[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86623-86625]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28806]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90777; File No. SR-LTSE-2020-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Rule 11.380 To Expand the Exchange's Optional Risk Controls
Mechanism To Include a Net Notional Exposure Risk Check in Addition to
the Gross Notional Exposure Risk Check

December 22, 2020.
    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 December 17, 2020, Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``LTSE'' 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

    LTSE proposes a rule change to amend LTSE Rule 11.380 to offer an
optional net notional exposure risk check to Members and their clearing
firms as part of the Exchange's Risk Controls mechanism.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at https://longtermstockexchange.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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend LTSE Rule 11.380 to offer an
optional net notional exposure risk check to Members and their clearing
firms as part of the Exchange's Risk Controls mechanism.
    Existing LTSE Rule 11.380 describes the Exchange's current optional
Risk Controls mechanism that is designed to assist LTSE Members and
their clearing firms in their risk management efforts. LTSE does not
charge a fee for use of the Risk Controls mechanism. As described in
the rule, the Risk Controls mechanism currently can be configured to
provide trading limits based on the gross notional exposure for matched
trades for a Member or clearing firm's broker correspondent across
market participant identifiers (``MPIDs''), by MPID, by session or in
combination, per clearing firm relationship or Member, as applicable
(``Gross Notional Exposure''). Once the Gross Notional Exposure, as
elected and configured by a Member or its clearing firm, has exceeded
the pre-determined limit, LTSE will automatically reject new orders and
cancel all open orders for the applicable

MPID(s) and/or FIX session \4\ as specified. Further, the Gross
Notional Exposure risk control may be increased or decreased on an
intra-day basis by a Member or the clearing firm of a Member, as
applicable. As specified in paragraph (a)(2)(A) of Rule 11.380, Gross
Notional Exposure is calculated as the absolute sum of the notional
value of all buy and sell trades (i.e., equal to the value of executed
buys plus the absolute value of executed long sells plus the absolute
value of executed short sells). There is no netting of buys and sales
in the same symbol or across symbols. The Gross Notional Exposure
resets for each new trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The proposed rule change is substantively identical to the
corresponding provisions in Investors Exchange (``IEX'') Rule 11.380
with certain exceptions. The Exchange's existing Rule 11.380 uses
the term ``session'' but the proposed rule change would use the term
``FIX session'' to clarify its meaning. See IEX Rule 11.380. The
Exchange also is not adopting the provisions in paragraph (a)(3) of
IEX Rule 11.380, which pertain to the application of the Risk
Controls in the context of an opening or closing auction. Because
the Exchange does not have an opening or closing auction, these
provisions are inapposite. If the Exchange introduces an opening or
closing auction, it will address the implications for its Risk
Controls at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LTSE proposes to revise Rule 11.380 to provide Members or the
clearing firms of Members with an additional option of configuring a
Risk Controls trading limit on the net notional exposure for matched
trades for a Member or clearing firm's broker correspondent across
MPIDs, by MPID, by FIX session or in combination, per clearing firm
relationship or Member as applicable (``Net Notional Exposure''). LTSE
notes that other exchanges offer their members the option of a risk
control based upon the member's net notional exposure.\5\ As proposed,
once the Net Notional Exposure, as elected and configured by a Member
or its clearing firm, has exceeded the predetermined limit, LTSE will
automatically reject new orders and cancel all open orders for the
applicable MPID(s) and/or FIX session specified. However, just as with
the existing Gross Notional Exposure risk control, the proposed new Net
Notional Exposure risk control may be increased or decreased on an
intra-day basis by a Member or the clearing firm of a Member, as
applicable. As specified in the proposed new paragraph (a)(2)(B) of
Rule 11.380, Net Notional Exposure will be calculated as the absolute
net sum of the notional value of all buy and sell trades (i.e., equal
to the value of executed buys minus the absolute value of executed long
sells minus the absolute value of executed short sells). Netting will
be calculated across all symbols. As with Gross Notional Exposure risk
controls, the proposed Net Notional Exposure risk control would reset
for each new trading day. Under the proposed rule change, Members or
their clearing firms, if they choose to avail themselves of LTSE's Risk
Controls mechanism, may elect to configure the Risk Controls mechanism
to accumulate and specify a limit or limits on either the Gross
Notional Exposure, the newly-offered Net Notional Exposure, or both
(collectively defined in the proposed new rule as the ``Risk Controls
Limit'').\6\ LTSE believes that adding a Net Notional Exposure risk
control to its existing Risk Controls mechanism will enhance the risk
management tools available to LTSE Members. The Exchange notes,
however, that use of a Risk Controls Limit by a Member or the clearing
firm of a Member does not automatically constitute compliance with LTSE
rules or SEC rules, nor does it replace Member-managed and clearing
firm-managed risk management solutions. The Exchange does not propose
to require Members or their clearing firms to use the Risk Controls
mechanism, and Members and their clearing firms may use any other
appropriate risk-management tool or service instead of, or in
combination with, LTSE's Risk Controls mechanism. The Exchange will not
provide preferential treatment to Members or clearing firms using
LTSE's Risk Controls mechanism, nor will the use of the Risk Controls
mechanism impact a Member or clearing firm's use of LTSE other than
when it results in orders being rejected or cancelled pursuant to the
Risk Controls Limits. In addition, LTSE will continue to provide the
Risk Controls mechanism to Members and clearing firms without charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., IEX Rule 11.380; Nasdaq Stock Market (``Nasdaq'')
Rule 6130; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe'') Rule 11.13
Interpretations and Policies .01(h). The proposed rule change is
substantively identical to the corresponding provisions in IEX Rule
11.380 with the exception of references to ``routed'' trades because
LTSE does not have a routing broker.
    \6\ In the case of a Member that is subject to Risk Controls
Limits set by its clearing firm, the Member will be advised of such
limits by LTSE. In the event a Member that is subject to Risk
Controls Limits set by its clearing firm also elects to set Risk
Controls Limits for its own trading, the Exchange will apply both
such limits with the lower of the Risk Controls Limits being
applicable since it will trigger first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in
particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles
of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged
in 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest by enhancing the risk management protections available
to Exchange Members and their clearing firms. The Exchange believes
that the proposed rule change supports these objectives because it is
designed to enable all LTSE Members an additional option for how to
manage and limit their own trading exposure (whether on the basis of
the Member's Gross Notional Exposure, Net Notional Exposure, or both)
on the Exchange, in addition to providing clearing firms an additional
option to monitor their correspondent Members' trading exposure as well
as their own trading exposure (whether on the basis of the clearing
firm's Gross Notional Exposure, Net Notional Exposure, or both),
including by intra-day increases or decreases in the limits.
    Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it provides an additional mechanism to enable LTSE Members and
clearing firms of LTSE Members to manage their risk by preventing
trading that exceeds a Member or a Member's clearing firm's financial
resources on a net notional basis (as well as the currently available
gross notional basis risk control), and, thereby, contributes to the
stability of the equities markets. Thus, the Exchange believes the
addition of a Net Notional Exposure risk control offers Members and
their clearing firms an important compliance tool that Members and
their clearing firms may use to help maintain the regulatory integrity
of the markets. The Exchange notes that other exchanges' rules provide
for similar functionality,\9\ and, accordingly, LTSE does not believe
that

the proposed rule change raises any new or novel issues not already
considered by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent
with just and equitable principles of trade and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Risk Controls mechanism is available to all
Members and their clearing firms without charge.

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal is designed to
expand the Exchange's existing, optional Risk Controls mechanism by
adding a new Net Notional Exposure risk control. The Exchange is not
proposing to charge any fee for use of any aspect of its Risk Controls
mechanism. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition because other exchanges
offer similar functionality.\10\ The Exchange also does not believe
that the proposal will impose a burden on intramarket competition
because its Risk Controls mechanism is available to all Members, and
clearing firms of Members, and provides a way for LTSE Members and
clearing firms to manage their risk by preventing trading that is
erroneous or exceeds a Member or clearing firm's financial resources,
thereby contributing to the stability of the equities markets.
Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that this proposal will have
any impact on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; or (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \13\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \15\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-LTSE-2020-23 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-LTSE-2020-23. 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-LTSE-2020-23 and should be submitted on
or before January 20, 2021.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-28806 Filed 12-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 24, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 17156]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08215]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2853-071]

Montana Dept. of Natural Resources and Conservation; Notice of
Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document,
Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 2853-071.
    c. Date Filed: February 21, 2019.
    d. Submitted By: Montana Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation (Montana DNRC).
    e. Name of Project: Broadwater Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Missouri River in Broadwater County, Montana.
The project occupies 44 acres of United States lands administered by
U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Dave Lofftus, Hydro Power Program
Manager, Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, State of
Montana, 1424 9th Avenue, P.O. Box 201601, Helena, Montana 59620; (406)
444-6659; or email at [email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Peter McBride at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
[email protected].
    j. Montana DNRC filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing
Process on February 21, 2019. Montana DNRC provided public notice of
its request on February 15, 2019. In a letter dated April 18, 2019, the
Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Montana
DNRC's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part
402. We are also initiating consultation with the Montana State
Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National
Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Montana DNRC as the
Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal
consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; and
consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
    m. Montana DNRC filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a
proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18
CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at
the address in paragraph h.
    o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an
application for a new license for Project No. 2853. Pursuant to 18 CFR
16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any
competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at
least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All
applications for license for this project must be filed by June 30,
2022.
    p. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: April 18, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-08215 Filed 4-23-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3569-3570]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1076]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1209; Airspace Docket No. 10-ANM-10]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; West Yellowstone, MT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify Class E airspace at Yellowstone
Airport, West Yellowstone, MT, to accommodate aircraft using the
Instrument Landing System (ILS) Localizer (LOC) standard instrument
approach procedures at Yellowstone Airport, West Yellowstone, MT. The
FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of
aircraft operations at Yellowstone Airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 7, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2010-
1209; Airspace Docket No. 10-ANM-10, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; 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 2010-1209 and Airspace Docket No. 10-ANM-10) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (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-2010-1209 and Airspace Docket No. 10-ANM-10''. The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments 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 closing date
for comments. 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. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA
98057.
    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.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Yellowstone Airport, West
Yellowstone, MT, to accommodate new ILS LOC standard instrument
approach procedures at Yellowstone Airport, West Yellowstone, MT. This
action would enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations
at Yellowstone Airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of
FAA Order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in this Order.
    The FAA has determined 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 DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated

impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only
affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified 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 U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes additional controlled airspace at Yellowstone
Airport, West Yellowstone, MT.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010 is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

ANM MT E5 West Yellowstone, MT [Amended]

West Yellowstone, Yellowstone Airport, MT
    (Lat. 44[deg]41'18'' N., long. 111[deg]07'04'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within 4.3 miles west and 8.3 miles east of the 026[deg] and
206[deg] bearings of the Yellowstone Airport extending from 8.3
miles northeast to 23.3 miles southwest of the Yellowstone Airport;
that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface
within 6.6 miles west and 11 miles east of the 209[deg] bearing from
lat. 44[deg]34'32'' N., long. 111[deg]11'51'' W. extending to 36.2
miles southwest, and within 5 miles north and 4.3 miles south of the
304[deg] bearing from lat. 44[deg]34'32'' N., long. 111[deg]11'51''
W. extending to the east edge of V-343; that airspace extending
upward from 10,700 feet MSL within a 25.3-mile radius of lat.
44[deg]34'32'' N., long. 111[deg]11'51'' W. extending clockwise from
the 081[deg] bearing from lat. 44[deg]34'32'' N., long.
111[deg]11'51'' W. to 4.3 miles east of the 236[deg] bearing from
lat. 44[deg]34'32'' N., long. 111[deg]11'51''; W.; and within 4.3
miles each side of the 236[deg] bearing from lat. 44[deg]34'32'' N.,
long. 111[deg]11'51'' W. extending to 43.5 miles southwest; that
airspace extending upward from 10,700 feet MSL within 9 miles south
and 5 miles north of the 304[deg] bearing from lat. 44[deg]34'32''
N., long. 111[deg]11'51'' W. extending to the east edge of V-343;
that airspace extending upward from 12,000 feet MSL within a 30.5-
mile radius of lat. 44[deg]34'32'' N., long. 111[deg]11'51'' W.
extending clockwise from the 026[deg] bearing from lat.
44[deg]34'32'' N., long. 111[deg]11'51'' W. to the 081[deg] bearing
from lat. 44[deg]34'32'' N., long. 111[deg]11'51'' W.; that airspace
extending upward from 12,500 feet MSL within 4.3 miles each side of
the 293[deg], 329[deg] and 043[deg] bearing from lat. 45[deg]00'19''
N., long. 110[deg]53'49'' W. extending to 25.16 miles west to 30.57
miles northwest to 54.24 miles north, and within 4.3 miles each side
of the 312[deg] bearing from lat. 44[deg]31'10'' N., long.
111[deg]14'03'' W. extending to 25.20 miles northwest, excluding
those portions that overlie the east edge of V-343, and south edge
of V-2 and V-86; that airspace extending upward from 13,000 feet MSL
within a 30.5-mile radius of lat. 44[deg]34'32'' N., long.
111[deg]11'51'' W.; extending clockwise from the 313[deg] bearing to
the 026[deg] bearing from lat. 44[deg]34'32'' N., long.
111[deg]11'51'' W., excluding those portions that overlie V-298 and
V-343.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on January 10, 2011.
Robert Henry,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2011-1076 Filed 1-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 129 (Friday, July 7, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 31650]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14248]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81070; File No. SR-BatsBZX-2017-26]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change, To Amend BZX Rule 14.11 To Provide
for the Inclusion of Cash in an Index Underlying a Series of Index Fund
Shares

June 30, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On May 12, 2017, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\3\ a proposed rule change to amend BZX Rule 14.11 to
provide for the inclusion of cash in an index underlying a series of
Index Fund Shares. The proposed rule change was published for comment
in the Federal Register on May 25, 2017.\4\ The Commission received no
comments on the proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80728 (May 19,
2017), 82 FR 24171 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    BZX Rules 14.11(c)(3) and 14.11(c)(4) permit the Exchange to
generically list Index Fund Shares (``Shares'') that overlie an index
or portfolio of U.S. Component Stocks,\5\ Non-U.S. Component Stocks,\6\
U.S. Component Stocks and Non-U.S. Component Stocks, and Fixed Income
Securities \7\ that meets specified criteria. Although open-end
investment management companies may hold cash, currently, the generic
listing criteria of BZX Rules 14.11(c) do not contemplate the generic
listing of Shares overlying an index or portfolio with a cash
component.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``U.S. Component Stock'' is defined in BZX Rule
14.11(c)(1)(D) as an equity security that is registered under
Sections 12(b) or 12(g) of the Act, or an American Depositary
Receipt, the underlying equity security of which is registered under
Sections 12(b) or 12(g) of the Act.
    \6\ ``Non-U.S. Component Stock'' is defined in BZX Rule
14.11(c)(1)(E) as an equity security that (a) is not registered
under Sections 12(b) or 12(g) of Act, (b) is issued by an entity
that is not organized, domiciled or incorporated in the United
States, and (c) is issued by an entity that is an operating company
(including Real Estate Investment Trusts and income trusts, but
excluding investment trusts, unit trusts, mutual funds, and
derivatives).
    \7\ BZX Rule 14.11(c)(4) defines Fixed Income Securities as debt
securities that are notes, bonds, debentures or evidence of
indebtedness that include, but are not limited to, U.S. Department
of Treasury securities, government-sponsored entity securities,
municipal securities, trust preferred securities, supranational debt
and debt of a foreign country or a subdivision thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend BZX Rules 14.11(c)(3) and
14.11(c)(4) to permit the generic listing and trading of Shares
overlying an index or portfolio of cash and: (1) U.S. Component Stocks;
(2) Non-U.S. Component Stocks; (3) U.S. Component Stocks and Non-U.S.
Component Stocks; and (4) Fixed Income Securities. The Exchange is not
proposing to otherwise amend the applicable generic listing criteria,
except to specify that the following generic listing criteria will not
apply to the cash portion of the index or portfolio:
     Under proposed BZX Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i)(a) through (d),
the percentage weighting requirements would apply only to the U.S.
Component Stocks portion of the underlying index or portfolio.

 Under proposed BZX Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(ii)(a) through (d), the
percentage weighting requirements would not apply to the cash component
of the underlying index or portfolio.
     Under proposed BZX Rule 14.11(c)(4)(B)(i)(b), (d), and
(f), the percentage weighting requirements would apply only to the
Fixed Income Securities portion of the underlying index or portfolio.
    The Exchange does not propose any limit to the weighting of cash in
an index or portfolio underlying a series of Shares.\8\ The Commission
notes that, under a provision of its current rule, the Exchange may
generically list Shares overlying a combination of indexes so long as
each index satisfies the generic listing criteria.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Notice, supra note 4, 82 FR at 24172.
    \9\ See BZX Rule 14.11(c)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\10\ In
particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that permitting the Exchange to generically
list Shares that overlie an index or portfolio with a cash component
may enhance competition among generically listed Shares, to the benefit
of investors and the marketplace. Additionally, the Commission believes
that the generic listing criteria referenced above, applicable only to
the non-cash portion(s) of the index or portfolio will neither dilute
the generic listing criteria nor render the indexes or portfolios
underlying generically listed Shares more susceptible to
manipulation.\12\ Lastly, the Commission notes that it recently
approved a substantively similar proposal by another national
securities exchange.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Commission also notes that the Exchange represents that
it has in place surveillance procedures that are adequate to
properly monitor trading in Shares in all trading sessions and to
deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal
securities laws. See Notice, supra note 4, 82 FR at 24172.
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80777 (May 25,
2017), 82 FR 25378 (June 1, 2017) (SR-NYSEArca-2017-30).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \14\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act,\15\ that the proposed rule change (SR-BatsBZX-2017-26)
be, and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-14248 Filed 7-6-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Issues in Focus
6. Heavy-duty natural gas vehicles
Environmental and energy security concerns, together with recent optimism about natural gas supply and recent lower natural gas prices, have led to significant interest in the potential for fueling heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs) with natural gas produced domestically. Key market uncertainties with regard to natural gas as a fuel for HDVs include fuel and infrastructure issues (such as the build-out process for refueling stations and whether there will be sufficient demand for refueling to cover the required capital outlays, and retail pricing and taxes for liquefied natural gas [LNG] and compressed natural gas [CNG] fuels); and vehicle issues (including incremental costs for HDVs fueled by natural gas, availability of fueling infrastructure, cost-effectiveness in view of average vehicle usage, vehicle residual value, vehicle weight, and vehicle refueling time).
Current state of the market
At present, HDVs in the United States are fueled almost exclusively by petroleum-based diesel fuel [53]. In 2010, use of petroleum-based diesel fuel by HDVs accounted for 17 percent (2.2 million barrels per day) of total petroleum consumption in the transportation sector (12.8 million barrels per day) and 12 percent of the U.S. total for all sectors (18.3 million barrels per day). Consumption of petroleum-based diesel fuel by HDVs increases to 2.3 million barrels per day in 2035 in the AEO2012 Reference case, accounting for 19 percent of total petroleum consumption in the transportation sector (12.1 million barrels per day) and 14 percent of the U.S. total for all sectors (17.2 million barrels per day).
Historically, natural gas has played a negligible role as a highway transportation fuel in the United States. In 2010, there were fewer than 40,000 total natural gas HDVs on the road, or 0.4 percent of the total HDV stock of nearly 9 million vehicles. Sales of new HDVs fueled by natural gas peaked at about 8,000 in 2003, and fewer than 1,000 were sold in 2010 out of a total of more 360,000 HDVs sold. With relatively few vehicles on the road, natural gas accounted for 0.3 percent of total energy used by HDVs in 2010.
As of May 2012, there were 1,047 CNG fueling stations and 53 LNG fueling stations in the United States, with 53 percent of the CNG stations and 57 percent of the LNG stations being privately owned and not open to the public [54]. Further, the stations were not evenly distributed across the United States, with 22 percent (227) of the CNG stations and 68 percent (36) of the LNG stations located in California. In comparison, nationwide, there were more than 157,000 stations selling motor gasoline in 2010 [55].

figure data
Developments in natural gas and petroleum markets in recent years have led to significant price disparities between the two fuels and sparked renewed interest in natural gas as a transportation fuel. Led by technological breakthroughs in the production of natural gas from shale formations, domestic production of dry natural gas increased by about 14 percent from 2008 to 2011. In the AEO2012 Reference case, U.S. natural gas production (including supplemental gas) increases from 21.6 trillion cubic feet in 2010 to 28.0 trillion cubic feet in 2035. Further, although the world market for oil and petroleum products is highly integrated, with prices set in the global marketplace, natural gas markets are less integrated, with significant price differences across regions of the world. With the recent growth in U.S. natural gas production, domestic natural gas prices in 2012 are significantly lower than crude oil prices on an energy-equivalent basis (Figure 34).
Fuel and infrastructure issues
Even when it appears that an emerging technology can be profitable with significant market penetration, achieving significant penetration can be difficult and, potentially, unattainable. Refueling stations for NGVs are unlikely to be built without some assurance that there will be sufficient numbers of NGVs to be refueled, soon enough to allow for recovery of the capital investment within a reasonable period of time. In terms of estimating the prices that will be charged for NGV fuels beyond the cost of the dry natural gas itself, and the issue of expected utilization rates, there are additional uncertainties related to capital and operating costs, taxes, and the potential of prices being set on the basis of the prices of competing fuels.
Basic fuel issues
Diesel fuel falls into the category of distillate fuels, which have constituted more than 25 percent of U.S. refinery output in recent years. The cost of diesel fuel is linked closely to the value of crude oil inputs for the refining process. In 2011, the spot price of Gulf Coast ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel averaged $2.97 per gallon. The wholesale diesel price reflects crude oil costs, as well as the difference between the wholesale price at the refinery gate and the cost of crude oil input, commonly referred to as the "crack spread," which reflects the costs and profits of refineries.
Beyond the wholesale price, the pump price of diesel fuel reflects distribution costs, Federal, State, and local fuel taxes, retailing costs, and profits. For diesel fuel, with an average energy content of 138,690 Btu per gallon, the 2011 national average retail price of $3.84 per gallon is equivalent to about $27.80 per million Btu.
Although early models of NGVs sometimes were less fuel-efficient than comparable diesel-fueled vehicles, current technologies allow for natural gas to be used as efficiently as diesel in HDV applications. Therefore, comparisons between natural gas and diesel fueling costs can be based on the price of energy-equivalent volumes of fuel. For this analysis, the cost and price of natural gas fuels are expressed in terms of diesel gallon equivalent (dge). For example, with an energy content of approximately 84,820 Btu per gallon, 1 gallon of LNG is equivalent in energy terms to 0.612 gallons of diesel fuel.
Fuel costs for LNG and CNG vehicles depend on the cost of natural gas used to produce the fuels, the cost of the liquefaction or compression process (including profits), the cost of moving fuel from production to refueling sites (if applicable), taxes, and retailing costs. Costs can vary with the scale of operations, but the significant disparity between current natural gas and crude oil prices suggests that the cost of CNG and LNG fuels in dge terms could be significantly below the price of diesel fuel.
There are different wholesale natural gas prices and capital costs associated with CNG and LNG stations. CNG retail stations, which typically have connections to the pipeline distribution network and thus require compression equipment and special refueling pumps, are likely to pay prices for natural gas that are similar to those paid by commercial facilities. For LNG stations, insulated LNG storage tanks and special refueling pumps are needed. LNG typically would be delivered from a liquefaction facility that, depending on its scale, would pay a natural gas price similar to the prices paid by electric power plants. The costs of liquefying and transporting the fuel to the retail station would ultimately be included in the retail price.
In a competitive market, retail fuel prices should reflect costs, including input, processing, distribution, and retailing costs, normal profit margins for processors, distributors, and retailers, and taxes. For example, the market for diesel fuel, which is produced by a large number of foreign and domestic refiners and is sold through numerous distributors and retail outlets, generally is considered to be a competitive market, in which retail prices follow costs.
CNG and LNG markets, at least in their initial stages, may not be as competitive as diesel fuel markets. For example, at public refueling stations, LNG and CNG currently sell at prices significantly higher than would be suggested by a long-term analysis of cost-based pricing. According to DOE's April 2012 "Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report," the average nationwide nominal retail price for LNG was $3.05 per dge, and the average for CNG was $2.32 per dge [56].
If the use of LNG and/or CNG to fuel HDVs starts to grow, it is likely to take some time before fuel production and refueling infrastructure become sufficiently widespread for competition among fuel providers alone to assure that fuel prices are more closely linked to cost-based levels. However, even without many fuel providers, operators of an LNG and/or CNG vehicle fleet may be in a position to negotiate cost-based fuel prices with refueling station operators seeking to lock in demand for their initial investments in refueling infrastructure. Such arrangements provide an alternative to reliance on centrally fueled fleets as a means of circumventing the problem of how to introduce NGVs and natural gas refueling infrastructures concurrently.
Build-out process for refueling stations
It is not clear how NGVs and an expanded natural gas refueling infrastructure ultimately will evolve. One view is that a "hub-and-spoke" model for refueling infrastructure will expand sufficiently in multiple areas for a point-to-point system to take hold eventually. The "hubs" in the model would include the local refueling infrastructure, currently in place primarily to support local fleets. The "spokes" would ensure that refueling infrastructure is in place on the main transportation corridors connecting the hubs.
Several regional efforts are in place to encourage such "hub-and-spoke" growth for NGV refueling facilities. They include the Texas Clean Transportation Triangle [57], a strategic plan for CNG and LNG refueling stations between Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston; and the Interstate Clean Transportation Corridor [58], which aims to provide LNG fueling stations between such major western cities as Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Reno, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco. There also is a plan for a Pennsylvania Clean Transportation Corridor [59], which would provide CNG and LNG fueling stations between Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Scranton, and Philadelphia.
In several corridors, Federal and State incentives are subsidizing both the construction of refueling stations and the production of heavy-duty LNG vehicles [60], in an effort to ensure that both demand and supply will be in place concurrently. A major question is whether gaps between isolated targeted markets can be bridged to provide a nationwide refueling structure that will allow heavy-duty NGVs to travel almost anywhere.
Sufficiency of demand for refueling to cover capital outlay
The cost of providing refueling services for NGVs depends on a number of factors and is distinctly different for CNG and LNG vehicles. Investment decisions are likely to be based on levels of demand. NGV refueling capability can be added at an existing facility or at a separate dedicated facility (which would require an additional investment). The costs depend in part on the number of fueling hoses added. LNG stations in particular benefit from higher volumes, but they also require significant additional land to accommodate storage tank(s), and they must satisfy special safety requirements  -- both of which add costs that can vary significantly from place to place. One added cost in operating an LNG station is the need for safety suits and specialized training for station attendants who dispense the fuel.
LNG typically is delivered to refueling stations via tanker truck from a separate liquefaction facility, the proximity of which is a major factor in the cost and frequency of deliveries. Any significant expansion of LNG refueling capacity also will require expanded liquefaction capacity, which currently is not sufficiently dispersed throughout the country to support a nationwide LNG refueling infrastructure. Although there are several dedicated large-scale natural gas liquefaction facilities in the United States, primarily in the West, there are smaller liquefaction plants and LNG storage tanks currently in use for meeting peakshaving needs of utilities and pipelines during times of high demand. There are more than 100 such facilities in the United States, with a combined liquefaction capacity of more than 6 billion cubic feet per day. The majority are concentrated in the Northeast and Southeast [61].
Retail prices and taxes for LNG and CNG fuels
Even if the costs are fully known, retail prices for CNG and LNG transportation fuels remain uncertain, given questions about whether dispensers would charge higher prices in order to recover costs more rapidly if the facility were underutilized or would set prices to be competitive with the price of diesel. Prices charged at private stations for fleet vehicles presumably would be based on cost. With the number of refueling stations limited, competition between retailers is likely to be limited, at least initially. However, NGV refueling stations presumably would want to provide sufficient economic incentive in terms of the competitiveness of fuel prices to encourage more purchases of NGVs. NGV fuel is taxed at State and Federal levels. Currently, on a Federal level, CNG is taxed at the same rate as gasoline on an energy-equivalent basis ($0.18 per gasoline gallon equivalent, or $0.21 per dge). However, LNG is taxed at a higher effective rate than diesel fuel, because it is taxed volumetrically at $0.24 per LNG gallon equivalent ($0.40 per dge) rather than on the basis of energy content [62]. State taxes vary, averaging $0.15 per dge for CNG and $0.24 per dge for LNG.
Vehicle Issues
Incremental vehicle cost
NGVs have significant incremental costs relative to their diesel-powered counterparts because of the need for pressurization and insulation of CNG or LNG tanks and the lower energy content of natural gas as a fuel. Total incremental costs relative to diesel HDVs range from about $9,750 to $36,000 for Class 3 trucks (GVWR 10,001 to 14,000 pounds), $34,150 to $69,250 for Class 4 to 6 trucks (GVWR 14,001 to 26,000 pounds), and $49,000 to $86,125 for Class 7 and 8 trucks (GVWR greater than 26,001 pounds). The incremental costs of heavy-duty NGVs depend in large part on the volume of the vehicle's CNG or LNG storage tank, which can be sized to match its typical daily driving range. Non-storage-tank incremental costs average about $2,000 for Class 3 vehicles, $20,000 for Class 4 to 6 vehicles, and $30,000 for Class 7 to 8 vehicles [63]. Fuel storage costs are about $350 per gallon diesel equivalent for CNG, with the incremental cost for Class 3 CNG vehicle storage tanks ranging between about $8,000 and $30,000; and about $475 per gallon diesel equivalent for LNG, with the incremental cost for Class 4 to 8 LNG vehicle storage tanks ranging between about $14,000 and $52,000. Natural gas fuel storage technology is relatively mature, leaving only modest opportunity for cost reductions.
Availability of fueling infrastructure
The absence of widespread public refueling infrastructure can impose a serious constraint on heavy-duty NGV purchases. Owners who typically refuel vehicles at a private central location do not face an absolute constraint based on infrastructure, however, and heavy-duty NGVs currently in operation have tended to be purchased by fleet operators who refuel consistently at a specific central location or in areas where their vehicles routinely operate on dedicated routes.
Cost-effectiveness with average vehicle usage
In order to take advantage of potential fuel cost savings from switching to NGVs, owners must operate the vehicles enough to pay back the higher incremental cost in a reasonable period of time. The payback period varies with miles driven and is shorter for trucks that are used more intensively. Payback periods for the upfront incremental costs of NGVs are greater than 5 years for Class 3 vehicles unless they are driven at least 20,000 to 40,000 miles per year, and for Class 7 and 8 vehicles unless they are driven at least 60,000 to 80,000 miles per year. Shorter payback periods, 3 years or less, may reflect typical owner expectations more accurately [64], but they require much more intensive use: around 60,000 to 80,000 miles annually for Class 3 vehicles and more than 100,000 miles annually for Class 7 and 8 vehicles. For example, for a Class 7 or 8 compression ignition NGV with average fuel economy of 6 miles per gallon (which has a similar fuel economy compared to a diesel counterpart) and an incremental cost of $80,000, the payback period would be just over 3 years if the vehicle were driven 100,000 miles per year, assuming a diesel fuel price of $4.00 per gallon and an LNG fuel price of $2.50 per gallon. If the same Class 7 or 8 vehicle were driven 40,000 miles per year, the payback period would be about 8 years. Further, without a widely available infrastructure, heavy-duty NGVs tend to be considered by centrally refueled fleets, which may have less mileage-intensive vehicle use.

figure data
According to the Department of Transportation's Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey [65], last completed in 2002, a large segment of the HDV market simply does not drive enough to justify the purchase of an NGV (Figure 35). Around 30 percent of Class 3 vehicles and 75 percent of Class 7 and 8 vehicles are not driven enough to reach the 5-year payback threshold mentioned above. This is a significant portion of the market that would require either more favorable fuel economics or lower vehicle costs before the purchase of an NGV could be justified.
Other market uncertainties
Other factors may also affect market acceptance of heavy-duty NGVs. First, the purchase decision could be affected by the considerable additional weight of CNG or LNG tanks. For owners who typically "weight-out" a vehicle (driving with a full payload), adding heavy CNG or LNG tanks necessitates a reduction in freight payload. The EPA and NHTSA have estimated that about onethird of Class 8 sleeper tractors routinely are "weighted-out" [66].
A diesel tractor with 200 gallons of tank capacity and a fuel economy of 6 miles per gallon can drive 1,200 miles on a single refueling. The same tractor would need up to 110 dge of LNG tank capacity, at a considerable weight penalty and an incremental cost of more than $80,000, to allow for a range of about 650 miles on a single refueling. Because owner/operators typically stop several times per day, the reduction in unrefueled maximum range would not require additional breaks for vehicles with large CNG or LNG tanks. However, CNG and LNG vehicles that do not opt for large tanks because of either weight or incremental cost considerations might have to refuel more frequently.
Finally, the owner perception of the balance of risk and reward for large capital investment is an uncertainty. Higher upfront capital costs can prove economically prohibitive for some potential owners. Even if the payback period for an investment in natural gas vehicles seemed acceptable, financing constraints or returns available on competing investment options could preclude the purchase. Additionally, the residual value of natural gas HDVs could, in theory, affect market uptake. With little natural gas refueling infrastructure in existence, the potential resale market is constrained to owners of centrally operated fleets. However, lease terms tend to limit the importance of this factor.
The complex set of factors influencing the potential for natural gas as a fuel for HDVs includes several areas for which policy mechanisms have been discussed. Most policy debates to date have considered the possibility of subsidies to reduce the incremental cost of natural gas vehicles (for example, in Senate and House versions of the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act [67]) and Federal grant-based or other financial support for fueling station infrastructure. In addition, market hurdles related to consumer acceptance or payback periods might also be addressed through loan guarantees or related financial support policies, both for the vehicles and for the refueling infrastructure.
HD NGV Potential case results
The AEO2012 HD NGV Potential case examines issues associated with expanded use of heavy-duty NGVs, under an assumption that the refueling infrastructure exists to support such an expansion. The HD NGV Potential case differs from an earlier sensitivity case completed as part of the Annual Energy Outlook 2010, which focused on possible subsidies to expand the market potential for heavy-duty NGVs and limited its attention to vehicles operating within 200 miles of a central CNG refueling facility.
The AEO2012 HD NGV Potential case permits expansion of the HDV market to allow a gradual increase in the share of HDV owners who would consider purchasing an NGV if justified by the fuel economics over a payback distribution with a weighted average of 3 years. The gradual increase in the maximum natural gas market share reflects the fact that a national natural gas refueling program would require time to build out. The natural gas refueling infrastructure is expanded in the HD NGV Potential case simply by assumption; it is not clear how (or whether) specific barriers to natural gas refueling infrastructure investment can be overcome.
Incremental costs for NGVs in the HD NGV Potential case differ from those in the Reference case. In the HD NGV Potential case, incremental costs are determined by assuming a set cost for CNG or LNG engines plus a CNG or LNG tank cost based on the average amount of daily travel and vehicle size class. The HD NGV Potential case includes separate delivered CNG and LNG fuel prices for fleet and nonfleet operators. Added per-unit charges to recover infrastructure are set and held constant in real terms throughout the projection period, based on the assumptions that refueling stations would be utilized at a sufficiently high rate to warrant the capital investment, and that the prices charged for the fuel would be cost-based (i.e., station operators would not set prices on the basis of prices for competing fuels). Motor fuels taxes are assumed to remain at their current levels in nominal terms, maintaining the higher energy-equivalent tax on LNG relative to diesel fuel.

figure data
In defining CNG and LNG prices for the HD NGV Potential case, EIA examined current motor fuel taxes and any charges added to the commodity price of dry natural gas sold at private central refueling stations (fleets) and at retail stations where actual data were available. Accordingly, an HDV Reference case was developed from the AEO2012 Reference case, by including the updated fleet and retail CNG and LNG prices, to provide a consistent basis for comparison with the HD NGV Potential case (Figure 36). The HDV Reference case assumes that Class 3 through 6 vehicles use CNG, obtained from either fleet operators (using fleet prices) or nonfleet operators (using retail prices), and that Class 7 and 8 vehicles, both fleet and nonfleet, use LNG.

figure data
Sales of heavy-duty NGVs rise dramatically in the HD NGV Potential case, based on the national availability of refueling infrastructure and expanded market potential (Figure 37). Sales of new heavy-duty NGVs increase from 860 in 2010 (0.2 percent of total new HDV sales) to about 275,000 in 2035 (34 percent of total new vehicle sales), as compared with 26,000 in the HDV Reference case (3 percent of total new HDV sales). New heavy-duty NGVs gradually claim a more significant share of the vehicle stock, from 0.4 percent in 2010 to 21.8 percent (2,750,000 vehicles) in 2035, as compared with 2.4 percent (300,000 vehicles) in 2035 in the HDV Reference case.

figure data
As a result of the large projected increase in sales of new heavy-duty NGVs, natural gas demand in the HDV sector rises from about 0.01 trillion cubic feet in 2010 to 1.8 trillion cubic feet in 2035 in the HD NGV Potential case, as compared with 0.1 trillion cubic feet in the HDV Reference case (Figure 38). The natural gas share of total energy use by HDVs grows from 0.2 percent in 2010 to 32 percent in 2035 in the HD NGV Potential case, compared with 1.6 percent in the HDV Reference case.
Roughly speaking, about 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas consumed per year replaces 0.5 million barrels per day of petroleum and other liquids. Thus, natural gas consumption by HDVs in the HD NGV Potential case displaces about 850,000 barrels per day of petroleum and other liquids consumption in 2035 (Figure 39). Without a major impact on world oil prices, which is not expected to result from the gradual but significant adoption of natural gas as a fuel for U.S. HDVs, nearly all the reduction in petroleum and other liquids use by U.S. HDVs would be reflected by a decline in imports.

figure data
In the HD NGV Potential case, projected total U.S. natural gas consumption in 2035 is 1.4 trillion cubic feet (5 percent) higher than in the Reference case, as the increase in natural gas use by vehicles is partially offset by lower consumption in other sectors, in response to higher natural gas prices (Figure 40). The electric power and industrial sectors account for the bulk of the consumption offsets, as their 2035 natural gas use is, respectively, 0.3 trillion cubic feet (3.1 percent) and 0.2 trillion cubic feet (2.7 percent) lower than in the Reference case.
In 2035, U.S. domestic natural gas production in the HD NGV Potential case is 1.1 trillion cubic feet (3.9 percent) higher than in the HDV Reference case. The higher level of natural gas production needed to support the growth in HDV fuel use results in a 10-percent increase in natural gas prices -- $0.76 per million Btu (2010 dollars) -- at the Henry Hub in 2035 in comparison with the HDV Reference case. Percentage increases in delivered natural gas prices to other sectors, which include transmission and distribution costs that are not affected by higher prices to producers, are smaller, with delivered natural gas prices increasing by 4.9 percent in the residential sector, 5.9 percent in the commercial sector, 8.9 percent in the industrial sector, and 7.9 percent in the electricity generation sector in comparison with the HDV Reference case in 2035.

figure data


[Federal Register: June 7, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 108)]
[Notices]
[Page 32242-32243]
[DOCID:fr07jn10-83]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0149]

Rules of Practice

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

ACTION: Notice of suspension of informal hearing procedure; request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FMCSA announces that it is re-evaluating the
appropriateness and effectiveness of the informal hearing procedure
authorized under the Agency's Rules of Practice. Although proceedings
where an informal hearing has already been requested will continue to
be processed under the Rules of Practice, the Agency will not entertain
any new requests for informal hearings pending its re-evaluation of the
procedure.

DATES: Effective June 7, 2010. Comments must be received by August 6,
2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System Docket Number, FMCSA-2010-0149, by any of the
following methods. Do not submit the same comments by more than one
method. However, to allow effective public participation before the
comment period deadline, the Agency encourages use of the Web site,
which is listed first. It will provide the most efficient and timely
method of receiving and processing your comments.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Unit; U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Ground floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number for this regulatory action. Note that all comments
received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided. The Department of
Transportation's (DOT) complete Privacy Act Statement was published in
the Federal Register on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476), and can be viewed
at http://docketsinfo.dot.gov.
    Public Participation: The regulations.gov system is generally
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can find
electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the
``help'' section of the Web site. For notification that FMCSA received
the comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or
postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that appears after
submitting comments on line. Copies or abstracts of all documents
referenced in this notice are in the docket: FMCSA-2010-0149. For
access to the docket to read background documents or comments received,
go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. All comments
received before the close of business on the comment closing date
indicated above will be considered and will be available for
examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received after
the closing date will be considered to the extent practicable. FMCSA
may, however, issue a final determination at any time after the close
of the comment period. In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also
continue to file in the public docket relevant information that becomes
available after the comment closing date. Interested persons should
monitor the public docket for new material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Falk, Office of Chief
Counsel, Adjudications Counsel (MC-CCA), FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590. Tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 113(f), Congress directed FMCSA to carry out the
duties and powers related to motor carriers or motor carrier safety
vested in the Secretary of Transportation by chapters 5, 51, 55, 57,
59, 133 through 149, 311, 313, 315 and 317 of title 49 of the U.S.
Code, except as otherwise delegated by the Secretary. Regulations
implementing this statutory authority include the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) (49 CFR parts 380-399), the Federal Motor
Carrier Commercial Regulations (FMCCRs) (49 CFR parts 360-379), and the
Federal Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs) (49 CFR parts 171-180).
    FMCSA's enforcement powers include the general authority to conduct
administrative enforcement proceedings for violations of the FMCCRs (49
U.S.C. 14701) as well as to assess civil penalties for violations
related to commercial motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. chapter 5) and
hazardous materials (49 U.S.C. chapter 51).
    In accordance with this authority, the Agency promulgated
regulations governing civil penalty and driver disqualification
proceedings before the Agency. These regulations are known as the Rules
of Practice for Motor Carrier, Intermodal Equipment Provider, Broker,
Freight Forwarder, and Hazardous Materials Proceedings (Rules of
Practice) and are codified at 49 CFR part 386.
    In May 2005, the Agency amended the Rules of Practice to establish,
among other things, an informal hearing process as an option for
adjudicating administrative enforcement proceedings (see 70 FR 28467,
May 18, 2005). Civil penalty proceedings are initiated by issuance of a
Notice of Claim by a representative of the Agency (Claimant) pursuant
to 49 CFR 386.11(c). Under 49 CFR 386.14(b)(2), the party against whom
a claim is made (Respondent) must reply to the Notice of Claim by
electing one of three options: (1) Paying the full amount of the claim;
(2) contesting the claim by requesting administrative adjudication
pursuant to section 386.14(d); or (3) seeking binding arbitration in
accordance with the Agency's arbitration program. Under section
386.14(d)(1)(iii), a respondent electing administrative adjudication
may request that the matter be adjudicated either through: (A)
Submission of written evidence without hearing; (B) an informal
hearing; or (C) a formal hearing.

    The informal hearing process was intended to provide expedited
consideration of a civil penalty case by a neutral third party without
the formalities attendant to a hearing before an Administrative Law
Judge (see 69 FR 61620, Oct. 20, 2004). Section 386.2 defines an
informal hearing as ``a hearing in which the parties have the
opportunity to present relevant evidence to a neutral Hearing Officer,
who will prepare findings of fact and recommendations for the Agency
decisionmaker. The informal hearing will not be on the transcribed
record and discovery will not be allowed. Parties will have the
opportunity to discuss their case and present testimony and evidence
before the Hearing Officer without the formality of a formal hearing.''
After receiving the hearing officer's report and recommendations, the
Assistant Administrator has the discretion to either adopt the report
or issue other orders as he or she deems appropriate. [See sections
386.16(b)(4)(i)(A) and 386.61(b)].
    FMCSA implemented informal hearings on a graduated basis in order
to evaluate the efficacy of this new process. In the first phase of
implementation, FMCSA considered requests for informal hearings only
from respondents in the Midwestern Service Center's geographical area
(see 71 FR 13894, Mar. 17, 2006). In the second phase, FMCSA expanded
eligibility to respondents in the Eastern Service Center's geographical
area (see 72 FR 6806, Feb. 13, 2007). To date, only respondents located
in States within the Agency's Eastern and Midwestern Service Centers
have been eligible to request informal hearings.
    Having evaluated the implementation of the informal hearing
procedure, FMCSA has concerns about the appropriateness of the
personnel the Agency assigned to serve as hearing officers. Section
386.2 defines ``hearing officer'' as ``a neutral Agency employee
designated by the Assistant Administrator to preside over an informal
hearing.'' The Agency selected two FMCSA employees--one located in the
Southern Service Center and one located in the Western Service Center--
to serve as hearing officers. However, the Agency did not receive
enough informal hearing requests to dedicate these employees as full-
time hearing officers. As a result, these employees continued to carry
out their existing responsibilities related to the implementation of
the enforcement programs in their respective Service Center areas.
Although, as noted above, informal hearings are not available to
respondents located in the Southern and Western Service Centers, there
is legitimate concern that FMCSA personnel involved in the Agency's
enforcement program may not be considered sufficiently neutral.

Suspension of Current Informal Hearing Procedure

    After careful consideration, and as a result of the issues
discussed above, FMCSA has decided to suspend the use of informal
hearings for enforcement actions initiated after publication of this
notice pending re-evaluation of the informal hearing procedure. This
re-evaluation will include consideration of possible regulatory changes
as well as implementation strategies.
    Five cases assigned to hearing officers are still awaiting informal
hearings. There are 15 additional cases in which claimants have
consented to respondents' informal hearing requests, but have not been
assigned to a hearing officer. Furthermore, in 13 additional cases,
claimants in the Eastern and Midwestern Service Centers have objected
to requests for informal hearings. The Agency has not yet ruled on
these objections because of its concerns regarding the informal hearing
procedure. In order to avoid further delaying the resolution of the 20
pending cases awaiting informal hearings or assignment of a hearing
officer, the Agency will assign these cases to one or more hearing
officers not connected with the Agency's enforcement program, who will
be responsible for initiating and concluding the informal hearing
process. The Agency will also make it a priority to consider the
pending objections to informal hearings and may thus assign additional
cases to the hearing officer(s), as appropriate.
    Notices of Claim issued after publication of this notice in the
Federal Register will advise respondents seeking to contest a claim
through administrative adjudication that they may either submit written
evidence without a formal hearing or request a formal hearing.
    FMCSA has determined that no Respondent has suffered substantive
harm or prejudice as a result of disposition under the informal hearing
option. Of the 11 cases assigned to hearing officers, only three were
finally resolved under the informal hearing procedure. In these cases,
the hearing officer issued a final report recommending that the
Assistant Administrator approve settlement agreements entered into by
the parties. The Assistant Administrator accepted the recommendations,
resulting in final disposition of these cases. With respect to the
other eight cases, six are awaiting informal hearings following
assignment of a hearing officer, one was settled before a specific
hearing officer was assigned, and the final case is awaiting further
action following issuance of the hearing officer's report.
    Finally, FMCSA believes that, if implemented more effectively, re-
establishment of an informal hearing process would be beneficial to
both the Agency and to respondents seeking more informal resolution of
enforcement matters. FMCSA seeks public comment on options for
implementing an effective informal hearing process.

    Issued on: May 28, 2010.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-13591 Filed 6-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: December 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 240)]
[Notices]
[Page 75246-75247]
[DOCID:fr14de06-54]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0606; FRL-8105-8]

Acid Copper Chromate (ACC); Product Cancellation Order to Delete
ACC Uses in Certain Pesticide Registrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's order terminating all residential
uses of the acid copper chromate (ACC) registration held by OSMOSE,
Inc. The affected registration is EPA Reg. No. 3008-60. OSMOSE
voluntarily requested the use termination, pursuant to section 6(f)(1)
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as
amended. OSMOSE requested that it not be provided with any existing
stocks provisions for the product. The Agency announced receipt of this
request in a July 18, 2006 Federal Register Notice of Receipt of
Request (71 FR 40717) (FRL-8080-5). In the July 18, 2006 Notice, EPA
stated that it would accept the request and issue an order implementing
the use termination, unless the Agency received substantive comments
within the 30-day comment period that would merit its further review of
the request, or unless the registrant withdrew the request within this
period, which closed August 17, 2006. The Agency received one comment
on the notice which was carefully considered by the Agency; it was
determined that the request did not merit further review. Further, the
registrant did not withdraw its request. Accordingly, on October 17,
2006 EPA approved the request. EPA hereby issues through this notice an
order implementing the approved use terminations. Any distribution,
sale, or use of the ACC product subject to this cancellation order is
permitted only in accordance with the terms of this order.

DATES: The cancellations are effective December 14, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Heyward, Antimicrobials Division
(7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0606. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard

copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S.
Crystal Drive Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket
Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    This notice announces the Agency's order implementing EPA's
approval of OSMOSE's request to terminate all residential uses of its
ACC product registration. The affected registration is identified in
Table 1.

               Table 1.-ACC-Affected Product Registration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           EPA registration no.                     Product name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3008-60                                     AC 50% Wood Preservative
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 of this unit includes the name and address of record for
the registrant of the product in Table 1 of this unit.

        Table 2.--Registrant of Affected ACC Product Registration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              EPA company no.                 Company name and address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Osmose, Inc.                                980 Ellicott Street
                                            Buffalo, NY 14209-2398
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Public Comments Received and Agency Response to
Comments

    Only one public comment was received, which is posted on the
docket. This comment addressed the commenter's concerns about the ACC
registration in general. The Agency does not believe that the comment
submitted during the comment period merits further review of OSMOSE's
request nor a denial of the request for use termination.

IV. Cancellation Order

    Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f), EPA approved the use termination
for the affected ACC registration identified in Table 1 of Unit II. on
October 17, 2006. The Agency hereby orders that the ACC product
registration identified in Table 1 of Unit II. is amended to terminate
the affected uses. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of
the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II. in a manner inconsistent
with any of the Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks set forth
below in Unit VI will be considered a violation of FIFRA.

V. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide
product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations
be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further
provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice
of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register. Thereafter,
following the public comment period, the Administrator may approve such
a request.

VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products
which are currently in the United States and which were packaged,
labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the
cancellation action. The order issued in this notice implementing the
use terminations includes no existing stocks provisions.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests, Acid Copper
Chromate, ACC.

    Dated: December 7, 2006.
 Dennis H. Edwards,
Acting Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E6-21400 Filed 12-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


Placeholder:  2008 CUE APPLICATIONS

For more information please contact Marta Montoro by phone at
202-343-9321 or by email at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register: October 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 194)]
[Notices]
[Page 58217]
[DOCID:fr06oc08-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13127-000]

Mississippi 24 Hydro, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

September 30, 2008.
    Mississippi 24 Hydro, LLC filed an application on March 3, 2008,
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study
the feasibility of the Mississippi River Lock and Dam No. 24
Hydroelectric Project, which would be located near the town of
Clarksville on the Mississippi River at the existing U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' Lock and Dam No. 24 and Reservoir in Calhoun County,
Illinois and Pike County, Missouri. The proposed project would utilize
federal lands.
    The proposed Mississippi River Lock and Dam No. 24 Hydroelectric
Project would utilize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Lock and Dam
No. 24 and would consist of the following new facilities: (1) An intake
structure, (2) a powerhouse containing 3 generating units with a total
installed capacity of 22.3 MW, (3) a 5-mile-long, 46 kV underground
transmission line, connecting to an existing power line, and (4)
appurtenant facilities. The project would have an annual generation of
241 gigawatts-hours, which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Brent Smith, Mississippi 24 Hydro, LLC, 975
South State Highway, Logan, UT 84321; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Tom Papsidero,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13127) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-23503 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 43)]
[Notices]
[Page 11692-11693]
[DOCID:fr04mr08-112]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57386; File No. SR-Phlx-2008-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Amend By-Law Article
XIV, Section 14-5 and Phlx Rule 50

February 27, 2008.
    On January 8, 2008, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to: (i) Modify the timeframes within which monies
owed to the Exchange would become reportable to the Board of Governors
(``Board'') for further action; (ii) eliminate references to the
monetary threshold of $10,000; (iii) conform By-Law language to
indicate that Members, Member Organizations, participants,

and participant organizations would be subject to being terminated for
failure to pay; and (iv) make other clarifying amendments. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on
January 23, 2008.\3\ The Commission received no comments on the
proposed rule change. This order approves 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. 57155 (January 15,
2008), 73 FR 4038.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify the timeframes within which monies
owed to the Exchange would become reportable to the Board, and by which
Members, Member Organizations, participants, and participant
organizations would be subject to a suspension or termination.
Specifically, a Member, or Member Organization, participant, or
participant organization or employee thereof shall be referred directly
to the Board for failure to: (i) Pay fines and/or other monetary
sanctions within 30 days after notice thereof; or (ii) pay dues,
foreign currency options users' fees, fees, other charges, and/or other
monies due, including late charges, within 90 days from the date of the
original invoice. The proposed rule change would eliminate the
references to the monetary threshold of $10,000 from both By-Law
Article XIV, section 14-5 and Rule 50, so that all past due amounts are
reportable to the Board within the specified proposed new timeframes.
In addition, the proposed change to By-Law Article XIV, section 14-5
clarifies that the Board also has the power to terminate, not just
suspend, any permit or rights and privileges of a foreign currency
options participation of any Member, foreign currency options
participant, Member Organization or participant organization or
employee thereof for failure to pay monies owed to the Exchange.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission notes that By-Law Article XIV, Section 14-1
already gives the Board the power to terminate a permit or
participation for failure to pay any fees, dues, or charges owed to
the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange.\5\ In
particular, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ 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. The Commission believes that the modified timeframes
within which past due fines, dues, fees, and other charges owed to the
Exchange would become reportable to the Board appear reasonable and
continue to allow appropriate notice to the affected parties of any
arrearages. In addition, the proposed change will allow the Board to
handle collection matters directly without regard to the amount, which
should enhance the Exchange's collection efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In approving this rule, the Commission notes that it has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\7\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2008-02) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-4080 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P