[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 243 (Monday, December 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78631-78636]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32372]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP12-18-000]

Questar Pipeline Company; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Mainline 103 Extension
Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Mainline 103 Extension Project
involving construction and operation of facilities by Questar Pipeline
Company (Questar) in Uintah County, Utah. The Commission will use this
EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is
in the public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Details on how
to submit comments are in the Public Participation section of this
notice. Please note that the scoping period will close on January 18,
2012.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
State law.
    Questar provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC
entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I
Need To Know?'' This fact sheet addresses a number of typically-asked
questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate
in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on
the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Questar seeks authorization to abandon about 8.3 miles of its 14-
inch-diameter Mainline 68 and replace it with about 8.5 miles of 20-
inch-diameter Mainline 103 in Uintah County, Utah. Questar is replacing
this portion of Mainline 68 because it has been undermined and exposed
by flash flooding. Questar would extend Mainline 103 away from flood
areas in Weaver Canyon, which would result in the replacement being 0.2
mile longer than Mainline 68. Mainline 68 would remain in operation
throughout Questar's extension of Mainline 103. Questar would abandon
its Mainline 68 in place, with the exception of areas that are
currently exposed, which would be removed. Questar would also construct
a pig launcher/receiver \1\ facility at its new Mainline 103/68
junction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A pipeline ``pig'' is a device used to clean or inspect the
pipeline. A pig launcher/receiver is an aboveground facility where
pigs are inserted or retrieved from the pipeline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 120
acres of land for the pipeline and aboveground facilities. Following
construction, Questar would maintain about 52 acres for permanent
operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage would be
restored and revert to former uses. The proposed pipeline route
generally parallels existing pipeline, utility, or road rights-of-way.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\3\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of
the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this

notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the
issues to address in the EA. We will consider all filed comments during
the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     Vegetation and wildlife;
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     Endangered and threatened species;
     Cultural resources;
     Land use;
     Air quality and noise; and
     Public safety.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on
the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish
and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We
will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations
to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and
address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the
Public Participation section beginning on page 5.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of
this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the
EA.\4\ Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status
should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the
Public Participation section of this notice. Currently, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs have expressed
their intention to participate as a cooperating agency in the
preparation of the EA to satisfy their NEPA responsibilities related to
this project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

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

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

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and
the environmental information provided by Questar. This preliminary
list of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis.
     Geotechnical issues with crossing the White River;
     Effects on the Colorado pikeminnow, White River
beardtongue, and Graham's penstemon; and
     Crossing public, tribal, and private lands.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so
that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before
January 18, 2012.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the project docket number (CP12-18-000) with your submission.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert
staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for interested persons to
submit brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes: Federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
proposed project.
    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's

proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are
able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if
they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor
formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to
intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's
Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web site.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click
on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field
(i.e., CP12-18). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: December 13, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary

Appendix 1

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19DE11.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19DE11.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19DE11.005

[FR Doc. 2011-32372 Filed 12-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-C


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 31, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4703-4704]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2078]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0434; Airspace Docket No. 11-ACE-9]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Maryville, MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Maryville,
MO. Decommissioning of the Emville non-directional beacon (NDB) at
Northwest Missouri Regional Airport, Maryville, MO, has made this
action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR) operations at Northwest Missouri Regional Airport. The
airport's geographic coordinates also would be adjusted.

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2011-0434/Airspace Docket No. 11-
ACE-9, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket
Office (telephone 1<PHONE_NUMBER>), is on the ground floor of the
building at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2011-0434/
Airspace Docket No. 11-ACE-9.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface for standard instrument approach procedures
at Northwest Missouri Regional Airport, Maryville, MO. Airspace
reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Emville
NDB and the cancellation of the NDB approach. Geographic coordinates
would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of IFR
operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed 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 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
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would modify controlled airspace at Northwest Missouri Regional
Airport, Maryville, MO.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9V, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 9,
2011, and effective September 15, 2011, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ACE MO E5 Maryville, MO [Amended]

Maryville, Northwest Missouri Regional Airport, MO
    (Lat. 40[deg]21'12'' N., long. 94[deg]55'00'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Northwest Missouri Regional Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on January 13, 2012.
Walter L. Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2012-2078 Filed 1-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4901-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 226 (Tuesday, November 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73252-73254]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29842]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76469; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-077]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating
to Margin Requirements

November 18, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On September 22, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change relating to margin requirements.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on October 8, 2015.\3\ The Commission received no comments on
the proposed rule change. This order grants approval of the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76068 (October 2,
2015), 80 FR 60941 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    CBOE proposes to amend its rules related to margin requirements.
Rule 12.3 sets forth margin requirements, and certain exceptions to
those requirements, applicable to security positions of Trading Permit
Holders' customers. Rule 12.3(c)(5)(C)(2) currently requires no margin
for covered calls and puts. Specifically, that rule provides the
following:
     No margin need be required in respect of an option
contract, stock index warrant, currency index warrant or currency
warrant carried in a short position which is covered by a long position
in equivalent units of the

underlying security in the case of a call (covered call), or a short
position in equivalent units of the underlying security in the case of
a put (covered put).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 60942. CBOE notes, in computing
margin on such a position in the underlying security, (a) in the
case of a call, the current market value to be used shall not be
greater than the exercise price and (b) in the case of a put, margin
will be the amount required by Rule 12.3(b)(2), plus the amount, if
any, by which the exercise price of the put exceeds the current
market value of the underlying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An underlying stock basket \5\ may serve as cover for an
option contract or warrant on a market index carried short (subject to
the same requirements for computing margin).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 60942. An ``underlying stock
basket'' means a group of securities that includes each of the
component securities of the applicable index and which meets the
following conditions: (a) The quantity of each stock in the basket
is proportional to its representation in the index, (b) the total
market value of the basket is equal to the underlying index value of
the index options or warrants to be covered, (c) the securities in
the basket cannot be used to cover more than the number of index
options or warrants represented by that value and (d) the securities
in the basket shall be unavailable to support any other option or
warrant transaction in the account. See also Rule 12.3(a)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No margin is required in respect of a call option on a
Standard and Poor's 500 (S&P 500) market index carried in a short
position where there is carried for the same account a long position in
an underlying open-end index mutual fund (which will be specifically
designated by the Exchange) having an aggregate market value at least
equal to the underlying value of the S&P 500 contracts to be covered.
    According to CBOE, the proposed rule change makes some
nonsubstantive changes to Rule 12.3(c)(5)(C)(2). CBOE represents, the
proposed rule change letters the provisions listed in the first two
bulleted paragraphs above to become subparagraphs (2)(a) and (b) and
moves part of the provision in the first bulleted paragraph to proposed
subparagraph (2)(c) (as discussed below, the proposed rule change
deletes the third bulleted paragraph above). CBOE further represents,
the proposed rule change revises the language to be consistent
throughout these provisions, including clarifying that the underlying
security or one of the other permissible offsets must be carried in the
same account as the option position. CBOE notes, the proposed rule
change also makes the language more plain English, eliminates
repetitive language, and inserts a missing space in proposed
subparagraph (b).
    CBOE states, the proposed rule change adds circumstances in which
covered calls and puts require no margin. According to CBOE, the
proposed rule change applies the provision in proposed subparagraph (b)
to index mutual funds, index portfolio receipts (``IPRs''),\6\ and
index portfolio shares (``IPSs''),\7\ in addition to underlying stock
baskets, based on the same index underlying the index option and having
a market value at least equal to the aggregate current index value.\8\
IPRs and IPSs are commonly referred to as exchange-traded funds
(``ETFs''). CBOE notes, the proposed rule change also deletes the
provision that provides no margin is required in respect of options on
a Standard and Poor's 500 (S&P 500) market index carried in a short
position where there is carried for the same account a long position in
the underlying open-end index mutual fund having an aggregate market
value at least equal to the underlying value of the S&P 500 contracts
to be covered.\9\ CBOE further notes, proposed subparagraph (b) extends
the same margin exception to any index option offset by a position in a
mutual fund based on the same underlying index, making this current
provision duplicative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 60942. The term ``index
portfolio receipts'' or ``IPRs'' means securities that (a) represent
an interest in a unit investment trust (``UIT'') which holds the
securities that comprise an index on which a series of IPRs is
based; (b) are issued by the UIT in a specified aggregate minimum
number in return for a ``Portfolio Deposit'' consisting of specified
numbers of shares of stock plus a cash amount; (c) when aggregated
in the same specified minimum number, may be redeemed from the UIT
which will pay to the redeeming holder the stock and cash then
comprising the Portfolio Deposit; and (d) pay holders a periodic
cash payment corresponding to the regular cash dividends or
distributions declared and paid with respect to the component
securities of the stock index on which the IPRs are based, less
certain expenses and other charges as set forth in the UIT
prospectus. IPRs are ``UIT interests'' within the meaning of the
CBOE Rules. See also CBOE Rule 1.1, Interpretation and Policy .02.
    \7\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 60942. The term ``index
portfolio shares'' or ``IPSs'' means securities that (a) are issued
by an open-end management investment company based on a portfolio of
stocks or fixed income securities designed to provide investment
results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance
of a specified foreign or domestic stock index or fixed income
securities index; (b) are issued by such an open-end management
investment company in a specified aggregate minimum number in return
for a deposit of specified number of shares of stock and/or a cash
amount, or a specified portfolio of fixed income securities and/or a
cash amount, with a value equal to the next determined net asset
value; and (c) when aggregated in the same specified minimum number,
may be redeemed at a holder's request by such open-end management
investment company which will pay to the redeeming holder stock and/
or cash, or a specified portfolio of fixed income securities and/or
cash with a value equal to the next determined net asset value. See
also CBOE Rule 1.1, Interpretation and Policy .03.
    \8\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 60942. The term ``aggregate
current index value'' means the current index value times the index
multiplier. See also CBOE Rule 12.3, Interpretation and Policy .07.
    \9\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 60942. CBOE notes, the proposed
rule change also deletes the requirement for CBOE to specifically
designate funds, as it thinks this is no longer necessary due to the
continued increase in availability of these types of products, as
discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE states that index ETFs and mutual funds function in a similar
manner to underlying stock baskets, as they are intended to replicate
the performance of their underlying market indexes. CBOE believes, the
types and diversity of products available on the market that track
indexes continues to increase and provide additional investment and
hedging opportunities. CBOE also believes while an ETF or mutual fund
may not meet the definition of an underlying stock basket (for example,
some ETFs have a sampling of the securities that comprise the
underlying index), it essentially has the same purpose as an underlying
stock basket for investors. Therefore, CBOE represents, it closely
tracks an underlying index, and thus can function as an offsetting
position to an index option overlying the same index in the same way as
an underlying stock basket.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 60943. The Exchange notes that
current federal net capital rules that apply to options define a
qualified stock basket to mean a set or basket of stock positions
which represents no less than 50% of the capitalization for a high-
capitalization or non-high-capitalization diversified market index
or no less than 95% of the capitalization of a narrow-based index.
Those rules require positions in index options be grouped with
related instruments within the option's class and qualified stock
baskets in the same index. See also 17 CFR 240.15c3-1a(b)(1)(i)(D)
and (ii). Similar to a qualified stock basket, while an ETF or
mutual fund may not hold every stock included in the underlying
market index, its holdings are intended to track the index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to CBOE, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System (``FRB'') previously indicated that no margin would be required
if an index option (on a broad-based stock index with at least a 99%
correlation with the S&P 500 index) is covered by an offsetting
position in S&P Index Depositary Receipts (SPDRS), but rather such SPDR
positions would be treated as cover in accordance with Section
220.5(c)(3) of Regulation T.\11\ CBOE and another exchange later
afforded the same margin treatment to options on the Dow Jones
Industrial Average (DJIA)

covered by units of the DIAMONDS Trust held in the same account.\12\
CBOE notes, based on this previous guidance from the FRB and the
Commission, and in conjunction with the Exchange's current rules, CBOE
has applied this margin treatment to short index option positions where
there are offsetting positions in an ETF that tracks the same
underlying index held in the same margin account (which treatment the
Exchange has announced in Regulatory Circulars).\13\ CBOE believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with these previous findings and
applies this margin treatment generally to all ETFs and mutual funds
that overly market indexes, in the same manner that the rules currently
apply to underlying stock baskets. Given that the Exchange regularly
lists new products, including index options, the Exchange believes it
is appropriate to have a more general rule related to margin on these
index option products that applies in the same manner rather than
identifying this margin treatment in Regulatory Circulars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 60943. See Letter dated
February 1, 1993 from Michael J. Schoenfeld, FRB, to James McNeil,
American Stock Exchange (``Amex''); see also Letter dated August 19,
1992 from James M. McNeil, Amex, to Sharon Lawson, Commission, and
Letter dated January 14, 1993 from James M. McNeil, Amex, to Laura
M. Homer, FRB. The section of Regulation T referenced in these
letters currently corresponds to Section 220.4(b)(4), which provides
margin requirements when stock is used as cover for short option
positions.
    \12\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 60943. See Letter dated
December 3, 1997 from James M. McNeil, Amex, to Scott Holz, FRB, and
Letter dated January 8, 1998 from Scott Holz, FRB to James M.
McNeil, Amex; see also Letter dated December 16, 1997 from Richard
Lewandowski, CBOE, to Mr. Michael Walinskas, Commission. There was
no objection from the FRB or the Commission to Amex's or CBOE's
extension of the margin treatment previously provided to SPDRS to
DIAMONDS.
    \13\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 60943. See also Regulatory
Circulars RG99-09 (permitting SPDRS and DIAMONDS to cover short
positions of options on the S&P 500 (``SPX options'') and on the
DJIA (DJX), respectively); RG00-171 (permitting units of iShares S&P
100 Index Fund to cover short positions of options on the S&P 100
Index (OEX)); RG01-119 (permitting Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Shares
to cover short positions of options on the Nasdaq-100 Shares (QQQ),
the Nasdaq 100 Index (NDX) or the Mini-Nasdaq 100 Index (MNX); RG02-
110 (permitting units of the iShares S&P 500 Fund (IVV) to cover
short SPX option positions); and RG07-126 (permitting units of the
iShares Russell 200 Index Fund (IWM) to cover short positions of
options on the Russell 2000 index (RUT)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\14\
Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. Specifically, the Commission believes that providing for a
specific margin treatment related to covered puts and calls to apply to
all index options in the same manner will promote just and equitable
principles of trade because stock baskets, ETFs and mutual funds that
trade a reference index can generally provide the same economic
function as a security underlying an option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Finally, the Commission believes the non-substantive technical
changes will benefit investors by offering more clarity with respect to
the margin rules by providing for more consistent and plain English
language in the rule.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\16\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2015-077) be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \17\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-29842 Filed 11-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 94)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27651-27654]
[DOCID:fr16my07-25]

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

Part V

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

Determination of Attainment, Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; Ohio; Redesignation of Washington County to Attainment of the
8-Hour Ozone Standard; Final Rule

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0892; FRL-8313-1]

Determination of Attainment, Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; Ohio; Redesignation of Washington County to Attainment of the
8-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On September 22, 2006, the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency (Ohio EPA) submitted a request to redesignate Washington County
(the Ohio Portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta, West Virginia-Ohio (WV-
OH) bi-state ozone nonattainment area) to attainment of the 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Additional
information was submitted on November 17, 2006. In these submittals,
Ohio EPA also requested EPA approval of an Ohio State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revision containing a 12-year maintenance plan for the
County. EPA is making a determination that the Parkersburg-Marietta
(WV-OH) nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This
determination is based on three years of complete, quality-assured
ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2003-2005 ozone seasons
that demonstrate that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS has been attained. Quality
assured monitoring data for 2006 shows that the area continues to
attain the standard. EPA is approving, as a SIP revision, the State's
maintenance plan for Washington County. As a result, Ohio has satisfied
the criteria for redesignation of Washington County to attainment and
EPA is approving the requested redesignation. Further, EPA is
approving, for purposes of transportation conformity, the motor vehicle
emission budgets (MVEBs) for the year 2018 that are contained in the 8-
hour ozone maintenance plan.

DATES: This final rule is effective on June 15, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0892. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Steve Marquardt,
Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Marquardt, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the following, whenever ``we,'' ``us,''
or ``our'' are used, we mean the United States Environmental Protection
Agency.

Table of Contents

I. What Is the Background for This Rule?
II. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed Action?
III. What Are Our Final Actions?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review

I. What Is the Background for This Rule?

    The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to designate as nonattainment
any area that is violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on three
consecutive years of air quality monitoring data. EPA designated
Washington County, Ohio as part of the Parkersburg-Marietta WV-OH
nonattainment area in a Federal Register notice published on April 30,
2004, (69 FR 23857). At the same time EPA classified the area as a
subpart 1 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, based on air quality
monitoring data from 2001-2003.
    On September 22, 2006, Ohio EPA submitted a request for
redesignation of Washington County, Ohio to attainment for the 8-hour
ozone standard. Additional supporting information was also submitted on
November 17, 2006. The redesignation request included three years of
complete, quality-assured data for the period of 2003 through 2005,
indicating the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone had been achieved. The data
satisfy the CAA requirements for attainment when the 3-year average of
the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. Under the CAA,
nonattainment areas may be redesignated to attainment if sufficient
complete, quality-assured data are available for the Administrator to
determine that the areas have attained the standard and the areas meet
the other CAA redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E). The
January 17, 2007, proposed rule (72 FR 1956) provides a discussion of
how the State of Ohio met these requirements for the area.

II. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed Action?

    EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period on the January 17,
2007, proposed rule. EPA received no comments.
    The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit recently vacated EPA's April 30, 2004 ``Final Rule to Implement
the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Standard'' (the Phase 1
implementation rule). South Coast Air Quality Management District v.
EPA, No. 04-1200, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2007). EPA issued a
supplemental proposed rulemaking that set forth its views on the
potential effect of the Court's ruling on these and other proposed
redesignation actions. 72 FR 13452 (March 22, 2007). EPA proposed to
find that the Court's ruling does not alter any requirements relevant
to the proposed redesignations that would prevent EPA from finalizing
these redesignations, for the reasons fully explained in the
supplemental notice. The public comment period on this supplemental
proposed rulemaking closed on April 6, 2007. EPA received six comments,
all supporting EPA's supplemental proposed rulemaking, and supporting
redesignation of the affected areas. EPA recognizes the support
provided in these comments and does not find that any specific response
is necessary with respect to these supportive comments. Accordingly,
EPA is proceeding with redesignation of these areas as proposed.

III. What Are Our Final Actions?

    EPA is taking several related actions. EPA is making a
determination that the Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH nonattainment area
has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is approving Ohio's
maintenance plan SIP revision for Washington County (such approval
being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status).
The maintenance plan is designed, in conjunction with the maintenance
plan developed by West Virginia, to keep the

Parkersburg-Marietta WV-OH area in attainment for ozone through 2018.
Because Ohio has met these and other prerequisites for redesignation,
EPA is approving the State's request to change the legal designation of
Washington County from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. In addition, and supported by and consistent with the ozone
maintenance plan, EPA is approving the 2018 volatile organic compound
(VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) MVEBs for transportation
conformity purposes. The 2018 MVEBs for Washington County, Ohio are
1.67 tons per day for VOC and 1.76 tons per day for NOX.
West Virginia develops MVEBs for its portion of the area.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action
is also not subject to Executive order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any new
requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects
the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new
regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). Redesignation is an action that merely affects the status of
a geographical area, and does not impose any new requirements on
sources, or allows a state to avoid adopting or implementing additional
requirements, and does not alter the relationship or distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves as state rule implementing
a Federal Standard.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a geographical area but does not
impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).

Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the Untied States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 16, 2007. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review, nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to force its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Volatile
organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: May 2, 2006.
Margaret Guerriero,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
Parts 52 and 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart KK--Ohio

0
2. Section 52.1885 is amended by adding paragraph (ff) (4) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1885  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (ff) * * *
    (4) Washington County, as submitted on September 22, 2006, and
supplemented on November 17, 2006. The maintenance plan establishes
2018 motor vehicle emission budgets for Washington county of 1.67 tons
per day for volatile organic compounds and 1.76 tons per day for oxides
of nitrogen.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 81.336 is amended by revising the entry for Parkersburg-
Marietta, WV-OH: Washington county in the table entitled ``Ohio Ozone
(8-Hour Standard)'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.336  Ohio.

* * * * *

                                                              Ohio Ozone (8-Hour Standard)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Designation \a\                                             Classification
         Designated area          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Date \1\                     Type                  Date \1\                          Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH:       6/15/07..............................     Attainment.
 Washington County.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

[FR Doc. 07-2335 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M


[Federal Register: January 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 14)]
[Notices]
[Page 3567-3569]
[DOCID:fr23ja06-101]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53123; File No. SR-Amex-2005-110]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Specialist Clerks

January 13, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 31, 2005, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'' or ``SEC'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by Amex. 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 amendments to Amex Rule 184 to require
specialists to employ an adequate number of clerks to enable the
specialist unit to efficiently handle trading volume in the unit's
registered securities and meet its regulatory responsibilities.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is in italics; proposed deletions are in [brackets].
* * * * *
Rule 184. Specialist Clerks
    (a) A specialist or specialist unit shall [may] regularly employ,
subject to such

rules and regulations as the Board of Governors may adopt[,] an
adequate number of [one or more] clerks[,] to aid such specialist or
specialist unit on the floor of the Exchange and to enable the unit to
efficiently handle actual and reasonably anticipated volume in the
unit's registered securities, provided each such clerk receives the
approval of the Exchange. A yearly fee, as imposed by the Exchange and
payable as directed by the Exchange, shall be charged the specialist or
specialist unit for each clerk. No rebate shall be given with respect
to the fee in the event that a specialist or specialist unit
discontinues the services of such a clerk during any period.
    (b) A specialist or specialist unit may, for the purpose of
obtaining assistance on a temporary basis, utilize the services on the
floor of the Exchange of a clerk regularly employed by another
specialist or specialist unit, provided that: (1) Such use shall be
subject to the approval of the Exchange and the consent of the
specialist or specialist unit regularly employing the clerk and shall
be subject to such conditions as the Exchange may impose; and (2) such
clerk shall not disclose to one specialist or specialist unit any
information with respect to orders entrusted to the other specialist or
specialist unit.
    [Commentary
    .01 Each specialist unit will be allowed by the Exchange to employ
a number of clerks which the Exchange approves as reasonable from time
to time to enable the unit to efficiently handle actual and reasonably
anticipated volume in the unit's registered securities.]
* * * * *

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 proposal. 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
    Amex Rule 184 governs the employment of clerks on the trading floor
by specialists, and provides that each specialist unit may regularly
employ a number of clerks to aid the specialist unit on the trading
floor provided that such clerk(s) receive Exchange approval. Commentary
.01 to Amex Rule 184 further provides that each specialist unit will be
allowed by the Exchange to employ a number of clerks which the Exchange
approves as reasonable to enable the specialist unit to efficiently
handle actual and reasonably anticipated volume in the unit's
registered securities.
    A number of Amex Rules, most notably Amex Rule 170, require
specialists to comply with a variety of affirmative and negative
obligations. Additionally, specialists are subject to certain
Commission order handling rules. In order to comply with SEC and Amex
Rules applicable to specialist activities as well as the Exchange
Guidelines, it is essential that each specialist unit employ an
adequate number of clerks on the trading floor. To clarify this
requirement, the Exchange is proposing that Amex Rule 184 be amended to
specifically provide that specialists must maintain adequate staffing
levels on the trading floor, as necessary to fulfill their regulatory
obligations.
    The New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE'') imposes substantially
similar staffing obligations on its specialist units.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See NYSE Rule 35, Supplementary Material .40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Amex believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5),\5\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors
and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will impose no
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received in response to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission shall:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-Amex-2005-110 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2005-110. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commissions Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).

Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of Amex.

    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-Amex-2005-110
and should be submitted on or before February 13, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-676 Filed 1-20-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 102 (Friday, May 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25727-25728]
[FR Doc No: E9-12440]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-1118-000]

SESCO CALISO, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

May 21, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
SESCO CALISO, 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 June 10, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be

listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an
eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling
link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC, 20426.
    The filings in the above-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
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-12440 Filed 5-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 237 (Monday, December 12, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75920-75923]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26739]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0712; Airspace Docket No. 22-ACE-1]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment and Revocation of Multiple Air Traffic Service (ATS)
Routes; Establishment of Area Navigation (RNAV) Route; and Revocation
of the Pawnee City, NE, Low Altitude Reporting Point in the Vicinity of
Pawnee City, NE

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Jet Route J-64, VHF Omnidirectional Range
(VOR) Federal airways V-50, V-71, V-216, and V-307, and Area Navigation
(RNAV) route T-286; establishes RNAV route T-468; and revokes J-130, J-
192, V-553, and the Pawnee City, NE, low altitude reporting point. The
FAA is taking this action due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR
portion of the Pawnee City, NE, VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC)
navigational aid

(NAVAID). The Pawnee City VOR is being decommissioned in support of the
FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, February 23, 2023. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

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 modifies the route structure as necessary to preserve
the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace
System.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No.
FAA-2022-0712 in the Federal Register (87 FR 35133; June 9, 2022),
amending Jet Route J-64, VOR Federal airways V-50, V-71, V-216, and V-
307, and RNAV route T-286; establishing RNAV route T-468; and revoking
J-130, J-192, V-553, and the Pawnee City, NE, low altitude reporting
point. The proposed actions were due to the planned decommissioning of
the VOR portion of the Pawnee City, NE, VORTAC NAVAID. Interested
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.
    Jet Routes are published in paragraph 2004, VOR Federal airways are
published in paragraph 6010(a), United States Area Navigation Routes
are published in paragraph 6011, and Domestic Low Altitude Reporting
Points are published in paragraph 7001 of FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated
August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The ATS route and reporting
point actions listed in this document will be published subsequently in
FAA Order JO 7400.11.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September
15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending Jet Route J-64, VOR
Federal airways V-50, V-71, V-216, and V-307, and RNAV route T-286;
establishing RNAV route T-468; and revoking J-130, J-192, V-553, and
the Pawnee City, NE, low altitude reporting point due to the planned
decommissioning of the Pawnee City, NE, VOR. The ATS route and low
altitude reporting point actions are described below.
    J-64: J-64 extends between the Los Angeles, CA, VORTAC and the
intersection of the Ravine, PA, VORTAC 102[deg] and Lancaster, PA, VOR/
Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) 044[deg] radials (SARAA Fix).
The route segment overlying the Pawnee City, NE, VORTAC between the
Hill City, KS, VORTAC and the Lamoni, IA, VOR/DME is removed. As
amended, the route is changed to extend between the Los Angeles, CA,
VORTAC and the Hill City, KS, VORTAC and between the Lamoni, IA, VOR/
DME and the intersection of the Ravine, PA, VORTAC 102[deg] and
Lancaster, PA, VOR/DME 044[deg] radials (SARAA Fix).
    J-130: J-130 extends between the McCook, NE, VOR/DME and the Pawnee
City, NE, VORTAC. The route is removed in its entirety.
    J-192: J-192 extends between the Goodland, KS, VORTAC and the Iowa
City, IA, VOR/DME. The route is removed in its entirety.
    V-50: V-50 extends between the Hastings, NE, VOR/DME and the
Dayton, OH, VOR/DME. The airway segment overlying the Pawnee City
VORTAC between the Hastings, NE, VOR/DME and the St Joseph, MO, VORTAC
is removed. As amended, the airway is changed to extend between the St
Joseph, MO, VORTAC and the Dayton, OH, VOR/DME.
    V-71: V-71 extends between the Fighting Tiger, LA, VORTAC and the
O'Neill, NE, VORTAC and between the Pierre, SD, VORTAC and the
Williston, ND, VOR/DME. The airway segment overlying the Pawnee City
VORTAC between the Topeka, KS, VORTAC and the Lincoln, NE, VORTAC is
removed. As amended, the airway is changed to extend between the
Fighting Tiger, LA, VORTAC and the Tokepa, KS, VORTAC; between the
Lincoln, NE, VORTAC and the O'Neill, NE, VORTAC; and between the
Pierre, SD, VORTAC and the Williston, ND, VOR/DME.
    V-216: V-216 extends between the Lamar, CO, VOR/DME and the
Janesville, WI, VOR/DME. The airway segment overlying the Pawnee City
VORTAC between the Mankato, KS, VORTAC and the Lamoni, IA, VOR/DME is
removed. As amended, the airway is changed to extend between the Lamar,
CO, VOR/DME and the Mankato, KS, VORTAC; and between the Lamoni, IA,
VOR/DME and the Janesville, WI, VOR/DME.
    V-307: V-307 extends between the Chanute, KS, VORTAC and the Omaha,
IA, VORTAC. The airway segment overlying the Pawnee City VORTAC between
the Emporia, KS, VORTAC and the Omaha, IA, VORTAC is removed. As
amended, the airway is changed to extend between the Chanute, KS,
VORTAC and the Emporia, KS, VORTAC.
    V-553: V-553 extends between the Salina, KS, VORTAC and the Pawnee
City, KS, VORTAC. The airway is removed in its entirety.
    T-286: T-286 extends between the Rapid City, SD, VORTAC and the
BOWLR, KS, Fix. The Pawnee City, NE, VORTAC is replaced by the HTHWY,
NE, waypoint (WP) being established in close proximity of the Pawnee
City VORTAC; the EFFEX, NE, Fix is removed from the route description
since it does not denote a route turn point; and the route is extended
northward to the FONIA, ND, Fix via the JELRO, SD, Fix and the
Dickenson, ND, VORTAC. The amended route provides RNAV routing between
the Williston, ND, area and the Atchison, KS, area. The full route
description is listed in the amendments to part 71 as set forth below.

    T-468: T-468 is a new RNAV route that extends between the Hill
City, KS, VORTAC and the LEWRP, MO, WP. This new T-route provides RNAV
routing between the Hill City, KS, area eastward to the Kirksville, MO,
area via the KNSAS, KS, WP being established and the Lamoni, IA, VOR/
DME. The full route description is listed in the amendments to part 71
as set forth below.
    Pawnee City, NE: The Pawnee City, NE, low altitude reporting point
is removed as it is no longer required by air traffic control as a
result of the Pawnee City VOR being decommissioned.
    All NAVAID radials listed in the ATS route descriptions below are
unchanged and stated in True degrees.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

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 will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, will 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 amending Jet Route J-64,
VOR Federal airways V-50, V-71, V-216, and V-307, and RNAV route T-286;
establishing RNAV route T-468; and revoking J-130, J-192, V-553, and
the Pawnee City, NE, low altitude reporting point, due to the planned
decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Pawnee City, NE, VORTAC
NAVAID, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing
regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order
1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-
6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact
review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace
areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71,
Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic
Service Routes; and Reporting Points) and paragraph 5-6.5k, which
categorically excludes from further environmental impact review the
publication of existing air traffic control procedures that do not
essentially change existing tracks, create new tracks, change altitude,
or change concentration of aircraft on these tracks. As such, this
action is not expected to result in any potentially significant
environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph
5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this
action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically
excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring
further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary
circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental
assessment or environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 2004 Jet Routes.

* * * * *

J-64 [Amended]

    From Los Angeles, CA; INT Los Angeles 083[deg] and Hector, CA,
226[deg] radials; Hector; Peach Springs, AZ; Tuba City, AZ;
Rattlesnake, NM; Pueblo, CO; to Hill City, KS. From Lamoni, IA;
Bradford, IL; INT Bradford 089[deg] and Fort Wayne, IN, 280[deg]
radials; Fort Wayne; Ellwood City, PA; Ravine, PA; to INT Ravine
102[deg] and Lancaster, PA, 044[deg] radials.
* * * * *

J-130 [Removed]

* * * * *

J-192 [Removed]

* * * * *

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-50 [Amended]

    From St. Joseph, MO; Kirksville, MO; Quincy, IL; Spinner, IL;
Adders, IL; Terre Haute, IN; Brickyard, IN; to Dayton, OH.
* * * * *

V-71 [Amended]

    From Fighting Tiger, LA; Natchez, MS; Monroe, LA; El Dorado, AR;
Hot Springs, AR; INT Hot Springs 358[deg] and Harrison, AR, 176[deg]
radials; Harrison; Springfield, MO; Butler, MO; to Topeka, KS. From
Lincoln, NE; Columbus, NE; to O'Neill, NE. From Pierre, SD;
Bismarck, ND; to Williston, ND.
* * * * *

V-216 [Amended]

    From Lamar, CO; Hill City, KS; to Mankato, KS. From Lamoni, IA;
Ottumwa, IA; Iowa City, IA; INT Iowa City 062[deg] and Janesville,
WI, 240[deg] radials; to Janesville.
* * * * *

V-307 [Amended]

    From Chanute, KS; to Emporia, KS.
* * * * *

V-553 [Removed]

* * * * *

Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

T-286 FONIA, ND TO BOWLR, KS [Amended]

FONIA, ND                       FIX                (Lat. 48[deg]15'35.07'' N, long. 103[deg]10'37.54'' W)
Dickinson, ND (DIK)             VORTAC             (Lat. 46[deg]51'36.14'' N, long. 102[deg]46'24.60'' W)
JELRO, SD                       FIX                (Lat. 45[deg]48'43.83'' N, long. 102[deg]51'46.96'' W)
Rapid City, SD (RAP)            VORTAC             (Lat. 43[deg]58'33.74'' N, long. 103[deg]00'44.38'' W)
Gordon, NE (GRN)                NDB                (Lat. 42[deg]48'03.90'' N, long. 102[deg]10'45.82'' W)
Thedford, NE (TDD)              VOR/DME            (Lat. 41[deg]58'53.99'' N, long. 100[deg]43'08.52'' W)
BOKKI, NE                       FIX                (Lat. 41[deg]39'54.99'' N, long. 099[deg]52'17.00'' W)

Grand Island, NE (GRI)          VOR/DME            (Lat. 40[deg]59'02.50'' N, long. 098[deg]18'53.20'' W)
HTHWY, NE                       WP                 (Lat. 40[deg]12'01.96'' N, long. 096[deg]12'22.51'' W)
Robinson, KS (RBA)              DME                (Lat. 39[deg]51'03.00'' N, long. 095[deg]25'23.00'' W)
BOWLR, KS                       FIX                (Lat. 39[deg]37'21.29'' N, long. 095[deg]11'00.26'' W)

                                                  * * * * * * *
T-468 Hill City, KS (HLC) to LEWRP, MO [New]

Hill City, KS (HLC) to LEWRP,   VORTAC             (Lat. 39[deg]15'31.49' N, long. 100[deg]13'33.06'' N, long.W)
 MO [New]
KNSAS, KS                       WP                 (Lat. 39[deg]48'22.62' N, long. 098[deg]15'36.62'' N, long.W)
Lamoni, IA (LMN)                VOR/DME            (Lat. 40[deg]35'48.35' N, long. 093[deg]58'03.33'' N, long.W)
LEWRP, MO                       WP                 (Lat. 40[deg]08'06.06' N, long. 092[deg]35'30.15'' N, long.W)

Paragraph 7001, Domestic Low Altitude Reporting Points.

* * * * *

Pawnee City, NE [Removed]

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 5, 2022.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2022-26739 Filed 12-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 148 (Friday, July 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46094-46095]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16626]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9052-1]

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 July 20, 2020, 10 a.m. EST Through July 27, 2020, 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. 20200149, Final, BLM, WY, Converse County Oil and Gas Project,
Review Period Ends: 08/31/2020, Contact: Mike Robinson<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200150, Draft, BR, ID, Boise River Basin Feasibility Study,
Comment Period Ends: 09/14/2020, Contact: Selena Morre<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200151, Final Supplement, USACE, MO, ADOPTION--Little Otter
Creek Watershed Plan Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement,
Contact: Matt Sailor<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    The Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has adopted the Natural
Resource Conservation Service Final Supplemental EIS No. 20200001,
filed 12/23/2019 with EPA. USACE was a cooperating agency on this
project. Therefore, recirculation of the document is not necessary
under Section 1506.3(c) of the CEQ regulations.

EIS No. 20200152, Final, DOC, NAT, Summer Flounder Commercial Issues
and Goals and Objectives Amendment: Amendment 21 to the Summer
Flounder, Scup, and Black

Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 08/31/2020,
Contact: Emily Keiley<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200153, Final Supplement, FHWA, MI, I-94 Modernization
Project in Detroit, MI from I-96 to Conner Avenue Combined FSEIS and
Record of Decision and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation, Contact: Ruth
Hepfer<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Under 23 U.S.C. 139(n)(2), FHWA has issued a single document that
consists of a final supplemental environmental impact statement and
record of decision. Therefore, the 30-day wait/review period under NEPA
does not apply to this action.

EIS No. 20200154, Draft Supplement, USACE, CA, American River Watershed
Common Features, Water Resources Development Act of 2016 Project--
Sacramento Weir Widening, Comment Period Ends: 09/14/2020, Contact:
Robert Chase<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200155, Draft, USACE, FL, Collier County Coastal Storm Risk
Management Draft Integrated Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact
Statement, Comment Period Ends: 09/14/2020, Contact: Zachary Martin
757-201-7320.
EIS No. 20200156, Draft, BLM, NV, Thacker Pass Lithium Mine Project,
Comment Period Ends: 09/14/2020, Contact: Ken Loda<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200157, Final, USFWS, CA, Proposed Habitat Conservation Plan
and Incidental Take Permit Sierra Pacific Industries, Review Period
Ends: 08/31/2020, Contact: Kim Turner<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200158, Final, BPA, BR, USACE, OR, Columbia River System
Operations, Review Period Ends: 08/31/2020, Contact: Rebecca Weiss 800-
290-5033.

    Dated: July 27, 2020.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2020-16626 Filed 7-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 223)]
[Notices]
[Page 68492-68493]
[DOCID:fr18no08-138]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Commercial Space Transportation; Notice of Availability
and Request for Comment on a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for the Spaceport America Commercial Launch Site, Sierra County, NM

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

ACTION: Notice of Availability.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
regulations and FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1, the FAA is announcing the
availability of Final EIS for the Spaceport America Commercial Launch
Site, Sierra County, New Mexico. The FAA, Office of Commercial Space
Transportation is the lead Federal agency for the development of this
EIS. Cooperating agencies include the Bureau of Land Management; the
National Park Service; United States Army, White Sands Missile Range
(WSMR); and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
    The Final EIS was prepared in response to an application for a
Launch Site Operator License from the New Mexico Spaceport Authority
(NMSA). Under the Proposed Action, the FAA would issue a Launch Site
Operator License to NMSA to operate a launch facility capable of
accommodating both horizontal and vertical launches of suborbital
launch vehicles (LVs). The vehicles may carry space flight
participants, scientific experiments, or other payloads. The proposed
site is located in Sierra County, approximately 30 miles southeast of
Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, and 45 miles north of Las Cruces,
New Mexico. The Final EIS also addresses the potential environmental
impacts of issuing a Launch Site Operator License for horizontal
launches only (Alternative 1), vertical launches only (Alternative 2),
and the No Action Alternative.
    The FAA submitted the Final EIS to the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). EPA will post a separate notification in the Federal
Register announcing the availability of the Final EIS. The FAA will
issue a Record of Decision no sooner than 30 days following EPA's
notice in the Federal Register. The Record of Decision will be
published in the Federal Register.
    The FAA has posted the Final EIS on the FAA Web site at http://
ast.faa.gov. In addition, CDs of the Final EIS were sent to persons and
agencies on the distribution list (found in Chapter 8 of the Final
EIS). A paper copy and a CD version of the Final EIS may be reviewed
for comment during regular business hours at the following locations:

Hatch Public Library, P.O. Box 289, Hatch, NM 87937;
Sunland Park Community Library, 984 McNutt Road, Bldg. F-10, Sunland
Park, NM 88063;
Thomas Branigan Memorial Library, 200 E Picacho Ave, Las Cruces, NM
88001;
Valley Public Library, 136 N Main, Anthony, NM 88021;
Alamogordo Public Library, 920 Oregon Ave, Alamogordo, NM 88310;
Mescalero Community Library, 101 Central Ave, Mescalero, NM 88340;
Michael Nivision Library, 90 Swallow Place, Cloudcroft, NM 88317;
Truth or Consequences Public Library, 325 Library Lane, Truth or
Consequences, NM 87901;
Truth or Consequences Public Library--Downtown, 401 Foch St, Truth or
Consequences, NM 87901.

    Additional Information: Under the Proposed Action, the FAA would
issue a Launch Site Operator License to NMSA that would allow the State
to operate the proposed Spaceport America Commercial Launch Site for
both horizontal and vertical suborbital LV launches. Horizontal LVs
would launch and land at the proposed Spaceport America airfield.
Vertical LVs would launch from Spaceport America and either land at
Spaceport America or at WSMR. Rocket-powered vertical landing vehicles
would land on either the Spaceport America airfield or a vertical
launch/landing pad.
    In addition, the Proposed Action includes construction of
facilities needed to support the licensed launch activities at the
proposed launch site. Development of Spaceport America infrastructure
would occur in two phases. The total area of land disturbed by
construction would be approximately 970 acres; the total area of the
final facilities footprint would be approximately 145 acres. The
proposed Spaceport America boundary would encompass approximately 26
square miles. This area currently contains both State and private land.
    Operational activities in support of the Proposed Action would
begin as soon as the phased construction activities related to the
Proposed Action were completed. The operational activities that may
have environmental consequences and would support, either directly or
indirectly, licensed launches include:
     Transport of Launch Vehicles to the Assembly or Staging
Areas.
     Transport and Storage of Rocket Propellants and Other
Fuels.
     Launch, Landing and Recovery Activities for Horizontal
Vehicles.
     Launch, Landing and Recovery Activities for Vertical
Vehicles.
     Other Activities
     --Ground-Based Tests and Static Firings.
     --Training.
     --X Prize Cup Events.
    The FAA identified two alternatives and the No Action Alternative
to the Proposed Action, which are considered in the Final EIS. Under
Alternative 1, FAA would consider issuing a Launch Site Operator
License only for the operation of a launch site to support horizontal
launches. This is considered a feasible alternative because a
significant number of launches of horizontal LVs are projected, and
most X Prize Cup activities would be located at the airfield.
    Under Alternative 2, FAA would consider issuing a Launch Site
Operator License only for the operation of a launch site to support
vertical launches. This is considered a feasible alternative because a
significant number of launches are projected to be of vertical LVs.
    Under the No Action Alternative, the FAA would not issue a Launch
Site Operator License to the NMSA. Subsequently, the need to support
commercial launches and host the X Prize Cup would not be met by the
State of New Mexico.
    Resource areas were considered to provide a context for
understanding and assessing the potential environmental effects of the
Proposed Action, with

attention focused on key issues. The resource areas considered included
compatible land use; Section 4(f) lands and farmlands; noise; visual
resources and light emissions; historical, architectural,
archaeological, and cultural resources; air quality; water quality,
wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, coastal resources, and floodplains;
fish, wildlife, and plants; hazardous materials, pollution prevention,
and solid waste; socioeconomics, environmental justice, and children's
environmental health and safety risks; and energy supply and natural
resources. Construction impacts and secondary (induced) impacts are
also considered. Additional analyses considered in the appendices
include geology and soils; mineral resources; air space; health and
safety; and transportation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacey M. Zee (AST-100), Office of
Commercial Space Transportation, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Room
331, Washington, DC 20591, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Washington, DC on November 6, 2008.
Michael McElligott,
Manager, Space Systems Development Division.
[FR Doc. E8-27149 Filed 11-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P