATIVE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-1..............................  AD02-1-000                         Agency Business Matters.
A-2..............................  AD02-7-000                         Customer Matters, Reliability, Security
                                                                       and Market Operations.
A-3..............................  AD13-9-000                         Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of
                                                                       2013.
A-4..............................  AD14-5-000                         Recent Weather Effects on the Bulk Power
                                                                       System.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    ELECTRIC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-1..............................  ER14-329-000                       ISO New England Inc.

E-2..............................  RM13-11-000                        Frequency Response and Frequency Bias
                                                                       Setting Reliability Standard.
E-3..............................  RM14-1-000                         Reliability Standard for Geomagnetic
                                                                       Disturbance Operations.
E-4..............................  RD13-12-000                        North American Electric Reliability
                                                                       Corporation.
E-5..............................  EC13-26-001                        Ohio Power Company. AEP Generation
                                                                       Resources, Inc.
E-6..............................  OMITTED
E-7..............................  OMITTED
E-8..............................  OMITTED
E-9..............................  EL12-11-001                        Rail Splitter Wind Farm, LLC v. Ameren
                                                                       Services Company and Midwest Independent
                                                                       Transmission System Operator, Inc.
E-10.............................  EL13-84-001                        Kansas Municipal Energy Agency v.
                                                                       Sunflower Electric Power Corporation, Mid-
                                                                       Kansas Electric Company, LLC, Southwest
                                                                       Power Pool, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       GAS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-1..............................  RP13-874-001                       Portland Natural Gas Transmission System
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  CERTIFICATES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-1..............................  CP13-545-000                       Dominion Transmission, Inc. and Tennessee
                                                                       Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued January 9, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

    A free Webcast of this event is available through www.ferc.gov.
Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this event can do so by
navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and locating this event
in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to its webcast. The
Capitol Connection provides technical support for the free webcasts. It
also offers access to this event via television in the DC area and via
phone bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit
www.CapitolConnection.org or contact Danelle Springer or David
Reininger at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a
press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of
the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This
statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings
that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at
Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol
Connection service.

[FR Doc. 2014-00573 Filed 1-10-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                                                                    May 7, 2014
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Cost Savings Estimate of Adding Three Chemicals to the 40 CFR 711.6(b)(2) Chemical Substance List

FROM:	OPPT/EETD/EPAB

TO:		OPPT/CCD/ECB

      The Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule requires manufacturers of certain chemicals to report information concerning the manufacturing, processing, and use of their subject chemical. Chemicals listed at 40 CFR 711.6(b)(2) are partially exempt from this reporting requirement and do not report the processing and use information required by 40 CFR 711.15(b)(4). The Environmental Protection Agency is adding 1,3-Propanediol (CAS RN 504-63-2); Bentonite, (Acid Leached) (CAS RN 70131-50-9); and Palm Kernel Oils (CAS RN 8023-79-8) to this partial exemption through a direct final rulemaking. Adding these chemicals to the partial exemption list eliminates the requirement for manufacturers of these chemicals to report processing and use information (Part III) for production volumes of 100,000 lb or greater through the CDR rule.

      There were 13 submissions in the CDR reporting for these three chemicals in 2012. Most of the reported manufacture or importation volume that would indicate the need for full or partial reporting was claimed as CBI or withheld, although one company did report an importation volume of only 30,000 lb per year. After subtracting this single submission, this analysis assumes that this direct final rule would eliminate Part III reporting for the remaining 12 chemical submissions. Based on the estimated cost per site to prepare Part III, the addition of these chemicals to the partial exemption list results in a total cost savings to industry of $61,404 in the first cycle and $48,564 in future cycles.

Estimate of Savings Due to Addition of Three Chemicals to the IUR Partial Exemption

                                  First Cycle
                                 Future Cycles
                           Cost to prepare Part III
                                    $5,117
                                    $4,047
                               Number of reports
                                      12
                            Total savings estimate
                                    $61,404
                                    $48,564
Note: Cost to prepare Part III from table 4-56 in the Economic Analysis for the Final Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Modifications Rule, June 30, 2011.

Attachment
                                      Attachment
   *        Chemical/Generic Name: 1,3-Propanediol (5 submissions)
   *        CAS Number:  504-63-2
   *        Company: E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO
   *        Site:  DUPONT KINSTON PLANT, 4693 HWY 11 N, KINSTON, NC, 28502
   *        Manufactured:  CBI
   *        Imported:  No Data Reported
   *        Is the chemical never physically at the import site? : CBI
   *        Volume used on the site : CBI
   *        Past Production Volume : CBI
   *        National Production Volume for Chemical : 69,715,403 lb/yr
   *        Chemical/Generic Name: 1,3-Propanediol
   *        CAS Number:  504-63-2
   *        Company: TATE & LYLE
   *        Site:  TATE & LYLE LOUDON, 198 BLAIR BEND DRIVE, LOUDON, TN, 37774-6575
   *        Manufactured:  CBI
   *        Imported:  No Data Reported
   *        Is the chemical never physically at the import site? : N/A
   *        Volume used on the site : 0 lb/yr
   *        Past Production Volume : CBI
   *        National Production Volume for Chemical : 69,715,403 lb/yr
   *        Chemical/Generic Name: 1,3-Propanediol
   *        CAS Number:  504-63-2
   *        Company: LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL INC
   *        Site:  LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL INC., 740 W NEW CIRCLE RD, LEXINGTON, KY, 40550
   *        Manufactured:  No Data Reported
   *        Imported:  30,000 lb/yr
   *        Is the chemical never physically at the import site? : YES
   *        Volume used on the site : N/A
   *        Past Production Volume : 24,000 lb/yr
   *        National Production Volume for Chemical : 69,715,403 lb/yr
   *        Chemical/Generic Name: 1,3-Propanediol
   *        CAS Number:  504-63-2
   *        Company: DOW CHEMICAL CO
   *        Site:  The Dow Chemical Company, 2020 Dow Center, Midland, MI, 48674
   *        Manufactured:  No Data Reported
   *        Imported:  CBI
   *        Is the chemical never physically at the import site? : YES
   *        Volume used on the site : N/A
   *        Past Production Volume : CBI
   *        National Production Volume for Chemical : 69,715,403 lb/yr
   *        Chemical/Generic Name: 1,3-Propanediol
   *        CAS Number:  504-63-2
   *        Company: BASF CORP
   *        Site:  BASF CORP, 100 CAMPUS DR, FLORHAM PARK, NJ, 07932-1089
   *        Manufactured:  No Data Reported
   *        Imported:  CBI
   *        Is the chemical never physically at the import site? : YES
   *        Volume used on the site : CBI
   *        Past Production Volume : CBI
   *        National Production Volume for Chemical : 69,715,403 lb/

   *        Chemical/Generic Name: Bentonite, acid-leached (5 submissions)
   *        CAS Number:  70131-50-9
   *        Company: BASF CORP
   *        Site:  BASF CATALYSTS LLC, 600 EAST MCDOWELL ROAD, JACKSON, MS, 39204-5992
   *        Manufactured:  CBI
   *        Imported:  No Data Reported
   *        Is the chemical never physically at the import site? : N/A
   *        Volume used on the site : CBI
   *        Past Production Volume : CBI
   *        National Production Volume for Chemical : 10,000,000 - 50,000,000 lb/yr
   *        Chemical/Generic Name: Bentonite, acid-leached
   *        CAS Number:  70131-50-9
   *        Company: WACKER CHEMICAL CORP
   *        Site:  WACKER CHEMICAL CORP, 3301 SUTTON ROAD, ADRIAN, MI, 49221-9397
   *        Manufactured:  CBI
   *        Imported:  CBI
   *        Is the chemical never physically at the import site? : CBI
   *        Volume used on the site : CBI
   *        Past Production Volume : CBI
   *        National Production Volume for Chemical : 10,000,000 - 50,000,000 lb/yr
   *        Chemical/Generic Name: Bentonite, acid-leached
   *        CAS Number:  70131-50-9
   *        Company: APPLETON PAPERS INC
   *        Site:  APPLETON PAPERS INC APPLET ON PLANT, 825 E WISCONSIN AVE, APPLETON, WI, 549113873
   *        Manufactured:  No Data Reported
   *        Imported:  158,400 lb/yr
   *        Is the chemical never physically at the import site? : NO
   *        Volume used on the site : 158,400 lb/yr
   *        Past Production Volume : 277,414 lb/yr
   *        National Production Volume for Chemical : 10,000,000 - 50,000,000 lb/yr
   *        Chemical/Generic Name: Bentonite, acid-leached
   *        CAS Number:  70131-50-9
   *        Company: SUD-CHEMIE NORTH AMERICA INC
   *        Site:  SUD-CHEMIE INC., 1600 W HILL ST, LOUISVILLE, KY, 40210
   *        Manufactured:  Withheld
   *        Imported:  Withheld
   *        Is the chemical never physically at the import site? : YES
   *        Volume used on the site : N/A
   *        Past Production Volume : 654,000 lb/yr
   *        National Production Volume for Chemical : 10,000,000 - 50,000,000 lb/yr
   *        Chemical/Generic Name: Bentonite, acid-leached
   *        CAS Number:  70131-50-9
   *        Company: AMCOL INTERNATIONAL
   *        Site:  AMCOL INTERNATIONAL, 2870 FORBS AVE, HOFFMAN ESTATES, IL, 60192
   *        Manufactured:  Withheld
   *        Imported:  Withheld
   *        Is the chemical never physically at the import site? : YES
   *        Volume used on the site : N/A
   *        Past Production Volume : 0 lb/yr
   *        National Production Volume for Chemical : 10,000,000 - 50,000,000 lb/yr

   *        Chemical/Generic Name: Oils, palm kernel    (3 submissions)
   *        CAS Number:  8023-79-8
   *        Company: PROCTER & GAMBLE CO
   *        Site:  PROCTER & GAMBLE CO, 1 PROCTER AND GAMBLE PLAZA, CINCINNATI, OH, 45202-3393
   *        Manufactured:  No Data Reported
   *        Imported:  CBI
   *        Is the chemical never physically at the import site? :
   *        Volume used on the site : 0 lb/yr
   *        Past Production Volume : CBI
   *        National Production Volume for Chemical : 50,000,000 - 100,000,000 lb/yr
   *        Chemical/Generic Name: Oils, palm kernel
   *        CAS Number:  8023-79-8
   *        Company: CBI
   *        Site:  CBI
   *        Manufactured:  CBI
   *        Imported:  No Data Reported
   *        Is the chemical never physically at the import site? : N/A
   *        Volume used on the site : 0 lb/yr
   *        Past Production Volume : CBI
   *        National Production Volume for Chemical : 50,000,000 - 100,000,000 lb/yr
   *        Chemical/Generic Name: Oils, palm kernel
   *        CAS Number:  8023-79-8
   *        Company: SUN PRODUCTS CORP
   *        Site:  SUN PRODUCTS CORP TEXAS, 12700 BAY AREA BLVD., PASADENA, TX, 77507
   *        Manufactured:  Withheld
   *        Imported:  Withheld
   *        Is the chemical never physically at the import site? : NO
   *        Volume used on the site : 68,025,906 lb/yr
   *        Past Production Volume : 70,178,940 lb/yr
   *        National Production Volume for Chemical : 50,000,000 - 100,000,000 lb/yr