[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 35548]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12537]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL OP-OFA-019]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed May 27, 2022 10 a.m. EST Through June 6, 2022 10 a.m. EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's
comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20220074, Final, CHSRA, CA, California High-Speed Rail
Authority San Francisco to San Jose Project Section Final Environmental
Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement, Review Period Ends: 07/
11/2022, Contact: Scott Rothenberg<PHONE_NUMBER>.

EIS No. 20220075, Final, USCG, PRO, Offshore Patrol Cutter Acquisition
Program, Review Period Ends: 07/11/2022, Contact: Andrew Haley 202-372-
1821.

EIS No. 20220076, Draft, USACE, TX, Proposed Corpus Christi Ship
Channel Deepening Project, Comment Period Ends: 07/25/2022, Contact:
Jayson M Hudson<PHONE_NUMBER>.

EIS No. 20220077, Draft, USFS, CA, Meeks Bay Restoration, Comment
Period Ends: 08/09/2022, Contact: Ashley Sibr<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 6, 2022.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2022-12537 Filed 6-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 222)]
[Notices]
[Page 70741-70742]
[DOCID:fr18no10-86]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-2041-000]

Innovative Energy Systems, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

November 8, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding
Innovative Energy Systems, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is November 29, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed 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>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29041 Filed 11-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83902-83905]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28036]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79329; File No. SR-BX-2016-058]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Limit
Order Protection

November 16, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 4, 2016, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II 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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Limit Order Protection or
``LOP'' for members accessing the BX Market Center and adding rule text
related to a collar applicable to Primary Pegging and Market Pegging
Orders.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.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 aspects 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 recently adopted a new mechanism to protect against
erroneous Limit Orders which are entered into the BX Market Center at
Rule 4757(d).\3\ This mechanism addresses risks to market participants
of human error in entering Limit Orders at unintended prices.
Specifically, LOP prevents certain Limit Orders from executing or being
placed on the Order Book at prices outside pre-set standard limits. The
System rejects those Limit Orders, rather than executing them
automatically. LOP rejects Limit Orders back to the member when the
order exceeds certain defined logic. Specifically, LOP prevents certain
Limit Orders at prices outside of pre-set standard limits (``LOP
Limit'') from being accepted by the System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78246 [sic] (August
24, 2016), 81 FR 59672 (August 30, 2016) (SR-BX-2016-037).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Modifications of Orders
    In its adoptive filing, the Exchange noted that LOP shall apply to
all Quotes and Orders, including any modified Orders.\4\ At this time,
the Exchange proposes to remove ``including any modified Orders'' from
the rule text at rule 4757(d)(i). The Exchange proposes to amend this
language because it is misleading and may cause confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ If an Order is modified for price, LOP will review the order
anew and, if LOP is triggered, such modification will not take
effect and the original order will be rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to state that LOP shall apply to all Quotes
and Orders, including Quotes and Orders that have been modified, where
the modification results in a new timestamp and priority.\5\ Any Order
that is modified within the System, but does not lose priority, for
example an Order that was decremented, will not be subject to LOP after
it was modified because the system does not cancel decremented orders
from the Order Book. If an Order is cancelled either by the member or
by the system and a new Order entered into the System, the new Order
would be subject to LOP. For example, if the price of an Order is
modified, the system will cancel the Order and the modified Order would
receive a new timestamp and priority and this Order would be subject to
LOP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 4756 (Entry and Display of Quotes and Orders) at
(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exceptions to LOP
    The Exchange also noted in its adoptive filing that LOP would not
apply to Market Orders, Market Maker Peg Orders \6\ or Intermarket
Sweep Orders (ISO).\7\ The Exchange proposes to modify this language to
specifically state that LOP would not apply to Orders with Market and
Primary Pegging.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A ``Market Maker Peg Order'' is an Order Type designed to
allow a Market Maker to maintain a continuous two-sided quotation at
a displayed price that is compliant with the quotation requirements
for Market Makers set forth in Rule 4613(a)(2). The displayed price
of the Market Maker Peg Order is set with reference to a ``Reference
Price'' in order to keep the displayed price of the Market Maker Peg
Order within a bounded price range. A Market Maker Peg Order may be
entered through RASH, FIX or QIX only. A Market Maker Peg Order must
be entered with a limit price beyond which the Order may not be
priced. The Reference Price for a Market Maker Peg Order to buy
(sell) is the then-current National Best Bid (National Best Offer)
(including BX), or if no such National Best Bid or National Best
Offer, the most recent reported last-sale eligible trade from the
responsible single plan processor for that day, or if none, the
previous closing price of the security as adjusted to reflect any
corporate actions (e.g., dividends or stock splits) in the security.
See BX Rule 4702(b)(7).
    \7\ An Intermarket Sweep or ISO Order, which is an Order that is
immediately executable within BX against Orders against which they
are marketable, is not subject to LOP. See BX Rule 6951(g).
    \8\ Orders with Market and Primary Pegging available through
RASH, FIX, and QIX only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are three types of Pegging Orders: Primary Pegging, Market
Pegging and Midpoint Pegging. Pegging is an Order Attribute that allows
an Order to have its price automatically set with reference to the
NBBO; provided, however, that if BX is the sole market center at the
Best Bid or Best Offer (as applicable), then the price of any Displayed
Order with Primary Pegging (as defined below) will be set with
reference to the highest bid or lowest offer disseminated by a market
center other than BX. An Order with a Pegging Order Attribute may be
referred to as a ``Pegged Order.'' \9\ For purposes of this Rule 4703,
the price to which an Order is pegged will be referred to as the Inside
Quotation, the Inside Bid, or the Inside Offer, as appropriate. There
are three varieties of Pegging:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Rule 4703(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Primary Pegging means Pegging with reference to the Inside
Quotation on the same side of the market. For example, if the Inside
Bid was $11, an Order to buy with Primary Pegging would be priced at
$11.
     Market Pegging means Pegging with reference to the Inside
Quotation on the opposite side of the market. For example, if the
Inside Offer was $11.06, an Order to buy with Market Pegging would be
priced at $11.06.
     Midpoint Pegging means Pegging with reference to the
midpoint between the Inside Bid and the Inside Offer (the
``Midpoint''). Thus, if the Inside Bid was

$11 and the Inside Offer was $11.06, an Order with Midpoint Pegging
would be priced at $11.03. An Order with Midpoint Pegging is not
displayed. An Order with Midpoint Pegging may be executed in sub-
pennies if necessary to obtain a midpoint price.
    Midpoint Pegging will be the only Pegging Order subject to LOP,
provided it has a limit price. Pegging is available only during Market
Hours. An Order with Pegging may specify a limit price beyond which the
Order may not be executed; provided, however, that if an Order has been
assigned a Pegging Order Attribute and a Discretion Order \10\
Attribute, the Order may execute at any price within the discretionary
price range, even if beyond the limit price specified with respect to
the Pegging Order Attribute. A Midpoint Pegging Order may have a
discretion attribute. A Midpoint Pegging Order with a discretion price
would not be subject to LOP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Discretion is an Order Attribute under which an Order has a
non-displayed discretionary price range within which the entering
Participant is willing to trade; such an Order may be referred to as
a ``Discretionary Order.'' See BX Rule 4703(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that a Midpoint Pegging Order, similar to a
Primary or Market Pegging Order, as explained below, may result is
[sic] an aggressive or passive price. As a result, the LOP may remove
orders that were intended to be more aggressive or passive due to the
discretionary attribute. For this reason, the Exchange will not subject
a Midpoint Pegging Order with a discretion price to LOP.
    In addition, an Order with Primary Pegging or Market Pegging may
specify an Offset Amount, such that the price of the Order will vary
from the Inside Quotation by the selected Offset Amount.\11\ The Offset
Amount may be either aggressive or passive. Thus, for example, if a
Participant entered an Order to buy with Primary Pegging and a passive
Offset Amount of $0.05 and the Inside Bid was $11, the Order would be
priced at $10.95. If the Participant selected an aggressive Offset
Amount of $0.02, however, the Order would be priced at $11.02. An Order
with Primary Pegging and an Offset Amount will not be Displayed, unless
the Order is Attributable. The Exchange notes that both Market and
Primary Pegging may impact the market by effecting the bid or offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ An offset is not supported for a Midpoint Pegging Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is not applying LOP to orders with Market or Primary
Pegging because it may result in removing orders that were intended to
be more aggressive or to set the bid or offer on the market due to the
order attributes noted above. These Pegging Orders are also subject to
a collar, which is explained in this rule change.
    In contrast, an Order with Midpoint Pegging will only be at the
midpoint and not have the same impact as the other two types of orders
and therefore subjecting such an order to LOP does not impact the
potential of the order since by definition it is set to the midpoint.
An Order with Midpoint Pegging will not be displayed and is not subject
to a collar.
    An Order with Market Pegging and no Offset behaves as a ``market
order'' with respect to any liquidity on the BX Book at the Inside
Quotation on the opposite side of the market because it is immediately
executable at that price. If, at the time of entry, there is no price
to which a Pegged Order can be pegged, the Order will be rejected;
provided, however, that a Displayed Order that has Market Pegging, or
an Order with a Non-Display Attribute that has Primary Pegging or
Market Pegging, will be accepted at its limit price.
    In the case of an Order with Midpoint Pegging, if the Inside Bid
and Inside Offer are locked, the Order will be priced at the locking
price, if the Inside Bid and Inside Offer are crossed, the Order will
nevertheless be priced at the midpoint between the Inside Bid and
Inside Offer, and if there is no Inside Bid and/or Inside Offer, the
Order will be rejected.\12\ However, even if the Inside Bid and Inside
Offer are locked or crossed, an Order with Midpoint Pegging that locked
or crossed an Order on the BX Book would execute (provided, however,
that a Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order would execute or post as described
in Rule 4702(b)(5)(A)).\13\ It is important to note that only to the
extent that a Midpoint Pegging Order has a limit price that the Order
would be subject to LOP, unless the Midpoint Pegging Order also has a
discretion attribute. If no limit price is specified, the Midpoint
Pegging Order would not be subject to LOP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ This provision is subject to change by another rule change.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78909 (September 22, 2016),
81 FR 66708 (September 28, 2016) (SR-BX-2016-046). The Commission
notes that it approved SR-BX-2016-046 on November 10, 2016. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79290.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LOP will be operational each trading day, except during trading
halts and pauses. LOP will not apply in the event that there is no
established LOP Reference Price.\14\ The LOP Reference Price shall be
the current National Best Bid or Best Offer (NBBO), the bid for sell
orders and the offer for buy orders.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For example, if there is a one-sided quote or if the NBB,
when used as the LOP Reference Price, is equal to or less than
$0.50.
    \15\ The Exchange will not accept incoming Limit Orders that
exceed the LOP Reference Threshold. Limit Orders will not be
accepted if the price of the Limit Order is greater than the LOP
Reference Threshold for a buy Limit Order. Limit Orders will not be
accepted if the price of the Limit Order is less than the LOP
Reference Threshold for a sell Limit Order. The LOP Reference
Threshold for buy orders will be the LOP Reference Price (offer)
plus the applicable percentage specified in the LOP Limit. The LOP
Reference Threshold for sell orders will be the LOP Reference Price
(bid) minus the applicable percentage specified in the LOP Limit.
The LOP Limit will be the greater of 10% of the LOP Reference Price
or $0.50 for all securities across all trading sessions. The LOP
Reference Price will be the current National Best Bid or Best Offer
(NBBO), the bid for sell orders and the offer for buy orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LOP will be applicable on all protocols.\16\ The LOP feature will
be mandatory for all BX members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ BX maintains several communications protocols for members
to use in entering Orders and sending other messages to BX, such as:
OUCH, RASH, FLITE, and FIX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation of LOP
    The Exchange indicated in its adoptive rule change that it would
implement this rule within ninety (90) days of the approval of the
proposed rule change.\17\ At this time, the Exchange proposes to delay
this implementation an additional sixty (60) days from the original
timeframe in order to implement the LOP with the changes proposed
herein. The Exchange will issue an Equities Trader Alert in advance to
inform market participants of such implementation date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See note 3 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pegging Order Collar
    In 2009, the Exchange adopted a collar for certain Unpriced
Orders.\18\ At that time, the Exchange defined an Unpriced Order as any
order type permitted by the System to buy or sell shares of a security
at the national best bid (best offer) (``NBBO'') at the time when the
order reaches the System. Any portion of an Unpriced Order that would
execute on BX at a price more than $0.25 or 5 percent worse than the
NBBO at the time when the order reaches the System, whichever is
greater, will be cancelled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63052 (October 6,
2010), 75 FR 62902 (October 13, 2010) (SR-BX-2010-067). An
``Unpriced Order'' was defined in this rule change as any order type
permitted by the System to buy or sell shares of a security at the
national best bid (best offer) (``NBBO'') at the time when the order
reaches the System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule related to the collar was inadvertently removed from the

Exchange's rules.\19\ At this time, the Exchange proposes to amend the
BX rules to add the collar into the rules once again.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74617 (March 31,
2015), 80 FR 18473 (March 31, 2015) (SR-BX-2015-015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the collar is to protect market participants by
reducing the risk that Primary and Market Pegging Orders will execute
at prices that are significantly worse than the national best bid and
offer (``NBBO'') at the time the Exchange receives the order. The
Exchange believes that most market participants expect that their order
will be executed at its full size at a price reasonably related to the
prevailing market. However, market participants may not be aware that
there is insufficient liquidity at or near the NBBO to fill the entire
order, particularly for more thinly-traded securities.
    The Exchange proposes to memorialize this collar, which currently
exists in its trading and routing systems functionality, and define it
specifically as applicable to Primary and Market Pegging Orders. The
Exchange seeks to memorialize the rule within Rule 4703, entitled
``Order Attributes.'' The new rule text would state, ``Primary Pegging
Orders and Market Pegging Orders are subject to a collar. Any portion
of a Primary Pegging Order or Market Pegging Order that would execute,
either on the Exchange or when routed to another market center, at a
price of more than $0.25 or 5 percent worse than the NBBO at the time
when the order reaches the System, whichever is greater, will be
cancelled.''
    The following example illustrates how the collar works. A market
participant submits a routable order to buy 500 shares. The NBBO is
$6.00 bid by $6.05 offer, with 100 shares available on each side. Both
sides of the NBBO are set by another market center (``Away Market''),
but BX has 100 shares available at the $6.05 to sell at the offer price
and also has reserve orders to sell 100 shares at $6.32 and 400 shares
at $6.40. No other market center is publishing offers to sell the
security in between $6.05 and $6.40.
    In this example, the order would be executed in the following
manner:
     100 shares would be executed by BX at the $6.05;
     400 shares would be routed to the Away Market as an
immediate or cancel order with a price of $6.05;
     100 shares executed by the Away Market; \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ This assumes that the Away Market's offer was still
available and that the Away Market had no additional non-displayed
orders at this price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     300 shares returned to BX;
     100 shares executed by BX at $6.32 (more than $0.25 but
less than 5 percent worse than the NBBO); and 200 shares, representing
the remainder of the order, would be cancelled because the remaining
liquidity available at $6.40 is more than 5 percent worse than the
NBBO.
Implementation of Pegging Order Collar
    The Exchange intends to implement the Pegging Order Collar as soon
as practicable pursuant to this proposal. The Exchange requests a
waiver of the operative delay to implement the Pegging Order Collar.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\21\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\22\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest, by mitigating risks to market participants of human error in
entering Limit Orders at clearly unintended prices. The proposal will
allow for protections for Limit Orders which should encourage price
continuity and, in turn, protect investors and the public interest by
reducing executions occurring at dislocated prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend the language concerning the
modification of Orders is consistent with the Act because only new
Orders would be subject to LOP. The proposed new language specifies
that Orders that are modified for size and remain in the Order Book
with the same priority, because only size was modified to reduce the
size, will not be subject to LOP. Other modifications to Orders that
amend the timestamp or priority will subject the modified orders to LOP
because these Orders will be submitted into the System as new Orders.
The LOP functionality protects market participants by reducing the risk
that Midpoint Pegging Orders will execute at prices that are
significantly worse than the national best bid and offer (``NBBO'') at
the time the Exchange receives the order.
    The LOP feature assists with the maintenance of fair and orderly
markets by mitigating the risks associated with errors resulting in
executions at prices that are away from the Best Bid or Offer and
potentially erroneous. Further it protects investors from potentially
receiving executions away from the prevailing prices at any given time.
The Exchange adopted LOP to avoid a series of improperly priced
aggressive orders transacting in the Order Book.
    The Exchange believes that excluding Primary Pegging and Market
Pegging Orders is consistent with the Act because including such orders
may result in removing orders that were intended to be more aggressive
or to set the bid or offer on the market due to the order attributes
noted in the Purpose section of this rule change. Market and Primary
Pegging Orders are also currently subject to a collar. Market and
Primary Pegging Orders that would execute, either on the Exchange or
when routed to another market center, at a price of more than $0.25 or
5 percent worse than the NBBO at the time when the order reaches the
System, whichever is greater, will be cancelled.\23\ Further, the
Market Pegging Order has its own process for rejecting those orders
where no price exists to which a Pegged Order can be pegged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The Exchange inadvertently removed the rule from the BX
Rulebook. The Exchange proposes to adopt the rule herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This feature should create a level of protection that prevents the
Limit Orders from entering the Order Book outside of an acceptable
range for the Limit Order to execute. The LOP should reduce the
negative impacts of sudden, unanticipated volatility, and serve to
preserve an orderly market in a transparent and uniform manner,
increase overall market confidence, and promote fair and orderly
markets and the protection of investors.
Pegging Order Collar
    The Exchange believes that the collar proposal is consistent with
the Act because it is designed to promote just and equitable principles
of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system, and, in general to
protect investors and the public interest, by avoiding execution of
Primary and Market Pegging Orders (either on BX or on other market
centers as a result of orders routed by BX) at prices that are
significantly worse than the NBBO at the time the order is initially
received. The NBBO provides reasonable guidance of the current value of
a given security and therefore market participants should have
confidence that their Market and Primary Pegging Orders will not be
executed at a significantly worse price than the NBBO.

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. The LOP feature should provide
market participants with additional price protection from anomalous
executions. This feature is not optional and is applicable to all
members submitting Limit Orders. Thus, the Exchange does not believe
the proposal creates any significant impact on competition. In
addition, the proposed collar in Rule 4703 would be applicable to all
Market and Primary Pegging Orders entered into the BX System.
Similarly, all Midpoint Pegging Order will be subject to LOP, unless
they have a discretion attribute.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \25\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \26\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. When the
Exchange first proposed the LOP, the Exchange represented that it would
implement the LOP within 90 days of obtaining Commission approval
(i.e., by November 22, 2016).\27\ The Exchange now proposes to extend
the LOP implementation date by 60 days in order to include the
modifications in this proposed rule change with the implementation of
the LOP. Waiver of the 30-day operative delay would allow the Exchange
to immediately extend the LOP implementation date. The waiver would
also permit the Exchange to immediately clarify the application of the
LOP to modified orders. Moreover, the waiver would allow the Exchange
to immediately exclude from the LOP Market Pegging Orders, Primary
Pegging Orders, and Midpoint Pegging Orders that have a discretion
price. As noted above, the Exchange proposes to exclude these Orders
because these Orders may be intended to be aggressive or to set the bid
or offer on the market. Moreover, as noted above, Market and Primary
Pegging Orders are currently subject to collars. Lastly, the waiver
would allow the Exchange's rules to immediately and accurately reflect
the current collars for Market and Primary Pegging Orders, which were
removed inadvertently. Accordingly, the Commission finds that waiving
the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest and designates the proposal operative
upon filing.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \27\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 78244 (July 7,
2016), 81 FR 45320 (July 13, 2016) (noticing SR-BX-2016-037) and
78667 (August 24, 2016), 81 FR 59672 (August 30, 2016) (approving
SR-BX-2016-037).
    \28\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2016-058 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2016-058. 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-BX-2016-058 and should be
submitted on or before December 13, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-28036 Filed 11-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 19 (Monday, January 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5938-5941]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01737]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Advisers Act Release No. 6224/File No. 803-00248]

AEW Capital Management, L.P.

January 24, 2023.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of application for an exemptive order under Section 206A of
the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') and rule 206(4)-5(e)
under the Act.
    Applicant: AEW Capital Management, L.P. (``Applicant'' or
``Adviser'')
    Summary of Application: Applicant requests that the Commission
issue an order under section 206A of the Act and rule 206(4)-5(e) under
the Act exempting them from rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) under the Act to permit
Applicant to receive compensation from a government entity for
investment advisory services provided to the government entity within
the two-year period following a contribution by a covered associate of
Applicant to an official of the government entity.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on July 28, 2022, and an
amended and restated application was filed on September 28, 2022.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the
application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving Applicant with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on February 21, 2023 and should be accompanied by proof of
service on Applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts
bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason
for the request, and the issues contested. Persons may request
notification of a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: The Commission: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicant: AEW
Capital Management, L.P., Two Seaport Lane, Boston, MA 02210-2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Juliet Han, Attorney-Adviser, at (202)
551-5213 or Kyle R. Ahlgren, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Division
of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's website at http://www.sec.gov/rules/iareleases.shtml or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicant's Representations

    1. Applicant is a Delaware limited partnership registered with the
Commission as an investment adviser under the Act. Applicant provides
discretionary investment advisory services relating to direct and
indirect investments in real estate and real estate related services
including providing

discretionary investment advisory services to private funds (the
``Funds'').
    2. The individual who made the campaign contribution that triggered
the two-year compensation ban (the ``Contribution'') is Lauren O'Neill
Goff (the ``Contributor''). At the time of the Contribution, the
Contributor was a senior managing director and co-head of the Boston
office for Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated (``JLL''), a real estate
firm that provides leasing, property and integrated facility
management, and capital market services. The Contributor was not a
covered associate, and she did not provide services to the Adviser at
the time of the Contribution. The Contributor was offered employment by
the Adviser on October 26, 2021 to serve as chief operating officer of
the Adviser's private equity group. The COO role for which the
Contributor was hired includes overseeing the Adviser's asset
management and reporting finance teams and evaluating, establishing and
monitoring operational standards for the Adviser's private equity
platform. Although the Contributor was not hired to be a marketer, her
role would ordinarily require attending diligence meetings with current
and prospective investors and participating in efforts to increase and
maintain capital commitments to the Adviser's Funds. Since joining the
Adviser, the Contributor has not solicited government entities. The
Contributor is not responsible for overseeing the Adviser's business
development function, but members of her team do participate in
solicitation meetings from time to time. Since starting employment with
the Adviser on January 24, 2022, the Contributor has assumed an
executive officer position. As such, the Contributor is a covered
associate as defined in rule 206(4)-5(f)(2)(i).
    3. An investor in the Funds is a public pension plan identified as
a government entity, as defined in rule 206(4)-5(f)(5)(ii), with
respect to the City of Boston (the ``Client'').
    4. The recipient of the Contribution was Kim Janey (the
``Recipient''), a Boston city council member who, at the time of the
Contribution, was acting mayor of Boston and a candidate for re-
election as mayor. The investment decisions for the Client, including
the hiring of an investment adviser, are overseen by a five-member
board, with two mayoral appointments. Due to the mayor's power of
appointment, a candidate for mayor such as the Recipient is an
``official'' of the Client as defined in rule 206(4)-5(f)(6)(ii). The
Contribution that triggered rule 206(4)-5's prohibition on compensation
under rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) was made on July 23, 2021, for the amount of
$1,000. The Recipient called the Contributor directly to solicit the
donation in question and to ask her to host an event. The Contributor
declined to host an event, but made a contribution. As a resident of
Boston, the Contributor decided to make the Contribution based on her
having a legitimate personal interest in the outcome of the campaign.
Applicant represents that the Contributor had no intention of
soliciting investment advisory business from the Client or any other
government entity of which the Recipient was an official.
    5. The Client has been an investor in the Adviser's Funds since
2006, with additional investments having been made in 2017 and April
2020. Applicant represents that: the Contributor has never presented
for, or met with, any of the Client's representatives over the course
of the relationship; the Contributor is not directly involved with the
Client; the Contributor has had no contact with any representative of
the Client and no contact with any member of the Client's board; and at
no time did any employees of the Adviser other than the Contributor
have any knowledge that the Contribution had been made prior to its
discovery by the Adviser in October 2021.
    6. Applicant learned of the Contribution in late October 2021 in
the course of prospective employee vetting that included review of a
pre-hire political contribution declaration on which the Contributor
disclosed the Contribution. The Adviser informed the Contributor that
she would need to seek a refund, which she did in November 2021. The
Contribution was refunded by the campaign on December 23, 2021. The
Adviser determined that although the Contributor would be a covered
associate under rule 206(4)-5, she is only subject to the 6-month
lookback under rule 206(4)-5(b)(2). She did not become a covered
associate until more than six months had elapsed since the date of her
contribution. However, the Contributor's role would ordinarily involve
soliciting government entities. She is refraining from such
solicitation, but in the event she were to solicit a government entity,
the full two-year lookback would apply and trigger a ban. Applicant
represents that at the point of such solicitation, the portion of
management fees and carried interest attributable to the Client's
investments in the Funds from the date the Contributor became a covered
associate until two years after the date of the contribution would be
held by the Funds or placed in escrow and not distributed to the
Adviser. Applicant further represents that the Adviser also took steps
to limit the Contributor's contact with any representative of the
Client for the duration of the two-year period beginning July 23, 2021,
including informing the Contributor that she could have no contact with
any representative of the Client.
    7. Applicant's Pay-to-Play Policies and Procedures (the ``Policy'')
were adopted and implemented before the Contribution was made. The
Policy requires that all contributions to federal, state and local
office incumbents and candidates are subject to pre-clearance by
employees. There is no de minimis exemption from the pre-clearance for
small contributions to these state and local officials. All employees
of the Adviser are subject to the Policy; its application is not
limited to the Adviser's managing members, executive officers and other
``covered associates'' under the rule. When hiring an individual, the
Adviser makes its job offer conditional on the individual disclosing
any political contributions within the past two years. If any
contributions are reported, the Adviser's human resources team will
escalate to the legal and compliance team for review and action. At
time of hire, all new employees are provided with the Adviser's
compliance training which includes the Policy. Annually, all employees
must certify to their adherence to all policies in the compliance
manual and code of ethics and specifically the Policy. As part of this
annual certification, employees confirm that no political contributions
were made other than those pre-cleared through the Adviser's compliance
system. The Adviser conducts periodic forensic testing to confirm that
the Policy is being followed.

Applicant's Legal Analysis

    1. Rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) under the Act prohibits a registered
investment adviser from providing investment advisory services for
compensation to a government entity within two years after a
contribution to an official of a government entity is made by the
investment adviser or any covered associate of the investment adviser.
The Client is a ``government entity,'' as defined in rule 206(4)-
5(f)(5), the Contributor is a ``covered associate'' as defined in rule
206(4)-5(f)(2), and the Official is an ``official'' as defined in rule
206(4)-5(f)(6).
    2. Section 206A of the Act authorizes the Commission to
``conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person or transaction . .
. from any provision or provisions of [the Act] or of any rule or
regulation thereunder, if and to the extent that such exemption is
necessary

or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the
protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy
and provisions of [the Act].''
    3. Rule 206(4)-5(e) provides that the Commission may conditionally
or unconditionally grant an exemption to an investment adviser from the
prohibition under rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) upon consideration of the factors
listed below, among others:
    (1) Whether the exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act;
    (2) Whether the investment adviser: (i) before the contribution
resulting in the prohibition was made, adopted and implemented policies
and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of the rule;
(ii) prior to or at the time the contribution which resulted in such
prohibition was made, had no actual knowledge of the contribution; and
(iii) after learning of the contribution: (A) has taken all available
steps to cause the contributor involved in making the contribution
which resulted in such prohibition to obtain a return of the
contribution; and (B) has taken such other remedial or preventive
measures as may be appropriate under the circumstances;
    (3) Whether, at the time of the contribution, the contributor was a
covered associate or otherwise an employee of the investment adviser,
or was seeking such employment;
    (4) The timing and amount of the contribution which resulted in the
prohibition;
    (5) The nature of the election (e.g., federal, state or local); and
    (6) The contributor's apparent intent or motive in making the
contribution which resulted in the prohibition, as evidenced by the
facts and circumstances surrounding such contribution.
    4. Applicant requests an order pursuant to Section 206A and rule
206(4)-5(e), exempting them from the two-year prohibition on
compensation imposed by rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) with respect to investment
advisory services provided to the Client within the two-year period
following the Contribution.
    5. Applicant submits that the exemption is necessary and
appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection
of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and
provisions of the Act. Applicant further submits that the other factors
set forth in rule 206(4)-5(e) similarly weigh in favor of granting an
exemption to Applicant to avoid consequences disproportionate to the
violation.
    6. Applicant contends that, given the nature of the Contribution,
and the lack of any evidence that the Adviser or the Contributor
intended to, or actually did, interfere with the Client's merit-based
process for the selection or retention of advisory services, the
interests of the Client are best served by allowing the Adviser and the
Client to continue their relationship uninterrupted. Applicant states
that causing the Adviser to serve without compensation for the
remainder of the two-year period could result in a financial loss that
is more than 600 times the amount of the Contribution. Applicant
suggests that the policy underlying rule 206(4)-5 is served by ensuring
that no improper influence is exercised over investment decisions by
governmental entities as a result of campaign contributions, and not by
withholding compensation as a result of unintentional violations.
    7. Applicant represents that the Adviser adopted and implemented
the Policy which is fully compliant with, and more rigorous than, the
rule's requirements before the rule's initial proposal by the
Commission and substantially before the rule's adoption or dates for
required compliance. Applicant represents that the Adviser implemented
a mandatory political contribution declaration for all employees
provided a conditional offer of employment. It was this declaration
that was effective in identifying the Contribution before the
Contributor became a covered associate.
    8. Applicant asserts that actual knowledge of the Contribution at
the time of its making cannot be imputed to the Adviser, given that the
Contributor was not an employee of the Adviser. Applicant also
represents that at no time did any employees of the Adviser other than
the Contributor have any knowledge that the Contribution had been made
prior to its discovery by the Adviser in October 2021.
    9. Applicant asserts that, after learning of the Contribution, the
Adviser and the Contributor took all available steps to obtain a return
of the Contribution. Before the Contributor began work with the
Adviser, the Contributor had obtained a full refund of the
Contribution. The Adviser has restricted the Contributor from
soliciting the Client and is carefully monitoring the Contributor to
ensure that it will begin restricting compensation related to the
Client if the Contributor solicits any government entity.
    10. Applicant states that after learning of the Contribution, the
Adviser took steps to limit the Contributor's contact with any
representative of the Client for the remainder of the two-year period
beginning July 23, 2021. The Adviser informed the Contributor that she
could have no contact with any representative of the Client. However,
she may solicit other government entities in the course of her duties,
at which point, the two-year lookback would apply and a compensation
ban would begin.
    11. Applicant states that the Adviser has had investments from the
Client that predate the Contributor's employment with the Adviser.
Applicant further states that the Contribution was consistent with the
political affiliation of the Contributor and her history of
contributions. Applicant also submits that the apparent intent in
making the Contribution was not to influence the selection or retention
of the Adviser. Applicant represents that the Contributor has a long
history of backing candidates that share the political views of the
Recipient by voting for them and contributing to their campaigns.
Applicant also represents that the amount of the Contribution, profile
of the candidate, and characteristics of the campaign fall squarely
within the pattern of the Contributor's political leanings, and that
the Contributor also had a legitimate interest in the outcome of the
campaign given that she lives in Boston. Applicant states that the
Contributor had no intention of soliciting investment advisory business
from the Client or any other government entity of which the Recipient
was an official.
    12. Applicant submits that neither the Adviser nor the Contributor
sought to interfere with the Client's merit-based selection process for
advisory services, nor did they seek to negotiate higher fees or
greater ancillary benefits than would be achieved in arms' length
transactions. Applicant further submits that there was no violation of
the Adviser's fiduciary duty to deal fairly or disclose material
conflicts given the absence of any intent or action by the Adviser or
the Contributor to influence the selection process. Applicant contends
that in the case of the Contribution, the imposition of the two-year
prohibition on compensation does not achieve rule 206(4)-5's purposes
and would result in consequences disproportionate to the mistake that
was made.

Applicant's Conditions

    Applicant agrees that any order of the Commission granting the
requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
    1. The Contributor will be prohibited from discussing any business
of the

Adviser with any ``government entity'' client or prospective client for
which the Recipient is an ``official,'' as defined in rule 206(4)-5(f)
until July 23, 2023.
    2. The Contributor will receive a written notification of this
condition and will provide a quarterly certification of compliance
until July 23, 2023. Copies of the certifications will be maintained
and preserved in an easily accessible place for a period of not less
than five years, the first two years in an appropriate office of the
Adviser, and be available for inspection by the staff of the
Commission.
    3. The Adviser will conduct testing reasonably designed to prevent
violations of the conditions of the Order and maintain records
regarding such testing, which will be maintained and preserved in an
easily accessible place for a period of not less than five years, the
first two years in an appropriate office of the Adviser, and be
available for inspection by the staff of the Commission.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-01737 Filed 1-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


 ADVANCE \y63

	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	REGION III

1650 Arch Street

	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103-2029

Shari T. Wilson, Secretary 							July 21, 2009

Maryland Department of the Environment

1800 Washington Boulevard

Baltimore, MD 21230

Dear Secretary Wilson:

On June 30, 2009, EPA received a revision to the Maryland State
Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Maryland Department of the
Environment (the Department) pertaining to the one sintering plant
located at a steel mill in Maryland – Revision #09-02.  This SIP
revision includes amendments to Regulation .03 under COMAR 26.11.10
Control of Iron and Steel Production Installations.  In its June 30,
2009 transmittal letter, the Department indicated that it was
withdrawing SIP Revision #07-01 sent to EPA on February 13, 2007 because
Revision #09-02 supersedes and replaces #07-01 in its entirety.  EPA has
determined that SIP Revision #09-02, submitted on June 30, 2009, is
administratively and technically complete.  EPA is reviewing it to
prepare a Direct Final Rulemaking Notice (DFR).

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to
Marcia Spink, Associate Director for Air Programs at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
She is the principal contact for this rulemaking.  Pursuant to your
request to withdraw it, we are returning the February 13, 2007

SIP Revision #07-01 to the Department and no longer consider it pending
before EPA.

						Sincerely,

						Diana Esher, Acting Director

						Air Protection Division

enclosures

	Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 156 (Thursday, August 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48517-48518]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19893]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-538-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on July 29, 2015, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC
(Columbia) 5151 San Felipe Suite 2500,

Houston, Texas 77056, filed in Docket No. CP15-538-000, a prior notice
request pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.13 and 157.216 of the
Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act and Columbia's
blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-76-000. Columbia seeks
authorization to convert Well No. 4604 from active injection/withdrawal
status to observation status, and to abandon Line 29171, consisting of
approximately 497 feet of 4-inch diameter pipeline located in its
Victory Storage Field in Marshall County, West Virginia, all as more
fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission
and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Web
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY at
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to
Matthew J. Agen, Senior Counsel, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 5151
San Felipe Suite 2500, Houston, Texas 77056, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not
withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest,
the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    Dated: August 7, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-19893 Filed 8-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


  U.S. Department of Labor  -  Occupational Safety and Health Administration
    NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH (NACOSH)
                        U.S. Department of Labor, WebEx

                       Conference Number: 1-800-779-1534
                     Public Participant passcode: 2969166

                         Meeting password: Welcome!24
                     Type of Meeting:  Full NACOSH Meeting
                       NACOSH Agenda: February 22, 2022
Andy Levinson  -  Designated Federal Official -<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Long  -  Alternate Designated Federal Official  -<EMAIL_ADDRESS>             Cynthia Lewis - NACOSH Chair  -<EMAIL_ADDRESS>          Jennifer Levin  -  Committee Counsel -<EMAIL_ADDRESS>        Carla Marcellus  -  NACOSH Support  -<EMAIL_ADDRESS>           NACOSH Agendas are subject to change without prior notice

1:00  -  1:10 PM
Opening Remarks, Roll-call, Introductions
Cynthia Lewis, NACOSH Chair
1:10  -  1:15 PM
Agenda
Cynthia Lewis, NACOSH Chair

Discussion of November 16, 2021, Meeting Minutes
Cynthia Lewis, NACOSH Chair
1:15  -  1:45 PM
OSHA Update

Douglas L. Parker, Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA (tentative)
1:45  -  2:15 PM
NIOSH Update
John Piacentino, Associate Director for Science, NIOSH
2:15  -  2:30 PM
Break

2:30  -  3:45 PM
Heat Stress
 Rulemaking Update
 Heat Work Group Overview
 Charge to Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Work Group
 OSHA's Heat Illness Prevention Campaign

OSHA Staff
Ashley Bieniek-Tobasco,  Health Scientist, DSG-OBH
Lisa Long, Director, DSG-OES
Stephen Schayer, Director, DSG-OPH
Pamela Barclay, Health Scientist, DSG
Inanje Mintz, Public Health Educator, DSG

3:45  -  4:00 PM
Break

4:00 PM  -  4:30 PM
Risk-based Safety Discussion
Cynthia Lewis, NACOSH Chair
4:30 PM  -  Close
Open Discussion, Closing Remarks, Adjourn
Full Committee & Public


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 226 (Friday, November 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72550-72552]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25670]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96360; File No. SR-Phlx-2022-47]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend FINRA Fees

November 18, 2022.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 14, 2022, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities

and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Phlx's Pricing Schedule at Options
7, Section 9, Other Member Fees, to reflect adjustments to FINRA
Registration Fees and Fingerprinting Fees.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This rule change impacts FINRA fees for members who trade
equity and options products on Phlx. Equity 7, Section 4.B.
indicates that a list of fees that will be collected and retained by
FINRA via the Web CRD registration system for the registration of
associated persons of Exchange members that are not also FINRA
members is available within Options 7, Section 9C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the
Exchange has designated the additional processing of each initial or
amended Form U4, Form U5 or Form BD and electronic Fingerprint
Processing Fees to become operative on January 2, 2023. Additionally,
the Exchange designates that the FINRA Annual System Processing Fee
Assessed only during Renewals become operative on January 2, 2024.\4\
The amendments to the paper Fingerprint Fees are immediately effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90176 (October 14,
2020), 85 FR 66592 (October 20, 2020) (SR-FINRA-2020-032) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Adjust FINRA Fees To Provide Sustainable Funding for FINRA's
Regulatory Mission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/phlx/rules, 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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    This proposal amends Phlx's Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section
9, Other Member Fees, to reflect adjustments to FINRA Registration Fees
and Fingerprinting Fees.\5\ The FINRA fees are collected and retained
by FINRA via Web CRD for the registration of employees of Phlx members
and member organizations that are not FINRA members (``Non-FINRA
members''). The Exchange is merely listing these fees on its Pricing
Schedule at Phlx Options 7, Section 9C. The Exchange does not collect
or retain these fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ FINRA operates Web CRD, the central licensing and
registration system for the U.S. securities industry. FINRA uses Web
CRD to maintain the qualification, employment and disciplinary
histories of registered associated persons of broker-dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend: (1) the $110 fee for the additional
processing of each initial or amended Form U4, Form U5 or Form BD that
includes the initial reporting, amendment, or certification or one or
more disclosure events or proceedings to $155; (2) the $45 FINRA Annual
System Processing Fee Assessed only during Renewals to $70; and (3) the
$15 Second Submission (Electronic) Fingerprint Processing Fee to $20.
Each of these fees are listed within Phlx Options 7, Section 9C. These
amendments are being made in accordance with a FINRA rule change to
adjust to its fees.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See note 4. FINRA noted in its rule change that it was
adjusting its fees to provide sustainable funding for FINRA's
regulatory mission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend the following Fingerprint Fees:
(1) the $29.50 Initial Submission (Electronic) fee to $31.25; \7\ (2)
the $44.50 Initial Submission (Paper) fee to $41.25; \8\ (3) the $29.50
Third Submission (Electronic) fee to $31.25; \9\ and (4) the $44.50
Third Submission (Paper) fee to $41.25.\10\ Specifically, today, the
FBI fingerprint charge is $11.25 \11\ and the FINRA electronic
Fingerprint Fee will increase from $15 to $20 in 2023.\12\ While FINRA
did not amend the paper Fingerprint Fee, previously the FBI Fee was
reduced from $14.50 to $11.25.\13\ The paper Fingerprint Fees are not
currently reflecting the amount assessed by FINRA. The amendment to the
paper Fingerprint Fees will conform these fees with those of FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This fee includes a $20.00 FINRA fee and $11.25 FBI fee).
See https://www.finra.org/registration-exams-ce/classic-crd/fingerprints/fingerprint-fees.
    \8\ This fee includes a $30 FINRA Fee and a $11.25 FBI Fee. See
https://www.finra.org/registration-exams-ce/classic-crd/fingerprints/fingerprint-fees.
    \9\ This fee includes a $20.00 FINRA fee and $11.25 FBI fee).
See https://www.finra.org/registration-exams-ce/classic-crd/fingerprints/fingerprint-fees.
    \10\ This fee includes a $30 FINRA Fee and a $11.25 FBI Fee. See
https://www.finra.org/registration-exams-ce/classic-crd/fingerprints/fingerprint-fees.
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67247 (June 25,
2012) 77 FR 38866 (June 29, 2012) (SR-FINRA-2012-030) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Sections 4 and 6 of Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws Regarding Fees
Relating to the Central Registration Depository) (``2012 Rule
Change'')
    \12\ See note 4.
    \13\ See 2012 Rule Change at note 6. The FBI does not charge its
fee on a second fingerprint transaction when it identifies the first
set of fingerprints as illegible for the same individual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FINRA Web CRD Fees are user-based and there is no distinction
in the cost incurred by FINRA if the user is a FINRA member or a Non-
FINRA member. Accordingly, the proposed fees mirror those currently
assessed by FINRA.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section
6(b) of the Act,\14\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to increase: (1) the $110
fee for the additional processing of each initial or amended Form U4,
Form U5 or Form BD that includes the initial reporting, amendment, or
certification or one or more disclosure events or proceedings to $155;
(2) the $45 FINRA Annual System Processing Fee Assessed only during
Renewals to $70; and (3) the electronic Fingerprint Fees from $15 to
$20 in accordance with an adjustment to FINRA's fees \16\ because the
proposed fees are identical to those adopted by FINRA for use of Web
CRD for disclosure and the registration of FINRA members and their
associated persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The $20 FINRA Fee is in addition to the $11.25 FBI Fee
except for the second fingerprint transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These costs are borne by FINRA when a Non-FINRA member uses Web
CRD. The Exchange's rule text will reflect the current registration and
electronic fingerprint rates that will be assessed by

FINRA as of January 2, 2023 for the additional processing of each
initial or amended Form U4, Form U5 or Form BD and Second Submission
(Electronic) Fingerprint Processing Fee and the registration rates that
will be assessed by FINRA as of January 2, 2024 for the FINRA Annual
System Processing Fee Assessed only during Renewals.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to correct the paper
Fingerprint Fees to reflect the reduced FBI Fee of $11.25.\18\ The
amendments to the paper Fingerprint Fees will provide all Phlx members
and member organizations with the correct Fingerprint Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 2012 Rule Change at note 6. The FBI does not charge its
fee on a second fingerprint transaction when it identifies the first
set of fingerprints as illegible for the same individual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to increase: (1) the $110 fee for the additional
processing of each initial or amended Form U4, Form U5 or Form BD that
includes the initial reporting, amendment, or certification or one or
more disclosure events or proceedings to $155; (2) the $45 FINRA Annual
System Processing Fee Assessed only during Renewals to $70; and (3) the
electronic Fingerprint Fees from $15 to $20 in accordance with an
adjustment to FINRA's fees \19\ because the Exchange will not be
collecting or retaining these fees, therefore, the Exchange will not be
in a position to apply them in an inequitable or unfairly
discriminatory manner. Similarly, the Exchange believes it is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory to correct the paper Fingerprint Fees
to reflect the reduced FBI Fee of $11.25 \20\ because the Exchange will
not be collecting or retaining these fees, therefore, the Exchange will
not be in a position to apply them in an inequitable or unfairly
discriminatory manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The $20 FINRA Fee is in addition to the $11.25 FBI Fee
except for the second fingerprint transaction.
    \20\ See 2012 Rule Change at note 6. The FBI does not charge its
fee on a second fingerprint transaction when it identifies the first
set of fingerprints as illegible for the same individual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase: (1) the $110
fee for the additional processing of each initial or amended Form U4,
Form U5 or Form BD that includes the initial reporting, amendment, or
certification or one or more disclosure events or proceedings to $155;
(2) the $45 FINRA Annual System Processing Fee Assessed only during
Renewals to $70; and (3) the electronic Fingerprint Fees from $15 to
$20 in accordance with an adjustment to FINRA's fees \21\ does not
impose an undue burden on competition because the Exchange will not be
collecting or retaining these fees, therefore, the Exchange will not be
in a position to apply them in an inequitable or unfairly
discriminatory manner. The proposal will reflect the fees that will be
assessed by FINRA to all members who register or require fingerprints
as of January 2, 2023 and January 2, 2024, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The $20 FINRA Fee is in addition to the $11.25 FBI Fee
except for the second fingerprint transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Exchange believes it does not impose an undue burden
on competition to correct the paper Fingerprint Fees to reflect the
reduced FBI Fee of $11.25 because the Exchange will not be collecting
or retaining these fees, therefore, the Exchange will not be in a
position to apply them in an inequitable or unfairly discriminatory
manner.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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)(ii) of the Act.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or 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 email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2022-47 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-Phlx-2022-47. 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-Phlx-2022-47 and
should be submitted on or before December 16, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-25670 Filed 11-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 13, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39964-39966]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17220]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9495; Airspace Docket No. 15-AAL-6]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of Restricted Areas R-2201A, B, C, D; Fort Greely,
AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes restricted areas R-2201A, R-2201B, R-
2201C, and R-2201D; Fort Greely, AK, on behalf of by the United States
Army Alaska (USARAK), over the Battle Area Complex (BAX) and Combined
Arms Collective Training Facility (CACTF), in the vicinity of Allen
Army Airfield, AK. The restricted areas contain hazardous activities
and will be available for joint military use, including active,
National Guard and Reserve elements.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, October 10, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Ready, Airspace Policy and
Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
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
the 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 establishes restricted areas at Fort Greely, AK, to
support the United States Army in Alaska and to accommodate essential
joint training requirements.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No.
FAA-2016-9495 in the Federal Register (82 FR 12529; March 6, 2017),
proposing to establish restricted areas R-2201A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H,
and J; Fort Greely, AK. In response to public comments expressing
concerns over the impact to general aviation aircraft, the FAA
subsequently published a Supplemental NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2016-9495
in the Federal Register (83 FR 1316; January 11, 2018), that would
reduce the overall size of the proposed restricted areas by 50 percent
and establishing restricted areas R-2201A, B, C, and D; Fort Greely,
AK.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the supplemental NPRM
proposal. Two substantive comments were received from the Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA).

Discussion of Comments

    The FAA received two comments to the SNPRM. An individual did not
address the proposal however, commented on surrounding military
operations areas that are outside the scope of this action. AOPAs
comments focused on two main areas of concern: Letter of Agreement/
Procedure (LOA/LOP) mitigations for general aviation aircraft and the
establishment date should be effective with the VFR sectional. Having
considered the issues and recommendations provided by AOPA, the FAA
offers the following responses.

LOA/LOP Mitigations for General Aviation Aircraft

    AOPA stated, ``The SNPRM notes that the Letters of Agreement/
Procedure (LOA/LOP) between the controlling agency and the using agency
will offer additional mitigations and access to the Restricted Area.
AOPA requests that the FAA articulate those procedures and mitigations
in the Final Rule to allow General Aviation pilots to be aware of this
operational flexibility. This includes understanding how FAA will
coordinate to facilitate IFR and VFR access, and the procedures to let
civil aircraft operating VFR know how to contact a military range
controller for real-time access around actual military use.''
    The FAA responds that the capability for immediate communications
with Anchorage Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) and Allen Army
Airfield will be included in a LOP. Under the LOP, upon receipt of
``check fire'' or ``stop fire'' instruction from an air traffic control
authority, the using agency will immediately suspend hazardous
activities in all segments of the restricted area. Additionally, upon
confirming all hazardous activities have ceased, the using agency will
inform the controlling agency (and Allen Army Airfield, if operating).
The using agency will not resume hazardous activities until after
receipt of a ``start fire'' authorization from Allen Army Airfield/
Anchorage ARTCC. The using agency will release segments of R-2201 to
the controlling agency when use for designated activities is not
anticipated for one or more hours, or when training is complete. The
using agency shall ensure the status of R-2201 is accurate and current
for broadcasts on the Special Use Airspace Information System (SUAIS).
SUAIS is the known standard for civil VFR pilots to inquire about
active military airspace. Additionally, civil VFR aircraft can request
flight following to assist with real time access to the restricted
areas.

Establishment Date Should Be Effective With VFR Sectional

    AOPA requested the activation of the new restricted areas should
occur concurrently or after the charting of the airspace on the
Sectional Charts.
    The FAA concurs with AOPA and will make the new restricted areas
effective in accordance with guidance to the chart on the 56-day cycle,
which is October 10, 2019. However, the FAA has mandated to the using
agency the

new restricted areas will not be utilized until the VFR sectionals are
updated November 7, 2019.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 73 by establishing restricted areas R-2201A, B, C, and D; Fort
Greely, AK. Restricted areas R-2201A and R-2201C overlie the Combined
Arms Collective Training Facility (CACTF), and R-2201B and R-2201D
overlie the Battle Area Complex (BAX).
    R-2201A: R-2201A is located approximately one nautical mile
southeast of Allen Army Airfield. The designated altitudes extend from
the surface to but not including 6,000 feet MSL. The time of
designation is ``0700-1900 local time Monday-Friday; other times by
NOTAM 4 hours in advance.''
    R-2201B: R-2201B is located immediately south of R-2201A. The
northern boundary of R-2201B would be the same as the southern boundary
of R-2201A. R-2201B extends southward to latitude 63[deg]49'33'' N. The
designated altitudes extend from the surface to but not including 6,000
feet MSL. The time of designation is ``0700-1900 local time Monday-
Friday; other times by NOTAM 4 hours in advance.''
    R-2201C: R-2201C overlies R-2201A using the same lateral
boundaries. The designated altitudes extend from 6,000 feet MSL to
11,000 feet MSL. The time of designation is ``By NOTAM 4 hours in
advance.''
    R-2201D: R-2201D overlies R-2201B using the same lateral
boundaries. The designated altitudes extend from 6,000 feet MSL to
11,000 feet MSL. The time of designation is ``By NOTAM 4 hours in
advance.''

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.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (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 of establishing restricted
areas R-2201A, R-2201B, R-2201C, and R-2201D at Fort Greely, AK
qualifies for FAA adoption in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F,
paragraph 8-2, Adoption of Other Agencies' National Environmental
Policy Act Documents, and FAA Order 7400.2M, paragraph 32-2-3 (Special
Use Airspace). After conducting an independent review and evaluation of
the Army's Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for The
Modernization and Enhancement of Ranges, Airspace, and Training Areas
in the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex in Alaska (JPARC) and Finding
Of No Significant Impact, (which analyzes the impacts of establishing
R-2201 at the Battle Area Complex, expanding R-2205, and modifying the
legal descriptions of Buffalo, Delta 3 and Delta 4 Military Operations
Areas (MOAs)), the FAA has determined that the Army's EIS, Written Re-
Evaluation, and supporting documentation adequately assesses and
discloses the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The Army's
JPARC Final EIS was published in June 2013 and the Army/USAF Record of
Decision (ROD) was issued on August 6, 2013.
    Based on the evaluation in the Army's EIS, the FAA, as a
Cooperating Agency, concluded that the EIS qualifies for adoption by
FAA, and that the FAA's adoption is authorized in accordance with 40
CFR 1506.3, Adoption, and FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 8-2, Adoption of
Other Agencies' NEPA Documents. Accordingly, FAA adopts the Army's EIS
and takes full responsibility for the scope and content that addresses
the FAA's actions associated with the establishment and modification of
Special Use Airspace.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited Areas, Restricted Areas.

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 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.  73.22  Alaska (Amended)

0
2. Sec.  73.22 is amended as follows:

R-2201A Fort Greely, AK [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 63[deg]58'45'' N, long.
145[deg]35'06'' W; to lat. 63[deg]58'08'' N, long. 145[deg]35'05''
W; to lat. 63[deg]57'06'' N, long. 145[deg]30'15'' W; to lat.
63[deg]57'11'' N, long. 145[deg]39'25'' W; to lat. 63[deg]58'48'' N,
long. 145[deg]39'25'' W; to the point of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. Surface to but not including 6,000 feet
MSL.
    Time of designation. 0700-1900 local time Monday-Friday; other
times by NOTAM 4 hours in advance.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Anchorage ARTCC.
    Using agency. U.S. Army, AK (USARAK), Commanding General, Joint
Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER), AK.

R-2201B Fort Greely, AK [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 63[deg]57'06'' N, long.
145[deg]30'15'' W; thence clockwise along a 6.3-NM radius of Allen
AAF; to lat. 63[deg]56'14'' N, long. 145[deg]31'17'' W; to lat.
63[deg]54'54'' N, long. 145[deg]26'55'' W; thence south along
Granite Creek;to lat. 63[deg]49'36'' N, long. 145[deg]34'53'' W; to
lat. 63[deg]49'36'' N, long. 145[deg]40'45'' W; thence north along
the west bank of Jarvis Creek; to lat. 63[deg]52'14'' N, long.
145[deg]41'49'' W; to lat. 63[deg]52'56'' N, long. 145[deg]42'52''
W; to lat. 63[deg]55'01'' N, long. 145[deg]42'52'' W; to lat.
63[deg]56'20'' N, long. 145[deg]39'26'' W; to lat. 63[deg]57'11'' N,
long. 145[deg]39'25'' W; to the point of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. Surface to but not including 6,000 feet
MSL.
    Time of designation. 0700-1900 local time Monday-Friday; other
times by NOTAM 4 hours in advance.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Anchorage ARTCC.
    Using agency. U.S. Army, AK (USARAK), Commanding General, Joint
Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER), AK.

R-2201C Fort Greely, AK [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 63[deg]58'45'' N, long.
145[deg]35'06'' W; to lat. 63[deg]58'08'' N, long. 145[deg]35'05''
W; to lat. 63[deg]57'06'' N, long. 145[deg]30'15'' W; to lat.
63[deg]57'11'' N, long. 145[deg]39'25'' W; to lat. 63[deg]58'48'' N,
long. 145[deg]39'25'' W; to the point of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. 6,000 feet MSL to 11,000 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. By NOTAM 4 hours in advance.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Anchorage ARTCC.
    Using agency. U.S. Army, AK (USARAK), Commanding General, Joint
Base Elmendorf-Richardson, AK (JBER), AK.

R-2201D Fort Greely, AK [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 63[deg]57'06'' N, long.
145[deg]30'15'' W; thence clockwise along a 6.3-NM radius of Allen
AAF;to lat. 63[deg]56'14'' N, long. 145[deg]31'17'' W; to lat.
63[deg]54'54'' N, long. 145[deg]26'55'' W; thence south along
Granite Creek;to lat. 63[deg]49'36'' N, long. 145[deg]34'53'' W; to
lat. 63[deg]49'36'' N, long. 145[deg]40'45'' W; thence north along
the west bank of Jarvis Creek; to lat. 63[deg]52'14'' N, long.
145[deg]41'49'' W; to lat. 63[deg]52'56'' N, long 145[deg]42'52'' W;
to lat. 63[deg]55'01'' N, long. 145[deg]42'52'' W; to lat.
63[deg]56'20'' N, long. 145[deg]39'26'' W; to lat. 63[deg]57'11'' N,
long. 145[deg]39'25'' W; to the point of beginning.

    Designated altitudes. 6,000 feet MSL to 11,000 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. By NOTAM 4 hours in advance.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Anchorage ARTCC.
    Using agency. U.S. Army, AK (USARAK), Commanding General, Joint
Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER), AK.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 7, 2019.
Rodger A. Dean Jr.,
Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2019-17220 Filed 8-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P