[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30226-30227]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12703]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-490-000]

Delfin LNG LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on May 8, 2015 Delfin LNG LLC (Delfin LNG), 1100
Louisians Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in Docket No. CP15-490-
000, an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Commission's
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act and Parts 157 of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations requesting
authorization to (1) reactivate approximately 1.1 miles of existing 42-
inch pipeline formerly owned by U-T Offshore System (UTOS), which runs
from Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company Station No. 44 (Transco
Station 44) to the mean highwater mark along the Cameron Parish Coast;
(2) install 74,000 horsepower of new compression; (3) construct 0.25
miles of 42-inch pipeline to connect the former UTOS line to the new
meter station; and (4) construct 0.6 miles of twin 30-inch pipelines
between Transco Station 44 and the new compressor station in Cameron
Parrish, Louisiana that comprise the onshore portion of Delfin LNG's
proposed deepwater port (DWP), an offshore liquefied natural gas
facility located off the coast of Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico, all
as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection. Additionally, Delfin LNG
requests a blanket construction certificate under Part 17, Subpart F of
the Commission's regulations. This filing may be viewed on the web at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to
Daniel P. Werner, Delfin LNG LLC, 1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 3550,
Houston, Texas 77002; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or J. Patrick Nevins, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, 555 Thirteenth Street NW., Washington, DC 20004; phone:
202-637-6441.
    Delfin LNG's onshore facilities will connect with the DWP
facilities that are subject to jurisdiction of the Maritime Authority
(MARAD) and the United States Coast Guard (USCG). Additionally, as part
of Delfin LNG's DWP, Delfin LNG proposes to lease a segment of pipeline
from High Island Offshore System, LLC (HIOS) that extends from the term
inus of the UTOS pipeline offshore. Delfin LNG states in its
application that HIOS will submit a separate application with the
Commission seeking authorization to abandon by lease its facilities to
Delfin LNG.
    Because the review of the DWP proposal is the jurisdiction of
MARAD/USCG, the Commission acknowledges Delfin LNG's application in
Docket No. CP15-490-000 on May 8, 2015. However, the Commission will
not begin processing Delfin LNG's application until such time that
MARAD/USCG accepts Delfin LNG's DWP application, and HIOS submits
abandonment application with the Commission.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of

comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission
will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the
filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that
persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of
their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the
protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with he Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and ill not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    Comment Date: June 10, 2015.

    Dated: May 20, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-12703 Filed 5-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 187 (Thursday, September 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66837-66839]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21262]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD23-9-000]

Reliability Technical Conference; Supplemental Notice of
Technical Conference

    As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued in this
proceeding on August 3, 2023, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) will convene its annual Reliability Technical Conference
in the above-referenced proceeding on Thursday, November 9, 2023, from
approximately 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. eastern time. The conference will
include Commissioner-led and staff-led panels. The conference will be
held in-person at the Commission's headquarters at 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426 in the Commission Meeting Room.
    The purpose of this conference is to discuss policy issues related
to the reliability and security of the Bulk-Power System. The
conference will also discuss the impact of the Environmental Protection
Agency's proposed rule under section 111 of the Clean Air Act on
electric reliability.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ New Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired
Electric Generating Units; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units;
and Repeal of the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, 88 FR 33240
(proposed May 23, 2023) (to be codified at 40 CFR part 60).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The conference will be open for the public to attend, and there is
no fee for attendance. Supplemental notices will be issued prior to the
conference with further details regarding the agenda. Information on
this technical conference will also be posted on the Calendar of Events
on the Commission's website, www.ferc.gov, prior to the event.
    The conference will also be transcribed. Transcripts will be
available for a fee from Ace Reporting,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Those who wish to nominate themselves for consideration as a panel
participant should submit their name, title, company (or organization
they are representing), telephone, email, a one-paragraph biography,
picture, and panel in which they wish to participate to:
[email protected] by close of business on October 2, 2023.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to [email protected],

call toll-free<PHONE_NUMBER> (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send
a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with the required accommodations.
    For more information about this technical conference, please
contact Michael Gildea at [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
For information related to logistics, please contact Sarah McKinley at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 22, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28SE23.020

2023 Reliability Technical Conference

Docket No. AD23-9-000

November 9, 2023, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
Morning Session: Bulk Power System Reliability and the Evolving Grid
9:00-9:15 a.m. Opening Remarks and Introductions
9:15-10:45 a.m. Morning Panel 1: State of Bulk Power System Reliability
with a Focus on the Changing Resource Mix and Resource Adequacy
(Commission Led)

    The transformation of the Bulk-Power System is resulting in
significant changes to the nation's power supply portfolio. These
changes include increased penetrations of inverter-based resources, the
increased use and importance of natural gas generating units for system
balancing, and the participation of distributed energy resources.
Ensuring the adequate supply of electric energy to service loads during
peak hours and during extreme weather conditions is also becoming more
challenging in many regions of North America. This panel will explore
the current state of grid reliability, and resource and energy
adequacy, and efforts that can be undertaken to improve them.
    The panel will begin with a presentation by NERC of the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations from its annual State of Reliability
report.
    This panel may include a discussion of the following topics and
questions:
    (1) What should the Commission's top reliability priorities be for
the next one to three years? What are potential actions the Commission
could take to improve reliability regarding these priorities?
    (2) What trends and risks identified in NERC's 2023 State of
Reliability Report and the 2023 ERO Reliability Risk Priorities Report
warrant the most attention and effort?
    (3) Resource adequacy traditionally has been characterized in terms
of planning reserve margin, which assesses the excess generating
capacity required to meet peak load. NERC and industry have recently
been discussing the notion of energy adequacy, which assesses whether
there is sufficient energy--power over time--to meet customers' energy
needs. Is energy adequacy a more appropriate metric to characterize
reliability risks given the changing grid?
    (4) NERC has highlighted essential reliability services (e.g.,
frequency response, voltage control, and ramping capability) as core to
maintaining reliable operation of the grid. How does the changing
resource mix and characteristics of load affect the needed amount and
provision of these essential reliability services? What actions, and by
whom, are necessary to ensure adequate levels of these services?
    (5) The electric grid is undergoing its most significant changes in
a century. How should reliability oversight adapt to this change? Is
the existing reliability oversight model flexible and agile enough to
help lead the change?
    (6) In recent years, reliance on natural gas as a fuel for electric
generation has steadily increased. At the Commission's recommendation,
the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) held forums between
August 2022 and July 2023 to discuss the growing interdependence
between the natural gas and electric sectors. NAESB issued
recommendations to enhance market coordination to address challenges
posed by this growing interdependence. Should the Commission prioritize
pursuing any specific NAESB recommendation?
    (7) Wildfires are no longer considered only a California or Western
states issue for grid reliability, as drought conditions are expanding
into additional regions including MISO, ERCOT and SPP creating further
reliability impacts. What preparations have you taken (or are you
considering) to address emerging wildfire and drought reliability risks
in your region?

10:45-11:00 a.m. Break
11:00-12:30 p.m. Morning Panel 2: CIP Reliability Standards and the
Evolving Grid (Commission Led)

    Cybersecurity vulnerabilities and threats continue to evolve at a
pace that tests utility cybersecurity programs. These quickly evolving
threats present a challenge when assessing whether security controls,
including the CIP Reliability Standards, adequately respond to the
latest cyber risks. Most utilities and other electric sector
stakeholders with mature cybersecurity programs implement an
overarching cybersecurity program to oversee all aspects of their
cybersecurity activities, including identification of the assets to be
protected, staffing, technology selection and procurement, and
compliance with the CIP Reliability Standards. However, ongoing and
anticipated changes to the interconnected electric grid, such as the
shift in the types of energy sources used to generate electricity may
disrupt cyber programs. Utilities are digitizing their grids while
managing an increasing number of grid-connected devices. As a
consequence, utilities require more advanced tools to process and
analyze large amounts of data for grid planning, operations, and
security. These changes are also leaving uncertainty as to where

these digital assets will fit into the cybersecurity regulatory
framework and what tools can be used to effectively manage them or even
what the future may bring as cyberattacks continue to grow in
sophistication. This panel will discuss how the evolving grid affects
cybersecurity, the CIP Reliability Standards and compliance, as well as
best practices; the challenges of implementing appropriate oversight;
and ways in which industry can address these challenges to improve its
response to evolving vulnerabilities and threats to reduce the risk to
the Bulk-Power System.
    (1) Discuss the primary security issues facing electric utilities
and describe the prioritization of resources and investment. What are
some lessons learned and best practices?
    (2) With regard to evolving cyber threats, describe how your
cybersecurity program identifies and responds to such conditions. When
responding, how do you assess the risk posed to your systems by the
threats?
    (3) Describe the benefits and challenges of implementing and
maintaining a cybersecurity program as the resource mix continues to
evolve. How does this program interact with actions to comply with the
CIP Reliability Standards? How does such a program help to identify and
prioritize security concerns, and what actions are taken to address
those concerns, including the application of best practices?
    (4) Describe how supply chain security and the use of third-party
systems, such as cloud services, are addressed in your risk assessments
and implemented in the cybersecurity program. What concerns still exist
related to supply chain and third-party systems?
    (5) What additional actions can the Commission, NERC, and industry
take to further protect the grid from security threats, both physical
and cyber?

12:30-1:15 p.m. Lunch Break
Afternoon Session: EPA's ``Clean Power Plan 2.0'' and Reliability
    On May 23, 2023 the EPA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
under section 111 of the Clean Air Act. Several comments submitted to
EPA on the proposed rule indicated that implementation of the proposal
would affect electric reliability. The afternoon panels will discuss
the possible reliability impacts of the rule and possible mitigations.

1:15-2:15 p.m. Afternoon Panel 1: EPA Presentation of EPA Section 111
Proposed Rule (Commission Led)

    Joseph Goffman, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for the
Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), accompanied by staff, will provide an overview of the Section
111 Proposed Rule, and highlight specific issues relevant to the
reliable operation of the electric system.

2:15-4:50 p.m. Afternoon Panels 2 and 3: Discuss the Proposed Rule
(Staff Led)
    --2:15-3:30 p.m. Electric Industry Stakeholders
    --3:30-3:40 p.m. Break
    --3:40-4:50 p.m. Regional, State, and Local Regulatory Entities

    Afternoon Panels 2 and 3 will present perspectives on reliability
aspects of the proposed rule, followed by an opportunity for questions
and answers. Panelists for both Panels 2 and 3 should be prepared to
discuss the following topics and questions:
    (1) Will the rule, if implemented as proposed, affect electric
reliability? In what ways?
    (2) What tools and processes should the Commission, other federal
and state agencies, and industry consider in order to implement the
proposed rule? What authority should the Commission and other federal
and state agencies have in order to address potential reliability
issues that could arise during implementation of the proposed rule?
    (3) What existing processes for coordination will enable federal
and state agencies, planning entities, and industry stakeholders to
share ongoing developments relevant to the implementation of the
proposed rule?
    (4) What specific tools are currently available to agencies to
consider impacts to retail consumers? Are there additional tools that
should be developed to consider these issues?

4:50-5:00 p.m. Closing Remarks

[FR Doc. 2023-21262 Filed 9-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 18, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71852-71853]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22982]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1971-079]

Idaho Power Company; Notice of Revised Procedural Schedule for
the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Hells Canyon
Project

    On July 21, 2003, Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power) filed an
application for a new license to continue to operate and maintain the

Hells Canyon Project No. 1971.\1\ On August 31, 2007, the Commission
issued a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Hells
Canyon Project. On December 30, 2019, Idaho Power filed an Offer of
Settlement (settlement) with the Commission for the Hells Canyon
Project.\2\ The settlement, which was executed on April 22, 2019,
includes, among other items, spring Chinook salmon and summer steelhead
fish passage measures. In addition, the Oregon and Idaho Departments of
Environmental Quality each issued a water quality certification under
section 401 of the Clean Water Act for the Hells Canyon Project on May
24, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The current license expired on July 31, 2005, and the
project is operating under an annual license.
    \2\ On January 7, 2020, the Commission issued notice of the
offer of settlement's filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 1, 2020, Idaho Power supplemented the final license
application for the project with additional information on its
proposal, including an analysis of the new and revised fish-related
protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures proposed under the
settlement, and updated information on project resources. Additionally,
Idaho Power filed on October 14, 2020, draft biological assessments for
species managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Marine Fisheries Service, which included an analysis of the effects of
the new and revised measures on fish and wildlife listed under the
Endangered Species Act.
    On June 13, 2022, Commission staff issued a notice of intent to
prepare a draft and final EIS to assess the new and revised fish-
related protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures proposed under
the settlement, the Oregon and Idaho water quality certifications, and
the draft biological assessments. The notice of intent included a
schedule for preparing a draft and final supplemental EIS.
    By this notice, Commission staff is updating the procedural
schedule for completing the draft and final supplemental EIS. Further
revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Draft EIS...........................  February 2024.
Comments on Draft EIS due.................  April 2024.
Commission issues Final EIS...............  November 2024.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Aaron
Liberty at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: October 12, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-22982 Filed 10-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 170 (Thursday, September 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60397-60398]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21024]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78703; File No. 4-631]

Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness
of Amendment to the Plan To Address Extraordinary Market Volatility To
Add the Investors Exchange LLC as a Participant

August 26, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 11A(a)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\2\ notice is
hereby given that on August 11, 2016 Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') \3\ an amendment to the Plan to Address Extraordinary
Market Volatility (``Plan'').\4\ The amendment adds IEX as a
Participant \5\ to the Plan. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the amendment from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(3).
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ See Letter from Claudia Crowley, Chief Regulatory Officer,
Investors Exchange LLC, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, dated August 11, 2016.
    \4\ On May 6, 2015, the Commission issued an order approving the
Plan on a one-year Pilot basis (the ``Approval Order''). See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31, 2012), 77 FR
33498 (June 6, 2012). The Plan was subsequently amended several
times to extend the pilot period, among other things, with the
current Plan set to expire on April 21, 2017. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 77679 (April 21, 2016), 81 FR 24908 (April
27, 2016) (order approving tenth amendment to Plan).
    \5\ The term ``Participant'' is defined as a party to the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description and Purpose of the Plan Amendment

    As noted above, the sole proposed amendment to the Plan is to add
the Exchange as a Participant. On June 17, 2016, the Commission issued
an order granting IEX's application for registration as a national
securities exchange.\6\ A condition of the Commission's approval was
the requirement for IEX to join the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78101 (June 17,
2016), 81 FR 41141 (June 23, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Section II(C) of the Plan, any entity registered as a
national securities exchange or national securities association under
the Exchange Act may become a Participant by: (1) Executing a copy of
the Plan, as then in effect; (2) providing each then-current
Participant with a copy of such executed Plan; and (3) effecting an
amendment to the Plan as specified in Section III(B) of the Plan.
Section III(B) of the Plan sets forth the process for a prospective new
Participant to effect an amendment of the Plan. Specifically, the Plan
provides that such an amendment to the Plan may be effected by the new
national securities exchange or national securities association by
executing a copy of the Plan as then in effect (with the only change
being the addition of the new Participant's name in Section II(A) of
the Plan); and submitting such executed Plan to the Commission. The
amendment will be effective when it is approved by the Commission in
accordance with Rule 608 of Regulation NMS, or otherwise becomes
effective pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS.
    IEX has executed a copy of the Plan currently in effect, with the
only change being the addition of its name in Section II(A) of the
Plan, and has provided a copy of the Plan executed by IEX to each of
the other Participants. IEX has also submitted the executed Plan to the
Commission. Accordingly, all of the Plan requirements for effecting an
amendment to the Plan to add IEX as a Participant have been satisfied.

II. Effectiveness of the Proposed Plan Amendment

    The foregoing Plan amendment has become effective pursuant to Rule
608(b)(3)(iii) of the Exchange Act \7\ because it involves solely
technical or ministerial matters. At any time within sixty days of the
filing of this amendment, the Commission may summarily abrogate the
amendment and require that it be refiled pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)
of Rule 608,\8\ if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a national market system
or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(3)(iii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 242.608(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number 4-631 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number 4-631.This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the
Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please
use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed plan amendment that are filed
with the Commission, and all written

communications relating to the amendment between the Commission and any
person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in
accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for
Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days
between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing
also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of IEX. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number 4-631
and should be submitted on or before September 22, 2016.

    By the Commission.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-21024 Filed 8-31-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


	Served: March 25, 2003

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

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

Application of Republic Airline, Inc.

d/b/a Republic Airlines

for a certificate of public convenience and necessity under 49 U.S.C.
41102

Docket OST-03-14579

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

NOTICE PROVIDING ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS

On February 24, 2003, Republic Airline, Inc. d/b/a Republic Airlines
filed the subject application for a certificate to engage in interstate
scheduled passenger operations using 50-seat Embraer EMB-145 aircraft.
Certain of the information filed in support of this application was
accompanied by a motion under 14 C.F.R. 302.12 (Rule 12) of our
regulations requesting confidential treatment.  Republic Airlines
maintains that the documents for which confidential treatment is sought
are proprietary, commercially sensitive, and confidential in nature and,
therefore, qualify for being withheld from public disclosure.

Republic Airlines does not hold any authority at this time.  It is,
however, a sister company to Chautauqua Airlines, Inc., a commuter air
carrier, as both companies are wholly owned subsidiaries of Republic
Airways Holding, Inc. (RAH).  The scheduled passenger operations
proposed by Republic Airlines will be conducted under the trade name
“US Airways Express” pursuant to a Regional Jet Service Agreement
between US Airways and Republic.

On March 3, 2003, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Airline
Division (IBT), the certified representative of the pilots of
Chautauqua, filed a notice of appearance and request for service of
documents, as well as affidavits of confidentiality for two members of
IBT’s counsel.  The affidavits filed indicated that the IBT desired
access to the documents filed under seal in Docket OST-03-14579.  This
access was desired because the IBT, as the representative of
Chautauqua’s pilots, is an interested party to this proceeding.
Further, these affidavits indicated that the counsel seeking access
(William R. Wilder and Ernest E. Sowell) would use the information
gained from viewing the confidential documents only for the purpose of
participating in this proceeding and would not disclose this information
to any person who has not also signed a confidentiality affidavit.

To date, no response to this request has been filed by Republic
Airlines.

The Department has not yet reviewed the subject documents with respect
to the question of confidentiality.  However, in order to afford parties
of interest in this docket prompt access to these documents, we will
grant, under conditions set to maintain appropriate confidentiality,
immediate interim access to the documents listed below by William R.
Wilder and Ernest E. Sowell (the IBT counsel signing the affidavits
submitted), or other interested parties who file appropriate
confidentiality affidavits.  The Affiants must understand and agree that
any pleading or other filing that includes or discusses information
contained in the covered documents must itself be accompanied by a Rule
12 motion requesting confidential treatment.  The documents at issue may
be examined by the Affiants at the Department of Transportation Dockets
location.  The parties will also be permitted to make copies of the
documents for use by persons who have filed confidentiality affidavits.
We also find it appropriate to grant interim access to any subsequent
materials that may be filed in this docket under a Rule 12 motion to
counsel and outside experts for interested parties who file appropriate
affidavits with the Department in advance, unless the party filing the
motion objects.

Affiants must present a stamped copy of the affidavit filed with the
Department of Transportation before examination of the document.
Immediately after the completion of any judicial review of our final
decision in this docket, or the expiration of the 60-day period within
which a person may petition for judicial review, all persons who have
filed confidentiality affidavits in this proceeding are hereby directed
to file a further affidavit stating that all copies of the documents
have been destroyed or returned to the Department of Transportation.

We will serve a copy of this notice on each of the parties in this
proceeding.

By:

READ C. VAN DE WATER

Assistant Secretary for Aviation

and International Affairs

Date: March 25, 2003

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

http://dms.dot.gov

SERVICE LABELS FOR NOTICE

THOMAS M HANLEY					ERNEST E SOWELL ESQ

PRESIDENT & COO 					GENERAL COUNSEL

REPUBLIC AIRLINE INC 				TEAMSTERS LOCAL 747

2500 S HIGH SCHOOL RD  STE 92			1419 FM 1960 ROAD

INDIANAPOLIS IN  46241				HOUSTON TX  77073

ROBERT E COHN					WILLIAM R WILDER

SHERYL R ISRAEL					BAPTISTE & WILDER

CNSL FOR REPUBLIC AIRLINE INC			1150 CONNECTICUT AVE NW

SHAW PITTMAN LLP					SUITE 500

2300 N STREET NW					WASHINGTON DC  20036

WASHINGTON DC  20037

 	Under Rule 12, Republic Airlines requested confidential treatment for
the following documents: (1) Exhibit 3 which contains resumes and
compliance information for two future key technical employees; (2)
Exhibit 4 which contains information regarding the ownership of the
applicant; (3) Exhibit 7 which contains financial information for the
applicant’s parent; (5) Exhibit 9 which sets forth the tentative
aircraft delivery schedule; (5) Exhibit 15 which contains Republic
Airlines’ forecast income statement and balance sheet; (6) Exhibit 16
which contains information on Republic Airlines’ ability to meet the
Department’s financial fitness criteria with respect to the
applicant’s proposed charter operations; and (7) Exhibit 19 which
consists of the Republic-US Airways Regional Jet Service Agreement.

 	Chautauqua’s effective authority was issued by Order 81-7-42 on July
8, 1981.  Chautauqua uses a mixed fleet of Embraer aircraft having a
capacity of 37-50 passenger seats to conduct scheduled passenger
operations under the trade names “Delta Connection,” “American
Connection,” “America West Express,” and “US Airways Express.”

 	While Republic intends to conduct all of its scheduled passenger
operations pursuant to the noted Regional Jet Service Agreement, it has
also indicated that it intends to conduct limited charter operations
independent of this agreement.

 	We will rule on the merits of the Rule 12 motion at a later date.

 	We expect all affidavits to state, at a minimum, that (1) the affiant
is counsel for an interest party or an outside independent expert
providing services to such a party; (2) the affiant will use the
information only for the purpose of participating in this proceeding;
and (3) the affiant will disclose such information only to other persons
who have filed a valid affidavit in Docket OST-03-14579.  Affidavits
must be filed in Docket OST-03-14579 with the Department of
Transportation Dockets, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590.

 	This procedure is also consistent with earlier determinations.  See
Notice dated March 21, 2002, Docket OST-2002-11842 (Delta-KAL-Air
France-Alitalia-CSA request for approval of and antitrust immunity for
Alliance Agreements); Notice dated September 11, 2001, Docket
OST-2001-10387 (American Airlines-British Airways request for approval
of and antitrust immunity for an Alliance Agreement); and Notice dated
March 5, 2003, Docket OST-2002-13089 (In the matter of the citizenship
of DHL Airways, Inc.)

 PAGE

 PAGE   3

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register: July 3, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 127)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 36413-36415]
[DOCID:fr03jy07-23]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R03-OAR-2005-VA-0012; FRL-8333-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Commonwealth of Virginia; Control of Total Reduced Sulfur From Pulp and
Paper Mills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to a Section 111(d)
regulation submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality. The revisions pertain to amendments to an
existing regulation to control total reduced sulfur (TRS) from pulp and
paper mills. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA or
the Act).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 2, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2005-VA-0012 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2005-VA-0012, Christopher Cripps, Acting
Chief, Air Quality and Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2005-VA-0012. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change, and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov

or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''

system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured

and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or

in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LaKeshia N. Robertson,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 20, 2005, the Commonwealth of
Virginia submitted revisions to its plan for Pulp and Paper mills. The
revisions pertain to the control total reduced sulfur (TRS) (9 VAC 5,
Chapter 40, Article 13, Rule 4-13).

I. Background

    The revisions consist of amendments to existing regulations that
implement emission standards for particulate matter from pulp and paper
mills (9 VAC 5, Chapter 40, Article 13, Rule 4-13.) The changes will
control total reduced sulfur from stationary sources.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The following provisions consist of changes to the Commonwealth of
Virginia's regulation for the control and abatement of air pollution (9
VAC 5, Chapter 40, Article 13, Rule 4-13). The modifications below are
the subject of this rulemaking.
    Revision 1: 9 VAC 5-40-1660. Applicability and designation of
affected facilities. Section A is revised to read as follows: The
affected facilities in pulp and paper mills to which the provisions of
this article apply are: Each recovery furnace, each smelt dissolving
tank, each lime kiln, each slaker tank, and each kraft wood pulping
operation. For the purpose of this article, a kraft wood pulping
operation is comprised only of any combination of the following units:
Recovery furnaces, lime kilns, digester systems, multiple-effect
evaporator systems, condensate stripper systems and smelt dissolving
tanks.
    Revision 2: 9 VAC 5-40-1670. Definitions. Section C: The definition
of agreement is deleted and the following terms are added: (1) Neutral
sulfite semichemical pulping operation means any operation in which
pulp is produced from wood by cooking (digesting) wood chips in a
solution of sodium sulfite and sodium bicarbonate, followed by
mechanical defibrating (grinding); (2) new design recovery furnace
means a straight kraft recovery furnace that has both membrane wall or
welded wall construction and emission control designed air systems. A
new design furnace shall have stated in its contract a TRS performance
guarantee or that it was designed with air pollution control as an
objective; (3) pulp and paper mill means any kraft pulp mill or any
paper mill using a semichemical pulping process; and (4) semichemical
pulping process means any pulp manufacturing process in which the
active chemicals of the liquor used in cooking (digesting) wood chips
to their component parts in a pressurized vessel (digester) are
primarily a liquor of sodium hydroxide and sodium carbonate. The major
difference between all semichemical techniques and those of kraft and
acid sulfite processes is that only portion of the lignin is removed
during the cooking (digesting), after which the pulp is further reduced
by mechanical disintegration. In addition, these terms were amended:
Cross recovery furnace; straight kraft recovery furnace; and total
reduced sulfur.
    Revision 3: 9 VAC 5-40-1690. Standard for total reduced sulfur.
Section A is revised to read as follows: No owner or other person shall
cause or permit to be discharged into the atmosphere from any kraft
wood pulping operation unit specified below any total reduced sulfur
emissions in excess of the following limits. Section B is deleted and
replaced by Section C. In addition, Section D is deleted.
    Revision 4: 9 VAC 5-40-1750. Compliance. In Section A, the letter A
is deleted and the provision remains the same. Sections B through D are
deleted and no longer relevant to the regulation.
    Revision 5: 9 VAC5-40-1770. Monitoring. Section B clarifies that
the owner of a kraft pulp mill shall comply with monitoring provisions
by October 1, 1990. Section C(1) has been revised to include the
language ``Part'' to reference information used in the regulation.
    Revision 6: 9 VAC5-40-1810. Permits. The paragraph which states the
permit requirements shall read as follows: A permit may be required
prior to beginning any of the activities specified below if the
provisions of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 50 (9 VAC 5-50-10 et seq.) apply. Owners
contemplating such action should review those provisions and contact
the appropriate regional office for guidance on whether those
provisions apply. Also, under the numeric rationale for permits, an
additional activity, which is number ``6'' is added to read as follows:
Operation of a facility.

III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information (1) that are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that
demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public
health or environment; or (4) that are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege law,Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts * * *.'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore,

documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement
under one of these programs could not be privileged because such
documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a
manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation,
authorization or approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the Clean Air Act, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211
or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is likewise
unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Commonwealth of Virginia's 111(d)
Plan submitted on June 20, 2005 to control total reduced sulfur (TRS)
from stationary sources. EPA is soliciting public comments on the
issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered
before taking final action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)).
This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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 the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it
merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal
requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This
proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3
of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing
this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied
with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining
the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the (Attorney
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings' issued under the executive order.
    This proposed rule, pertaining to Virginia's control of total
reduced sulfur from pulp and paper mills, does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Aluminum, Fertilizers, Fluoride,
Intergovernmental relations, Paper and paper products industry,
Phosphate, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Sulfur acid plants, Waste treatment and disposal.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 22, 2007.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
 [FR Doc. E7-12854 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 73 (Tuesday, April 16, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15619-15620]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07464]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0530]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Tropical Disease
Priority Review Vouchers

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 16,
2019.

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 emailed to [email protected]. All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0822.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JonnaLynn Capezzuto, Office of
Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-
12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

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.

Tropical Disease Priority Review Vouchers

OMB Control Number 0910-0822--Revision

    Section 524 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act)
(21 U.S.C. 360n) is designed to encourage development of new drug or
biological products for prevention and treatment of certain tropical
diseases affecting millions of people throughout the world and makes
provisions for awarding priority review vouchers for future
applications to sponsors of tropical disease products. By enacting
section

524 of the FD&C Act, Congress intended to stimulate new drug
development for drugs to treat certain tropical diseases for which
there are no or few available treatments by offering additional
incentives for obtaining FDA approval for pharmaceutical treatments for
these diseases. Under section 524 of the FD&C Act, a sponsor of a human
drug application for a qualified tropical disease may be eligible for a
voucher that can be used to obtain a priority review for any
application submitted under section 505(b)(1) of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 355(b)(1)) or section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (the
PHS Act).
    Accordingly, we have developed the guidance document entitled,
``Guidance for Industry (GFI): Tropical Disease Priority Review
Vouchers.'' The guidance explains how FDA will implement the provisions
of section 524 of the FD&C Act, how sponsors may use priority review
vouchers, and how priority review vouchers may be transferred to other
sponsors. The guidance also explains eligibility criteria for tropical
disease drug product applications submitted under section 505(b)(1) of
the FD&C Act and section 351 of the PHS Act, and provides instructions
to sponsors on how they may:
     Request a priority review voucher; and
     notify FDA of their intent to use a priority review
voucher, including the date on which the sponsor intends to submit the
application.
    The guidance also explains that transfer of a priority review
voucher from one sponsor to another is permitted and that each transfer
should be documented with a letter of transfer. Finally, the guidance
will be revised to include new information collection established by
section 611 of the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017 (FDARA). As amended,
section 524 of the FD&C Act requires the sponsor of a tropical disease
product application to include an attestation regarding its eligibility
for a priority review voucher. The guidance is available at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM080599.pdf.
    Description of Respondents: Sponsors submitting applications under
section 505(b)(1) of the FD&C Act or section 351 of the PHS Act.
    In the Federal Register of November 7, 2018 (83 FR 55720), we
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    We estimate the burden of the information collection as follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of
 Information collection activity     Number of     responses per   Total annual   Average burden    Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses     per response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority Review Voucher Request.               5               1               5               8              40
Notifications of Intent to Use a               5               1               5               8              40
 Voucher........................
Letters Indicating the Transfer                2               1               2               8              16
 of a Voucher Letter............
Acknowledging the Receipt of a                 2               1               2               8              16
 Transferred Voucher............
Attestation of Eligibility......               5               1               5               2              10
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............             122
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    We have increased our burden estimate since last approval to
account for attestations added by FDARA; however, all other information
collection elements remain unchanged.

    Dated: April 10, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-07464 Filed 4-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 121 (Tuesday, June 23, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37559-37560]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13386]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0473; Airspace Docket No. 19-AEA-1]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes in the Vicinity of
Ithaca, NY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal
airways V-423 and V-428, due to the planned decommissioning of the
Ithaca, NY, VOR/DME navigation aid which provides navigation guidance
for segments of the routes. The Ithaca VOR/DME is being decommissioned
as part of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, September 10, 2020. 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 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Order is also available for inspection
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it modifies the route structure in the National Airspace
System as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air
traffic.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register for Docket No. FAA-2019-0473 (84 FR 34072; July 17, 2019)
amending VOR Federal airways V-423 and V-428 due to the planned
decommissioning of the Ithaca, NY, VOR/DME. Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal. No comments were received.
    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order
7400.11D dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways
listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15,
2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by amending VOR Federal airways V-423 and V-428 due to the
planned decommissioning of the Ithaca, NY,

VOR/DME. The changes are described below.
    V-423: V-423 currently extends between the Williamsport, PA, VOR/
DME, and the Syracuse, NY, VORTAC. The FAA is removing the route
segments between the Binghamton, NY, VOR/DME and Syracuse, NY. As
amended, V-423 extends between Williamsport, PA, and Binghamton, NY. As
an alternative, airway V-29 could be used for flights between
Binghamton and Syracuse.
    V-428: V-428 currently extends between the Elmira, NY, VOR/DME and
the Utica, NY, VORTAC. The FAA is removing the segments of V-428
between Elmira, NY, and the Georgetown, NY, VORTAC. As amended, V-428
extends between Georgetown, NY, and Utica, NY. Airways V-35 and V-14
provide alternative routing between Elmira and Georgetown.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    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
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated,
does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action of amending VOR Federal
airways V-423, and V-428 near Ithaca, NY, qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with
FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,
paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further
environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify
classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see
14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas;
Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action
is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental
impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding
Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for
factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded
action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further
analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances
exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

    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(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019 and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-423 [Amended]

    From Williamsport, PA; to Binghamton, NY.
* * * * *

V-428 [Amended]

    From Georgetown, NY; to Utica, NY.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 17, 2020.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2020-13386 Filed 6-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 105 (Thursday, May 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32153-32155]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13150]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67059; File No. SR-FICC-2012-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Clarify the Ability of the
Government Securities Division To Use Implied Volatility Indicators as
Part of the Volatility Model in Its Clearing Fund Formula

May 24, 2012.
    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 15, 2012, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared primarily by FICC. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Government Securities Division (``GSD'') of FICC proposes to
amend the definition of VaR Charge in Rule 1 to clarify the ability of
FICC GSD to use implied volatility indicators as part of the volatility
model in its clearing fund formula.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FICC 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. FICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by FICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    A primary objective of GSD's Clearing Fund \4\ is to have on
deposit from each applicable Member \5\ assets sufficient to satisfy
losses that may otherwise be incurred by GSD as the result of the
default of the Member and the resultant close out of that Member's
unsettled positions under GSD's trade guaranty. The required Clearing
Fund deposit of each Member is calculated twice daily \6\ pursuant to a
formula set forth in Section 1b of GSD Rule 4 designed to provide
sufficient funds to cover this risk of loss. The Clearing Fund formula
accounts for a variety of risk factors through the application of a
number of components, each described in Section 1b of GSD Rule 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ FICC GSD Rule 1--Definitions provides that ``[t]he term
`Clearing Fund' means the Clearing Fund established by the
Corporation pursuant to these Rules, which shall be comprised of the
aggregate of all Required Fund Deposits and all other deposits,
including Cross-Guaranty Repayment Deposits, to the Clearing Fund.''
    \5\ FICC GSD Rule 1--Definitions provides that ``[t]he term
`Member' means a Comparison-Only Member or a Netting Member. The
term `Member' shall include a Sponsoring Member in its capacity as a
Sponsoring Member and a Sponsored Member, each to the extent
specific in Rule 3A.''
    \6\ A Member's Clearing Fund deposit may also be recalculated on
an intraday basis as needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The volatility component of the Clearing Fund formula is designed
to calculate the amount of money that may be lost on a portfolio over a
given period of time assumed necessary to liquidate the portfolio
within a given level of confidence. Pursuant to Section 1b of Rule 4,
GSD may calculate the volatility component on a value at risk charge
(``VaR Charge'') ``utilizing such assumptions (including confidence
levels) and based on such historical data as [GSD] deems reasonable,
and shall cover such range of historical volatility as [GSD] from time
to time deems appropriate.'' \7\ FICC believes that Section 1b of Rule
4 therefore provides GSD with the flexibility to adjust the calculation
of the volatility component of its Clearing Fund formula as needed to
react to changes in market conditions, including through the use of
such assumptions and data as it deems appropriate within its VaR
Charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ FICC GSD Rule 1--Definitions defining the term VaR Charge in
relevant part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The historical simulation model currently used to calculate the VaR
Charge in GSD's Clearing Fund formula is driven by historical data
observed in the fixed-income market. While the model weighs the data it
uses in favor of more recent observations, it is still limited in its
ability to quickly reflect sudden changes in market volatility, which
may lead to the collection of insufficient margin during periods of
sudden market volatility.
    GSD's Clearing Fund formula, in particular the VaR Charge, provides
GSD with the discretion to adjust the model assumptions and data as
necessary to react to these market conditions. To enhance the model's
performance, additional information and other observable market data,
including data derived from financial products with future maturity
dates, thus may be incorporated into or utilized by the volatility
model, including data observed in implied volatility indicators that
are derived from historical prices of financial products that have
maturity dates in the future (such as the 1-year option on the 10-year
swap rate). For the avoidance of doubt, this proposed rule change would
amend the definition of VaR Charge to make clear that the assumptions
and data utilized in calculating the VaR Charge may be based on
observable market data, which may include

implied market volatility indicators that are derived from historical
prices of financial products that have maturity dates in the future, so
as to enhance the performance of the model and enable GSD to more
effectively achieve and maintain the confidence level required by
regulatory and industry standards.\8\ Incorporation of such information
into volatility calculations is a generally accepted practice for
portfolio volatility models, currently used by other clearing agencies,
and accordingly consistent with current rules of FICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The text of the proposed change to the definition of VaR
Charge can be found in Exhibit 5 to proposed rule change SR-FICC-
2012-04 at http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/rule_filings/2012/ficc/SR-FICC-2012-04.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GSD reviews its risk management processes against applicable
regulatory and industry standards, including, but not limited to: (i)
the Recommendations for Central Counterparties (``RCCP'') of the
Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems and the Technical Committee
of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (``CPSS-
IOSCO'') and (ii) the securities laws of the United States and rules
promulgated by the Commission.
    CPSS-IOSCO RCCP Recommendation 4: Margin requirements recommends
that a central counterparty (``CCP'') should maintain sufficient
financial resources to cover potential exposures in normal market
conditions.\9\ It also recommends that margin models and parameters
should be regularly reviewed and back-tested to ensure a 99% coverage
level is maintained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Normal market conditions is defined in Explanatory Note to
RCCP Recommendation 3 as ``price movements that produce changes in
exposures that are expected to breach margin requirements or other
risk control mechanisms only 1% of the time.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CPSS-IOSCO Recommendation 3: Measurement and management of credit
exposures recognizes the need for flexibility in the models underlying
the calculation of margin requirements. To this point, the explanatory
note to RCCP Recommendation 3 recognizes that, ``[t]he appropriate
amount of data to use [in a CCP's margin formula] will vary from market
to market and over time. If, for example, volatility rises, a CCP may
want to use a short interval that better captures the new, higher
volatility prevailing in its markets.'' \10\ Similarly, the Commission
proposed Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) which addresses the margin requirements of
a clearing agency that performs CCP services and would require those
clearing agencies to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to use margin requirements
to limit credit exposures to participants in normal market conditions
and use risk-based models and parameters to set margin requirements and
review them at least monthly.\11\ The Commission release that proposed
Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) states, ``[m]arket conditions and risks are
constantly changing and therefore the models and parameters used by a
clearing agency providing CCP services to set margin may not accurately
reflect the needs of a clearing agency if they are permitted to remain
static.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Bank for International Settlements and International
Organization of Securities Commissions, Recommendations for Central
Counterparties (November 2004) available at www.bis.org/publ/cpss61.pdf.
    \11\ Exchange Act Release No. 34-64017 (March 3, 2011), 76 FR
11472 (March 16, 2011); File No. S7-08-11.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC believes that this proposed rule change would clarify that GSD
at its discretion may utilize implied volatility indicators that are
derived from historical prices of financial products that have maturity
dates in the future among the assumptions and other observable market
data as part of its volatility model. The proposal would also clarify
the ability of GSD to adjust its volatility calculations as needed to
improve the performance of the model in periods of market volatility.
It would therefore assist GSD to maintain the requisite confidence
level notwithstanding those market conditions. As such, FICC believes
that it conforms to CPSS-IOSCO Recommendations 3 and 4, Commission
proposed Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2), and Commission proposed Rule 17Ad-
22(b)(1).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Commission proposed Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1) addresses the
measurement and management of credit exposures by a clearing agency
that performs CCP services and would require such a clearing agency
to ``establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to measure its credit exposures to
its participants at least once a day and limit its exposures to
potential losses from defaults by its participants in normal market
conditions so that the operations of the clearing agency would not
be disrupted and non-defaulting participants would not be exposed to
losses that they cannot anticipate or control.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example of one such adjustment to the volatility model, GSD
plans to apply a multiplier (the augmented volatility adjustment
multiplier) to the VaR Charge. The multiplier is based on the levels of
change in current and implied volatility measures. An advantage of this
approach is that as volatility subsides in the market so will the
effect of the multiplier on Members' margin requirements. The
volatility measures will be determined by reference to the implied
volatility of the 1-year option on the 10-year USD LIBOR swap rate and
the historical volatility of the 10-year USD LIBOR swap rate. It is
expected that GSD will provide its Members with advance notice of the
multiplier that may be applied to the Members' VaR Charge on a weekly
basis.\14\ By using a single fixed multiplier based on observable
market data, Members will be able to predict the impact on their margin
requirement. Although the augmented volatility adjustment multiplier
will be automatically applied to each Member's VaR Charge, GSD may in
its sole discretion determine to waive the application of the
multiplier to all of its Members in circumstances it deems warrant such
a waiver.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ FICC GSD will reserve the right to recalculate the
multiplier more frequently than weekly in volatile market
conditions.
    \15\ FICC GSD plans to apply a cap to the multiplier and
initially the cap will be set at 2. FICC GSD will reserve the right
to change the cap in its sole discretion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC intends that this proposed rule change would be effective on a
date no less than ten business days following an Important Notice to
Members by FICC announcing any approval by the Commission.
    As a clearing agency that performs CCP services, FICC GSD believes
that it occupies an important role in the securities settlement system
by interposing itself between counterparties to financial transactions
and thereby reducing risks faced by participants and contributing to
global financial stability. FICC believes that the effectiveness of a
CCP's risk controls and the adequacy of its financial resources are
critical to achieving these risk-reducing goals. FICC believes this
proposed rule change would assist GSD in its efforts to ensure the
efficacy of its volatility margin methodology in highly volatile
markets and, thereby, should reduce GSD's and its Members' exposure to
the losses of a defaulting Member.
    FICC believes the proposed change is consistent with Section 17A of
the Act \16\ and the rules and regulations thereunder because the
proposed modifications would help assure the safeguarding of securities
and funds which are in the custody or control of FICC or for which it
is responsible by clarifying that FICC GSD's rules permit it to use
implied volatility indicators that are derived from historical prices
of financial products that have maturity dates in the future as part of
the volatility model in its Clearing Fund formula.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.

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

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FICC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose
any burden on competition.

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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change have not yet been
solicited or received.\17\ FICC will notify the Commission of any other
written comments received by FICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ FICC originally raised the prospect of the multiplier to
the VaR charge to members in Important Notice GOV014.12 on January
27, 2012, to which FICC received comments. The comments FICC
received were: (i) That the Important Notice lacked key information,
including a sample calculation and details surrounding the
application of the multiplier; and (ii) whether the proposal would
be detrimental to smaller firms. FICC notified the Commission of the
substance of these comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commissions Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
    Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include File Number
SR-FICC-2012-04 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2012-04. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FICC and on FICC's
Web site at http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/rule_filings/2012/ficc/SR-FICC-2012-04.pdf.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2012-04
and should be submitted on or before June 21, 2012.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-13150 Filed 5-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37156-37157]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16118]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0530]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain
of the Port Lake Michigan Zone--Celebration Freedom Fireworks

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone on Lake Macatawa
in Holland, MI for the Celebration Freedom Fireworks. This zone will be
enforced from 10 p.m. until 11:50 p.m. on July 4, 2015. Should
inclement weather force a cancellation of the fireworks on July 4,
2015, this zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. until 11:50 p.m. on July
6, 2015. This action is necessary and intended to ensure safety of life
on navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after
the fireworks display. During the aforementioned periods, the Coast
Guard will enforce restrictions upon, and control movement of, vessels
in the safety zone. No person or vessel may enter the safety zone while
it is being enforced without permission of the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan or a designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.929 will be enforced for safety
zone (e)(13), Table 165.929, from 10 p.m. until 11:50 p.m. on July 4,
2015. Should inclement weather force a cancellation of the fireworks on
July 4, 2015, this zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. until 11:50 p.m.
on July 6, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
document, call or email MST1 Joseph McCollum, Prevention Department,
Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the Celebration
Freedom Fireworks safety zone listed as item (e)(13) in Table 165.929
of 33 CFR 165.929. Section 165.929 lists many annual events requiring
safety zones in

the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. This safety zone will
encompass all waters of Lake Macatawa in the vicinity of Kollen Park
within the arc of a circle with a 1600-foot radius of a center launch
position at 42[deg]47.440' N., 086[deg]07.621' W. (NAD 83). This zone
will be enforced from 10 p.m. until 11:50 p.m. on July 4, 2015. Should
inclement weather force a cancellation of the fireworks on July 4,
2015, this zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. until 11:50 p.m. on July
6, 2015.
    All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan, or the on-scene representative to enter, move within, or
exit the safety zone. Requests must be made in advance and approved by
the Captain of the Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals
will be granted on a case by case basis. Vessels and persons granted
permission to enter the safety zone must obey all lawful orders or
directions of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated
representative.
    This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.929, Safety
Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan zone, and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this
publication in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the
maritime community with advance notification for the enforcement of
this zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners.
The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative may
be contacted via Channel 16, VHF-FM.

    Dated: June 16, 2015.
A.B. Cocanour,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2015-16118 Filed 6-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P