[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66103-66106]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20810]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98454; File No. SR-CBOE-2023-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Order
Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment
No. 1, To Make Permanent The Operation of the Program That Allows the
Exchange To List P.M.-Settled Third Friday-of-the-Month S&P 500 Stock
Index Options (``SPX'') Series

September 20, 2023.

I. Introduction

    On January 6, 2023, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to make permanent the operation of its pilot
program (``Program'') that permits the Exchange to list p.m.-settled
third Friday-of-the-month SPX options (``SPXPM''). The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on January 24,
2023.\3\ On March 7, 2023, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\
the Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.\5\ On March 17, 2023, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change (``Amendment No. 1'').\6\ On April 24, 2023, the
Commission instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change and published Amendment No. 1 for
notice and comment.\7\ On July 20, 2023, the Commission designated a
longer period for Commission action on proceedings to determine whether
to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1.\8\ The Commission did not receive any comment letters
and is approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No.
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96703 (January 18,
2023), 88 FR 4265 (``Notice'').
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97063, 88 FR 15476
(March 13, 2023). The Commission designated April 24, 2023, as the
date by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove,
the proposed rule change.
    \6\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange filed Exhibit 3, which
provides additional detail regarding the Exchange's analysis of the
market quality impact of p.m.-settled index options. Amendment No. 1
is available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboe-2023-005/srcboe2023005.htm.
    \7\ Amendment No. 1 was published for comment in the Federal
Register on April 28, 2023. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
97367 (April 24, 2023), 88 FR 26366 (April 28, 2023) (order
instituting proceedings and noticing Amendment No. 1).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97956, 88 FR 48278
(July 26, 2023). The Commission designated September 21, 2023, as
the date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    When cash-settled \9\ index options were first introduced in the
1980s, they generally utilized closing-price settlement procedures
(i.e., p.m. settlement).\10\ The Commission became

concerned with the impact of p.m.-settled, cash-settled index options
on the underlying cash equities markets, and in particular, added
market volatility and sharp price movements near the close on
expiration days.\11\ These concerns were heightened during the
``triple-witching'' hour on the third Friday of March, June, September,
and December when index options, index futures, and options on index
futures expired concurrently.\12\ Academic research at the time
provided at least some evidence suggesting that futures and options
expirations contributed to excess volatility and reversals around the
close on those days.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The seller of a ``cash-settled'' index option pays out the
cash value of the applicable index on expiration or exercise. A
``physical delivery'' option, like equity and ETF options, involves
the transfer of the underlying asset rather than cash. See
Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options, available at:
https://www.theocc.com/Company-Information/Documents-and-Archives/Options-Disclosure-Document.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65256 (September 2,
2011), 76 FR 55969, at 55972 (September 9, 2011) (SR-C2-2011-008)
(Order approving proposed rule change to establish a pilot program
to list and trade SPXPM options on the C2 Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``C2'')) (``C2 SPXPM Approval''). SPXPM was traded on
a pilot basis on C2 until the introduction of SPXPM trading on Cboe
Options. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68888 (February 8,
2013), 78 FR 10668, at 10668 (February 14, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2012-120)
(``SPXPM Approval Order'').
    \11\ See C2 SPXPM Approval, 76 FR at 55972.
    \12\ See id.
    \13\ See Securities and Exchange Commission, Division of
Economic Risk and Analysis, Memorandum dated February 2, 2021 on
Cornerstone Analysis of PM Cash-Settled Index Option Pilots
(September 16, 2020) (``Pilot Memo'') at 5, available at: https://www.sec.gov/files/Analysis_of_PM_Cash_Settled_Index_Option_Pilots.pdf (citing, among
other papers, Stoll, Hans R., and Robert E. Whaley, ``Expiration day
effects of index options and futures,'' Monograph Series in Finance
and Economics, no. 3 (1986)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the concerns with p.m. settlement and to help
ameliorate the price effects associated with expirations of p.m.-
settled, cash-settled index products, in 1987, the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission approved a proposed rule change by the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange (``CME'') to provide for a.m. settlement \14\ for
index futures, including futures on the S&P 500 Index (``S&P
500'').\15\ The Commission subsequently approved a proposed rule change
by Cboe Options to list and trade a.m.-settled options on the S&P
500.\16\ In 1992, the Commission approved Cboe Options' proposal to
transition all of its European-style cash-settled options on the S&P
500 to a.m. settlement.\17\ However, in 1993, the Commission approved a
proposed rule change allowing Cboe Options to list p.m.-settled options
on certain broad-based indexes, including the S&P 500, expiring at the
end of each calendar quarter (since approved as permanent).\18\
Starting in 2006, the Commission approved a number of proposals, on a
pilot basis, permitting Cboe Options to introduce other index options,
including SPX options, with p.m.-settlement. These include p.m.-settled
index options expiring weekly (other than the third Friday) and at the
end of each month,\19\ SPXPM, as well as p.m.-settled Mini-SPX Index
(``XSP'') options and Mini-Russell 2000 Index (``MRUT'') options
expiring on the third Friday of the month.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The exercise settlement value for an a.m.-settled index
option is determined by reference to the reported level of the index
as derived from the opening prices of the component securities on
the business day before expiration.
    \15\ See Proposed Amendments Relating to the Standard and Poor's
500, the Standard and Poor's 100 and the Standard Poor's OTC Stock
Price Index Futures Contract, 51 FR 47053 (December 30, 1986)
(notice of proposed rule change from the CME). See also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 24367 (April 17, 1987), 52 FR 13890 (April
27, 1987) (SR-CBOE-87-11) (noting that the CME moved the S&P 500
futures contract's settlement value to opening prices on the
delivery date).
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 24367 (April 17,
1987), 52 FR 13890 (April 27, 1987) (SR-CBOE-87-11).
    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 30944 (July 21,
1992), 57 FR 33376 (July 28, 1992) (SR-CBOE-92-09). The Commission
also approved proposals by other options markets to transfer most of
their cash-settled index products to a.m. settlement. See, e.g.,
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 25804 (June 15, 1988), 53 FR
23475 (June 22, 1988) (SR-NYSE-87-11 and 88-04).
    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 31800 (February 1,
1993), 58 FR 7274 (February 5, 1993) (SR-CBOE-92-13). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54123 (July 11, 2006), 71 FR
40558 (July 17, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2006-65); and 60164 (June 23, 2009),
74 FR 31333 (June 30, 2009) (SR-CBOE-2009-029).
    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62911 (September
14, 2010), 75 FR 57539 (September 21, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2009-075);
76529 (November 30, 2015), 80 FR 75695 (December 3, 2015) (SR-CBOE-
2015-106); and 78531 (August 10, 2016), 81 FR 54643 (August 16,
2016) (SR-CBOE-2016-046).
    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 70087 (July 31,
2013), 78 FR 47809 (August 6, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-055); and 91067
(February 5, 2021) 86 FR 9108 (February 11, 2021) (SR-CBOE-2020-
116).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of approving the various pilots, the Commission
reiterated its concern about the potential impact on the market at
expiration for the underlying component stocks for a p.m.-settled,
cash-settled index option.\21\ However, the Commission also recognized
the potential impact was unclear.\22\ The Commission approved the
Program on a pilot basis to allow the Exchange and the Commission to
monitor for and assess any potential for adverse market effects.\23\ In
order to facilitate this assessment, the Exchange committed to provide
the Commission with data and analysis in connection with the Program
\24\ and to make such data publicly available.\25\ In addition to the
Exchange's data and analysis, Cornerstone Research also conducted an
analysis at the direction of Staff from the Commission's Division of
Economic and Risk Analysis. The analysis utilizes the level of expiring
p.m.-settled index options open interest and the measures of volatility
and price reversals for the corresponding index futures, the underlying
cash index, and index component securities in the minutes leading up to
and immediately following the market close to study the effects of
pilot programs allowing p.m.-settled index options. The Pilot Memo is
discussed in more detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See, e.g., SPXPM Approval Order, 78 FR at 10669. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 64599 (June 3, 2011), 76 FR
33798, 33801-02 (June 9, 2011) (order instituting proceedings to
determine whether to approve or disapprove a proposed rule change to
allow the listing and trading of SPXPM options on the C2 Options
Exchange, Incorporated); and C2 SPXPM Approval, 76 FR at 55972-76.
    \22\ See, e.g., SPXPM Approval Order, 78 FR at 10669.
    \23\ See id.
    \24\ See id. at 10670.
    \25\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84535
(November 5, 2018), 83 FR 56129, at 56130 (November 9, 2018) (SR-
CBOE-2018-069) (stating the Exchange is making public on its website
data and analyses previously submitted to the Commission under the
Program and committing to make public any data or analyses submitted
in the future).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Description of the Proposal, as Modified by Amendment No. 1

    SPXPM are cash-settled SPX options with third Friday-of-the-month
expiration dates (``Expiration Friday'') whose exercise settlement
value is derived from closing prices on the last trading day prior to
expiration. In February 2013, the Commission approved the Program to
list and trade these options on a pilot basis.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See SPXPM Approval Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has filed to extend the operation of the pilot on
multiple occasions and it is currently set to expire on the earlier of
November 6, 2023, or the date on which the Program is approved on a
permanent basis.\27\ Now, the Exchange proposes to make the Program
permanent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 71424 (January 28,
2014), 79 FR 6249 (February 3, 2014) (SR-CBOE-2014-004); 73338
(October 10, 2014), 79 FR 62502 (October 17, 2014) (SR-CBOE-2014-
076); 77573 (April 8, 2016), 81 FR 22148 (April 14, 2016) (SR-CBOE-
2016-036); 80386 (April 6, 2017), 82 FR 17704 (April 12, 2017) (SR-
CBOE-2017-025); 83166 (May 3, 2018), 83 FR 21324 (May 9, 2018) (SR-
CBOE-2018-036); 84535 (November 5, 2018), 83 FR 56129 (November 9,
2018) (SR-CBOE-2018-069); 85688 (April 18, 2019), 84 FR 17214 (April
24, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-023); 87464 (November 5, 2019), 84 FR 61099
(November 12, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-107); 88674 (April 16, 2020), 85
FR 22479 (April 22, 2020) (SR-CBOE-2020-036); 90263 (October 23,
2020), 85 FR 68611 (October 29, 2020) (SR-CBOE-2020-100); 91698
(April 28, 2021) 86 FR 23761 (May 4, 2021) (SR-CBOE-2021-027); 93455
(October 28, 2021), 86 FR 60660 (November 3, 2021) (SR-CBOE-2021-
062); 94799 (April 27, 2022), 87 FR 26244 (May 3, 2022) (SR-CBOE-
2022-019); 96222 (November 3, 2022), 87 FR 67736 (November 9, 2022)
(SR-CBOE-2022-054); and 97446 (May 5, 2023), 88 FR 30365 (May 11,
2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the Program's inception in 2013, the Exchange has submitted
reports to the Commission regarding the Program that detail the
Exchange's experience with the Program, pursuant

to the SPXPM Approval Order.\28\ The Exchange states that, during the
course of the Program, it also provided the Commission with any
additional data or analyses the Commission requested if the Commission
deemed such data or analyses necessary to determine whether the Program
was consistent with the Act.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See supra note 10. The Exchange has made public on its
website data and analyses previously submitted to the Commission
under the Program. See https://www.cboe.com/aboutcboe/legal-regulatory/national-market-system-plans/pm-settlement-spxpm-data.
    \29\ See Notice, 88 FR at 4267.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\30\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent
with section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\31\ which requires, among other
things, that the Exchange's rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest. In its proposal
to make the Program permanent, the Exchange addressed whether the
Program negatively impacts markets or impacted the quality of the SPX
options market. Each of these elements is discussed in greater detail
below. As stated above, no comments were received on the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 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).
    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market Impact Considerations

    The Exchange states it has not identified any evidence from the
pilot data indicating that the trading of p.m.-settled SPX options has
any adverse impact on fair and orderly markets on Expiration Fridays
for the S&P 500 or the underlying securities comprising the S&P 500,
nor have there been any observations of abnormal market movements
attributable to p.m.-settled SPX options from any market participants
that have come to the attention of the Exchange.\32\ In order to
support its overall assessment of the Program, the Exchange included a
review and analysis of pilot data.\33\ Among other things, the
Exchange's analysis includes end of day volatility as well as a
comparison of the impact of quarterly index rebalancing versus p.m.-
settled expirations.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Notice, 88 FR at 4267.
    \33\ See id. at 4266-70.
    \34\ See id. at 4268.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to reviewing the data and analysis provided by the
Exchange, the Commission reviewed the analysis in the Pilot Memo, which
evaluates whether higher levels of expiring open interest in p.m.-
settled index options results in increased volatility and price
reversals around the close. The Pilot Memo shows that the market share
for p.m.-settled options on the S&P 500 has grown substantially since
2007.\35\ The Exchange's review of pilot data also showed this trend
continuing from 2019 through 2021.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Pilot Memo at 2.
    \36\ See Notice, 88 FR at 4267. Specifically, since 2007, p.m.-
settled SPX options grew from 0.1% of open interest to 30% of open
interest in 2021. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Pilot Memo examines whether and to what extent expiring open
interest in p.m.-settled index options is empirically related with the
tendency of the corresponding index futures, the underlying index, or
index components to experience increased transitory volatility and
price reversals around the time of market close on expiration dates.
The Pilot Memo concludes that, although expiring p.m.-settled index
option open interest may have a statistically significant relationship
with volatility and price reversals of the underlying index, index
futures, and index component securities around the market close, the
magnitude of the effect is economically very small.\37\ For example,
the largest settlement event that occurred during the time period
studied in the Pilot Memo (a settlement of $100.4 billion of notional
on December 29, 2017) had an estimated impact on the futures price of
only approximately 0.02% (a predicted impact of $0.54 relative to a
closing futures price of $2,677).\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Pilot Memo at 3.
    \38\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further reviewed a sample of pilot data from 2019
through 2021, and measured the volatility of the S&P 500 over the final
fifteen minutes of each trading day and compared expiration days to
non-expiration days.\39\ Generally volatility was slightly higher on
expiration days, but in cases where overall market volatility
increased, the normalized impact on expiration days versus non-
expiration days remained consistent.\40\ The Exchange further analyzed
volatility on days when the S&P 500 was rebalanced, and states its
results suggest more closing volatility on rebalance dates compared to
non-rebalance expiration dates, indicating that rebalancing of the S&P
500 may have a greater impact on S&P 500 volatility than p.m.-settled
option expirations.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Notice, 88 FR at 4268.
    \40\ See id.
    \41\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also reviewed a sample of post-2018 pilot data for
potential correlation between excess market volatility and price
reversals and the hedging activity of liquidity providers.\42\ To
determine whether there is a correlation, the Exchange calculated an
estimate of the amount of market-on-close (``MOC'') volume in the S&P
500 component markets attributable to expected hedging activity as a
result of expiring in-the-money options.\43\ The Exchange states its
results indicate that other sources of MOC share volume generally
exceed the volume resulting from hedging activity for p.m.-settled SPX
options.\44\ Further, the Exchange also compared hedging futures
positions that would correspond to expiring in-the-money p.m.-settled
SPX options and concludes the data indicate negligible capacity for
hedging activity to increase volatility in the underlying markets.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See id.
    \43\ See id.
    \44\ See id. at 4269.
    \45\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange states that the significant changes in the
closing procedures of the primary markets in recent decades, including
considerable advances in trading systems and technology, have
significantly minimized risks of any potential impact of p.m.-, cash-
settled SPX options on the underlying cash markets.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market Quality Considerations

    The Exchange also completed an analysis intended to evaluate
whether the Program impacted the quality of the SPX options market.
Specifically, the Exchange compared values of key market quality
indicators (specifically, the bid-ask spread \47\ and effective spread
\48\) in p.m.-settled SPX weekly

(``SPXW'') options both before and after the introduction of Tuesday
expirations and Thursday expirations for SPXW options on April 18 and
May 11, 2022, respectively.\49\ The Exchange states that analyzing
whether the introduction of new SPXW p.m.-settled expirations (i.e.,
SPXW options with Tuesday and Thursday expirations) impacted the market
quality of then-existing SPXW p.m.-settled expirations (i.e., SPXW
options with Monday, Wednesday, and Friday expirations) provides a
reasonable substitute to evaluate whether the introduction of p.m.-
settled index options impacted the market quality of the SPX market
when the Program began.\50\ Therefore, the Exchange believes analyzing
the impact of new SPXW options on then-existing SPXW options permit the
Exchange to extrapolate that it is unlikely the introduction of p.m.-
settled SPXW options significantly impacted the market quality of a.m.-
settled SPX options when the Program began.\51\ The Exchange concludes
from this analysis that the introduction of SPX options with Tuesday
and Thursday options had no significant impact on the market quality of
SPXW options with Monday, Wednesday, and Friday expirations. For a
majority of the series analyzed, the Exchange observed no statistically
significant difference in bid-ask spread or effective spread.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ The Exchange calculated for each of SPXW options (with
Monday, Wednesday, and Friday expirations) and SPY Weekly options
(with Monday, Wednesday, and Friday expirations) the daily time-
weighted bid-ask spread on the Exchange during its regular trading
hours session, adjusted for the difference in size between SPXW
options and SPY options (SPXW options are approximately ten times
the value of SPY options).
    \48\ The Exchange calculated the volume-weighted average daily
effective spread for simple trades for each of SPXW options (with
Monday, Wednesday, and Friday expirations) and SPY Weekly options
(with Monday, Wednesday, and Friday expirations) as twice the amount
of the absolute value of the difference between an order execution
price and the midpoint of the national best bid and offer at the
time of execution, adjusted for the difference in size between SPXW
options and SPY options.
    \49\ For purposes of comparison, the Exchange paired SPXW
options and SPY options with the same moneyness and same days to
expiration.
    \50\ See Notice, 88 FR at 4269.
    \51\ See id. at 4270.
    \52\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the evidence contained in the
Exchange's filing, the Exchange's pilot data and reports, and the Pilot
Memo analysis demonstrate that the Program has benefitted investors and
other market participants by providing more flexible trading and
hedging opportunities while also having no disruptive impact on the
market. The market for SPXPM options has grown significantly in size
over the course of the Program, and analysis of the pilot data did not
identify any significant economic impact on the underlying component
securities of the S&P 500 surrounding the close as a result of expiring
p.m.-settled SPX options nor did it indicate a deterioration in market
quality (as measured by bid-ask and effective spreads) for an existing
product when a new p.m.-settled expiration was introduced. Further,
significant changes in closing procedures in the decades since index
options moved to a.m. settlement may also serve to mitigate the
potential impact of p.m.-settled index options on the underlying cash
markets.
    Accordingly, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the
Act \53\ and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\54\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2023-005), as modified
by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \55\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\55\
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-20810 Filed 9-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 194)]
[Notices]
[Page 57374-57375]
[DOCID:fr09oc07-126]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. OST-2004-16951]

Notice of Request for Renewal of a Previously Approved Collection

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended), this notice announces that the
Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below will be forwarded
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for renewal and comment.
The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its
expected costs and burden. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day
comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of
information was published on August 1, 2007 [Vol. 72, No. 147, Page
42218]. No comments were received.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by November 8, 2007 and
sent to the attention of the DOT/OST Desk Officer, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by DOT DMS Docket Number
OST-2004-16951] by any of the following methods:
     Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for

submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except on Federal holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the online instructions for submitting

comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://dms.dot.gov including any personal information provided.

Please see the Privacy Act heading under Regulatory Notes.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to W12-140,

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauralyn Remo, Air Carrier Fitness
Division (X-56), Office of Aviation Analysis, Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Aircraft Accident Liability Insurance, 14 CFR Part 205.
    OMB Control Number: 2106-0030.
    Type of Request: Renewal without change, of a previously approved
collection.

    Abstract: 14 CFR part 205 contains the minimum requirements for air
carrier accident liability insurance to protect the public from losses,
and directs that certificates evidencing appropriate coverage must be
filed with the Department.
    Respondents: U.S. and foreign air carriers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,606.
    Estimated Total Burden on Respondents: 5,988 hours.
    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of
the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the
request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of
public record.

    Issued in Washington, DC on October 2, 2007.
Todd M. Homan,
Director, Office of Aviation Analysis.
 [FR Doc. E7-19847 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 145 (Thursday, July 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45252-45253]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19070]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14125-000]

Reliable Storage 1 LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On March 25, 2011, Reliable Storage 1 LLC, filed an application,
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study
the feasibility of hydropower near the town of Lake City, in Campbell
County, Tennessee. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued,
is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application
during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the
permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise
enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    The proposed pumped storage project would consist of the following:
(1) A 10-foot-high, 12,100-foot-long roller compacted concrete ringed
dike; (2) an upper reservoir with a surface area of 128.6 acres and an
7,914.4 acre-foot storage capacity; (3) a 180-foot-high, 1,248-foot-
long earth embankment dam creating; (4) a lower reservoir with a
surface area of 101 acres and an 7,594 acre-foot storage capacity; (5)
one 24-foot-diameter, 5,300-foot-long penstock; (6) a bifurcation to
three 14-foot-diameter, and 50-foot-long penstocks; (7) a powerhouse/
pumping station containing three pump/generating units with a total
generating capacity of 1,062 megawatts; (8) a substation; and (9) a
2.66-mile-long, 115 kV transmission line to an existing distribution
line. The proposed project would have an average annual generation of
2,761,000,000 megawatt-hours (MWh), which would be sold to theTennessee
Valley Authority.
    Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Free Flow Power Corporation,
239 Causeway Street, Boston, MA 02114; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed

electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or, for
TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly
encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To
paper-file, mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14125-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: July 20, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-19070 Filed 7-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 121)]
[Notices]
[Page 36139-36141]
[DOCID:fr23jn06-72]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54004; File No. SR-CBOE-2005-63]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change and
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto Relating to the Nullification and
Adjustment of Equity Options Transactions

June 16, 2006.

I. Introduction

    On August 12, 2005, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to provide for an adjustment
provision for transactions during opening rotation resulting from
obvious errors between a non-broker-dealer customer and CBOE Market-
Maker(s), as well as transactions during opening rotation between a
non-broker-dealer customer and at least one non-CBOE Market-Maker. On
October 28, 2005, the CBOE submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule

change.\3\ On April 7, 2006, the CBOE submitted Amendment No. 2 to the
proposed rule change.\4\ The proposed rule change and Amendments No. 1
and 2 were published for comment in the Federal Register on April 26,
2006.\5\ The Commission received one comment letter on the proposal.\6\
This order approves the proposed rule change, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 replaced the original filing in its
entirety.
    \4\ Amendment No. 2 clarified and revised the example set forth
in the purpose section of the filing.
    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53672 (April 18, 2006),
71 FR 24767 (April 26, 2006).
    \6\ See letter to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission, from
Matthew B. Hinerfeld, Managing Director and Deputy General Counsel,
Citadel Investment Group, L.L.C. on behalf of Citadel Derivatives
Group LLC (collectively ``Citadel'') dated May 17, 2006 (``Citadel
Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The CBOE proposes to revise CBOE Rule 6.25, the Exchange's obvious
error rule. Under the proposal, non-broker-dealer customers would be
permitted to request review for adjustment of an opening rotation
transaction from Trading Officials until 3:30 p.m. Central Time
(``CT'') on the day that the transaction occurred.\7\ According to the
Exchange, the purpose of the proposal is to protect non-broker-dealer
customers from obvious errors during the opening rotation when they do
not discover the error within 15 minutes of the execution of the
transaction. The proposed rule change, however, would not affect the
procedure set forth in CBOE Rule 6.25(b)(1), which permits a non-
broker-dealer customer to request within 15 minutes of an obvious error
transaction to have the transaction nullified by Trading Officials,
unless both parties agree to an adjustment price within 30 minutes of
being notified by Trading Officials of the obvious error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term ``Trading Officials'' means two Exchange members
designated as Floor Officials and one member of the Exchange's
trading floor liaison staff. See Interpretations and Policies .02 of
CBOE Rule 6.25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For transactions during opening rotation between a non-broker-
dealer customer and a CBOE Market-Maker, after 15 minutes have elapsed
since the trade involving the obvious error occurred, but before 3:30
p.m. CT on the same trading day, the non-broker-dealer customer would
be able to request an obvious error review. In determining the extent
of any adjustment of the transaction, the Trading Officials would look
to the competing exchange with the most liquidity in the option class
for the two preceding months. The transaction would be adjusted to the
competing exchange's disseminated price at the time the trade occurred
(provided the adjustment does not violate the non-broker-dealer
customer's limit price), but only up to the number of contracts that
the competing exchange was displaying as its disseminated size at the
time the trade occurred.
    For transactions during opening rotation between a non-broker-
dealer and at least one non-CBOE Market-Maker, which could include (but
is not limited to) an away specialist, an upstairs firm, or another
non-broker-dealer customer, after the 15-minute notification period has
passed, but before 3:30 p.m. CT on the same trading day, the non-
broker-dealer customer would be able to request an obvious error
review. In determining the extent of any adjustment to the transaction,
the Trading Officials would look to the competing exchange with the
most liquidity in the options class for the two preceding calendar
months. The transaction would be adjusted to the competing exchange's
disseminated price at the time the trade occurred, but it would not be
adjusted beyond the non-CBOE Market-Maker's limit price, and not for a
size greater than the disseminated size of the competing exchange.

III. Discussion

    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 \8\ and, in
particular, the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act \9\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder. Specifically, the Commission finds
that the proposal is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in
that the proposal promotes just and equitable principles of trade,
removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and protects investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission considers that in most circumstances trades that are
executed between parties should be honored. On rare occasions, the
price of the executed trade indicates an ``obvious error'' may exist,
suggesting that it is unrealistic to expect that the parties to the
trade had come to a meeting of the minds regarding the terms of the
transaction. In the Commission's view, the determination of whether an
``obvious error'' has occurred should be based on specific and
objective criteria and subject to specific and objective procedures.
CBOE's proposal would permit a non-broker-dealer customer, whose order
was executed during CBOE's opening rotation but who did not discover
that its transaction may have involved an obvious error within 15
minutes of its execution, to request an obvious error review for
adjustment of the transaction from Trading Officials until 3:30 p.m. CT
on the date of the transaction. The Commission believes that permitting
non-broker-dealer customers to request an obvious error review until
3:30 p.m. CT on the day of the transaction would give those customers a
reasonable amount of time to discover an obvious error transaction that
occurred during an opening rotation and to request an obvious error
review.
    The Commission also believes that CBOE's proposal with respect to
the price to which a transaction will be adjusted is consistent with
the Act. Under the Exchange's proposal, an obvious error transaction
during an opening rotation involving a non-broker-dealer customer would
be adjusted to the Theoretical Price (provided that it does not violate
the customer's limit price). The Theoretical Price of an option series
is, for securities traded on at least one other options exchange, the
last bid price with respect to an erroneous sell transaction and the
last offer price with respect to an erroneous buy transaction, just
prior to the trade, disseminated by the competing options exchange that
has the most liquidity in that option class in the previous two
calendar months. The Commission believes that this basis for
determining Theoretical Price is consistent with the Linkage Plan,
which requires the options exchanges to avoid trading through better
prices available on all exchanges, not just the exchange that has the
most liquidity, because the Linkage Plan does not apply to transactions
effected during opening rotations.
    The Commission has carefully considered the comments raised in the
Citadel Letter.\11\ The Citadel Letter stated that the proposed rule
change effectively would require CBOE Market Makers retroactively to
trade during the opening rotation at prices at which they were not
quoting and at which they did not want to trade. Citadel indicated that
the price protections offered by the Linkage Plan do not apply to
transactions during opening rotation.

Citadel noted that, as a result, there is a risk that orders executed
on one exchange as part of the opening rotation could receive a
different price if executed as part of the opening rotation on another
exchange. Citadel asserted that no ``obvious error'' is involved and
that the proposal is an inappropriate punitive measure because the
market maker has not done anything wrong. Citadel also stated that the
proposal creates an irrational distinction between those customer
orders that get the benefit of the adjustment and those that do not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Citadel Letter, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange countered that its obvious error rule currently
applies to transactions occurring as part of the opening rotation and
provides for the adjustment of market maker to market maker
transactions to prices that the market maker may not have been quoting
at the opening.\12\ The Exchange also noted that its obvious error rule
currently provides for differing treatment with respect to obvious
errors depending on the nature of the order and the parties involved.
According to the Exchange, the proposed rule change is consonant with
its obvious error rule, which currently addresses an error at the
opening, adjustment of an opening transaction, and differing treatment
of customers and market makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Telephone conference among Andrew Spiwak, Director, Legal
Division, and Chief Enforcement Attorney, Jennifer Lamie, Managing
Senior Attorney, and Nancy Sanow, Assistant Director, Division of
Market Regulation, Commission on June 13, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the Citadel Letter does not raise any
issues that would preclude approval of the proposed rule change. In the
Commission's view, the proposed rule change strikes a reasonable
balance by affording non-broker-dealer customers the opportunity to
seek review of an opening rotation transaction until 3:30 CT on the day
of the transaction, if the transaction occurred at a price that
satisfies the threshold set forth in the Exchange's obvious error rule,
while at the same time limiting the size and amount of any such
adjustment.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\13\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2005-63), as amended,
is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-9935 Filed 6-22-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: November 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 224)]
[Notices]
[Page 69706-69708]
[DOCID:fr19no08-129]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58928; File No. SR-NYSE-2008-109]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Clarify Amendments to
``Other Securities'' Initial Listing Standard

November 10, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 31, 2008, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposal from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Section 703.19 of the Exchange's
Listed Company Manual (the ``Manual''), the Exchange's initial listing
standards for ``Other Securities.'' The proposed amendment would
clarify that companies that are not listed on the Exchange that wish to
list securities under Section 703.19 must meet one of the Exchange's
financial original listing standards for equity listings, but need not
meet any of the other initial listing requirements set forth in Section
One of the Manual.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site (http://www.nyse.com), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of

the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Section 703.19 of the Manual, the
Exchange's initial listing standards for ``Other Securities.'' \3\ The
proposed amendment would clarify that companies that are not listed on
the Exchange that wish to list securities under Section 703.19 must
meet one of the Exchange's financial original listing standards for
equity listings, but need not meet any of the other initial listing
requirements set forth in Section One of the Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section 703.19 was adopted to provide the Exchange with the
flexibility to list securities that could not be readily categorized
under the Exchange's traditional listing standards for common and
preferred stocks, debt securities and warrants. Section 703.19 was
intended to provide flexibility to enable the Exchange to consider
the listing of new securities on a case-by-case basis, in light of
the suitability of the issue for auction market trading. Section
703.19 is not intended to accommodate the listing of securities that
raise significant new regulatory issues, which would require a
separate filing with the Commission. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 28217 (July 18, 1990) 55 FR 30056 (July 24, 1990) (SR-
NYSE-90-30).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has long required that unlisted companies wishing to
list securities under Section 703.19 must meet its initial common stock
listing standards as set forth in Sections 102.01-102.03 and 103.01-05
of the Manual. While these sections contain common stock distribution
requirements (such as the requirement of Section 102.01A that companies
listing in connection with an IPO must have at least 400 round lot
holders and 1.1 million publicly-held shares) and public float
requirements (such as the requirement of 102.01B that IPOs must have a
minimum float of $60 million and all other companies must have a public
float of $100 million at the time of initial listing), the Exchange has
not imposed these standards with respect to an issuer's common stock
when it is only listing securities under Section 703.19. Rather, the
Exchange has interpreted the requirement of Section 703.19 as being
simply that the company must meet the financial requirements of one of
the Exchange's initial listing standards as set forth in Section
102.01C (i.e., the Earnings Test, the Valuation/Revenue Test, the Pure
Valuation/Revenue Test and the Affiliated Company Test) or Section
103.01C [sic] (i.e., the Earnings Test, the Valuation/Revenue Test, the
Pure Valuation/Revenue Test and the Affiliated Company Test). While the
Exchange strongly believes that it needs to ensure that any company
that lists its securities under Section 703.19 is of the financial
caliber that is required of an NYSE company, it does not believe the
common stock distribution and public float requirements are relevant to
this qualitative analysis as these requirements are relevant solely
with respect to the quality of the trading market in the common stock.
    Recently, the Exchange amended its common stock initial listing
standards in Section 102.01B and 103.01A to require listing applicants
at the time of listing to have a closing price, or if listing in
connection with an IPO, an IPO price of $4 at the time of initial
listing.\4\ The Exchange believes that the same rationale articulated
above with respect to distribution and public float requirements
applies in the case of this price requirement, i.e., it is relevant to
the quality of the trading market for the common stock but not to the
qualitative analysis the Exchange performs with respect to a company
wishing to list securities under Section 703.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 27597 [sic] (May 6,
2008), 73 FR 27597 (May 13, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To avoid any ambiguity in the application of Section 703.19 to
companies that do not have their common stock listed on the Exchange,
the Exchange proposes to replace the requirement that companies must
meet the Exchange's initial common stock listing standards as set forth
in Sections 102.01-102.03 and 103.01-05 of the Manual with a more
narrowly-tailored requirement that such companies must meet one of the
financial standards in Section 102.01C or, if applicable, in the case
of foreign companies, Section 103.01B. The Exchange also proposes to
remove the sub-heading (``Earnings/Net Tangible Assets'') from the
second paragraph of Section 703.19, as it is a remnant from a much
earlier version of the rule and is a source of confusion.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(5) \5\ that an exchange have rules that
are 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, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The
Exchange believes that the proposed amendment is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest in that the Exchange
will continue to apply stringent eligibility requirements to securities
listed under Section 703.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that this proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition that is 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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited
nor received.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2008-109 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2008-109. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the

Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please
use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received
will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2008-109 and should be submitted on
or before December 10, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-27419 Filed 11-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 31, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48793-48794]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18684]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No: FAA-2016-6596]

Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Program: Eligibility of Ground
Access Projects Meeting Certain Criteria

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability of the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC)
Update 75-21: Eligibility of on-airport rail access projects.

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

SUMMARY: FAA is announcing the availability of PFC Update 75-21 that
makes rail lines that do not exclusively serve the airport PFC
eligible, and provides several methodologies for calculating the PFC-
eligible costs.

DATES: This PFC update on the use of PFC funding for on-airport, rail
access projects was effective on January 12, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To access the PFC update, please use: https://www.faa.gov/airports/pfc/pfc_updates/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Walsh, Financial Analysis and
Passenger Facility Charge Branch, APP-510, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 123 of the FAA Reauthorization Act
of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-254) required FAA to publish in the Federal
Register a final policy amendment consistent with the notice published
in the Federal Register on May 3, 2016 (81 FR 26611). On January 12,
2021, FAA issued a final policy amendment on the eligibility of on-
airport rail access projects.
    This PFC update amends FAA policy previously published in 2004,
Notice of Policy Regarding Eligibility of Airport Ground Access
Transportation Projects for Funding Under the Passenger Facility Charge
Program (69 FR 6366) (the 2004 Policy), to make rail lines that do not
exclusively serve the airport PFC eligible, and provides several
methodologies for calculating the PFC-eligible costs. The FAA will
apply the 2004 Policy to all other ground access projects using PFC
funds. FAA has posted PFC Update 75-21: Eligibility of on-airport rail
access projects on the FAA Office of Airports website: https://www.faa.gov/airports/pfc/pfc_updates/.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 25, 2021.
Robert J. Craven,
Director of Airport Planning and Programming.
[FR Doc. 2021-18684 Filed 8-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38736-38737]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13894]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 9951-055]

STS Hydropower, LLC; Township of Van Buren, Michigan; Notice of
Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document
(Pad), Commencement of ILP Pre-Filing Process; Waiving Parts of the ILP
Pre-Filing Process; Request for Comments on the Pad and Scoping
Document, and Identification of Issues and Associated Study Requests

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application for
a New License and Commencing Pre-filing Process.
    b. Project No.: 9951-055.
    c. Dated Filed: April 29, 2022.

    d. Submitted By: STS Hydropower, LLC (STS Hydropower) and Township
of Van Buren, Michigan (Township of Van Buren).
    e. Name of Project: French Landing Hydroelectric Project (French
Landing Project).
    f. Location: The French Landing Project is located on the Huron
River in Wayne County, Michigan. The project does not occupy federal
land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR part 5 of the Commission's
Regulations.
    h. Applicant Contacts: Melissa Sonnleitner, STS Hydropower, LLC, c/
o Eagle Creek RE Management, LLC, 116 N. State Street, P.O. Box 167,
Neshkoro, WI 54960;<PHONE_NUMBER> (extension 347);
[email protected].
    Tim Sullivan, Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, D.P.C, 41 Liberty Hill
Road, P.O. Box 2179, Henniker, NH 03242;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
[email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Aaron Liberty at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
[email protected].
    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item o below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR part
402 and (b) the State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by
section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing
regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR
800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating STS Hydropower and the
Township of Van Buren as the Commission's non-federal representatives
for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
    m. STS Hydropower and the Township of Van Buren filed with the
Commission a Pre-Application Document (PAD, including a proposed
process plan and schedule), pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's
regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD may be viewed on the Commission's website
(http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field, to
access the document. At this time, the Commission has suspended access
to the Commission's Public Reference Room, due to the proclamation
declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease
(COVID-19), issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance,
contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (866)
208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for public
inspection during normal business hours at the Van Buren Charter
Township Clerk's Office, 46425 Tyler Road, Van Buren Township, Michigan
48111.
    You may register online at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and
Commission staff's Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests.
All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be emailed
(preferred) or mailed to the addresses above in paragraph h. In
addition, all comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for
cooperating agency status, and all communications to and from
Commission staff related to the merits of the potential application
must be filed with the Commission.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
all documents using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. All filings must clearly identify
the project name and docket number on the first page: French Landing
Hydroelectric Project (P-9951-055).
    All filings with the Commission must bear the appropriate heading:
``Comments on Pre-Application Document,'' ``Study Requests,''
``Comments on Scoping Document 1,'' ``Request for Cooperating Agency
Status,'' or ``Communications to and from Commission Staff.'' Any
individual or entity interested in submitting study requests,
commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating
status must do so by August 27, 2022.
    p. The Commission's scoping process will help determine the
required level of analysis and satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements,
irrespective of whether the Commission prepares an environmental
assessment or Environmental Impact Statement.

Scoping Process

    Due to ongoing concerns with large gatherings related to COVID-19,
we do not intend to hold in-person public scoping meetings or an in-
person environmental site review. Additionally, staff's review of the
PAD indicates that the complexity of the resource issues is minor and
the level of anticipated controversy associated with the project is
expected to be minimal. Therefore, we are waiving section 5.8(b)(viii)
of the Commission's regulations and do not intend to conduct a public
scoping meeting or environmental site review in this case. Instead, we
are soliciting written comments on the SD1. Any individual or entity
interested in submitting scoping comments must do so by the date
specified in item o. SD1, which outlines the subject areas to be
addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals
and entities on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of SD1 may be
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link.
Follow the directions for accessing information in paragraph n. Based
on all written comments, a Scoping Document 2 (SD2) may be issued. SD2
may include a revised process plan and schedule, as well as a list of
issues, identified through the scoping process.

    Dated: June 23, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-13894 Filed 6-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 80 (Friday, April 25, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22908-22910]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09409]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0256; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-214-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; the Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 777 airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by reports of dual pitch rate sensor (PRS) failures, resulting
in autopilot disconnects. This proposed AD would require an inspection
to determine the PRS part number and replacement if necessary. We are
proposing this AD to prevent a dual PRS failure that could cause an
automatic disengagement of the autopilot and autoland, which may
prevent continued safe flight and landing if disengagement occurs at
low altitude and the flight crew is unable to safely assume control and
execute a go-around or manual landing.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 9, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0256; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marie Hogestad, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0256;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-214-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We received reports of dual PRS failures on Model 777 airplanes
causing the primary flight computers (PFCs) to transition from primary
mode to secondary mode, resulting in autopilot disconnects. Vibration
testing of the sensors identified a mechanical resonance, which can
result in an erroneous sensor output that the PFCs would interpret as a
PRS failure. It is suspected that variability in manufacturing
tolerances could cause differences in the resonant frequency for
individual PRS and, when combined with variability in the airplane
vibration environment, results in a PRS failure. This condition, if not
corrected, could cause an automatic disengagement of the autopilot and
autoland, which may prevent continued safe flight and landing if
disengagement occurs at low altitude and the flight crew is unable to
safely assume control and execute a go-around or manual landing.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-27-0115,
dated May 22, 2013. For information on the procedures, see this service
information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No.
FAA-2014-0256.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, including an
inspection to determine the PRS part number and replacement if
necessary.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 47 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
            Action                       Labor cost               Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection...................  2 work-hours x $85 per hour =               $0             $170           $7,990
                                $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide the
cost of parts specified in this proposed AD. We have no way of
determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Action                            Labor cost              Parts cost        Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement (Up to 4 PRSs per           Up to 4 work-hours x $85 per               $0   Up to $340.
 airplane).                              hour = $340.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2014-0256; Directorate Identifier
2013-NM-214-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 9, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200LR, -300, -
300ER, and 777F series airplanes, certificated in any category, as
identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-27-0115,
dated May 22, 2013.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
controls.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of dual pitch rate sensor (PRS)
failures causing the primary flight computers to transition from
primary mode to secondary mode, resulting in autopilot disconnects.
We are issuing this AD to prevent a dual PRS failure that could
cause an automatic disengagement of the autopilot and autoland,
which may prevent continued safe flight and landing if disengagement
occurs at low altitude and the flight crew is unable to safely
assume control and execute a go-around or manual landing.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Inspection

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect to
determine the part numbers of all four PRSs, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 777-27-0115, dated May 22, 2013. For airplanes in group 1,
as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-27-
0115, dated May 22, 2013: A review of airplane maintenance records
is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the
PRS can be conclusively determined from that review.

(h) Replacement

    If any PRS having P/N 402875-05-01 is found during the
inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further
flight, replace with a PRS having P/N 402875-03-01, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 777-27-0115, dated May 22, 2013.

(i) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a PRS
having P/N 402875-05-01 on any airplane.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Marie Hogestad,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 18, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-09409 Filed 4-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 135 (Friday, July 13, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32582]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15051]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0623]

Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo
Zone--July Events

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce certain safety zones located in
federal regulations for recurring marine events. This action is
necessary and intended for the safety of life and property on navigable
waters during these events. During each enforcement period, no person
or vessel may enter the respective safety zone without the permission
of the Captain of the Port Buffalo.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.939 will be enforced during the
month of July as noted in the Supplementary Information section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, call or email LCDR Michael Collet, Chief of
Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-
843-9322, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety
Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone listed in
33 CFR 165.939 for the following events:
    (1) Cleveland Triathlon, Cleveland, OH; The safety zone listed in
33 CFR 165.939(b)(1) will be enforced from 5:45 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. on
July 22, 2018.
    (2) Roverfest Fireworks, Lorain, OH; The safety zone listed in 33
CFR 165.939(b)(2) will be enforced from 9:45 p.m. to 10:35 p.m. on July
21, 2018.
    (3) High Speed Boat Races, Mentor, OH; The safety zone listed in 33
CFR 165.939(b)(3) will be enforced from 9:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. on July
22, 2018.
    (4) Parade of Lights, Cleveland, OH; The safety zone listed in 33
CFR 165.939(b)(6) will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on July
21, 2018.
    (5) Sheffield Lake Community Days, Sheffield Lake, OH; The safety
zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939(b)(10) will be enforced from 9:45 p.m. to
10:35 p.m. on July 27, 2018.
    (6) Lake Erie Open Water Swim, Cleveland, OH; The safety zone
listed in 33 CFR 165.939(b)(12) will be enforced from 6:45 a.m. to
10:45 a.m. on July 14, 2018.
    (7) French Festival Fireworks, Cape Vincent, NY; The safety zone
listed in 33 CFR 165.939(b)(15) will be enforced from 9:15 p.m. to
10:45 p.m. on July 14, 2018.
    (8) Lyme Community Days, Chaumont, NY; The safety zone listed in 33
CFR 165.939(b)(16) will be enforced from 9:15 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on
July 28, 2018.
    (9) Tonawanda's Canal Fest Fireworks, Tonawanda, NY; The safety
zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939(b)(26) will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to
11:00 p.m. on July 22, 2018.
    (10) Oswego Harborfest, Oswego, NY; The safety zone listed in 33
CFR 165.939(b)(28) will be enforced from 9:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on
July 28, 2018.
    Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring
within the safety zone during an enforcement period is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated
representative. Those seeking permission to enter the safety zone may
request permission from the Captain of Port Buffalo via channel 16,
VHF-FM. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone
shall obey the directions of the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his
designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels
shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.
    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR
165.939 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement
in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime
community with advance notification of this enforcement period via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. If the
Captain of the Port Buffalo determines that the safety zone need not be
enforced for the full duration stated in this notice he or she may use
a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the
respective safety zone.

    Dated: July 10, 2018.
Joseph S. Dufresne,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2018-15051 Filed 7-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 82 (Wednesday, April 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 23793]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09970]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1556-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Interconnection Agreement
with Allegany Limited Partnership of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Filed Date: 4/23/15.
    Accession Number: 20150423-5182.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1557-000.
    Applicants: Entrust Energy East, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Notice of Succession and
Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 4/22/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/23/15.
    Accession Number: 20150423-5200.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1558-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
2403R2 Sunflower-ITC Interconnection Agreement to be effective 12/31/
9998.
    Filed Date: 4/23/15.
    Accession Number: 20150423-5229.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/14/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 23, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-09970 Filed 4-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 69793]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29149]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of
Directors

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

TIME AND DATE: December 8, 2011, 12:00 noon to 3 p.m., Eastern Daylight
Time.

PLACE: This meeting will take place telephonically. Any interested
person may call<PHONE_NUMBER>, passcode, 908048 to participate in this
meeting.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board
of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and
implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to
that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified
Carrier Registration Board of Directors at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on: November 1, 2011.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-29149 Filed 11-7-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P