[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 20, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43349-43351]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15443]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95278; File No. SR-NSCC-2022-010]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed
Rule Change To Adopt Fees for the Securities Financing Transaction
Clearing Service

July 14, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 8, 2022, National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'')
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 clearing agency. NSCC filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change consists of amendments to Addendum A (Fee
Structure) (``Addendum A'') of NSCC's Rules & Procedures (``Rules'') to
adopt fees for NSCC's securities financing transaction (``SFT'')
clearing service (``SFT Clearing Service''), as described below.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined
shall have the meaning assigned to such terms in the Rules,
available at http://dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/
nscc_rules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
Overview of the Proposed Rule Change
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to adopt fees for
NSCC's new SFT Clearing Service.\6\ The SFT Clearing Service provides
central clearing for SFTs, which are, broadly speaking, transactions
where the parties exchange equity securities against cash and
simultaneously agree to exchange the same securities and cash, plus or
minus a rate payment, on a future date. The SFT Clearing Service
established new membership categories and requirements for Sponsoring
Members and Sponsored Members whereby existing Members would be
permitted to sponsor certain institutional firms into membership.\7\
The SFT Clearing Service also established a new membership category and
requirements for Agent Clearing Members whereby existing Members would
be permitted to submit, on behalf of their customers, transactions to
NSCC for novation.\8\ The SFT Clearing Service is available for SFTs
entered into between (i) a Member and another Member, (ii) a Sponsoring
Member and its Sponsored Member (``Sponsored Member Transaction''), and
(iii) an Agent Clearing Member acting on behalf of a Customer and
either (x) a Member or (y) the same or another Agent Clearing Member
acting on behalf of a Customer.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95011 (May 31,
2022), 87 FR 34339 (June 6, 2022) (SR-NSCC-2022-003) (Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change to Introduce Central Clearing for
Securities Financing Transaction Clearing Service). NSCC also filed
the proposal as advance notice SR-NSCC-2022-801. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 94998 (May 27, 2022), 87 FR 33528 (June 2,
2022) (SR-NSCC-2022-801) (Notice of No Objection to Advance Notice
to Introduce Central Clearing for Securities Financing Transaction
Clearing Service).
    \7\ See id. and Rule 2C, supra note 5.
    \8\ See supra note 6 and Rule 2D, supra note 5.
    \9\ See supra note 6 and Section 1 of Rule 56, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the SFT Clearing Service, NSCC would establish
two new fees for the clearance of SFT transactions: (i) a fee of $1.00
per side of each new SFT submitted (excluding any Linked SFT \10\ and
Sponsored Member Transactions) and (ii) a fee of $0.14 per million of
outstanding SFT notional balance.\11\ Under the proposed fee structure,
Sponsoring Members would be liable for any fees and charges arising
from Sponsored Member Transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A ``Linked SFT'' is an SFT entered into by the pre-novation
SFT Member parties to an SFT that has been previously novated by
NSCC, the Final Settlement of which is scheduled to occur on that
Business Day (``Settling SFT''), and has the same Transferor,
Transferee and subject SFT Securities (including CUSIP) as the
Settling SFT. See Rule 1, supra note 5.
    \11\ For purposes of determining the proposed outstanding SFT
notional balance fee, the outstanding SFT notional balance would be
calculated using the settlement value of the SFT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, fee levels for NSCC are set by NSCC after periodic
reviews of a number of factors, including revenues, operating costs,
and potential service enhancements. In the case of fees associated with
new services such as SFT, however, there are no current or historical
data points to use in the analysis. Fees for such services are
determined based on an evaluation of the costs associated with
developing the service, the projected costs of operating the service on
an ongoing basis, and the projected revenues for the service over time
under various assumptions.\12\ In determining the proposed SFT Clearing
Service fees, NSCC attempted to balance a combination of factors, which
included maintaining a competitive market level price while also
factoring in the enhanced value that the SFT Clearing Service offered
to Members (e.g., multiple models for clearing SFTs for Members and
their clients, and the associated balance sheet and capital efficiency
opportunities) and the ability to achieve the payback of NSCC's
investment costs within an appropriate timeframe. The proposed SFT
Clearing Service fees are designed to be risk-based in that open
interest would be charged to the lender and borrower at a

rate that is designed to be competitive in the cleared equity SFT
marketplace. The proposed fee schedule would also include a per side
fee for each new SFT submitted where the SFT has a full-service Member
(i.e., a Member acting in a proprietary capacity, a Sponsoring Member,
or an Agent Clearing Member) on each side of the trade (excluding any
Linked SFTs) to account for the creation of new loans. To evaluate the
proposed SFT Clearing Service fees, NSCC considered the expected
investment costs to develop the SFT Clearing Service and projected
annual costs to run the service (including both technology and non-
technology run costs) and analyzed projected revenues based on
assumptions of growth rates for the service and the associated
timeframes for recovering investment and operating costs.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ NSCC has in place procedures to control costs and to
regularly review pricing levels against costs of operation. NSCC's
fees are generally cost-based plus a markup as approved by its Board
of Directors. This markup is applied to recover development costs
and operating expenses and to accumulate capital sufficient to meet
regulatory and economic requirements. The SFT Clearing Service and
proposed associated fees, once implemented, would be reviewed and
re-evaluated regularly under this framework. See NSCC Disclosure
Framework for Covered Clearing Agencies and Financial Market
Infrastructures, available at https://www.dtcc.com/-/media/Files/Downloads/legal/policy-and-compliance/NSCC_Disclosure_Framework.pdf,
at 120.
    \13\ NSCC has included details of its analysis in confidential
Exhibit 3 of filing SR-NSCC-2022-010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Change to Addendum A
    To effectuate the proposed SFT Clearing Service fees, Section II of
Addendum A concerning Trade Clearance Fees would be updated to include
a new subsection for SFT fees, which would include: (i) a fee of $1.00
per side of each new SFT submitted (excluding any Linked SFT and
Sponsored Member Transactions) and (ii) a fee of $0.14 per million of
outstanding SFT notional balance. NSCC would also add a new Section IX
to Addendum A stating that a Sponsoring Member shall be liable for fees
and charges arising from Sponsored Member Transactions, the data on
which it, or its Sponsored Member(s), has submitted to NSCC.
2. Statutory Basis
    NSCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a registered clearing agency. Specifically, NSCC believes
the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the
Act \14\ and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii),\15\ as promulgated under the Act,
for the reasons set forth below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act \16\ requires that the rules of a
clearing agency provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its participants. NSCC believes the
proposed fees would be allocated equitably among its full-service
Members that transact in SFTs. NSCC would apply a fee of $1.00 per side
for each new SFT submitted where the SFT has a full-service Member
(i.e., a Member acting in a proprietary capacity, a Sponsoring Member,
or an Agent Clearing Member) on each side of the trade (excluding any
Linked SFTs) to account for the creation of new loans. In addition,
NSCC would impose a fee of $0.14 per million of outstanding SFT
notional balance in each account maintained by a Member holding SFTs
(i.e., a Member's account holding proprietary SFTs, a Sponsoring
Member's Sponsored Member Sub-Account(s), and/or an Agent Clearing
Member's Agent Clearing Member Customer Omnibus Account(s)) to account
for the ongoing operational and risk management activities associated
with the maintenance of outstanding SFT positions. NSCC believes that
the proposed fee changes are reasonable because they carefully consider
the expected investment costs to develop the SFT Clearing Service, the
projected annual costs to run the service (including both technology
and non-technology run costs), and projected revenues for the service
and are intended to achieve an appropriate timeframe for recovering
such investment and operating costs.\17\ NSCC notes that once the
proposed SFT Clearing Services fees are implemented, the SFT Clearing
Services fees would be periodically reviewed under NSCC's procedures to
control costs and to regularly review pricing levels against costs of
operation.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
    \17\ See supra note 13 and associated text.
    \18\ See supra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii) under the Act \19\ requires NSCC to
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to provide sufficient information to
enable participants to identify and evaluate the risks, fees, and other
material costs they incur by participating in the covered clearing
agency. The proposed SFT Clearing Service Fees would be clearly and
transparently published in Addendum A of the Rules, which are available
on a public website,\20\ thereby enabling Members to identify the fees
associated with participating in the SFT Clearing Service. As such,
NSCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(23)(ii) under the Act.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii).
    \20\ See supra note 5.
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    NSCC does not believe the proposed rule change would impose any
burden, or have any impact, on competition. The proposed fees would
apply equally to all Members, Sponsoring Members, and Agent Clearing
Members clearing SFTs at NSCC. NSCC believes that the proposed SFT
Clearing Service fees would not advantage or disadvantage any
particular member or user of the SFT Clearing Service or unfairly
inhibit access to the SFT Clearing Service. NSCC notes that members may
continue to engage in securities lending on a bilateral basis if they
choose.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    NSCC has conducted outreach to Members to provide them with notice
of the proposed fees.
    NSCC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to
this proposal. If any written comments are received by NSCC, they will
be publicly filed as an Exhibit 2 to this filing, as required by Form
19b-4 and the General Instructions thereto.
    Persons submitting comments are cautioned that, according to
Section IV (Solicitation of Comments) of the Exhibit 1A in the General
Instructions to Form 19b-4, the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. Commenters should
submit only information that they wish to make available publicly,
including their name, email address, and any other identifying
information.
    All prospective commenters should follow the Commission's
instructions on how to submit comments, available at https://www.sec.gov/regulatory-actions/how-to-submit-comments. General
questions regarding the rule filing process or logistical questions
regarding this filing should be directed to the Main Office of the
Commission's Division of Trading and Markets at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    NSCC reserves the right not to respond to any comments received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \22\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\23\ At any time within

60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission
summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NSCC-2022-010 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2022-010. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of NSCC and on DTCC's website
(http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). All comments received
will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2022-010 and should be submitted on
or before August 10, 2022.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-15443 Filed 7-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25506-25508]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10277]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69454; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-068]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify NASDAQ's Rule Governing Modification of Orders in the Event of
an Issuer Corporate Action Related to a Dividend, Payment or
Distribution, and To Make Related Clarifications to Rule Text

April 25, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on April 17, 2013, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASDAQ proposes to modify NASDAQ's rule governing modification of
orders in the event of an issuer corporate action related to a
dividend, payment or distribution, and to make related clarifications
to rule text. The Exchange has designated the proposed changes as
immediately effective, and proposes to implement the changes on or
shortly after the 30th day after the date of the filing. The text of
the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
http://www.nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. 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
    NASDAQ Rule 4761 addresses the treatment of quotes/orders in
securities that are the subject of issuer corporate actions related to
a dividend, payment or distribution (a ``corporate action''). The rule
applies to any trading interest that is carried on the Nasdaq Market
Center book overnight.\4\ The rule contemplates a range of possible
adjustments that, depending on the nature of the corporate action,
might result in the cancellation of the order or an adjustment to its
price and/or size to reflect the expected impact of the corporate
action, effective on the ex-date of the corporate action. NASDAQ
believes that the rule, as currently written, is excessively complex,
since the rule contemplates that quotes/orders receive different
adjustments depending on the nature and magnitude of the corporate
action, whether the trading interest is a quote or order, and whether
the trading interest is on the buy or sell side.\5\ Moreover, the
current rule contemplates active management of quotes/orders by NASDAQ,
thereby causing it to assume responsibilities that may be borne more
appropriately by its members. Accordingly, NASDAQ proposes to amend the
rule to provide that in the event of any corporate action, NASDAQ will
cancel open quote/orders on the ex-date of the action, thereby imposing
on the member that entered the order the responsibility for determining
whether it wishes to reenter the order and if so, at what price and
size.\6\ The cancellation would occur immediately prior to the opening
of trading at 4 a.m. on the ex-date of the corporate action, and the
member would receive a cancellation notice, so that it could, if it
desired, reenter the order at the commencement of trading on the ex-
date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NASDAQ notes that the use of such good-`till-cancelled
trading interest is not prevalent, and that the majority of quotes/
orders expire by their terms at the end of regular market hours.
    \5\ NASDAQ also notes that it has determined that several non-
material discrepancies exist between the current rule text and the
manner in which certain open quotes/orders are currently processed
by the Nasdaq Market Center system. This filing and the system
changes to implement it will eliminate these discrepancies.
    \6\ In making this change, NASDAQ is reversing a change made in
2006, in which NASDAQ replaced a rule to purge open orders with the
current rule. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54613 (October 17,
2006), 71 FR 62325 (October 17, 2006) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-043). At the
time, NASDAQ stated that many members had not programmed their
systems to adjust orders themselves and therefore preferred to have
NASDAQ perform the function. NASDAQ believes that the intervening
evolution in the sophistication of trading systems, as well as the
importance of active risk management by broker/dealers, justifies
the reversion to the prior rule. NASDAQ further notes that the prior
rule provided that NASDAQ would not purge orders in the event of a
corporate distribution of less than $0.01. NASDAQ is not now
proposing to retain this carve-out because NASDAQ believes that it
would increase the complexity of order processing without any
identifiable benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, NASDAQ is proposing to make conforming changes to Rule
4756, which currently references the fact that open orders may be
adjusted under Rule 4761 without such orders losing time priority.
Since under the proposed rule change, all such orders will be
cancelled, the cross-reference to Rule 4761 needs to be removed.
Finally, NASDAQ is proposing to address several issues with the
language of Rule 4756(b) to make it clear that quotes do not
necessarily remain open overnight. First, the rule is being amended to
delete an obsolete reference to NASDAQ's Automatic Quote Refresh
functionality, which was discontinued on February 25, 2013.\7\ Second,
NASDAQ is modifying a description of open quotes, the original intent
of which is unclear and that accordingly may result in confusion. The
sentence in question appears to reflect the idea that an open quote
(i.e., a quote designated to remain open at the end of the trading day)
would be processed in the same manner as a System Hours GTC Order.
While accurate, this statement does not reflect the fact that a quote
may also accurately be described as an Attributable Order entered by a
NASDAQ Market Maker or NASDAQ ECN (i.e., trading interest that is
identified as having been entered by a particular market participant).
Moreover, although an Attributable Order may be entered with a time-in-
force of good-`till-cancelled and thereby remain open overnight, such
orders are exceedingly rare, such that almost all quotes/orders of
NASDAQ Market Makers expire at the end of regular market hours.
Accordingly, NASDAQ believes that the focus of the current sentence on
orders remaining open might imply that all quotes remain open
overnight, when as a factual matter this is almost never the case
because the good-`till-cancelled time-in-force is almost never used by
market participants. NASDAQ proposes to amend the sentence to provide
that ``Quotes will be processed as Attributable Orders, with such time-
in-force designation as the Nasdaq Market Maker or Nasdaq ECN may
assign.'' Finally, NASDAQ proposes to correct a typographical error in
the rule.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68528 (December 21,
2012), 77 FR 77165 (December 31, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-140).
    \8\ NASDAQ notes that NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'') is filing a
similar proposed rule change to adopt a rule comparable to proposed
NASDAQ Rule 4761 and to make amendments to BX Rule 4756 similar to
those proposed with respect to NASDAQ Rule 4756. SR-BX-2013-031
(April 17, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\9\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ in particular, in that the proposal is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. Specifically, NASDAQ
believes that the change will simplify NASDAQ's rule governing
adjustment of open quotes/orders in the event of corporate actions by
making it clear that all such quotes/orders will be cancelled, thereby
ensuring that market participants have appropriate notice of the
possibility that they may either deem it advisable not to reenter such
quotes/orders, or to reenter them with such adjustments to price and/or
size as the market participant deems advisable to reflect the corporate
action. Thus, the change will facilitate transactions in securities and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by providing additional
assurance that market participants carefully manage the trading
interest that they enter into NASDAQ. In addition, the proposed changes
to Rule 4756 are designed to make conforming changes and to improve the
clarity of that rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

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

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Specifically,
NASDAQ believes that the rule change does not affect the availability
or pricing of goods or services offered by the Exchange, and therefore
does not impact competition between the Exchange and others. Rather,
the change is designed to simplify and clarify existing rules in a
manner that does not restrict the ability of members to enter and
update trading interest in NASDAQ.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
\12\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-068 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-068.
This file number should be included on the subject line if email is
used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NASDAQ-2013-068 and should be submitted on or before May 22, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-10277 Filed 4-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 23807]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10267]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-3418-000]

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

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Xoom Energy, 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 May 12, 2011.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 22, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-10267 Filed 4-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42828-42829]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19263]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4333-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

Idaho; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Idaho (FEMA-4333-DR), dated August 27, 2017,
and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued August 27, 2017.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated August 27, 2017, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Idaho resulting from flooding, landslides, and mudslides during
the period of May 6 to June 16, 2017, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare

that such a major disaster exists in the State of Idaho.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Timothy B. Manner, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Idaho have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Blaine, Camas, Custer, Elmore, and Gooding Counties for Public
Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Idaho are eligible for assistance
under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-19263 Filed 9-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


notification and recordkeeping requirements for CEMS compliance
monitoring in 40 CFR 60.7(c) and (d).
    (2) For each day, provide the total NOX and
SO2 emitted that day by each emission unit. For any hours on
any unit where data for hourly pounds or heat input is missing,
identify the unit number and monitoring device that did not produce
valid data that caused the missing hour.
    (g) Equipment operations. At all times, including periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the owner or operator shall, to the
extent practicable, maintain and operate the Plant including associated
air pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of
whether acceptable operating and maintenance procedures are being used
will be based on information available to the Regional Administrator
which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of
operating and maintenance procedures, and inspection of the Plant.
    (h) Enforcement. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision in this
implementation plan, any credible evidence or information relevant as
to whether the Plant would have been in compliance with applicable
requirements if the appropriate performance or compliance test had been
performed, can be used to establish whether or not the owner or
operator has violated or is in violation of any standard or applicable
emission limit in the plan.
    (2) Emissions in excess of the level of the applicable emission
limit or requirement that occur due to a malfunction shall constitute a
violation of the applicable emission limit.

[FR Doc. 2010-33106 Filed 1-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


1 Additional Interagency Comments A.) DOT Comments Conformity determinations will be required one year after PM2.5 designations are made, which is expected by December 31, 2004. EPA is not proposing to revoke the PM10 standard, so some areas will need to show conformity to both the PM10 standard, and the pm2.5 standard.

General conformity requirements are discussed in Section III. L. beginning on page 316. EPA does note that: " We are currently reviewing the general conformity program and, in a separate action, may revise the regulations as appropriate, with respect to the PM2.5 standards."

Transportation Conformity  Please see FHWA comments below.

General Conformity  EPA is also proposing to set de minimus levels of PM2.5 emissions and emissions of PM2.5 precursors including SO2, NOx, VOCs, and ammonia. They are proposing a limit of 100 tons per year of all these PM2.5 pollutants. We question whether tools are available to measure and predict all of these pollutants for general conformity analysis.

The FAA' has raised serious concerns about its ability to measure and predict PM2.5 emissions from aircraft. There are no tools available for measuring or predicting 2.5 emissions from aircraft, and FAA is concerned about what might be done while we develop measurement science. We are probably 5 years away from having the right modeling tools. This lack of tools will hamper conformity analyses and also the ability of airports to cooperate in SIP planning.

On page 317, the proposal reads " Federal agencies have several options for demonstrating conformity. For actions in PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas, the Federal agency can demonstrate that the project/ action is specifically identified and accounted for in the SIP, obtain documentation from the State that the emissions are included in the SIP, have the State commit to include the emissions in the SIP,  " Then on page 319, EPA states " However, as areas develop SIPs for the PM2.5 standards, we recommend that State and local air quality agencies work with major facilities which are subject to the general conformity regulations ( e. g., commercial airports and large military bases) to establish an emission budget for each facility in order to facilitate future conformity determinations." As noted, this is likely to be very difficult.

B.) FHWA Comments RACM and TCMs   We are concerned with the many discussions of RACM and TCMs in the preamble. a. On page 175. A key component of reasonableness is missing. A measure is not considered to be RACM if it does not advance the attainment date. ( See page 219 on RACT; highlight here.) This point has been upheld in court decisions and should not be lost in the discussion here. It is vital that the preamble not imply that emissions reductions that do not advance the attainment date are RACM. b. On page 266, the proposal states, " The demonstration should show that there are no additional reasonable measures available that would meaningfully advance the 2 attainment date or contribute to RFP for the area." The term " meaningfully advance" is not all that clear. Instead, it is recommended that the proposal reiterate here the language used on page 219 that measures are only RACM if the advance the attainment date a year. c. Starting on page 270, the proposal states, " In the past under other SIP programs, States may have rejected a single measure under consideration as RACM because the emission reduction benefits from that measure alone would not advance the attainment date by one year. The EPA does not believe this approach is appropriate under section 172. For the PM2.5 program, our approach is to emphasize the collective evaluation of RACM measures and whether they will advance the attainment date when taken together. We believe that the State should not reject an individual measure unless the State can show that it has evaluated the collective effect of that measure plus all other available control measures to determine whether implementing those measures together would advance the attainment date." Is this consistent with the RACM court decision ( Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F. 3d 155 ( D. C. Cir. 2002)? If this is not current policy for ozone and other pollutants, then we would strongly object to any changes to this definition of RACM. d. On page 277, revise to state, " However, under current EPA policy we do not presume that any or all of these measures are reasonably available in any areas." As written, the proposal still implies that some of the measures are reasonably available for all areas, and this is not the case. e. On page 277, revise to state, "  we do not believe it is appropriate to include a presumption that any of these measures should be considered RACM for any PM2.5 nonattainment area." See preceding comment. f. On page 277 278, the proposal states, " PM2.5 monitoring data show that organic and elemental carbon typically make up a significant percentage ( e. g., 25 percent or more) of the PM2.5 mass in most urban areas, and analyses have shown that transportation sources are significant emitters of these PM2.5 components. For this reason, we believe that States should give serious consideration to TCMs in their RACM analyses." We strongly disagree with this conclusion. This recommendation should be deleted from the proposal. It is not needed anyway, as the proposal already states that all measures must be considered. There is no reason to specifically call out TCMs here. Although transportation sources may be significant sources of PM2.5 in some areas, we are not sure whether TCMs are the most cost effective way to achieve significant emission reductions. g. On page 278, revise to state, " However, experience has shown that local circumstances vary to such a degree from city to city that it would not be reasonable to assume that any section 108( f) measures are reasonably available in any areas. h. Page 300 of the proposal states, " Examples of voluntary mobile source measures include transportation control measures, ozone action plans, and trip reduction strategies." This implies that all TCMs are voluntary measures, and this is not correct. Recommend deleting " transportation control measures from this sentence, and if necessary replace with a specific example of a voluntary measure. 3 Other comments: 1. On pages 55 58, the proposal discusses the sources of primary PM bases on the National Emissions Inventory ( NEI). This is somewhat misleading, and should focus just on PM 2.5. For example, the proposal states that one of the main sources of these particles is re entrained dust. It then states that much of these particles are course rather than fine. But since this proposal deals with fine particles, it seems out of place to highlight the sources of PM 10. This could be confusing to the reviewer and potential commenter. Recommend that this section be revised to focus on PM 2.5 sources.

2. On page 62, the proposal states, " The main sources of NOx are combustion of fossil fuel in boilers and onroad mobile sources." It also states that these sources account for 80% of NOx emissions with each contributing about half. This does not seem to be correct. The 2002 and 2003 numbers show that fuel combustion electrical utilities and highway vehicles only account for 57% of emissions. Also, as alluded to elsewhere in the proposal, non road mobile sources are also a major source of NOx. And, over the past decades, while on road emissions have decreased significantly, non road emissions have continued to grow. Also, according to the NEI, industrial fuel combustion is also a fairly large source of NOx. Therefore, this section needs to be updated to reflect the recently release 2002 or 2003 numbers, and should also list non road sources as a major source.

3. Page 75. Section 182( f) of the Clean Air Act can also apply to other sources besides " major stationary sources," and waive NOx requirements for ozone.

4. Page 78. Conformity, both transportation and general conformity take effect one year after the effective date of designations.

5. Page 80. In the first full sentence on the page, shouldn't this be " attainment demonstrations SIPs" instead of " nonattainment SIPs?"

6. Page 88. The proposal has left blank the proposed design value for which areas would be classified as serious under this option. This is a vital piece of information that is needed to evaluate this proposal. In addition, the proposal should clearly give a basis for this value.

7. Page 94. Rural transport nonattainment areas would also be subject to general conformity.

8. On page 96, the proposal states that only 1 area may meet the criteria for a rural transport area. What is the area? Since there is only 1 area, it is recommended that the proposal go ahead and identify it, providing a clearer example of the type of area this section is referring to. 4 9. On page 97, the proposal states, " Under the current schedule, nonattainment area designations are to be finalized in December 2004." This is inconsistent with earlier in the document.

10. Page 102 104. The dates in the example that begins on the bottom of page 102 should be revised to reflect the actual proposed attainment dates. Areas will start with a presumed 2010 attainment date, not 2012. The years examined would be 2007, 2008, and 2009, with a 1 year extension possible to 2011.

11. Pages 144 146 of the proposal discuss trying to align modeling years. However, this does not address the issue of seasonal variation. Even if you look at ozone, PM 2.5, and regional haze for the same year, each pollutant or the haze problem, could actually be worse during different seasons. How do areas look at this seasonal variation? Would they need to look at all three, for two or three different times of the year? The proposal seems to imply that one attainment modeling could cover both ozone and PM 2.5, but depending on the nature of the PM 2.5 problem, this may not be the case. This needs to be addressed and clarified.

12. Page 150. Would these RFP plans be required to contain motor vehicle emissions budgets? It is assumed that they would. In that case, this should be highlighted in this section and cross referenced with the conformity section.

13. Page 157. 2010 is proposed as the first RFP milestone year. Will this be consistent with the ozone implementation plan attainment dates and RFP? It seems that it would be beneficial to have these years aligned. Also, how does this fit with inventory requirements? It seems to be off cycle. Periodic inventories will be due in 2005, 2008, 2011, 2014, etc. Wouldn't it be better and conservative of resources, if the RFP milestone years aligned with the inventory years?

14. Page 188. This section discusses using a different geographic area than the nonattainment area for RFP purposes. However, if the RFP SIP establishes a motor vehicle emissions budget, it should only be for the nonattainment area, as conformity only applies in nonattainment or maintenances areas. This issue should be discussed and cross referenced with the conformity section.

15. Page 204 begins a section on what precursors apply to RACT. However, it only discusses NOx, VOCs, and ammonia. What about SO2, which is mentioned in the first sentence of the section, but not discussed as whether it applies to RACT.

16. On page 281, the proposal states, " Programs to expand use of clean burning fuels ( such as biodiesel)." Can't biodiesel actually increase NOx emissions? If this is the case, it is recommended that the phrase " such as biodiesel" be deleted.

17. On page 282, " Reduce dust from paved and unpaved roads" is listed as an area source. This should be moved under mobile sources. Dust from paved and unpaved roads, if significant, will need to become part of the on road motor 5 vehicle emissions budget. There has been a great deal of confusion in regards to this issue in the past. As listed under areas sources, this may confuse readers.

18. Page 321. Please see above comments on designations and effective dates.

19. On page 338, the proposal states, " We do not believe that this creates a major regulatory burden because NOx is already a regulated NSR pollutant. This is because it is a precursor for the ozone NAAQS and an indicator for the NO2 NAAQS." Does this conclusion account for the fact that ozone is a summer problem, whereas PM 2.5 may be a year round pollutant that the PM 2.5 NOx may be a winter problem?

20. Page 396 states, " The EPA plans to address these concerns in a future Tribal NSR rule, which is scheduled for proposal in early 2004." This should be updated.

C.) DOD Comments SUBJECT: Proposed Rule to Implement the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards The Department of Defense Clean Air Act Services Steering Committee, which represents the Departments of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and other DoD components and agencies, has conducted a preliminary review of the subject draft proposed rule and submits the following comments for consideration.

From the time the PM2.5 NAAQS were first proposed, DoD has raised concerns about potential impacts to military training and testing activities. DoD must routinely conduct realistic training and weapons testing to ensure safety and survivability on the battlefield. Currently, DoD has approximately 100 bases in areas that have been recommended as nonattainment for the annual PM2.5 standard. This rule has the potential to affect the use of obscurants; prescribed burning to maintain and sustain training areas and biological habitat; operations and maintenance of tactical military combustion sources; and fugitive dust from training and exercise activities. While these training activities are relatively small, sporadic sources of PM emissions ( the largest component of these emissions is crustal material/ dust which EPA has determined to be a very small fraction of PM2.5 emissions), the consequences of regulating military readiness activities would greatly outweigh the relatively minor, incremental benefit of such regulation.

DoD's mission is to fight and win our nation's wars. Today more than ever DoD must train under extremely realistic conditions in order to ensure that our forces can cope effectively with the dynamic changes in warfare scenarios and tactics employed by our new enemies. Regulating operational ranges and training operations under the proposed rule will impose an unnecessary burden on such training and limit its realism, putting our forces at greater risk on the battlefield. 6 Given these circumstances, we request that EPA confirm that its guidance to state and local agencies will be to focus their attention on significant sources of PM2.5 emissions, and not on the training and testing activities of the military. We note that the draft proposed rule does not address military sources of PM2.5 emissions specifically. In the past, however, EPA has stated that " it is clear that military training activities are actually among the smallest sources of PM2.5 in areas likely to have a particulate problem." ( 1997 Browner letter to Secretary Cohen)

1. Impact on Uniquely Military Readiness Activities: DoD understands that the focus of the proposed rule is to reduce emissions of very fine particulates ( PM2.5) as well as emissions of pollutants that have been identified as precursors of PM2.5. EPA is proposing to achieve this by implementing a balanced program to reduce emissions from regional sources ( such as power plants emitting sulfur dioxide ( SO2) and nitrogen oxides ( NOx)] and local sources ( such as cars, trucks, industrial sources, and various other combustion or burning related activities). DoD agrees with this approach. We are concerned however, that the proposed rule would allow States to regulate other local sources, including uniquely military readiness activities. DoD believes that such activities ( including testing, training and operations) should not be subject to State controls under the proposed rule. Such regulation would impose unacceptable impacts on readiness, with marginal environmental benefit.

Discussion: DoD has the same concerns with the potential impacts on training, testing, and operations as we discussed in comments provided when the Interstate Air Quality Rule was proposed and when the PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard was first proposed. DoD must routinely conduct realistic training and weapons testing to ensure safety and survivability on the battlefield.

Military readiness activities, such as live fire training, training with smoke and obscurants, maneuver training, and munitions related testing, emit PM2.5. These emissions however, do not share the suspension and transport characteristics associated with emissions from industrial or commercial operations because they are localized and of short duration. The proposed rule may also create conflicts between DoD's obligations under the Clean Air Act and its obligations under other statutes, such as the Endangered Species Act, as well as DoD's necessary operations under range management. DoD is required to engage in prescribed burns of designated areas to maintain habitat for endangered species, to prevent wildfire as part of forestry management, or to clear an area for the safe entry of an Explosive Ordnance Disposal team. See comment number 4 below. The EPA Administrator responded to DoD's earlier comments in a June 17, 1997 letter to the Secretary of Defense, which expressed EP A's willingness to work with DoD on these issues and made the following points:

  EPA did not see the need for Defense activities to be the target of control strategies designed to attain these new standards. 7   EPA had been analyzing data on PM2.5 and found that " it is clear that military training activities are actually among the smallest sources of PM2.5 in areas likely to have a fine particulate problem."   EPA would not recommend that States focus regulatory attention on military training and field exercises.   Regarding possible State in use controls involving DoD's tactical vehicles and equipment, EPA would work with the States to ensure that no unreasonable burdens were imposed on these sources in State Implementation Plans.   With regard to prescribed burning, EPA was working with Federal and State agencies, including DoD, to develop guidance for balancing air quality strategies and the need for prescribed burning.

When the PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter and ozone were first published in July 1997, President Clinton issued implementation guidance to EPA that included many of these same commitments. 62 Fed. Reg. 38421 ( July 18, 1997).

Recommendation: DoD recommends that EPA include language in the preamble to emphasize the unique nature of military readiness activities and to indicate that regulation of military activities is not necessary to achieve reductions of transported PM2.5. Specifically, DoD requests the following paragraphs be added to Section III. E. 1 of the preamble.

" The Department of Defense ( DoD) engages in activities that are unique to the armed forces and without comparison to activities in the commercial or industrial sector. DoD must engage in live weapons fire, use of smoke and obscurants, and field maneuver activities to train its personnel for combat. DoD's training activities may include training in classrooms and simulators, but culminate in livefire and maneuver training under conditions simulating the stress, confusion, distances, and complexity of combat. Realistic combat training involves the use of smoke and obscurants, vehicles traversing unpaved terrain, and mobile combustion sources. DoD must train in realistic combat settings to be able to operate in a global environment. Similarly, DoD is required by various laws to conduct realistic survivability and safety testing of ordnance and weapons systems and aircraft. Training and testing are critical to DoD's operational readiness and in the best interests of our national defense. All of these uniquely military activities are relatively small sources of PM2.5 and do not significantly impact air quality.

EPA does not see the need for Defense activities to be the target of control strategies designed to achieve PM2.5 reductions. EPA has analyzed data on PM2.5 and found that it is clear that military testing and training activities are actually among the smallest sources of PM2.5 in areas likely to have a fine particulate problem. EPA would not recommend that States focus regulatory attention on military training, testing and operational activities." 8 2. General Conformity   The draft proposed rule should clarify how the general conformity requirement would apply to the four precursors of PM2.5. It is not clear how the variability in precursor pollutants aligns with conformity requirements.

Discussion: Section II. E. 2. of the draft preamble discusses the proposed policy options for how states should address PM2.5 precursors in the PM2.5 implementation plans. The section explains that the NSR and Transportation Conformity programs will take effect prior to approval of SIPs for PM2.5 attainment, and thus there is an " interim period" between the date the program becomes applicable to a given nonattainment area and the date EPA approves the overall PM2.5 implementation plan. Options for addressing PM2.5 precursors during this interim period for the NSR and transportation conformity programs are set out in the later sections of the rule that specifically address transportation conformity and NSR. For the rest of the programs discussed in the draft rule, ( RFP, RACT, RACM and modeling) the approach is as proposed in the Section II. E.

The General Conformity program will also take effect prior to approval of the state SIPs. It should articulate a clear policy respecting how precursors are addressed during the interim period. The present discussion in Section III. L. 5 of the preamble implies that the General Conformity analysis would have to address all of the possible PM2.5 precursors. This approach is inconsistent with how the draft proposed rule addresses the PM2.5 precursors for Transportation Conformity and for New Source Review.

It appears that the appropriate solution is for EPA to include the General Conformity program in the list of programs that take effect during the interim period, which would follow the approach described by EPA in Section II. E. 2. of the preamble. In summary, that approach assumes that SOx and NOx must be included in SIP regulations to demonstrate attainment of the PM2.5 standards, and it assumes that most VOCs and ammonia do not have to be included to demonstrate attainment. The assumption for each group can be changed by a state and/ or EPA determination that the specific precursor does or does not have to be regulated.

Recommendation: DoD recommends that General Conformity be identified as an interim program and that the treatment of precursors be consistent with the treatment for New Source Review.

3. Timing of States' SIPs and Conformity  The draft proposed rule should allow more flexibility in the methods available to DoD facilities to demonstrate conformity during the interim period between when conformity applies and the SIP is approved.

Discussion: The approach set out in Section III. L of the preamble would prevent DoD from using three of its most important options to demonstrate positive conformity for an action during the two year, or more, interim period that exists between the effective date of EPA's general conformity regulations for an area designated as nonattainment and the date that states must submit their SIPs for EPA approval. 9 The preamble states that, " The general conformity regulations specify requirements for actions/ projects in areas without an approved SIP. Those requirements would apply to PM2.5 nonattainment areas until the SIP is approved by EPA." The General Conformity rule allows only limited methods to demonstrate conformity in areas without an approved SIP.

First, DoD will not be able to demonstrate conformity for an action because its emissions are specifically identified in the applicable SIP's attainment demonstration or contained in a military growth allowance or increment in such demonstration. ( 40 CFR Sec 93158( a)( 1)). Second, DoD will not be able to demonstrate conformity during this period by having the responsible state agency certify that the emissions from the action ( or a portion of them), along with the emissions of that pollutant from all sources in the area, do not exceed the emissions budget in the EPA approved SIP ( 40 CFR Sec. 93.158( a)( 5)( i)( A)). Finally, DoD will also not be able to rely on the State Governor's commitment to revise the SIP within eighteen months ( 40 CFR Sec. 93.158( a)( 5)( i)( B)) to demonstrate that an action conforms during this period.

Recommendation: DoD recommends that EPA commit to revising the General Conformity Rule to provide more flexibility for demonstrating conformity during the interim period between the date conformity applies and before the new SIP is approved. Specifically, DoD recommends that EPA propose to extend the time period for a State Commitment to revise the SIP from eighteen months to the date the new SIP is due.

4. Prescribed Burning  The proposed rule may create conflicts between DoD's obligations under the CAA and its obligations under other statutes ( e. g., Endangered Species Act). The draft proposed rule should clarify how to reconcile existing requirements to use prescribed/ managed burning to prevent wildfire( s) and perform ecosystem management with EPA's plan to control these operations as sources of PM2.5.

Discussion: DoD is required to engage in prescribed burning of designated areas to maintain habitat for species under the Endangered Species Act. It is prudent and effective for DoD to use prescribed burning to prevent wildfire, perform ecosystem management, or to clear an area for the safe entry of an Explosive Ordnance Disposal team. This draft proposed rule makes no provisions for reconciling these requirements with requirements in the rule. For example, the proposed rule makes no provisions to resolve the rule's conflicts with existing requirements to use prescribed/ managed burns for habitat management. We believe that regulation of such activities under the proposed rule should defer to other guidance and efforts such as EPA's Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires ( April 23, 1998) and State smoke management plans.

Recommendation: DoD recommends that EPA include provisions within the PM2.5 implementation rule that direct states/ tribes to review the adequacy of the SMPs in collaboration with wildland owners/ managers and make appropriate improvements to mitigate future air quality impacts. The implementation rule should also address the 10 effects of fire emissions on other Clean Air Act requirements, such as prevention of significant deterioration and conformity of federal activities with state implementation plans. The rule should indicate that compliance with the SMP meets the compliance requirements of the PM2.5 SIP. Specifically, DoD requests the following paragraphs be added to Section III. E. 1 of the preamble.

" As a Federal agency, DoD must also comply with environmental statutes in a manner that the private sector does not. DoD, as the third largest land manager, must engage in environmental stewardship land management activities to maintain its ranges and other training lands; activities that would not normally occur in the private sector. For example, DoD may be required to engage in mandatory prescribed burns of certain areas to maintain habitat for endangered species under the Endangered Species Act ( ESA). Likewise, DoD may need to conduct a prescribed burn in a portion of a range to enable Explosive Ordinance Disposal personnel to enter an area safely. As management of such activities is better suited to guidance elsewhere, we defer regulating such activities under the proposed rule.

In the Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires, EPA urges state and tribal air quality managers to collaborate with wildland owners and managers to mitigate the air quality impacts that could be caused by the increase of fires managed to achieve resource benefits. DoD manages very large tracts of " wildland." EPA especially urges the state and tribal managers to develop and implement at least basic smoke management programs ( SMPs) when conditions indicate that such fires will adversely impact the public. SMPs establish procedures and requirements for minimizing emissions and managing smoke dispersion. The goals of SMPs are to mitigate the nuisance and public safety hazards ( e. g., on roadways and at airports) posed by smoke intrusions into populated areas; to prevent deterioration of air quality and NAAQS violations; and to address visibility impacts in mandatory Class I Federal areas. Accordingly, EPA understand that compliance with the SMP meets the compliance requirements of the PM2.5 SIPs and therefore it is not necessary to further regulate prescribe burning under this rule."

5. Rural Transport: DoD supports the EPA's rural transport areas option. Several installations are in or immediately adjacent to areas that have been recommended for nonattainment but have no significant source of PM2.5 emissions. DoD agrees with provisions for accounting for upwind sources as states develop plans to demonstrate attainment in these types of areas.

6. Classification System: DoD supports the EPA option of not having any system for classifying PM2.5 nonattainment areas or assigning attainment dates and control strategy requirements.

DoD is available to further discuss any of these issues as requested. DoD reserves its right to participate in the public comment process should further issues arise.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 36 (Friday, February 22, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12254-12255]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03709]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 27 and 29

Interest in Restructure of Rotorcraft Airworthiness Standards

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is requesting
comments and information on the public's interest in restructuring the
rotorcraft airworthiness standards of normal category rotorcraft and
transport category rotorcraft. Specifically, the agency is seeking
comments on whether to change the existing applicability standards for
maximum weight and number of passenger seats for either or both types
of rotorcraft, or whether to consider other approaches for determining
applicability. The FAA is soliciting public input because of some
rotorcraft community interest in increasing the 7,000 pound maximum
weight limit for the modern normal category rotorcraft and because
there may be recommendations for new approaches to make the rotorcraft
airworthiness standards more efficient and adaptable to future
technology. This action is part of an effort to develop recommendations
for possible FAA rulemaking action.

DATES: Send your comments to reach us on or before May 23, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2013-0144
using any of the following methods:
    [square] Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov, use the search function to locate the docket
number, and follow the online instructions for sending your comments
electronically.
    [square] Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590-0001.
    [square] Hand Delivery: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room
W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    [square] Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: Comments received can be seen at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West
Building Ground Floor at 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: FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate,
Regulations and Policy Group (Attn: John Vanhoudt, ASW-111), 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Your Comments Are Welcome

    We invite your comments on the issues described in this request.
The most useful comments are those that address the questions
identified in the Request for Comments section below. Responses to
these questions will be helpful in evaluating the issues and
determining what future actions we should undertake.
    To ensure consideration, you must submit comments as specified
under the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We will consider all
communications received on or before the closing date for comments. All
comments submitted will be available for examination, both before and
after the closing date for comments, under the docket number FAA-2013-
0144 at http://www.regulations.gov.

Background and Discussion

    Currently, the applicability rule for part 27 (14 CFR 27.1)
prescribes airworthiness standards for ``normal category rotorcraft
with maximum weights of 7,000 pounds or less and nine or less passenger
seats.'' Rotorcraft with a maximum weight greater than 7,000 pounds or
with 10 or more passenger seats are certificated as transport category
rotorcraft under part 29.
    The applicability rules for rotorcraft certificated under parts 27
and 29 have been discussed since the early 1990s. In February 1994, the
FAA held a public meeting to determine a course of action that was in
the best interest of the public and the aviation community.
Subsequently, an Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee working group
was established with representatives from the FAA, the Joint Aviation
Authorities, and Transport Canada Civil Aviation, as well as from U.S.
and European helicopter manufacturers. In February 1995, the Rotorcraft
Gross Weight and Passenger Issues Working Group was established and
tasked with recommending new or revised requirements for increasing the
gross weight and passenger limitations for normal category rotorcraft.
There was agreement to increase the gross weight limitation of part 27
from 6,000 to 7,000 pounds with added passenger safety requirements.
    More recently we have recognized that the evolution of the part 27
and 29 rules has not kept pace with technology and the capability of
newer rotorcraft. Therefore, the FAA is interested in investigating new
approaches to make the rotorcraft airworthiness regulations more
efficient and adaptable to future technology. Additionally, the FAA has
found that without a rulemaking effort to extensively revise the
rotorcraft standards, we are left with the option of issuing multiple
special conditions for the same technologies (fly-by-wire flight
control systems, search and rescue approach, etc.).
    If we find adequate interest from the rotorcraft community, we
would consider initiating a rulemaking effort, similar in scope to the
proposed revisions of the small airplane part 23 standards. The new
part 23 rulemaking initiative resulted from a determination that
applying a weight standard to certification for small aircraft was no
longer relevant. Conversely, if the level of interest indicates the
current standards remain appropriate but would benefit from some
revision, we may undertake a smaller rulemaking effort to update a
limited number of regulations in parts 27 and 29.

Request for Comments

    As noted above, the FAA is seeking comments to determine whether an
all new approach for parts 27 and 29 is appropriate for future
rotorcraft airworthiness standards and safety levels, or whether the
existing standards philosophy based on weight (currently 7,000 pound
maximum for part 27) and maximum number of passengers (currently
maximum of 9 passengers for part 27) is appropriate. In providing your
comments, we would find it most useful if you address some or all of
the following questions:

    (a) To what extent do you believe the current rotorcraft
certification standards need to be amended to remain relevant over the
next 20 years, given the rapid pace of advances in technology?
    (b) Should the current rotorcraft certification standards be
completely changed, or are weight and number of passengers still
relevant for determining certification?
    (c) If you believe certification should continue to be based on
weight and number of passengers, to what extent should the existing
standards be updated, and how?
    (d) As revisions to regulatory certification standards would
require participation in a rulemaking committee over a substantial
period of time, to what extent would you be willing to participate?
    As a convenience, these questions are available for submission in
the same format as above at the following Web site link: http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/rotorcraft/comm.
    If the FAA decides to have further rulemaking discussions on these
issues, we will issue a document, giving the public another opportunity
to comment.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on February 8, 2013.
Kimberly K. Smith,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-03709 Filed 2-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Reader's Guide: Oxytetracycline CRM: Lance Wormell EPA/ OPPTS/ OPP/ SRRD Reader's Guide to the Oxytetracycline E Docket # OPP 2005 0492 Publication Date: August 16, 2006 EPA has created this document to provide an organizational structure to the Oxytetracycline E docket. The docket index lists the caption entries sequentially, while this document lists them by subject matter. The Agency is providing the " Readers Guide" to allow the reader to more easily access and navigate the various entries contained in the Oxytetracycline E docket.

Phase 3 Federal Register and Docket Organizational Documents:

Docket Entry 1. Federal Register Notification: Oxytetracycline ( August 16, 2006)

Docket Entry 2. Reader's Guide to Oxytetracycline EPA HQ OPP 2005 0492 ( July 28, 2006)

Docket Entry 3. Oxytetracycline: Report of the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision ( TRED) for Oxytetracycline ( June 30, 2006)

Docket Entry 4. Oxytetracycline: Tier 1 Drinking Water Exposure Assessment of Oxytetracycline Supporting the Reassessment Under FQPA of Pear and Peach & Nectarine Use Patterns and the Assessment of the New Use Pattern, Apple: Cover Memorandum ( May 22, 2006)

Docket Entry 5. Streptomycin: Oxytetracycline & Streptomycin FDA response to EPA on aggregate exposure ( June 7, 2006)

Docket Entry 6. Oxytetracycline: ADDENDUM Tier 1 Drinking Water Exposure Assessment of Oxytetracycline Supporting the Reassessment Under FQPA of Pear and Peach & Nectarine Use Patterns and the Assessment of the New Use Pattern, Apple ( June 12, 2006) Docket Entry 7. Oxytetracycline: HED Chapter of the Tolerance Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( TRED) and Proposed New Uses on Apples. Revised After Phase 3 Public Comment Period. PC Codes: 006304, 006308, and 006321; DP Barcode: D330129; Case No. 0655 ( June 19, 2006)

Docket 8 Oxytetracycline; Combined Pesticidal and pharmaceutical exposure to oxytetracycline and streptomycin ( May 24, 2006)


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 6592]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02301]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-NN06-15-OAR]

Notification of a Public Webinar for the Clean Air Act Advisory
Committee (CAAAC)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces a public
webinar for the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) on EPA's
greenhouse gas standards (i.e., the Clean Air Act 111(d) standards).
The EPA established the CAAAC on November 19, 1990, to provide
independent advice and counsel to EPA on policy issues associated with
implementation of the Clean Air Act of 1990. The Committee advises on
economic, environmental, technical, scientific and enforcement policy
issues.

Dates & Addresses:  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 2 Section 10(a) (2),
notice is hereby given that the CAAAC will hold a webinar on EPA's
greenhouse gas standards (i.e., the Clean Air Act 111(d) standards) on
February 20, 2014, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time).
    Inspection of Committee Documents: Documents prepared for the
meeting will be publicly available on the CAAAC Web site at http://www.epa.gov/oar/caaac/ prior to the meeting. Thereafter, these
documents will be available by contacting the Office of Air and
Radiation Docket and requesting information under docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0075. The Docket office can be reached by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public who wants
further information concerning the CAAAC's public webinar may contact
Jeneva Craig, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Office of Air and
Radiation, U.S. EPA by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Additional information on these meetings can be
found on the CAAAC Web site: http://www.epa.gov/oar/caaac/.
    For information on access or services for individuals with
disabilities, please contact Ms. Jeneva Craig at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting
to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: January 28, 2014.
Jeneva Craig,
Designated Federal Officer, Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, Office of
Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2014-02301 Filed 2-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18745-18746]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7992]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2210-207]

Appalachian Power Company; Notice of Application for Amendment of
License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Updated shoreline management plan
    b. Project No: 2210-207
    c. Date Filed: January 3, 2011, supplemented on February 18, 2011
    d. Applicant: Appalachian Power Company
    e. Name of Project: Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Project
    f. Location: Headwaters of the Roanoke River, in Bedford, Campbell,
Franklin, and Pittsylvania Counties, Virginia
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 USC 791a--825r
    h. Applicant Contact: Elizabeth Parcell, Appalachian Power Company,
996 Old Franklin Turnpike, Rocky Mount, VA, 24151
    i. FERC Contact: Mark Carter, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: April 15, 2011
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See, 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. If unable to be
filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an
original and seven copies should be mailed to: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. 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. Please include the project number (P-2210-207) on
any comments or motions filed.
    k. Description of Application: Appalachian Power Company (licensee)
filed an updated shoreline management plan (SMP) for Smith Mountain
Lake and Leesville Lake, the two project reservoirs. The licensee
developed the proposed SMP pursuant to the project license. The
proposed SMP strives to balance environmental and recreational
resources with local economic interests, and includes provisions for
shoreline use classifications, shoreline and lake use regulations, a
permitting program, and cooperation with appropriate government
agencies and stakeholders.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE, Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field (P-2210) to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-
208-3676 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call (202) 502-
8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the
address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
Bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to project works which are the subject of the amendment application.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.

    Dated: March 17, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-7992 Filed 4-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P