[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 247 (Friday, December 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 80423]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32916]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy,
Washington, DC 20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 15c1-6, SEC File No. 270-423, OMB Control No. 3235-0472.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (Commission) has submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 15c1-6 (17 CFR 240.15c1-
6) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.)
(Exchange Act).
    Rule 15c1-6 states that any broker-dealer trying to sell to or buy
from a customer a security in a primary or secondary distribution in
which the broker-dealer is participating or is otherwise financially
interested must give the customer written notification of the broker-
dealer's participation or interest at or before completion of the
transaction. The Commission estimates that 481 respondents collect
information annually under Rule 15c1-6 and that each respondent would
spend approximately 10 hours annually complying with the collection of
information requirement (approximately 4,810 hours in aggregate).
    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a
valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
    Background documentation for this information collection may be
viewed at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov. Comments should be
directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon,
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted within 30 days of this
notice.

    Dated: December 19, 2011.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-32916 Filed 12-22-11; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 213 (Friday, November 2, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55099-55100]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24048]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0407]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Schooner Bayou Canal, Little
Prairie Ridge, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the State Route 82 (Little Prairie)
swing span bridge across Schooner Bayou Canal (Old Intracoastal
Waterway), mile 4.0, in Little Prairie Ridge, LA. The deviation is
necessary to replace hydraulic piping, which will increase the
reliability of the bridge's operation. This deviation allows the bridge
four approved daylight openings four hours apart and to remain in the
closed-to-navigation position at night.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on November 5, 2018,
through 6 p.m. on November 17, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0407 is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Ms. Donna Gagliano, Bridge Branch
Office, Eighth District, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Louisiana Department of Transportation
and Development (LA-DOTD) has requested a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule for the State Route 82 (Little Prairie) swing span
bridge across Schooner Bayou Canal (Old Intracoastal Waterway), mile
4.0, at Little Prairie Ridge, LA to replace hydraulic piping that will
improve the bridge's operation. The bridge has a vertical clearance in
the closed position of 6 feet above mean high water and 9 feet above
low water, at the pivot pier, and a foot higher at the rest pier. The
current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.494. The bridge
currently opens on signal for the passage of vessels, except that, from
10 p.m. to 6 a.m. it requires at least four hours' notice. For an
emergency, the draw will open on less than four hours' notice, and it
will open on signal should a temporary surge in waterway traffic occur.
    This temporary deviation allows the bridge to open on signal at
four approved daylight openings four hours apart, at 6 a.m., 10 a.m., 2
p.m., and 6 p.m., and to otherwise remain in the closed-to-navigation
position at night from 6 p.m. through 6 a.m. for a 13 day period from 6
a.m. on Monday, November 5, 2018, through 6 p.m. on Saturday, November
17, 2018. Navigation on the waterway consists of tugs with tows,
fishing vessels and recreational craft. The bridge will not be able to
open for emergencies; however, an alternate route is available via the
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. The Coast Guard will also inform the
waterway users of the changes in operating schedule for the bridge
through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners so that vessel
operators can arrange their

transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: October 24, 2018.
Douglas A. Blakemore,
Bridge Administrator, U.S. Coast Guard Eighth District.
[FR Doc. 2018-24048 Filed 11-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 16, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 81552]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27688]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Notice for Waiver for Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance at
El Paso International Airport, El Paso, Texas

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent for waiver of aeronautical land-use.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration is considering a proposal
to change a portion of the airport from aeronautical to nonaeronautical
use and to authorize the conversion of the airport property. The
proposal consists of one parcel of land containing a total of
approximately 1,179.25 acres. Ownership of the associated property
transferred land from the United States of America To the city of El
Paso under the Surplus Property Act of 1944 on July 8, 1969. The land
comprising this parcel is outside the forecasted need for aviation
development and, thus, is no longer needed for indirect or direct
aeronautical use. The income from the conversion of this parcel will
benefit the aviation community by reinvestment into the airport.
    Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially
assist in the conversion of the subject airport property nor a
determination of eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. The
disposition of proceeds from the conversion of the airport property
will be in accordance with FAA's policy and Procedures Concerning the
Use of Airport Revenue, published in the Federal Register on February
16, 1999. In accordance with Section 47107(h) of Title 49, United
States Code, this notice is required in the Federal Register 30 days
before modifying the land-use assurance that requires the property to
be used for an aeronautical purpose.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 11, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this document to Mr. Jesse Carriger,
Federal Aviation Administration, Manager, Texas Airports Development
office, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Sam Rodriquez, Director of
Aviation El Paso International Airport, 6701 Convair Road, El Paso,
Texas 79925, Ms. Sarah Conner Program Manager, Federal Aviation
Administration, Texas Airports Development Office, ASW-650, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas 76177, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at the above
locations.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 11, 2020.
Ignacio Flores,
Manager, Airports Division, FAA, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 2020-27688 Filed 12-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


John Silvasi/ RTP/ USEPA/ US 08/ 31/ 2005 04: 32 PM T o Amy Flynn, Art Fraas c c Jim Ketcham Colwill, Tom Helms, Jan Tierney/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EP A, Kevin Mclean, Rich Damberg/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Geoffrey Wilcox/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EP A, Robert Meyers/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EP A S u b j e c t Response to Comment Document excerpts on RACT issues ( CAIR/ NOx SIP call & MACT/ BACT/ LAER/ etc)

You had requested the RTC sections related to RACT and the NOx SIP Call/ CAIR issue and the MACT/ BACT/ LAER etc issue. I'm attaching those excerpts.

John J. Silvasi Environmental Engineer Ozone Policy and Strategies Group ( C539 02) Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 919 541 5666 ( v); 919 541 0824 ( fax) silvasi. john@ epa. gov


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 6254]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01932]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 12790-007; 12790-016]

Andrew Peklo III; Pomperaug Hydro, LLC; Notice of Effectiveness
of Withdrawal of Application To Transfer License and Financing Plan

    On September 24, 2018, Andrew Peklo, III and Pomperaug Hydro LLC
jointly filed an application to transfer the license (Transfer
Application) for the 76-kilowatt Pomperaug Hydroelectric Project No.
12790. On October 5, 2018, and supplemented on March 25, 2019, and June
25, 2020, Mr. Peklo filed for Commission approval a Project Financing
Plan (Financing Plan) pursuant to Article 205 of the license. On
November 22, 2022, Mr. Peklo filed a notice of withdrawal of the
Transfer Application and the Financing Plan. The unconstructed project
is located at the existing dam on the Pomperaug River, in the Town of
Woodbury, in Litchfield County, Connecticut.
    No motion in opposition to the notice of withdrawal has been filed,
and the Commission has taken no action to disallow the withdrawal.
Pursuant to Rule 216(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure,\1\ the withdrawal of the Transfer Application and the
Financing Plan became effective on December 7, 2022, and these
proceedings are hereby terminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.216(b) (2021).

    Dated: January 20, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-01932 Filed 1-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


12.8............................  Blue..........................  Denim.........................            15.5
13.3............................  Blue..........................  Denim.........................           15.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: ``Testing Update on Protective Clothing & Equipment for Electric Arc Exposure,'' IEEE Paper No. PCIC-97-
  35.

    Clothing loses weight as it wears. This can lower the ignition
threshold, especially if the garment has threadbare areas or is
torn.
    Adding layers of clothing beneath an outer layer of flammable
fabric has no significant effect on the heat energy needed to ignite
the outer fabric layer. Therefore, the outer layer of clothing must
be treated as if it were a single layer to determine the proper
ignition threshold.
    Flammable clothing worn in conjunction with flame-resistant
clothing is not permitted to pose an ignition hazard.\5\ Flammable
clothing may not be worn as an outer layer if it could be exposed to
heat energy above the ignition threshold. Outer flame-resistant
layers may not have openings that expose flammable inner layers that
could be ignited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Paragraph (g)(3) of Sec.  1926.960 prohibits clothing that
could ignite and continue to burn when exposed to the heat energy
estimated under paragraph (g)(2).
    Paragraph (g)(3) of Sec.  prohibits clothing that could ignite
and continue to burn when exposed to the heat energy estimated under
paragraph (g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When an outer flame-resistant layer would be unable to resist
breakopen,\6\ the next (inner) layer should be flame-resistant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Breakopen is the creation of holes, tears, or cracks in the
exposed fabric such that incident energy is no longer effectively
blocked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Grounding conductors can become a source of electric arcing if
they cannot carry fault current without failure. These possible
sources of electric arcs \7\ must be considered in determining
whether the employee's clothing could ignite under Sec.
1926.960(g)(4)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Static wires and pole grounds are examples of grounding
conductors that might not be capable of carrying fault current
without failure. Grounds that can carry the maximum available fault
current are not a concern and need not be considered a possible
electric arc source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Flammable clothing can also be ignited by arcing that occurs
when a conductor contacts an employee or by nearby material that
ignites upon exposure to an electric arc. These sources of ignition
must be considered in determining whether the employee's clothing
could ignite under Sec.  1926.960(g)(4)(i) and (g)(4)(ii).

Appendix G to Subpart V--Work Positioning Equipment Inspection
Guidelines

I. Body Belts

    Inspect body belts to ensure that:
    A. Hardware has no cracks, nicks, distortion, or corrosion;
    B. No loose or worn rivets are present;
    C. The waist strap has no loose grommets;
    D. The fastening straps are not made of 100 percent leather;
    E. No worn materials that could affect the safety of the user
are present; and
    F. D-rings are compatible with the snaphooks with which they
will be used.

    Note: An incompatibility between a snaphook and a D-ring may
cause snaphook rollout, or unintentional disengagement of the
snaphook from the D-ring. Employers should take extra precaution
when determining compatibility between snaphooks and D-rings of
different manufacturers.

II. Positioning Straps

    Inspect positioning straps to ensure that:
    A. The warning center of the strap material is not exposed;
    B. No cuts, burns, extra holes, or fraying of strap material is
present;
    C. Rivets are properly secured;
    D. Straps are not made from 100 percent leather; and
    E. Snaphooks do not have cracks, burns, or corrosion.

III. Climbers

    Inspect pole and tree climbers to ensure that:
    A. Gaffs on pole climbers are no less than 32 millimeters in
length measured on the underside of the gaff;
    B. Gaffs on tree climbers are no less than 51 millimeters in
length measured on the underside of the gaff;
    C. Gaffs and leg irons are not fractured or cracked;
    D. Stirrups and leg irons are free of excessive wear;
    E. Gaffs are not loose;
    F. Gaffs are free of deformation that could adversely affect
use;
    G. Gaffs are properly sharpened; and
    H. There are no broken straps or buckles.

[FR Doc. 05-11585 Filed 6-14-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 234 (Thursday, December 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70150-70155]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26625]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93714; File No. SR-NYSE-2021-42]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Requirements of Section 102.06 of the
NYSE Listed Company Manual To Allow an Acquisition Company To
Contribute a Portion of Its Trust Account to a New Acquisition Company
and Spin-Off the New Acquisition Company to Its Shareholders

December 3, 2021.

I. Introduction

    On August 23, 2021, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend the requirements of
Section 102.06 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual (``Manual'') to allow
an acquisition company to contribute a portion of the amount held in
its trust account to a trust account of a new acquisition company and
spin off the new acquisition company to its shareholders in certain
situations. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on September 8, 2021.\3\ On September 30, 2021,
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\

This order institutes proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of
the Act \6\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92839 (September 1,
2021), 86 FR 50408 (``Notice''). Comments received on the proposal
are available on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2021-42/srnyse202142.htm.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93222, 86 FR 55671
(October 6, 2021). The Commission designated December 7, 2021 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    In 2008, the Exchange adopted a rule to allow companies that have
no prior operating history and that have indicated their business plan
is to consummate a business combination with one or more operating
businesses or assets (``Business Combination'') \7\ to list on the
Exchange if they meet all applicable initial listing requirements, as
well as additional conditions designed to provide investor protections
to address specific concerns about the structure of such companies
(``Acquisition Companies'' or ``ACs'').\8\ These additional conditions
generally require, among other things, that at least 90% of the
proceeds from the initial public offering (``IPO'') and any concurrent
sale of the AC's equity securities be held in a trust account
controlled by an independent custodian and that the AC complete within
three years (or such shorter period specified by the AC's constitutive
documents or by contract) a Business Combination having a fair market
value of at least 80% of the net assets held in the trust account at
the time of the agreement to enter into the initial combination (net of
amounts disbursed to management for working capital purposes and
excluding the amount of any deferred underwriting discount held in
trust).\9\ Section 102.06 of the Manual further requires that each
Business Combination be approved by a majority of the AC's independent
directors.\10\ If the AC holds a shareholder vote on a Business
Combination, the Business Combination must be approved by a majority of
the votes cast at the meeting and public shareholders voting against
the Business Combination must have the right to convert their shares of
common stock into a pro rata share of the aggregate amount then on
deposit in the trust account (net of taxes payable and amounts
distributed to management for working capital purposes) if the Business
Combination is approved and consummated.\11\ If a shareholder vote on a
Business Combination is not held, the AC must provide all shareholders
with the opportunity to redeem all their shares for cash equal to their
pro rata share of the aggregate amount then in the deposit account (net
of taxes payable and amounts distributed to management for working
capital purposes), pursuant to Rule 13e-4 and Regulation 14E under the
Act, which regulate issuer tender offers.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Section 102.06 of the Manual provides that a Business
Combination may be in the form of a merger, capital stock exchange,
asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization, or similar
business combination with one or more operating businesses or
assets.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57785 (May 6, 2008),
73 FR 27597 (May 13, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-17) (``2008 Order''). See
also Section 102.06 of the Manual. Acquisition Companies are also
known as ``Special Purpose Acquisition Companies'' or ``SPACs.''
    \9\ See Section 102.06 of the Manual.
    \10\ See Section 102.06(d) of the Manual.
    \11\ See Section 102.06(a) and (b) of the Manual.
    \12\ See Section 102.06(c) of the Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to modify Section 102.06 of the Manual to
allow an AC listed under that rule to contribute a portion of the
amount held in its trust account to the trust account of a new entity
in a spin-off or similar corporate transaction (``SpinCo AC'').
According to the Exchange, when an AC conducts its IPO, it raises the
amount of capital that it estimates will be necessary to finance a
subsequent Business Combination with its ultimate target; however, the
Exchange believes that because an AC cannot identify or select a
specific target at the time of its IPO, often the amount raised is not
optimal for the needs of a specific target.\13\ The Exchange states
that it is proposing to modify Section 102.06 of the Manual to permit
what it believes is a more efficient structure whereby an AC can raise
in its IPO the maximum amount of capital it anticipates it may need for
a Business Combination transaction and then ``rightsize'' itself by
contributing any amounts not needed to a SpinCo AC, which would be
subject to the provisions of Section 102.06, in the same manner as the
original AC, and spun off to the original AC's shareholders.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 50409. The Exchange further
states that ``[t]his has resulted in the inefficient, current
practice of AC sponsors creating multiple ACs of different sizes at
the same time, with the intention to use the AC that is closest in
size to the amount a particular target needs.'' Id.
    \14\ See id. The three-year period to complete a Business
Combination under Section 102.06 of the Manual would, however, be
calculated for each SpinCo AC based on the date of the original AC's
effective registration statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, proposed Section 102.06 of the Manual would provide
that an AC will be permitted to contribute (the ``Contribution'') in a
spin-off or similar corporate transaction a portion of the amount held
in the AC's trust account to a trust account of another entity as
provided below:
    (i) In connection with the Contribution, each AC public shareholder
has the right, through one or more corporate transactions, to redeem a
portion of its shares of common stock or units, as applicable, for its
pro rata portion of the amount of the Contribution in lieu of being
entitled to receive shares or units in the SpinCo AC;
    (ii) the requirement of Section 102.06 of the Manual that the AC
provide each public shareholder voting against a Business Combination
with the right to convert its shares of common stock into a pro rata
share of the aggregate amount then on deposit in the trust account (net
of taxes payable, and amounts disbursed to management for working
capital purposes), provided that the Business Combination is approved
and consummated, will be considered satisfied by pro rata distribution
to such shareholders of the amounts in the trust account after having
been reduced by the Contribution;
    (iii) the public shareholders of the AC receive shares or units of
the SpinCo AC on a pro rata basis, except to the extent they have
elected to redeem a portion of their shares of the AC in lieu of being
entitled to receive shares or units in the SpinCo AC;
    (iii) \15\ the Contribution will remain in a trust account for the
benefit of the shareholders of the SpinCo AC in the manner required for
ACs listed under Section 102.06 of the Manual;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange's proposed rule mistakenly includes two
paragraphs numbered Section 102.06(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iv) the SpinCo AC meets all applicable initial listing
requirements for an AC listing in connection with an initial public
offering under Section 102.06 of the Manual; it being understood that,
following such spin-off or similar corporate transaction:
    (A) The 80% described in the first paragraph of Section 102.06 \16\
shall, in the case of the AC, be calculated based on the aggregate
amount remaining in the trust account of the AC at the time of the
agreement to enter into the Business Combination as reduced by the
Contribution, and, in the case of the SpinCo AC, be calculated based on
the aggregate amount in its trust account at the time of its agreement
to enter into a Business Combination, and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra note 9 and accompanying text, for a description
of the requirements of Section 102.06 of the Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) the right to convert and opportunity to redeem shares of common
stock on a pro rata basis required for ACs listed under Section 102.06
of the Manual shall, in the case of the AC, be deemed to apply to the
aggregate amount remaining in the trust account of the AC after the
Contribution to the SpinCo AC, and, in the case of the

SpinCo AC, be deemed to apply to the aggregate amount in its trust
account;
    (v) in the case of the SpinCo AC, and any additional entities spun
off from the SpinCo AC, each of which will also be considered a SpinCo
AC, the three-year period (or such shorter period specified by the AC's
constitutive documents or by contract) within which a listed AC must
consummate its Business Combination under Section 102.06 of the Manual
will be calculated based on the date of effectiveness of the AC's IPO
registration statement; and
    (vi) in the aggregate, through one or more opportunities by the AC
and one or more SpinCo ACs, public shareholders will have the ability
to convert or redeem shares, or receive amounts upon liquidation, for
the full amount of the trust account established by the AC as described
in the first paragraph of Section 102.06 of the Manual (excluding any
deferred underwriters fees and taxes payable on the income earned on
the trust account).
    The Exchange states that, under the proposal, it expects that the
new structure will be implemented in the following manner. If a listed
AC (the ``Original AC'') determines that it will not need all the cash
in its trust account for its initial Business Combination, the Original
AC will designate the excess cash for a new trust account of a SpinCo
AC that will be spun off to Original AC's shareholders.\17\ The
Exchange states that the amount designated for the SpinCo trust account
must continue to be held for the benefit of the shareholders of the
Original AC until the completion of the spin-off transaction and,
following the spin-off of the SpinCo AC to the Original AC's
shareholders, the SpinCo trust account would be subject to the same
requirements as the trust account of the Original AC.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 50409.
    \18\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, the SpinCo AC would file a registration
statement under the Securities Act of 1933 for purposes of effecting
the spin-off of the SpinCo AC and, prior to the effectiveness of the
registration statement, the Original AC would provide its public
shareholders through one or more corporate transactions with the
opportunity to redeem a pro rata amount of their holdings equal to the
amount of the SpinCo trust account divided by the per share amount in
the Original AC's trust account.\19\ The Exchange further states that,
after completing the tender offer for the redemption and the
effectiveness of the SpinCo AC's registration statement, the Original
AC would contribute the SpinCo trust account to a trust account held by
the SpinCo AC in exchange for shares or units of the SpinCo AC, which
the Original AC would then distribute to its public shareholders on a
pro rata basis through one or more corporate transactions pursuant to
the SpinCo AC's effective registration statement.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See id. According to the Exchange, the redemption could
occur, for example, through a partial cash tender offer for shares
of the Original AC pursuant to Rule 13e-4 and Regulation 14E under
the Act, and the redemption may be of a separate class of shares
distributed to unitholders of the Original AC for the purpose of
facilitating the redemption. See id. at 50409 n.5.
    \20\ See id. at 50409.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, the Original AC would then continue to
operate as an AC until it completes its Business Combination and would
offer redemption rights to its public shareholders in connection with
that Business Combination in the same manner as a traditional AC, while
the SpinCo AC would operate in the same manner as a traditional AC,
except that it could effect a subsequent spin-off prior to its Business
Combination like the Original AC.\21\ The Exchange states that if
SpinCo AC does not elect to effect a spin-off, it would either (i)
proceed to complete an initial Business Combination and offer
redemption rights in connection therewith like a traditional AC, or
(ii) liquidate.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See id.
    \22\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend the subsection of Section
802.01B of the Manual setting forth the continued listing criteria
applicable to ACs to specify that those criteria would also be
applicable in their entirety to SpinCo ACs. In addition, the Exchange
proposes to add a new subsection to Section 102.06 of the Manual
stating that the applicable continued listing criteria for both ACs and
SpinCo ACs would be set forth in Section 802.01B of the Manual.

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-NYSE-
2021-42 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \23\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues raised by the proposed rule change. Institution of proceedings
does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with
respect to any of the issues involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\24\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with the Act and, in
particular, with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to 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
to protect investors and the public interest, and not be designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id.
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the proposal would allow an AC listed under
Section 102.06 of the Manual to contribute a portion of the amount held
in its trust account to the trust account of a SpinCo AC. The Exchange
states that the proposal would permit a more efficient structure
because an AC often raises an amount of capital through its IPO that is
not optimal for the needs of a specific acquisition target.\26\
According to the Exchange, this has resulted in AC sponsors creating
multiple ACs of different sizes at the same time, with the intention to
use the AC that is closest in size to the amount a particular
acquisition target needs.\27\ The Exchange believes this practice
creates the potential for conflicts of interest, fails to optimize the
amount of capital that would benefit the AC's public shareholders and a
Business Combination target, creates inefficiencies, and can lead to
confusion.\28\ Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposal would
provide shareholders the opportunity to invest with a sponsor without
spreading that investment across the sponsor's multiple ACs.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 50409.
    \27\ See id.
    \28\ See id.
    \29\ See id. at 50410.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has concerns, however, about whether the proposal is
sufficiently designed to protect investors and the public interest, as
required by Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.

First, the Commission is concerned that the proposed amendments to
Section 102.06 of the Manual would circumvent the current requirements
of Section 102.06 that the Commission previously found were designed to
protect investors.\30\ Specifically, Section 102.06 of the Manual
requires an AC to complete one or more Business Combinations having a
fair market value equal to at least 80% of the net assets held in
trust.\31\ This 80% requirement sets a minimum size of a Business
Combination that investors will be aware of from their initial
investment. In addition, the 80% requirement ensures that the founders
of the AC will not seek a very small AC target solely to ensure they
successfully complete a Business Combination in order to break escrow
and thereby earn their payment (promote) for finding a target. The
proposal could potentially allow an AC to engage in multiple Business
Combinations that are very small in size as compared to the original
amount in the trust account. The proposal also does not include any
limitations with respect to the amount an AC may contribute to a SpinCo
AC and thereby reduce its escrow account. Moreover, it appears the
proposed structure could potentially incentivize AC founders to
complete smaller Business Combinations in cases where they cannot
identify a target company of sufficient size to meet the 80%
requirement with respect to the Original AC, thereby leaving investors
with a choice of whether to accept an investment in a smaller-sized
company than originally contemplated or a partial redemption of their
original investment from the reduced deposit account. The Commission is
concerned that allowing ACs to engage in such transactions effectively
eliminates the original 80% requirement, may subvert investor
expectations regarding an AC's future Business Combination prospects,
and may benefit the founders of ACs at the expense of retail
investors.\32\ In this regard, the Commission is concerned that the
Exchange has not provided sufficient justification regarding how its
proposal is consistent with the protection of investors, including the
investor protection measures that were originally contemplated by
Section 102.06 of the Manual and which the Commission found to be
consistent with the Act.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See 2008 Order, supra note 8.
    \31\ The trust account must contain at least 90% of the proceeds
from the AC's IPO and any concurrent sale by the AC of equity
securities. See Section 102.06 of the Manual.
    \32\ Moreover, the proposal does not appear to be limited to
future ACs and could potentially allow existing ACs to engage in
spin-offs. The Commission believes that permitting existing ACs to
engage in such transactions could raise investor protection issues
given that investors who initially invested in the ACs would not
have been aware that the AC would not have to comply with the 80%
requirement and could spin off into multiple SpinCo ACs.
    \33\ See 2008 Order, supra note 8. In addition, the proposal
appears to require redeeming shareholders to effectively pay
deferred underwriting fees by deducting those fees from the
aggregate redemption amount available to shareholders. See proposed
Section 102.06(vi) of the Manual. This is not required for the
Original AC as set forth under current Section 102.06(b) and (c) of
the Manual and would result in the redeeming shareholders
potentially receiving less than 90% of the gross proceeds from the
trust account. Under the current AC listing rules, only taxes
payable and amounts disbursed to management for working capital
purposes can be excluded from the aggregate amount in the trust
account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Commission believes the proposal could introduce
additional complexity to AC securities, particularly for retail
investors. While the market in AC securities is already complex, the
Exchange's proposal would allow for the listing of ACs that may spin-
off into smaller and smaller ACs, each presenting additional risks and
considerations to investors that may not be fully realized at the time
of the Original AC's IPO or at the time of each spin-off transaction
when investors have the opportunity to receive shares in the SpinCo AC
or redeem their pro-rata portion of the SpinCo AC Contribution.\34\
Further, although the Exchange states the proposal is expected to allow
an AC that determines that it will have excess cash following its
initial Business Combination to spin-off those funds to a new AC,\35\
the proposal is not limited to this particular situation and would
allow an AC to break escrow to create new SpinCo ACs at any time after
its IPO, regardless of whether any potential Business Combination has
been identified.\36\ Moreover, under current AC rules, investors have
to make one determination on whether to redeem their shares or retain
ownership in the combined operating business after a Business
Combination that has a fair market value equal to at least 80% of the
net assets of the trust account. In contrast, under the proposal,
investors would have to make multiple decisions on whether to hold or
redeem their securities in potentially multiple SpinCo ACs, and those
investors that choose to redeem may not be made whole as to their
original investment until a subsequent Business Combination of the
Original AC and/or the SpinCo ACs occurs. Additionally, the proposal
raises concerns about whether investors are adequately protected when
only the sponsors, not shareholders, are participating in the decision
to reduce the deposit account and contribute those funds to the SpinCo
AC.\37\ For these reasons, the Commission is concerned that investors
may not have adequate information at the time they initially invest in
the Original AC and at the time they are required to make decisions
regarding whether to invest in the SpinCo ACs or to redeem their
investment, which can occur multiple times over the term of the
Original AC, raising investor protection concerns under Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ For example, under the proposal it would be difficult for
an investor to know at the time of its investment in the Original AC
(or at the time of each contribution) whether there will be future
contributions to SpinCos, and, if so, how much the original escrow
will be reduced and how much will be left for the Original AC's
Business Combination. The Commission believes such information would
be important to investors in making informed investment decisions in
the Original AC.
    \35\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 50409.
    \36\ The proposal also does not include any timing limitations
with respect to when an AC may engage in a contribution and spin-
off. As such, it appears that a contribution and spin-off could
occur very close to the end of the three-year period within which
the Original AC and any SpinCo AC has to complete its Business
Combination. This raises investor protection issues since
shareholders may not have enough time to review disclosures before a
vote or redemption decision is required.
    \37\ In these situations, the SpinCo AC may be structured
completely differently than was disclosed at the time of the
investment in the Original AC. For example, nothing in the proposal
prevents the SpinCo AC from having a different target industry or
business than the Original AC, different compensation arrangements
than the Original AC, or different terms than disclosed in the
Original AC registration statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is also concerned that certain aspects of the
proposed rule change are vague and unclear and may raise additional
investor protection concerns. For example, proposed Section 102.06(i)
would provide shareholders the right to redeem, ``through one or more
corporate transactions,'' their pro rata portion of the AC's
contribution to a SpinCo AC's trust account. In addition, proposed
Section 102.06(vi) provides that public shareholders will have the
ability to convert or redeem shares, or receive amounts upon
liquidation, for the full amount of the trust account ``through one or
more opportunities.'' The proposal, however, does not set forth any
specific requirements applicable to the redemption or conversion
opportunities with respect to the contribution to a SpinCo AC or
specify what would qualify as an acceptable corporate transaction for
purposes of a redemption.\38\ Moreover, the proposed

rule states that an AC will be permitted to contribute a portion of the
amount held in the trust account to a trust account of ``another
entity'' in a spin-off ``or similar corporate transaction.'' However,
the proposal does not specify whether there are any limitations on the
types of entities that may receive the contribution, including whether
such entities could include an already existing AC, or what would
constitute a ``similar transaction.'' The Commission is concerned that
the lack of clarity and vagueness in the proposed rule text may cause
confusion amongst market participants regarding the scope of the
proposal and what is required under the proposed rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The Exchange states that a redemption could occur, for
example, through a partial cash tender offer for shares of the
Original AC pursuant to Rule 13e-4 and Regulation 14E under the Act,
and the redemption may be of a separate class of shares distributed
to unitholders of the Original AC for the purpose of facilitating
the redemption. See Notice, supra note 3, at 50409 n.5. On the other
hand, Section 102.06 of the Manual currently includes very specific
requirements relating to redemption rights of public shareholders
with respect to a Business Combination. See Section 102.06(b)-(c) of
the Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange has proposed that the conditions
described in proposed Section 102.06 with respect to SpinCo ACs shall
similarly apply to successive spin-offs or similar corporate
transactions. The Exchange provides no specificity or detail regarding
what factors the Exchange would consider when determining whether a
transaction is a ``similar corporate transaction'' to a spinoff covered
by the proposed rule. As drafted, the rule text would appear to give
the Exchange broad discretion in determining what ``similar'' corporate
transactions are covered by the proposed rule and such broad discretion
could be used in a different manner with respect to different AC
issuers. It is also difficult for the Commission to assess whether the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act if the Exchange
could simply determine to apply the rule to some successive corporate
transactions and not others on a case by case basis by invoking its
discretion through the proposed language. The Commission believes this
lack of transparency and objectivity in the proposed rule raises
investor protection and unfair discrimination concerns under the Act
because market participants may be confused about the scope of the
proposal and the Exchange may elect to apply its rules in an
inconsistent and discriminatory manner.
    Accordingly, the Commission believes there are questions as to
whether the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act and
its requirements, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be designed to protect investors and the public
interest, and not be designed to permit unfair discrimination.
    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange
Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the
self-regulatory organization that proposed the rule change.'' \39\ The
description of a proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its
effect, and a legal analysis of its consistency with applicable
requirements must all be sufficiently detailed and specific to support
an affirmative Commission finding,\40\ and any failure of a self-
regulatory organization to provide this information may result in the
Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an affirmative finding
that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the
applicable rules and regulations.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
    \40\ See id.
    \41\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Commission believes it is appropriate to
institute proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \42\
to determine whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) \43\ of the Act or any other provision
of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do
not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that
would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and
arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under
the Act,\44\ any request for an opportunity to make an oral
presentation.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \44\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \45\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be approved
or disapproved by December 30, 2021. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
January 13, 2022. The Commission asks that commenters address the
sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal,
which are set forth in the Notice,\46\ in addition to any other
comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-NYSE-2021-42 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-2021-42. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from

comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish
to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-NYSE-2021-42 and should be submitted by December 30, 2021. Rebuttal
comments should be submitted by January 13, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-26625 Filed 12-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 116 (Tuesday, June 17, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34453-34455]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14142]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 116 / Tuesday, June 17, 2014 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0274; Airspace Docket No. 13-AGL-23]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Modification and Revocation of Air Traffic Service (ATS)
Routes in the Vicinity of Sandusky, OH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify 5 VHF Omnidirectional Range
(VOR) Federal airways (V-6, V-30, V-126, V-133, and V-416) and remove 1
VOR Federal airway (V-65) in the vicinity of Sandusky, OH. The FAA is
proposing this action due to the scheduled decommissioning of the
Sandusky, OH (SKY), VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) facility
that provides navigation guidance for a portion of the airways listed.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 1, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2014-
0274 and Airspace Docket No. 13-AGL-23 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy and
Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2014-0274 and Airspace Docket No. 13-AGL-23) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2014-0274 and Airspace Docket No. 13-AGL-23.''
The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, Operations
Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 2601 Meacham Blvd.,
Fort Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

Background

    The SKY VOR/DME facility is scheduled to be decommissioned due to
the Griffing Sandusky airport property on which it is located being
sold and developed into something other than an airport. Additionally,
the FAA lease on the property for the SKY VOR/DME ends in September
2014. With the decommissioning of the SKY VOR/DME, ground-based
navigation aid (NAVAID) coverage is insufficient to enable the
continuity of the affected airways. The proposed modifications to VOR
Federal airways V-6, V-30, V-126, V-133, and V-416 would result in a
gap in the route structures, as well as the proposed removal of VOR
Federal airway V-65. Route segments supported by other NAVAIDs would be
retained. To mitigate the decommissioning of the SKY VOR/DME facility
and the proposed non-continuous route structures, adjacent VOR Federal
airways would remain available.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify VOR Federal airways V-6, V-30,
V-126, V-133, and V-416, and remove V-65 in the vicinity of Sandusky,
OH. These proposed changes are necessary due to the scheduled
decommissioning of the SKY VOR/DME. The proposed route modifications
are outlined below.
    V-6: V-6 extends from the Oakland, CA (OAK), VOR Tactical Air
Navigation (VORTAC) to the DuPage, IL (DPA), VOR/DME, and from the
intersection of the Chicago Heights, IL (CGT), VORTAC 358[deg] and
Gipper, MI (GIJ), VORTAC 271[deg] radials (NILES fix) to the La
Guardia, NY (LGA), VOR/DME. The route segment between the Waterville,
OH (VWV), VOR/DME and Dryer, OH (DJB), VOR/DME facilities would be
removed and aircraft flying between VWV and DJB would be routed using
other existing adjacent airways.

    V-30: V-30 extends from the Badger, WI (BAE), VORTAC to the
Solberg, NJ (SBJ), VOR/DME. The route segment between the VWV VOR/DME
and DJB VOR/DME facilities would be removed and aircraft flying between
VWV and DJB would be routed using other existing adjacent airways.
    V-65: V-65 extends from the DJB VOR/DME to the Carleton, MI (CRL),
VORTAC. This route would be removed completely and aircraft flying
between DJB and CRL would be routed using other existing adjacent
airways.
    V-126: V-126 extends from the intersection of the Peotone, IL
(EON), VORTAC 053[deg] and Knox, IN (OXI), VOR/DME 297[deg] radials
(BEARZ fix) to the Stonyfork, PA (SFK), VOR/DME. The route segment
between the VWV VOR/DME and DJB VOR/DME facilities would be removed and
aircraft flying between VWV and DJB would be routed using other
existing adjacent airways.
    V-133: V-133 extends from the intersection of the Charlotte, NC
(CLT), VOR/DME 305[deg] and Barretts Mountain, NC (BZM), VOR/DME
197[deg] radials (LINCO fix) to the Red Lake, ON, Canada (YRL), VOR/
DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. The route segment between
the Mansfield, OH (MFD), VORTAC and Salem, MI (SVM), VORTAC facilities
would be removed and aircraft flying between MFD and SVM would be
routed using other existing adjacent airways.
    V-416: V-416 extends from the Rosewood, OH (ROD), VORTAC to the
intersection of the MFD VORTAC 045[deg] and SKY VOR/DME 107[deg]
radials (JAKEE fix). Since the JAKEE fix is defined using a radial from
the SKY VOR, the fix is being redefined in its same location using
radials from the MFD VORTAC and DJB VOR/DME to retain the route
unchanged.
    With the exception of the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME radial information
contained in the regulatory text V-416 description, the navigation aid
radials cited in the proposed VOR Federal airways descriptions are
stated relative to True north.
    Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of
FAA Order 7400.9X dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15,
2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR
Federal airways listed in this document would be subsequently published
in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under Department of Transportation (DOT)
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
would only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would modify the route structure as necessary to preserve the
safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9X,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 7, 2013 and
effective September 15, 2013, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways

* * * * *

V-6 [Amended]

    From Oakland, CA; INT Oakland 039[deg] and Sacramento, CA,
212[deg] radials; Sacramento; Squaw Valley, CA; Mustang, NV;
Lovelock, NV; Battle Mountain, NV; INT Battle Mountain 062[deg] and
Wells, NV, 256[deg] radials; Wells; 5 miles, 40 miles, 98 MSL, 85
MSL, Lucin, UT; 43 miles, 85 MSL, Ogden, UT; 11 miles, 50 miles, 105
MSL, Fort Bridger, WY; Rock Springs, WY; 20 miles, 39 miles 95 MSL,
Cherokee, WY; 39 miles, 27 miles 95 MSL, Medicine Bow, WY; INT
Medicine Bow 106[deg] and Sidney, NE., 291[deg] radials; Sidney;
North Platte, NE; Grand Island, NE; Omaha, NE; Des Moines, IA; Iowa
City, IA; Davenport, IA; INT Davenport 087[deg] and DuPage, IL,
255[deg] radials; to DuPage. From INT Chicago Heights, IL, 358[deg]
and Gipper, MI, 271[deg] radials; Gipper; INT Gipper 092[deg] and
Waterville, OH, 288[deg] radials; to Waterville. From Dryer, OH;
Youngstown, OH; Clarion, PA; Philipsburg, PA; Selinsgrove, PA;
Allentown, PA; Solberg, NJ; INT Solberg 107[deg] and Yardley, PA,
068[deg] radials; INT Yardley 068[deg] and La Guardia, NY, 213[deg]
radials; to La Guardia. The airspace within R-4803, R-4813A, and R-
4813B is excluded when active.
* * * * *

V-30 [Amended]

    From Badger, WI; INT Badger 102[deg] and Pullman, MI, 303[deg]
radials; Pullman; Litchfield, MI; to Waterville, OH. From Dryer, OH;
Akron, OH; Clarion, PA; Philipsburg, PA; Selinsgrove, PA; East
Texas, PA; INT East Texas 095[deg] and Solberg, NJ, 264[deg]
radials; to Solberg.
* * * * *

V-65 [Removed]

* * * * *

V-126 [Amended]

    From INT Peotone, IL, 053[deg] and Knox, IN, 297[deg] radials;
INT Knox 297[deg] and Goshen, IN, 270[deg] radials; Goshen; to
Waterville, OH. From Dryer, OH; Jefferson, OH; Erie, PA; Bradford,
PA; to Stonyfork, PA.
* * * * *

V-133 [Amended]

    From INT Charlotte, NC, 305[deg] and Barretts Mountain, NC,
197[deg] radials; Barretts Mountain; Charleston, WV; Zanesville, OH;
Tiverton, OH; to Mansfield, OH. From Salem, MI; INT Salem 346[deg]
and Saginaw, MI, 160[deg] radials; Saginaw; Traverse City, MI;
Escanaba, MI; Sawyer, MI; Houghton, MI; Thunder Bay, ON, Canada;
International Falls, MN; to Red Lake, ON, Canada. The airspace
within Canada is excluded.
* * * * *

V-416 [Amended]

    From Rosewood, OH; INT Rosewood 041[deg] and Mansfield, OH,
262[deg] radials; Mansfield; to INT Mansfield 045[deg] and Dryer,
OH, 123[deg]T/129[deg]M radials.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 11, 2014.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy & Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2014-14142 Filed 6-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 228 (Friday, November 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74175-74177]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30088]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76499; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2015-142]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Market Order Spread Protection

November 20, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 12, 2015, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' 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
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the rules of the NASDAQ Options
Market, LLC (``NOM''), NASDAQ's facility for executing and routing
standardized equity and index options, at Chapter VI, Section 6,
entitled ``Acceptance of Quotes and Orders,'' specifically at Section
6(c) concerning Market Order Spread Protection.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://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 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 purpose of this filing is to amend Chapter VI, Section 6
entitled ``Acceptance of Quotes and Orders,'' specifically, at
paragraph (c) related to Market Order Spread Protection. This feature
was adopted as an enhancement to NOM's Systems in 2011.\3\ The Market
Order Spread Protection was designed to protect Market Orders \4\ from
being executed in very wide markets. This feature is not optional and
is set at the same threshold for all options traded on NOM. The Market
Order Spread Protection is applicable to all Participants submitting
Market Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64667 (June 14,
2011), 76 FR 35930 (June 20, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-080).
    \4\ ``Market Orders'' are orders to buy or sell at the best
price available at the time of execution. Participants can designate
that their Market Orders not executed after a pre-established period
of time, as established by the Exchange, will be cancelled back to
the Participant. See NOM Rules at Chapter VI, Section 1(e)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, the Exchange is proposing to amend Section 6(c) which
currently states, ``System Orders that are Market Orders will be
rejected if the NBBO is wider than a preset threshold at the time the
order is received by the System.'' The Exchange proposes to amend this
sentence as follows: ``System Orders that are Market Orders will be
rejected if the best of the NBBO and the internal market BBO \5\ (the
``Reference BBO'') is wider than a preset threshold at the time the
order is received by the System.'' The Exchange is amending this rule
text to account for both Price-Improving \6\ and Post-Only Orders.\7\
Both of these order types, as well as orders which would lock or cross
another market,\8\ could result in non-displayed pricing and would
result

in the internal market BBO being better than the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Best Bid or Best Offer on NOM.
    \6\ See NOM Rules at Chapter VI, Section 1(e)(6).
    \7\ See NOM Rules at Chapter VI, Section 1(e)(11).
    \8\ Options Order Protection and Locked and Crossed Market Rules
are located in Chapter XII of NOM Rules. In the event of a locked
and crossed market, the BBO will be repriced and displayed in
accordance with NOM Rules at Chapter VI, Section 7(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Price Improving Orders are orders to buy or sell an option at a
specified price at an increment smaller than the minimum price
variation (``MPV'') in the security. Price Improving Orders may be
entered in increments as small as one cent. Price Improving Orders that
are available for display shall be displayed at the minimum price
variation in that security and shall be rounded up for sell orders and
rounded down for buy orders.
    Post-Only Orders are orders that will not remove liquidity from the
System. Post-Only Orders are to be ranked and executed on the Exchange
or cancelled, as appropriate, without routing away to another market.
Post-Only Orders are evaluated at the time of entry with respect to
locking or crossing other orders as follows: (i) If a Post-Only Order
would lock or cross an order on the System, the order will be re-priced
to $.01 below the current low offer (for bids) or above the current
best bid (for offers) and displayed by the System at one minimum price
increment below the current low offer (for bids) or above the current
best bid (for offers); and (ii) if a Post-Only Order would not lock or
cross an order on the System but would lock or cross the NBBO as
reflected in the protected quotation of another market center, the
order will be handled pursuant to Chapter VI, Section 7(b)(3)(C).
Participants may choose to have their Post-Only Orders returned
whenever the order would lock or cross the NBBO or be placed on the
book at a price other than its limit price. Post-Only Orders received
prior to the opening will be eligible for execution during the opening
cross and will be processed as per Chapter VI, Section 8. Post-Only
Orders received after market close will be rejected.\9\ Similarly, with
this order type, market participants are able to submit orders or
quotes priced between the MPV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Post-Only Orders may not have a time-in-force designation of
Good Til Cancelled or Immediate or Cancel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current rule text does not reflect the possibility that orders
or quotes could be priced between the MPV. The proposed rule text
amends the current rule text to account for Price Improving and Post-
Only Orders and the results of repricing.
    The following is an example of a Price Improving Order and Market
Order Spread Protection. Assume an option MPV is scaled in $0.05
increments and a limit buy order of $0.05 exists on the Exchange. If a
Price Improving sell order is entered at $0.11, this order will not be
displayed at its limit of $0.11, because the order is priced at a non-
MPV increment. This order will be displayed at the nearest MPV price of
$0.15 (because of the option's $0.05 MPV increment). Assume this order
makes up the best offer on the Exchange. For this example, assume the
Market Order Spread Threshold in the System is set at $0.09. Further
assume a Market Order to buy is submitted to the Exchange. Based on the
Exchange's proposed implementation of Market Order Spread Protection,
the Market Order to buy would execute against the resting sell order at
$0.11, since $0.11 is the best available offer and the internal market
BBO spread is $0.06 (spread between the best bid of $0.05 and the best
offer of $0.11) which is less than the Market Order Spread Threshold of
$0.09. Based on the current rule text, a Participant could expect their
Market Order to be rejected, since the NBBO spread is $0.10 (spread
between the best NBB of $0.05 and the NBO of $0.15) which exceeds the
$0.09 Market Order Spread Threshold. The Exchange is amending the rule
text to provide for the internal market BBO being better than the NBBO.
    The following is a similar example for a Post-Only Order. Assume an
option MPV is scaled in $0.05 increments and a limit buy order of $0.05
exists on the Exchange. If a Post-Only Order is entered to sell at
$0.05, this order will not immediately trade at its limit of $0.05
since by definition it will not remove liquidity from the System.
Instead, the Post-Only Order will be available to trade $0.01 above the
locking price of $0.05 (i.e., $0.06) and displayed at the nearest MPV
increment price of $0.10. Assume this order makes up the best offer on
the Exchange. For this example, assume the Market Order Spread
Threshold in the System is set at $0.04. Further assume a Market Order
to buy is submitted to the Exchange. Based on the Exchange's proposed
implementation of Market Order Spread Protection, the Market Order to
buy would execute against the resting Post-Only Order at $0.06, since
$0.06 is the best available offer and the internal market BBO spread is
$0.01 (spread between the best bid of $0.05 and the best offer of
$0.06) which is less than the Market Order Spread Threshold of $0.04.
Based on the current rule text, a Participant could expect their Market
Order to be rejected, since the NBBO spread is $0.05 (spread between
the best NBB of $0.05 and the NBO of $0.10) which exceeds the $0.04
Market Order Spread Threshold.
    This rule change will correct the existing rule text to reflect
current practice which accounts for non-displayed order types and
reprices due to trade-through and locked and crossed market
restrictions.\10\ Participants were notified via an Options Trader
Alert of this rule text error.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Chapter XII of NOM Rules.
    \11\ See Options Regulatory Alert 2015-28 dated September 4,
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \12\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \13\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest, by amending the rule text to reflect the impact of non-
displayed order types and repricing due to trade-through and locked and
crossed market restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amending the current NOM rule text for Market Order Spread
Protection to account for non-displayed orders such as Price-Improving
and Post-Only Orders and repricing due to trade-through and locked and
crossed market restrictions would provide Participants with the
expected results of the Market Order Spread Protection feature. The
Exchange believes that it is consistent with the Act to amend the rule
text to reflect these non-displayed orders because today, these orders
types permit Participants to submit orders or quotes priced between the
MPV, which will be rounded to the nearest MPV for display.
    The Exchange believes that the amendment to the Market Order Spread
Protection language does not otherwise create an impediment to a free
and open market because these two order types already exist today and
provide investors the opportunity to trade at a better price than would
otherwise be available, e.g. inside the disseminated best bid and offer
for a security, which could result in better executions for investors.
Further, these order types incent Participants to compete by putting
forth their best price to potentially match or better any Price
Improving or Post-Only Orders or any other order resident in the
System. This may result in more aggressive, rather than less
aggressive, trading interest. This proposal reflects the impact of
these order types on the Market Order Spread Protection feature.
    By reflecting the proper rule text to account for these order types
the

Exchange is providing Participants with additional information with
which to anticipate the impact of the Market Order Spread Protection
feature.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposal to amend the Market Order Spread Protection rule text
to account for Price Improving or Post-Only Orders or repricing due to
trade-through and locked and crossed market restrictions creates an
undue burden on competition because it will serve to provide
Participants with greater information to anticipate the impact of the
Market Order Spread Protection feature. Today, Participants are able to
submit orders or quotes priced between the MPV for display at the
nearest MPV. This rule change would reflect the ability to enter these
types of orders on NOM and the impact of the Market Order Spread
Protection feature. The purpose of this rule change is to protect
orders resting on the Order Book when the market is wide. This feature
will be applied in a similar manner to all Participants on NOM.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \14\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(iii).
    \15\ 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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-142 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-NASDAQ-2015-142. 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-2015-142 and should
be submitted on or before December 18, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-30088 Filed 11-25-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 79 (Thursday, April 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22815-22816]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09340]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP14-147-000]

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

    Take notice that on April 11, 2014, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC
(Texas Gas), 610 West Second Street, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301 filed in
Docket No. CP14-147-000, a prior notice request pursuant to sections
157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural
Gas Act (NGA), and Texas Gas' blanket certificate issued in Docket No.
CP82-407-000, seeking authorization to plug and abandon two injection/
withdrawal wells and one observation well in Texas Gas' Alford Storage
Field, located in Pike County, Indiana, and to abandon by removal the
associated above-ground equipment, storage lateral lines, and side
valves, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file
with the Commission and open for public inspection. The filing may also
be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding the applications should be directed to
Kathy D. Fort, Manager, Certificates and Tariffs, Texas Gas
Transmission, LLC, 610 West Second Street, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301,
telephone no.<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile no.<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. Persons unable to file
electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or
intervention to the Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: April 18, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-09340 Filed 4-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P