[Federal Register: October 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 192)]
[Notices]
[Page 56753-56754]
[DOCID:fr04oc07-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2232-543]

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Notice of Amendment of License and
Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

September 27, 2007.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Non-Project Use of Project Lands And
Waters.
    b. Project Number: 2232-543.
    c. Date Filed: August 29, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project No. 2232.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Catawba and Wateree
Rivers, in nine counties in North Carolina (Burke, Alexander, McDowell,
Iredell, Caldwell, Lincoln, Catawba, Gaston, and Mecklenburg Counties)
and five counties in South Carolina (York, Chester, Lancaster,
Fairfield, and Kershaw Counties). The proposed action will take place
in Catawba County, North Carolina. This project does not occupy Tribal
or federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a) 825(r)
and 799 and 801.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Kelvin Reagan, Lake Management
Representative; Duke Energy Corporation; P.O. Box 1006, Charlotte, NC
28201; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Chris Yeakel at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments and or motions: October 29, 2007.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy
of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative
of the

Applicant specified in the particular application.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee has requested Commission
authorization to lease to Long Island Marina, Inc. (Long Island) 3.239
acres of project lands for a commercial marina at the existing,
previously approved Long Island Marina. The marina is located on Lake
Norman in Catawba County, North Carolina. Long Island proposes to re-
configure and upgrade the marina. The new marina would consist of a
total of 100 boat slips, two piers, ten jet-ski ports and one existing
ramp. Dredging of 1700 cubic yards of lake-bed would be required for
this reconfiguration. The marina would serve the general public and the
residents of Long Island Resorts.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field (p-2232) to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers (p-2232-543). All documents (original and eight
copies) should be filed with: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC
20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each
representative of the Applicant specified in the particular
application.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-19591 Filed 10-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 174 (Friday, September 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 55457]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19464]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on a Proposed Change of
Airport Property Land Use From Aeronautical to Non-Aeronautical Use at
Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport, Little Rock, AR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is considering a request from the City of Little Rock-
Little Rock Airport Commission to change approximately 21.29 acres,
located on the south side of the airport bordered by Grundfest Drive
and East Roosevelt Road, from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use
and to authorize the conversion of the airport property.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 11, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this document to Mr. Glenn Boles, Federal
Aviation Administration, Arkansas/Oklahoma Airports District Office
Manager, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177. Email:
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Suzanne Peyton, Director of
Properties, Planning and Development, Bill and Hillary Clinton National
Airport, One Airport Road, Little Rock, AR 72202, telephone (501) 372-
3439. Email: [email protected]; or Mr. Glenn Boles, Federal
Aviation Administration, Arkansas/Oklahoma Airports District Office
Manager, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177, telephone (817)
222-5639. Email: [email protected].
    Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at the above
locations.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposal consists of 21.29 acres
comprised of portions of two tracts of land, consisting of 9.66 acres
within Tract 1 and 11.63 acres within Tract 6. Tract 1 was included in
the original airport tract of 802 acres, which was transferred under
provisions of the Surplus Act of 1944 to the City of Little Rock in May
1951. Tract 6 which in total is 88.8 acres was purchased with Federal
Aid under FAA Grant #9-03-17-C818.
    The land comprising these parcels is outside the forecasted need
for aviation development and is not needed for indirect or direct
aeronautical use. The Airport wishes to develop this land for
compatible non-aeronautical use. The Airport will retain ownership of
this land and ensure the protection of Part 77 surfaces and compatible
land use. The income from the conversion of these parcels will benefit
the aviation community by reinvestment in the airport.
    Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially
assist in the conversion of the subject airport property nor a
determination of eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. The
disposition of proceeds from the conversion of the airport property
will be in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the
Use of Airport Revenue, published in the Federal Register on February
16, 1999. In accordance with section 47107(h) of Title 49, United
States Code, this notice is required to be published in the Federal
Register 30 days before modifying the land-use assurance that requires
the property to be used for an aeronautical purpose.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX.
Ignacio Flores,
Director, Airports Division, FAA, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 2022-19464 Filed 9-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 14, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 176)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 46898-46899]
[DOCID:fr14se09-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0652; Airspace Docket 09-ASO-21]

Modification of Class E Airspace; Sarasota, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule, request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies the Class E airspace at Sarasota/
Bradenton International Airport in Sarasota, FL. After the Sarasota
VORTAC was moved, it was determined that the Class E airspace at the
airport should be modified to facilitate a more efficient operation.
This rule increases the safety and management of the National Airspace
System (NAS) around Sarasota/Bradenton International Airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, December 17, 2009. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Comments should be received no later that October 29, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U. S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building, Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the
Docket Number FAA-2009-0652; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-21, at the
beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received
comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    You may review the public docket containing the rule, any comments
received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office
(see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support,
Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box
20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Direct Final Rule Procedure

    The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse
or negative comments, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule.
The FAA has determined that this rule only involves an established body
of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are
necessary to keep them operationally current. Unless a written adverse
or negative comment or a written notice of intent to submit and adverse
or negative comment is received within the comment period, the
regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the
close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the
Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were
received and confirming the effective date. If the FAA receives, within
the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice
of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct
final rule will be published in the Federal Register, and a notice of
proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Comments Invited

    Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was
not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are
invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views,
or arguments as they may desire. An electronic copy of this document
may be downloaded from and comments may be submitted and reviewed 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/.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES above
or through the Web site. All communications received on or before the
closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be
amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received.
    Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. Factual information that supports
the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in
evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether
additional rulemaking action would be needed. All comments submitted
will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments,
in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. Those
wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in
response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on
which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-
2009-0652; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-21.'' The postcard will be date
stamped and returned to the commenter.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 modifies Class E3 airspace at Sarasota, FL by expanding the
controlled airspace, extending upward from the surface of the Earth to
support IFR operations at Sarasota/Bradenton International Airport.
Additionally, the existing Class E airspace that extends upwards from
700 feet above the surface of the Earth (E5) will have its dimensions
decreased from a 10-mile radius to a 7.9-mile radius of the Sarasota/
Bradenton International Airport.
    Class E3 airspace designations for airspace areas extending upwards
from the surface of the Earth and Class E5 airspace designations for
airspace areas extending from 700 feet above the surface of the Earth
are published in Paragraph 6003 and 6005 respectively of FAA Order
7400.9S, dated October 3, 2008, and effective October 31, 2008, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E3 and E5
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Agency Findings

    The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among various levels of government. Therefore, it is
determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132.

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it modifies the Class E3 and E5 airspace at Sarasota/Bradenton
International Airport in Sarasota, FL.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9S, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated October 3, 2008, and effective October 31, 2008, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 6003 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension.

* * * * *

ASO FL E3 Sarasota, FL [REVISED]

Sarasota/Bradenton International Airport, Sarasota, FL
    (Lat. 27[deg]23'43'' N., long. 82[deg]33'14'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.4 miles
each side of the 140[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from a
5-mile radius of Sarasota/Bradenton International Airport to 6.2
miles southeast of the airport and that airspace 2.4 miles each side
of the 293[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from a 5-mile
radius of Sarasota/Bradenton International Airport to 7.9 miles
northwest of the airport. This Class E airspace area is effective
during the specific days and times established in advance by a
Notice to Airmen. The effective days and times will thereafter be
continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending Upward from 700 feet or
More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO FL E5 Sarasota, FL [REVISED]

Sarasota/Bradenton International Airport, Sarasota, FL
    (Lat. 27[deg]23'43'' N., long. 82[deg]33'14'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.9-mile radius of the Sarasota/Bradenton International
Airport.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a
Class D Surface Areas.

* * * * *

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on August 31, 2009.
Barry A. Knight,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. E9-21896 Filed 9-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM DATE: March 10, 2004 TO: Effluent Guidelines Planning Record FROM: M. Ahmar Siddiqui RE: Discharge status of PBST facilities, as enumerated by TRI and PCS databases As part of the development of the 2004/ 2005 Effluent Guidelines Plan, a study of the petroleum bulk stations and terminal industry ( PBST, SIC 5171) is being conducted. PBST was identified as an industry of interest due to stakeholder comments and an expected similarity of operations and wastewater characteristics to those of the petroleum refining industry, which is itself being evaluated in a very detailed manner by EPA for potential future effluent guidelines development. Moreover, depending on the outcome of EPA's study of PBSTs, a decision could be made to begin development of effluent guidelines for PBSTs as a new subcategory under the current petroleum refining rule.

Any assessment of PBSTs will necessarily begin with an examination of effluent discharge characteristics. Two EPA databases, the Toxic Release Inventory ( TRI) and Permit Compliance System ( PCS) databases, are being used to evaluate these wastewaters. These databases were chosen because they can identify toxic charges on a nationwide basis ( TRI) and because they can provide information about large direct dischargers in an industry ( PCS). While it is true that there are some limitations in both databases ( e. g., PCS does not reveal much information about small direct dischargers and none about indirect dischargers), EPA believes that both are useful as a " first cut" examination tool.

The attached MS Excel spreadsheet lists those facilities reporting discharges in TRI and PCS. The number of PBSTs reporting discharges to TRI in 2000 was 167 ( the total number of PBSTs reporting to TRI was 502), while, in PCS, eight PCS " major" dischargers reported. Of the 167 TRI reporters, 125 were solely direct and 27 were solely indirect, with the remaining 15 being both direct and indirect dischargers. The 125 solely direct dischargers accounted for 5,325 toxicweighted pound equivalents ( TWPE) discharged, while the solely indirect discharging facilities discharged 8 TWPE. The 15 facilities that were both direct and indirect dischargers accounted for 2,677 TWPE discharged. The eight PCS major dischargers reported discharging 5,389 TWPE.

One final note regarding the TRI reports: with only 167 of 502 reporting facilities reporting discharges to surface waters, zero dischargers account for nearly two thirds ( 335 of 502) of the reporting facilities. Whether this proportion can be considered representative of the industry as a whole is not yet clear, though it is clearly an item for future study.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 151 (Monday, August 6, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38245-38247]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16479]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2018 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0392; Product Identifier 2018-NM-044-AD; Amendment
39-19349; AD 2018-16-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The
Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes. This AD was prompted by report indicating that cracks were
found on the fuselage frame webs at stations forward and aft of the
overwing emergency exits between stringer-7 (S-7) and S-8. This AD
requires repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for
cracking of the fuselage frame webs at certain stations between S-7 and
S-8 and applicable on-condition actions. We are issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 10, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September
10, 2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0392.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0392; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Operations, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Truong, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 562-627-
5210; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company
Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 11, 2018 (83 FR 21946).
The NPRM was prompted by a report indicating that cracks were found on
the fuselage frame webs at stations forward and aft of the overwing
emergency exits between stringers S-7 and S-8. The NPRM proposed to
require repetitive HFEC inspections for cracking of the fuselage frame
webs at certain stations between S-7 and S-8 and applicable on-
condition actions.
    We are issuing this AD to address fuselage frame web cracking,
which may lead to subsequent failure of the surrounding structure, and
ultimately result in rapid decompression and loss of structural
integrity of the airplane.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. We have considered the comments received. The Boeing
Company Airplanes indicated their support for the NPRM.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the supplemental
type certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the actions specified
in the NPRM.
    We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of
the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph
(c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not
affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD.
Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a
``change in product'' alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval
request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR
39.17.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this final rule with the changes described previously and except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1371 RB,
dated January 19, 2018. This service information describes procedures
for repetitive HFEC inspections for cracking of the fuselage frame webs
at certain stations between S-7 and S-8 and applicable on-condition
actions. The on-condition action is repair. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 63 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repetitive inspections...........  Up to 14 work-hours              $0  Up to $1,190 per     Up to $74,970 per
                                    x $85 per hour =                     inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
                                    $1,190 per
                                    inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (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),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2018-16-09 The Boeing Company Airplanes Amendment 39-19349; Docket
No. FAA-2018-0392; Product Identifier 2018-NM-044-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 10, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -
200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in
any category.
    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/EBD1CEC7B301293E86257CB30045557A?OpenDocument&Highlight=st01219se)
does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by
this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is
installed, a ``change in product'' alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the
requirements of 14 CFR 39.17

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that cracks were
found on the fuselage frame webs at stations forward and aft of the
overwing emergency exits between stringer-7 (S-7) and S-8. We are
issuing this AD to address fuselage frame web cracking, which may
lead to subsequent failure of the surrounding structure, and
ultimately result in rapid decompression and loss of structural
integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions for Group 1 Airplanes

    For airplanes identified as Group 1 in Boeing Alert Requirements
Bulletin 737-53A1371 RB, dated January 19, 2018: Within 120 days
after the effective date of this AD, inspect the fuselage frame webs
at station (STA) 616 and STA 639 between S-7 and S-8 and do all
applicable repairs, using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

(h) Required Actions for Groups 2 Through 4 Airplanes

    Except for airplanes identified in paragraph (g) of this AD and
except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD: At the applicable
times specified in the ``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing Alert
Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1371 RB, dated January 19, 2018, do all
applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin
737-53A1371 RB, dated January 19, 2018.

    Note 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD:  Guidance for accomplishing
the actions required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1371, dated January 19, 2018, which is referred to
in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1371 RB, dated January
19, 2018.

(i) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where Boeing Alert Requirements Service Bulletin 737-
53A1371 RB, dated January 19, 2018, uses the phrase ``the original
issue date of Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1371 RB,'' this AD
requires using ``the effective date of this AD.''
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1371 RB,
dated January 19, 2018, specifies contacting Boeing, this AD
requires repair using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority
to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your
request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards
District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may
be emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be
approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration
deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact David Truong,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-
5224; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1371 RB, dated
January 19, 2018.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on July 25, 2018.
James Cashdollar,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-16479 Filed 8-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                             OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFTEY
AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

RE:  	Meeting with Libby Sommer of Bolt Threads and EPA to discuss use of phthalates in footwear and apparel industry
List of Documents
 Meeting Summary
 Attendees
Meeting Summary
On October 21, 2019, CCD and NPCD met with Libby Sommer of Bolt Threads to discuss the use of phthalates and flame retardants undergoing prioritization under TSCA Section 6. Ms. Sommer described industry challenges and efforts in obtaining chemical information from vendors in apparel and footwear supply chains. She indicated phthalates could be present in screen printed fabrics and in flexible footwear components.

Attendees
EPA:
Claire Brisse
Jordan Garbin
Bethany Masten
Claudia Menasche
Doug Parsons
Alex Smith

Bolt Threads:
Libby Sommer


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 190 (Monday, October 1, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49449-49451]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21233]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84285; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2018-44]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Modify Rule 961 Regarding the Give Up
of a Clearing Member by ATP Holders and Conforming Changes to Rule
933NY

September 25, 2018.
    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 September 11, 2018, NYSE American LLC (the ``Exchange''
or ``NYSE American'') 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

    The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 961 regarding the Give Up of a
Clearing Member by ATP Holders and proposes conforming changes to Rule
933NY. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website
at www.nyse.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 purpose of this filing is to modify Rule 961 regarding the Give
Up of a Clearing Member \4\ by ATP Holders and to make conforming
changes to Rule 933NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rule 900.2NY(11) defines ``Clearing Member'' as an Exchange
ATP Holder which has been admitted to membership in the Options
Clearing Corporation pursuant to the provisions of the Rules of the
Options Clearing Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 961: Current Process To Give Up a Clearing Member
    In 2015, the Exchange adopted its current ``give up'' procedure for
ATP Holders executing transactions on the Exchange.\5\ Per Rule 961, an
ATP Holder may give up a ``Designated Give Up'' or its ``Guarantor,''
as defined in the Rule and described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 75642 (August 7,
2015), 80 FR 48594 (August 13, 2015) (SR-NYSEMKT-2015-55).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Rule defines ``Designated Give Up'' as any Clearing Member that
an ATP Holder (other than a Market Maker \6\) identifies to the
Exchange, in writing, as a Clearing Member the ATP Holder requests the
ability to give up. To designate a ``Designated Give Up,'' an ATP
Holder must submit written notification to the Exchange. Specifically,
the Exchange uses a standardized form (``Notification Form''). An ATP
Holder may currently designate any Clearing Member as a Designated Give
Up. Additionally, there is no minimum or maximum number of Designated
Give Ups that an ATP Holder must identify. Similarly, should an ATP
Holder no longer want the ability to give up a particular Designated
Give Up, the ATP Holder informs the Exchange in writing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For purposes of this rule, references to ``Market Maker''
refer to ATP Holders acting in the capacity of a Market Maker and
include all Exchange Market Maker capacities e.g., Lead Market
Makers. As explained below, Market Makers give up Guarantors that
have executed a Letter of Guarantee on behalf of the Marker Maker,
pursuant to Rule 932NY; Market Makers need not give up Designated
Give Ups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 961 also requires that the Exchange notify a Clearing Member,
in writing and as soon as practicable, of each ATP Holder that has
identified it as a Designated Give Up. However, the Exchange will not
accept any instructions from a Clearing Member to prohibit an ATP
Holder from designating the Clearing Member as a Designated Give Up.
Additionally, there is no subjective evaluation of an ATP Holder's list
of Designated Give Ups by the Exchange. The Rule does, however, provide
that a Designated Give Up may determine to not accept a trade on which
its name was given up so long as it believes in good faith that it has
a valid reason not to accept the trade.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Rule 961(f)(1) (setting forth procedures for rejecting a
trade). An example of a valid reason to reject a trade may be that
the Designated Give Up does not have a customer for that particular
trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Rule defines ``Guarantor'' as a Clearing Member that has issued
a Letter of Guarantee or Letter of Authorization for the executing ATP
Holder, pursuant to Rules of the Exchange \8\ that is in effect at the
time of the execution of the applicable trade. An executing ATP Holder
may give up its Guarantor without such Guarantor being a ``Designated
Give Up.'' Additionally, Rule 924NY provides that a Letter of Guarantee
is required to be issued and filed by each Clearing Member through
which a Market Maker clears transactions. Accordingly, a Market Maker
is enabled to give up only a Guarantor that had executed a Letter of
Guarantee on its behalf pursuant to Rule 924NY; a Market Maker does not
need to identify any Designated Give Ups. Like Designated Give Ups,
Guarantors likewise have the ability to reject a trade.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Rule 924NY (Letters of Guarantees); Rule 932NY (Letters
of Authorization).
    \9\ See Rule 961(f)(2) (providing that a Guarantor may ``change
the give up to another Clearing Member that has agreed to be the
give up on the subject trade, provided such Clearing Member has
notified the Exchange and the executing ATP Holder in writing of its
intent to accept the trade'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beginning in early 2018, certain Clearing Firms (in conjunction
with the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association
(``SIFMA'')) expressed concerns related to the process by which
executing brokers on U.S. options exchanges (the ``Exchanges'') are
allowed to designate or `give up' a clearing firm for purposes of
clearing particular transactions. The SIFMA-affiliated Clearing Members
indicated that the Federal Reserve has

recently identified the current give-up process as a significant source
of risk for clearing firms. SIFMA-affiliated Clearing Members
subsequently requested that the Exchanges alleviate this risk by
amending Exchange rules governing the give up process.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'') recently filed to amend its
give up procedure to require CBOE Trading Permit Holders (each a
``TPH'') to receive written authorization from a Clearing TPH
(``CTPH'') before it may give up that CTPH. See Securities and
Exchange Act Release No. 83872 (August 17, 2018), 83 FR 42751
(August 23, 2018) (SR-CBOE-2018-55). The Exchange's proposal leads
to the same result of providing Clearing Members the ability to
control risk, but it differs in process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendment to Rules 961 and 933NY
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 961 to provide a means for a
Designated Give Up to opt out of acting as the give up for certain ATP
Holders. As proposed, Rule 961(b)(4) would be revised to provide that
the Exchange would ``accept instruction from a Clearing Member not to
permit an ATP Holder to designate the Clearing Member as the Designated
Give Up.'' The Exchange further proposes to add language to Rule
961(b)(7) to provide that ``[i]f a Clearing Member no longer wants to
be a Designated Give Up of a particular ATP Holder, the Clearing Member
must notify the Exchange, in a form and manner prescribed by the
Exchange.'' In practice, a Clearing Member that has been designated as
the Designated Give Up need only tell the Exchange that it refuses this
designation.
    Consistent with this proposed change, the Exchange also proposes to
amend Rule 933NY(f) regarding the responsibilities of Floor Brokers to
maintain error accounts ``for the purposes of correcting bona fide
errors, as provided in Rule 960.'' As proposed, the Exchange would
specify that ``it will not be a violation of this provision if a trade
is transferred away from an error account through the CMTA process at
OCC.'' \11\ This additional language would enable an executing ATP
Holder that has executed an order to CMTA that order through its own
clearing relationship. For example, assume a Floor Broker executes a
trade giving up Firm A (a Clearing Member that is one of its Designated
Give Ups) and, after the execution, the Floor Broker is informed that a
portion of the trade needs to be changed to give-up Firm B (a Clearing
Member that is not one of the Floor Broker's Designated Give Ups). The
proposed language would enable the Floor Broker to CMTA the trade to
Firm B through its own clearing arrangement (i.e., error account/Letter
of Authorization) rather than nullifying or busting the trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See proposed Rule 933NY(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The Exchange proposes to announce the implementation date of the
proposed rule change via Trader Notice, to be published no later than
thirty (30) days following Commission approval. The implementation date
will be no later than sixty (60) days following Commission approval.
This additional time would afford the Exchange and ATP Holders the time
to make any changes current give up designations.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \12\ of
the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\13\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Particularly, as discussed above, several Clearing Firms affiliated
with SIFMA have recently expressed concerns relating to the current
give up process that permits ATP Holders to identify any Clearing
Members as a Designated Give Up for purposes of clearing particular
transactions. Also, as noted above, the Clearing Members have relayed
that the Federal Reserve has recently identified the current give-up
process (i.e., a process that lacks authorization) as a significant
source of risk for clearing firms. The Exchange believes the proposed
changes to Rule 961 would help alleviate this risk by enabling Clearing
Members to refuse to act as a Designated Give Up for certain ATP
Holders, which would afford Clearing Members a measure of control. The
Exchange believes its proposal addresses concerns raised by Clearing
Members, while maintaining the basic give up process. The Exchange does
not anticipate Clearing Members to routinely refuse the role of
Designated Give Up, but rather to utilize this option only when there
is a valid reason and good faith basis to do so. The Exchange notes
that Clearing Member would still have the ability to reject trades on
an ad hoc basis for ATP Holders for which it has not refused to be a
Designated Give Up. Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposed
rule change is reasonable and continues to provide certainty that a
Clearing Member would be responsible for a trade, which protects
investors and the public interest.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed change to Rule 933NY
would protect investors because it would permit an executing ATP Holder
to utilize its error account to CMTA an order through its own clearing
relationship. This would preserve executions while accommodating the
proposed rule change that could result in an executing ATP Holder not
being permissioned to for a particular give-up.
    Thus, this proposal would foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that this proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change would impose an unnecessary burden on
intramarket competition because it would apply equally to all similarly
situated ATP Holders. The Exchange also notes that, should the proposed
changes make the Exchange more attractive for trading, market
participants trading on other exchanges can always elect to become ATP
Holders on the Exchange to take advantage of the trading opportunities.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or

    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2018-44 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-NYSEAMER-2018-44. 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 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received
will be posted without change. 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-NYSEAMER-2018-44, and should be
submitted on or before October 22, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-21233 Filed 9-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


NOTE SUBJECT: Consultation with Ottawa County, Oklahoma County Commissioners TO: File FROM: Stephen Hoffman DATE: 2/ 27/ 06 The purpose of this note is to document consultation with the Ottawa County, Oklahoma County Commissioners. Oklahoma DOT staff indicated that Ottawa County had considerable experience in the use of chat in pavement. On September 26, 2005 I called Mr. John Clarke who has sat on the County Road commission since 1985. I briefly explained the nature and scope of the proposed rule. Mr Clarke noted that chat had been used as an aggregate substitute 30 40 years ago but had not been used in concrete for some time. He also stated that chat used in concrete would probably have to be screened, while unscreened material has been used in hot mix asphalt. He noted that chat is currently used in hot mix asphalt and has been used between 25 50 percent of the aggregate in hot mix asphalts with good results. Mr. Clarke noted that chat is very insoluble and holds us well to wear. Chat was used as a deicing material fro many years throughout the county but that practice stopped approximately 4 5 years ago. Mr. Clarke noted that the University of Oklahoma was conducting an air and runoff monitoring program at roads that had used chat along the East 30 Road between South 530 and South 550. Results of this monitoring may be available within a year.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 20 (Wednesday, January 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6318-6319]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01912]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR13-22-000]

SourceGas Distribution LLC; Notice of Petition for Rate Approval

    Take notice that on January 15, 2013, SourceGas Distribution LLC
(SourceGas) filed a rate election pursuant to section 284.123(b)(1) of
the Commissions regulations. SourceGas states the rate election for
transportation service is based on rates for comparable service on file
with the Public Service Commission of Wyoming, as more fully detailed
in the petition.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 30,
2013.

    Dated: January 17, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-01912 Filed 1-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


	                   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

            DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                    OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                             WASHINGTON, DC

    Served:  August 6, 2004

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

2004 U.S.-Mexico Combination Service Proceeding

DOCKET OST-2004-18692

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

NOTICE

By Order 2004-7-17, July 21, 2004, we instituted the 2004 U.S.-Mexico
Combination Service Proceeding, Docket OST-2004-18692, to select one
primary and one backup carrier, to provide foreign air transportation of
persons, property, and mail over the following transborder routes:
Denver-Cancun, Denver-Puerto Vallarta, Detroit-Cancun, and St.
Louis-Cancun.  We also consolidated the already-filed applications into
this proceeding.  In addition, Order 2004-7-17 established a procedural
timetable for this case as follows:  Petitions for Reconsideration-

July 28; Answers to Petitions-August 2; Direct Exhibits-August 16;
Rebuttal Exhibits-August 30; and Briefs-September 7.

On July 27, 2004, Frontier Airlines, Inc. (Frontier) filed a petition
for reconsideration, requesting additional time on the procedural
schedule, stating that its carrier representatives are focusing on a
variety of planning and scheduling issues including developing winter
schedules, and are also responding to rapidly changing industry
conditions.  Frontier requested that the procedural schedule be modified
by extending the dates as follows:  Petitions for Reconsideration-no
change; Answers to Petitions-August 9; Direct Exhibits-August 23;
Rebuttal Exhibits-September 7; and Briefs-September 17.

By Notice dated July 30, 2004, we denied Frontier’s request to extend
the date for answers to petitions for reconsideration and deferred
action on the balance of the request until after receipt of answers to
the petition.

Frontier and United Air Lines, Inc. (United) each filed answers to the
petition for reconsideration.  In its answer, Frontier states that it
continues to believe that some additional time must be allowed for each
carrier to address thoroughly all of the issues.  In this regard,
Frontier specifically notes that the September 7 due date for briefs is
immediately after the Labor Day weekend.  Frontier states that it wants
to see the selection process completed in a reasonable time period and,
therefore, would accept a September 15 deadline for the submission of
briefs as an alternative to its earlier-proposed deadline of September
17.  United opposes Frontier’s petition, stating that the Department
should proceed with the schedule set forth in Order 2004-7-17.  United
argues that it is competing in both the Denver-Cancun and Denver-Puerto
Vallarta city-pair proceedings, while Frontier is competing only in the
St. Louis-Cancun city-pair proceeding; that, in establishing an
expedited procedural schedule in Order 2004-7-17, the Department was, in
fact, granting the requests of both United and Frontier to act on the
applications as soon as possible; that Frontier’s petition to extend
the procedural dates is an attempt by Frontier to delay the introduction
of competitive service in the Denver-Cancun market, where Frontier is
already an incumbent; and that Frontier’s request contradicts the
concern it expressed when it objected to United’s request for pendente
lite authority in the Denver-Cancun city-pair market on the basis that
Departmental consideration of United’s pendente lite request might
delay the carrier selection proceedings here.  No other responsive
pleadings were filed.

Upon consideration of the pleadings filed here, we have decided to
grant, in part, the request of Frontier to extend the procedural
schedule in this Docket.  Accordingly, we will modify the procedural
timetable established in Order 2004-7-17 as follows:  Direct Exhibits
will still be due no later than August 16, with Rebuttal Exhibits still
due no later than August 30; however, Briefs will now be due no later
than September 8.  We will deny the request of Frontier for longer-term
extension of the procedural dates in this proceeding.

As we have stated previously in this matter, in view of the immediate
availability of the route rights involved, and in light of the carrier
interest to commence services on these routes as soon as possible, it is
our intent to process this case on an expedited procedural schedule.
Under these circumstances, we do not believe that Frontier has provided
any evidence to convince us that it would be in the public interest to
extend the procedural dates as it has requested.  That said, we have
decided to modify the filing date for Briefs by one day to accommodate
Frontier’s specific concern regarding the Labor Day weekend.  We
believe our action here will not prejudice any party in this proceeding,
as we can still maintain an expedited schedule in this proceeding.

Therefore, acting under authority assigned in 14 CFR 385.13(p), we
modify the procedural schedule in this proceeding as outline above and,
to the extent not granted, deny the request of Frontier for longer-term
extension of the procedural timetable in this case.  Persons entitled to
petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this
Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR 385.30, may file
their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this
Notice.  This action was effective when taken (August 6, 2004), and the
filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

We will serve this notice by electronic mail on all parties to this
proceeding, and hereby authorize service of documents by facsimile and
by electronic mail.

By:

					PAUL L. GRETCH

Director, Office of International Aviation

(SEAL)

Dated:  August 6, 2004

An electronic version of this notice is available on the World Wide Web
at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_ aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_ aviation.asp

   See Frontier’s answer dated July 26 to United’s motion for
pendente lite authority, at 4.


[Federal Register: May 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 97)]
[Notices]
[Page 28529-28531]
[DOCID:fr21my07-83]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55762; File No. SR-Amex-2007-47]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Change the Method By Which Specialists on the Exchange Execute Odd-Lot
Market Orders Under Rule 205--AEMI

May 15, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 11, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
Exchange. Amex has filed this proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(5) thereunder,\4\ which renders it
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt changes to Rule 205--AEMI in order
to change the method by which specialists on the Exchange execute odd-
lot market orders.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on Amex's Web
site at http://www.amex.com, at the Exchange's principal office, 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, Amex included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. Amex has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is currently operating, and has adopted rules in
connection with the operation of, its new hybrid market trading
platform for equity products and exchange-traded funds, designated as
AEMISM (the Auction and Electronic Market Integration
platform). Rule 205--AEMI (``Manner of Executing Odd-Lot Orders'')
requires the specialist for a relevant security to be the contra-party
for executions of any odd-lot orders in that security received by AEMI
and specifies, in relevant part, the pricing at which such executions
must occur. In the case of odd-lot market orders that are not executed
within 30 seconds of receipt by AEMI, the specialist is currently
required to execute such orders at the price of the qualifying national
best bid or offer (``NBBO''). In order to ensure a fair and orderly
market, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 205--AEMI to provide for
such odd-lot market orders to now be executed at the specialist's
quote, rather than the NBBO.
(i) How Rule 205--AEMI Works Today
    Rule 205--AEMI(b)(i)-(iii) currently requires the specialist to
execute a market odd-lot order at the price of a subsequent round-lot
execution that occurs in the subject security on the Exchange for 30
seconds after the odd-lot order is entered. However, a market odd-lot
order is executed at this round-lot price only to the extent that there
are a sufficient number of shares subsequently transacted in round-lots
on the Exchange within that 30 second window to match any imbalance
between the pending odd-lot market buy and sell orders. If there are an
insufficient number of shares in round-lot executions within that 30
seconds from which to benchmark the market odd-lot execution price of
the imbalance, Rule 205--AEMI(b)(iv) dictates that the NBBO be used as
the default price at which the specialist is required to execute.\5\

(ii) The Identified Deficiency in Rule 205--AEMI
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Applying the rule, assume AEMI receives market odd-lot buy
orders aggregating 1,500 shares and market odd-lot sell orders
aggregating 3,500 shares in a security. The next and only round-lot
execution on the Amex within the next 30 seconds is 500 shares at
$10, and, at the expiration of the 30 seconds, the NBB is 100 shares
at $10.50 on NYSE. The specialist is required in time priority of
receipt of the odd-lot orders into AEMI to:
     Sell/buy an equal number of shares on each side of the
odd-lot market at $10, which clears the 1,500 shares of odd-lot
market buy orders and leaves an imbalance of 2,000 of the original
3,500 shares of odd-lot market sell orders.
     In response to the remaining 2,000 shares of odd-lot
market sell orders, buy a maximum of 500 shares at $10 because that
is the total size of subsequent round-lot transactions within the
30-second window. (This assumes that the remaining odd-lot sell
orders with greatest time priority total 500 shares exactly. If a
partial execution would result by stopping the specialist from
buying at $10 once the 500 share threshold was reached, then the
specialist could buy more than 500 shares at $10 so as to permit
execution in full of the last odd-lot order at that price. See Rule
205--AEMI(b)(ii).)
     At the expiration of 30 seconds, purchase the 1,500
shares remaining from the odd-lot sell orders at $10.50 (the NBB),
even though the NBB was for only 100 shares and might not reflect
the price at which the specialist would or should otherwise be
willing to purchase 1,500 shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It has become apparent to the Exchange that the current version of
Rule 205--AEMI (insofar as it forces the specialist to execute any
unexecuted imbalance in odd-lot orders at the NBBO) provides too much
opportunity for manipulation to the detriment of both the specialists
and accuracy in pricing. In practice, the Exchange has recently
observed a high number of odd-lot market orders in less liquid
securities and believes that this is a direct result of the rule's
guarantee of execution at the NBBO irrespective of whether the size or
timeliness of the NBBO is comparable to those of the odd-lot orders on
the Exchange. The Exchange is concerned that off-floor participants may
be breaking up larger round-lots into multiple odd-lots to take
advantage of NBBO pricing on the Exchange where such pricing would be
unattainable if the larger orders were submitted and price discovery
was possible. This behavior would violate Exchange rules \6\ but
unfortunately can be ascertained only via case-by-case post-trade
investigation. Additionally, in the case of very highly-priced, yet
thinly traded, securities, specialists are bearing inappropriate
burdens as odd-lot dealers as well. Below are two examples of what can
occur:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Rule 4 (generally prohibiting manipulation of securities
prices) and Rule 208 (applicable in AEMI via Rule 1A-AEMI(d)),
entitled ``Bunching of Odd-Lot Orders,'' which provides in relevant
part:
    When a person gives, either for his own account, for various
accounts in which he has an actual monetary interest, or for
accounts over which such person is exercising investment discretion,
buy or sell odd-lot orders which aggregate one or more round-lots, a
member or member organization shall not accept such orders for
execution unless they are, as far as possible, consolidated into
round-lots, except that selling orders marked ``long'' or ``short
exempt'' need not be so consolidated with selling orders marked
``short.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Assume that an illiquid security has an average daily
volume of 15,000 shares. Assume also that the NBBO is $5.00 bid for 100
shares on NASDAQ and 500 shares offered at $5.10 on NYSE. The liquidity
around the NBBO is very thin, and no round-lot executions have taken
place over the last four hours, during which period Amex nonetheless
receives many odd-lot market orders. In accordance with Rule 205--AEMI,
each odd-lot order is executed after 30 seconds against the specialist
at the NBBO automatically, although the specialist is not quoting at
the NBBO, the NBBO has not changed, and no round-lot trades have
occurred in the marketplace. Over the course of the four hours, the
specialist is forced to purchase an aggregate of 10,553 shares in odd-
lots, each at a price of $5.00, even though grossly disproportionate to
the 100 share order size connected to the $5.00 NBB, the overall
activity in the marketplace, and the likely lower value at which an
equivalent aggregate volume of round lots would have transacted in such
an illiquid market. As such, the specialist is forced to bear an
inappropriate amount of risk of loss as odd-lot dealer because, rather
than price discovery being permitted to occur as would occur with
round-lot quotes, the specialist is forced to purchase all of the odd-
lots at the stale NBBO price.
     Assume a very highly-priced thinly-traded security with an
NBBO of 100 shares bid for $800 on NASDAQ and 100 shares offered at
$806 on NYSE. Because of the high price of the shares, round-lot
executions are infrequent and no round-lot executions have taken place
on Amex over the last four hours. Nonetheless, Amex receives multiple
odd-lot market sale orders aggregating 367 shares over that time
period. In accordance with Rule 205--AEMI, each odd-lot order is
executed after 30 seconds against the specialist at $800, and, over the
course of the four hours, the specialist is forced to purchase an
aggregate of 367 shares in odd-lots at $800 per share for $293,600.
Because of the high stock price, the absence of price discovery
amplifies the costs to the specialist in the event of disparity between
the stale NBBO and the true value of the security. Had the mandatory
$800 bid been reduced by a mere 0.5% (to $796)--to reflect what a
hypothetical reasonable investor would pay for a thinly-traded $800
security with an imbalance of sell interest in the market--the
aggregate outlay would be $1468 less.
(iii) The Solution
    As described above, the Exchange believes that the way odd-lot
market orders are currently being executed today (only insofar as the
NBBO price is imposed under Rule 205--AEMI(b)(i)-(iv) as a default
price upon the specialists in the absence of a sufficient number of
round-lot order executions on the Exchange within 30 seconds of each
odd-lot market order) is inconsistent with the specialists' obligations
to quote and maintain a fair and orderly market. Moreover, odd-lot
orders are not subject to the Limit Order Display Rule \7\ or Order
Protection Rule \8\ under Regulation NMS and do not have the same
standing as round-lot orders with regard to price protection.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to change the default price in Rule
205--AEMI(b) under which specialists are required to execute odd-lot
market orders not executed within 30 seconds after receipt by AEMI from
the NBBO to the specialist's own best bid or offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 242.604.
    \8\ 17 CFR 242.611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this proposal properly balances a more
reasonable level of risk exposure for the specialists with their
obligation to trade odd lots and deliver timely executions to
investors. In particular, the proposal would permit price discovery to
occur (via programmed automated adjustments flowing from executions
against the specialist's quote) while still requiring the specialist to
provide timely executions of odd-lot market orders. As such, executions
of odd lots on the Exchange will be more likely to occur at prices
which reflect the most current market conditions. In this regard, the
Exchange points out that specialists are specifically required by
Exchange rules to formulate quotes to avoid wide swings in the pricing
of prior and subsequent transactions,\9\ so the substitution of the
specialist's quote for the NBBO in Rule 205--AEMI is not intended to,
and should not result in, unreasonably priced executions of odd-lot
market orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Commentary .03 to Rule 170--AEMI provides in relevant part:
``A specialist's quotation, made for his own account, should be such
that a transaction effected at his quoted price or within the quoted
spread * * * would bear a proper relation to preceding transactions
and anticipated succeeding transactions or, in the case of ETFs or
other derivatively priced securities, to the value of underlying or
related securities.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    The proposed rule change would result in the following textual
changes in Rule 205--AEMI:
     Substitution of the words ``specialist's best bid'' and
``specialist's best offer'' for ``qualified national best bid'' and
``qualified national best offer'' where such terms appear in the rule.
     Removal of Commentary .04 to the rule, which deals solely
with explaining the definition of ``qualified national best bid or
offer,'' which will no longer be relevant to Rule 205--AEMI.

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is designed to be consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it 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 national market system,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not: (1) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (3) have the effect of limiting
the access to or availability of an existing order entry or trading
system of the Exchange, the foregoing rule change has become effective
immediately pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \12\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(5) thereunder.\13\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily
abrogate 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 the furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 at http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
; or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-Amex-2007-47 on the subject line.

Paper comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Amex-2007-47. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File No. SR-Amex-2007-47 and should be submitted on or before June 11,
2007.

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

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-9659 Filed 5-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32919-32920]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13162]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER21-2140-000]

Haystack Wind Project, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Haystack Wind Project, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 6, 2021.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and

interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 16, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-13162 Filed 6-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 63)]
[Notices]
[Page 15295-15296]
[DOCID:fr03ap09-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0653]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Filing Objections and
Requests for a Hearing on a Regulation or Order

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES:  Fax written comments on the collection of information by May 4,
2009.

ADDRESSES:  To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0184.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Jonna Capezzuto, Office of
Information Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Filing Objections and Requests for a Hearing on a Regulation or Order--
(OMB Control Number 0910-0184)--Extension

    The regulations in 21 CFR 12.22, issued under section 701(e)(2) of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C.
371(e)(2)), set forth the instructions for filing objections and
requests for a hearing on a regulation or order under Sec.  12.20(d)
(21 CFR 12.20(d)). Objections and requests must be submitted within the
time specified in Sec.  12.20(e). Each objection, for which a hearing
has been requested, must be separately numbered and specify the
provision of the regulation or the proposed order. In addition, each
objection must include a detailed description and analysis of the
factual information and any other document, with some exceptions,
supporting the objection. Failure to include this information
constitutes a waiver of the right to a hearing on that objection. FDA
uses the description and analysis to determine whether a hearing
request is justified. The description and analysis may be used only for
the purpose of determining whether a hearing has been justified under
21 CFR 12.24 and do not limit the evidence that may be presented if a
hearing is granted.
    Respondents to this information collection are those parties that
may be adversely affected by an order or regulation.
    In the Federal Register of January 14, 2009 (74 FR 2080), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the information
collection provisions. No comments were received.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                  Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      No. of         Annual Frequency       Total Annual        Hours per
21 CFR Section     Respondents         per Response          Responses           Response         Total Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.22                           5                     1                  5                 20                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    The burden estimate for this collection of information is based on
past filings. Agency personnel, responsible for processing the filing
of objections and requests for a public hearing on a specific
regulation or order, estimate approximately five requests are received
by the agency annually, with each requiring approximately 20 hours of
preparation time.

    Dated: March 27, 2009.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E9-7472 Filed 4-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 50 (Monday, March 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 13535]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05871]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No., 2232-610]

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Notice of Effectiveness of Withdrawal
of Rehearing Request

    On August 11, 2009, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy), filed
a petition asking the Commission to declare that the state of South
Carolina has waived its water quality certification for the relicensing
of Duke Energy's Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project No. 2232. On
April 17, 2014, the Commission denied the petition.\1\ On May 16, 2014,
Duke Energy filed a request for rehearing. By delegated order issued
June 16, 2014, rehearing was granted for the limited purpose of further
consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, 147 FERC ] 61,037.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 5, 2014, based on an agreement among Duke Energy, two
environmental stakeholders, and South Carolina's water quality agency,
Duke Energy filed a motion to stay deliberation on the rehearing
request. On February 18, 2015, having received a final water quality
certification from the state, Duke Energy filed a notice of withdrawal
of its rehearing request.
    Pursuant to Rule 216 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure,\2\ the withdrawal of any pleading is effective at the end of
15 days from the date the notice of withdrawal is filed if, within that
period, no motion in opposition to the notice is filed and the
Commission takes no action disallowing withdrawal. The 15-day period
closed on March 5, 2015. No such pleading was filed, and the Commission
took no such action. Accordingly, Duke Energy's rehearing request is
withdrawn and this proceeding is thereby terminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 385.216 (2014).

    Dated: March 6, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-05871 Filed 3-13-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01P