[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 3435]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02007]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Project No. 2639-027]

Northern States Power Company; Notice of Intent to File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of
the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 2639-027.
    c. Date Filed: November 29, 2018.
    d. Submitted By: Northern States Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Cornell Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Lower Chippewa River in the City of Cornell,
Chippewa County, Wisconsin. The project does not occupy federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: William P. Zawacki, Director of
Regional Generation, Northern States Power Company--Wisconsin, 1414 W
Hamilton Ave., P.O. Box 8, Eau Claire, WI 54702; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Laura Washington at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Northern States Power Company filed its request to use the
Traditional Licensing Process on November 29, 2018. Northern States
Power Company provided public notice of its request on November 29,
2018. In a letter dated February 5, 2019, the Director of the Division
of Hydropower Licensing approved Northern States Power Company's
request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section
7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations
thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402. We are also initiating consultation the
Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section
106, National Historical Preservation Act, and the implementing
regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR
800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Northern States Power
Company as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out
informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. Northern States Power Company filed a Pre-Application Document
(PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the
Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at
the address in paragraph h.
    o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an
application for a new license for Project No. 2639. Pursuant to 18 CFR
16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any
competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at
least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All
applications for license for this project must be filed by November 30,
2021.
    p. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: February 5, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-02007 Filed 2-11-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 77)]
[Notices]
[Page 20113]
[DOCID:fr23ap07-41]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2230-034-AK]

City and Borough of Sitka, AK; Notice of Availability of
Environmental Assessment

April 17, 2007.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part
380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for a new license for the Blue Lake
Hydroelectric Project, located on Sawmill Creek, near the City of
Sitka, Alaska, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA). In
the EA, Commission staff analyze potential environmental effects of
relicensing the project and conclude that issuing a new license for the
project, with appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute
a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment.
    A copy of the EA is on file with the Commission and is available
for public inspection. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the issuance date
of this notice, and should be addressed to the Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1-A,
Washington, DC 20426. Please affix ``Blue Lake Project No. 2230-034''
to all comments. Comments may be filed electronically via Internet in
lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site under the ``eFiling'' link. For further information, contact
Tom Dean at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-7662 Filed 4-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74143-74145]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28328]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93864; File No. SR-ICEEU-2021-025]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating
to Amendments to the ICE Clear Europe Delivery Procedures

December 23, 2021.
    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 December 16, 2021, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'' or
the ``Clearing House'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule changes described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared primarily by
ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii)
thereunder,\4\ such that the proposed rule change was immediately
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The principal purpose of the proposed amendments is for ICE Clear
Europe to amend its Delivery Procedures (``Delivery Procedures'' or
``Procedures'') to add a new Part HH thereto (``Part HH'') to address
new ICE Endex French PEG Natural Gas Futures and ICE Endex French PEG
Natural Gas Daily Futures (each a ``Contract'' and together the
``Contracts''), natural gas futures contracts that will be traded on
ICE Endex and cleared by ICE Clear Europe. The proposed updates would
also make certain conforming changes elsewhere in the Delivery
Procedures.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the
meanings specified in the Delivery Procedures or, if not defined
therein, the ICE Clear Europe Clearing Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe 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. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

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

(a) Purpose
    ICE Clear Europe is proposing to add a new Part HH as well as make
certain conforming changes elsewhere in the Delivery Procedures. Part
HH would apply to the Contracts, which are to be traded on ICE Endex
and cleared at ICE Clear Europe. The amended Delivery Procedures would
provide the delivery specifications and processes related to delivery
under such Contracts.
    Delivery under the Contracts would be settled by the transfer of
rights to Natural Gas at the PEG (the title transfer point in the
Transmission System where the Licensed Shipper would exchange daily
quantities of energy with other shippers or with one of the operators
of the Transmission System in France) from a Transferor nominated by
the Seller to the Clearing House and the

[sic] from the Clearing House to a Transferee nominated by the Buyer.
The amendments would provide that the Clearing Members grant authority
to ICE Clear Europe to make Trade Nominations on their behalf in
connection with deliveries under Contracts. Clearing Members would not
be required to send Trade Nominations themselves. Clearing Members
would also acknowledge that GRTgaz (one of the operators of the
Transmission System in France) may take into consideration the Trade
Nominations made by the Clearing House, and ignore Trade Nominations
sent by Buyers, Sellers, Transferors and Transferees.
    The amendments would further specify certain details of the
delivery process for the Contracts including denominations of relevant
quantity, settlement price, relevant time zones, timing of cessation of
trading and certain requirements for exchange of futures for physical
and swap transactions under exchange rules.
    The amendments would also address the responsibilities of the
Clearing House and relevant parties for delivery under Contracts, as
well as certain limitations of liability for the Clearing House.
Specifically, the Clearing House would not be responsible for the
performance or non-performance of GRTgaz, including of its obligations
under the GRTgaz Rules. Additionally, neither the Buyer, Seller nor
their Transferees or Transferors would have any claim against the
Clearing House for any loss, damage, cost or expense incurred as a
result of (i) any actions taken by the Clearing House pursuant to the
GRTgaz Rules, or (ii) technical issues, technical measures,
authorisations, limitations, prohibitions, or failures imposed on, the
condition or operation of, or the performance or non-performance of the
Transmission System, GRTgaz and the [email protected] Platform ties except
as expressly provided in the ICE Endex Rules. Each of the Buyer, Seller
and their Transferees or Transferors would be required to accept any
consequences arising from Trade Nominations made by the Clearing House
pursuant to Part HH.
    The amendments would provide details related to delivery contact
[sic] security, which is the delivery margin to be provided by Buyer
and Seller, and which would take into account the possibility of costs
or charges arising from the balancing regime under the GRTgaz Rules.
The Clearing House would be permitted to alter the calculation of each
of the Buyer's Security and the Seller's Security at any time or make
adjustments in respect of a specific Seller or Buyer.
    The amendments would include delivery timetables with detailed
timeframes and descriptions of the delivery processes for delivery
under Contracts, and such timetables would detail, among other
processes, the time for cessation of trading, provision of Buyer's and
Seller's Security, submission of delivery intentions, confirmations of
intent to deliver or receive, nominations of parties to delivery [sic]
or receive, delivery confirmations, invoicing, release of delivery
margin and sales proceeds following completion of delivery, and other
matters. The amendments would also include delivery tables with
detailed times and processes relating to failed delivery under
Contracts. In respect of invoicing, the amendments would detail how
amounts included in invoices prepared by the Clearing House would be
calculated for confirmed deliveries and failed deliveries of each
Contract.
    In addition, the amendments would detail the reports produced by
the Clearing House in respect of each Contract and made available to
Buyers and Sellers electronically.
    The amendments would also update Section 5.1 of the Delivery
Procedures to include ICE Endex French PEG Natural Gas Futures
Contracts and ICE Endex French PEG Natural Gas Daily Futures Contracts
in the list of contracts under which, subject to delivery obligations,
sellers and buyers can nominate transferors and transferees.
Statutory Basis
    ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed amendments to the
Delivery Procedures are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A
of the Act \6\ and the regulations thereunder applicable to it. In
particular, Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \7\ requires, among other
things, that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions
and, to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions, the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody
or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible, and
the protection of investors and the public interest. The proposed
changes to the Delivery Procedures are designed to establish delivery
procedures relating to ICE ENDEX French PEG Natural Gas Futures
Contracts and ICE Endex French PEG Natural Gas Daily Futures Contracts,
which will be traded on ICE Endex and cleared at ICE Clear Europe. The
amendments would set out the role, responsibilities and liabilities of
the Clearing House, Clearing Members and designated transferors and
transferees in the physical delivery process, in line with Delivery
Procedures for other types of deliverable energy futures contracts.
Contracts providing for delivery under Part HH will be cleared by the
Clearing House in the substantially same manner as other types of
deliverable energy futures contracts, and will be supported by ICE
Clear Europe's existing F&O financial resources, risk management,
systems and operational arrangements. Accordingly, ICE Clear Europe
believes that its financial resources, risk management, systems and
operational arrangements are sufficient to support clearing of such
contracts and to manage the risks associated with such contracts. As a
result, in ICE Clear Europe's view, the amendments would be consistent
with the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of the contracts,
and the protection of investors and the public interest consistent with
the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\8\ (In ICE Clear
Europe's view, the amendments would not affect the safeguarding of
funds or securities in the custody or control of the clearing agency or
for which it is responsible, within the meaning of Section
17A(b)(3)(F)).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(10) \10\ provides that ``[e]ach
covered clearing agency shall establish, implement, maintain and
enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, as
applicable [. . .] establish and maintain transparent written standards
that state its obligations with respect to the delivery of physical
instruments, and establish and maintain operational practices that
identify, monitor and manage the risks associated with such physical
deliveries.'' As discussed above, the amendments would establish a new
set of procedures applicable to the delivery and settlement of ICE
ENDEX French PEG Natural Gas Futures Contracts and ICE Endex French PEG
Natural Gas Daily Futures Contracts. The procedures would address,
among other matters, delivery specifications for such contracts, the
obligations and roles of Clearing Members and the Clearing House,
certain limitations of liability for the Clearing House, and certain
other documentation and timing matters, consistent with the
requirements of the Clearing House. Clearance of the

Contracts would otherwise be supported by ICE Clear Europe's existing
financial resources, risk management, systems and operational
arrangements. The amendments thus appropriately clarify the role and
responsibilities of the Clearing House and Clearing Members with
respect to physical delivery. As a result, ICE Clear Europe believes
the amendments are consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(10).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(10).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed amendments would
have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed
amendments to the Delivery Procedures are intended to establish a new
set of procedures applicable to the delivery and settlement of ICE
ENDEX French PEG Natural Gas Futures Contracts and ICE Endex French PEG
Natural Gas Daily Futures Contracts in connection with the listing of
such contracts for trading on the ICE Endex market. ICE Clear Europe
believes that such contracts would provide opportunities for interested
market participants to engage in trading activity in the relevant
French natural gas market. ICE Clear Europe does not believe the
amendments would adversely affect competition among Clearing Members,
materially affect the cost of clearing, adversely affect access to
clearing for Clearing Members or their customers, or otherwise
adversely affect competition in clearing services. Accordingly, ICE
Clear Europe does not believe that the amendments would impose any
impact or burden on competition that is not appropriate in furtherance
of the purpose of the Act.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed amendments have not been
solicited or received by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe will notify
the Commission of any comments received with respect to the proposed
rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \13\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-ICEEU-2021-025 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2021-025. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Europe
and on ICE Clear Europe's website at https://www.theice.com/clear-europe/regulation. All comments received will be posted without change.
Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2021-025 and should be
submitted on or before January 19, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. 2021-28328 Filed 12-28-21; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 153)]
[Notices]
[Page 40256-40258]
[DOCID:fr11au09-133]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60437; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-052]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt
FINRA Rule 2264 (Margin Disclosure Statement) in the Consolidated FINRA
Rulebook

August 5, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 29, 2009, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items substantially have been prepared by
FINRA. 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

    FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD Rule 2341 (Margin Disclosure
Statement) with minor changes as FINRA Rule 2264 in the consolidated
FINRA rulebook. The text of the proposed rule change is available on
FINRA's Web site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of
FINRA, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    As part of the process of developing a new consolidated rulebook
(``Consolidated FINRA Rulebook''),\3\ FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD
Rule 2341 (Margin Disclosure Statement) with minor changes as FINRA
Rule 2264 in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The current FINRA rulebook consists of (1) FINRA Rules; (2)
NASD Rules; and (3) rules incorporated from NYSE (``Incorporated
NYSE Rules'') (together, the NASD Rules and Incorporated NYSE Rules
are referred to as the ``Transitional Rulebook''). While the NASD
Rules generally apply to all FINRA members, the Incorporated NYSE
Rules apply only to those members of FINRA that are also members of
the NYSE (``Dual Members''). The FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA
members, unless such rules have a more limited application by their
terms. For more information about the rulebook consolidation
process, see Information Notice, March 12, 2008 (Rulebook
Consolidation Process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD Rule 2341 requires members that open margin accounts for or on
behalf of non-institutional customers \4\ to deliver to such customers,
prior to or at the time of opening the account, a specified margin
disclosure statement to highlight the risks involved in trading
securities in a margin account. Members must disclose that the
securities purchased on margin are the firm's collateral for the loan
and that, if the securities in the margin account decline in value, the
firm can take action, such as issuing a margin call and/or selling
securities or other assets in any of the customer's other accounts, to
maintain the required equity in the account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For purposes of the rule, a non-institutional customer means
a customer that does not qualify as an ``institutional account''
under NASD Rule 3110(c)(4). NASD rule 3110(c)(4) provides, ``the
term `institutional account' shall mean the account of: (A) A bank,
savings and loan association, insurance company, or registered
investment company; (B) an investment adviser registered either with
the Securities and Exchange Commission under Section 203 of the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 or with a state securities
commission (or any agency or office performing like functions); or
(C) any other entity (whether a natural person, corporation,
partnership, trust, or otherwise) with total assets of at least $50
million.'' FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD Rule 3110(c)(4) as FINRA
Rule 4512(c). See Regulatory Notice 08-25 (May 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The disclosure statement includes six specific points of
information that must be disclosed to non-institutional customers
before or at the time a margin account is opened for or on behalf of
such customer:

     You can lose more funds than you deposit in the margin
account. A decline in the value of securities that are purchased on
margin may require you to provide additional funds to the firm that has
made the loan to avoid the forced sale of those securities or other
securities or assets in your account(s).
     The firm can force the sale of securities or other assets
in your account(s). If the equity in your account falls below the
maintenance margin requirements, or the firm's higher ``house''
requirements, the firm can sell the securities or other assets in any
of your accounts held at the firm to cover the margin deficiency. You
also will be responsible for any short fall in the account after such a
sale.
     The firm can sell your securities or other assets without
contacting you. Some investors mistakenly believe that a firm must
contact them for a margin call to be valid, and that the firm cannot
liquidate securities or other assets in their accounts to meet the call
unless the firm has contacted them first. This is not the case. Most
firms will attempt to notify their customers of margin calls, but they
are not required to do so. However, even if a firm has contacted a
customer and provided a specific date by which the customer can meet a
margin call, the firm can still take necessary steps to protect its
financial interests, including immediately selling the securities
without notice to the customer.
     You are not entitled to choose which securities or other
assets in your account(s) are liquidated or sold to meet a margin call.
Because the securities are collateral for the margin loan, the firm has
the right to decide which security to sell in order to protect its
interests.
     The firm can increase its ``house'' maintenance margin
requirements at any time and is not required to provide you advance
written notice. These changes in firm policy often take effect
immediately and may result in the issuance of a maintenance margin
call. Your failure to satisfy the call may cause the member to
liquidate or sell securities in your account(s).
     You are not entitled to an extension of time on a margin
call. While an extension of time to meet margin requirements may be
available to customers under certain conditions, a customer does not
have a right to the extension.
    Members also must provide the margin disclosure statement (or an
abbreviated version as provided by the rule) to non-institutional
margin account customers not less than once a calendar year. The rule
provides members with the flexibility to use an alternative disclosure
statement to the language specified in the rule provided that the
alternative disclosures are substantially similar to the disclosures
specified in the rule. Members must deliver the initial and annual
disclosure statement, in writing or electronically, to customers
covered by the rule on an individual basis.
    In addition, the rule requires members that permit non-
institutional customers to open accounts online, or engage in
transactions in securities online, to post the margin disclosure
statement on their Web sites in a clear and conspicuous manner. This
provision was added to NASD Rule 2341 in 2002 based on a recommendation
by the General Accountability Office (GAO) as a means to allow a
broader array of persons to review the disclosures.
    NASD Rule 2341 was approved by the SEC on April 26, 2001, and was
the product of notice and comment rulemaking. FINRA proposes to adopt
the requirements set forth in NASD Rule 2341 as FINRA Rule 2264 in the
Consolidated FINRA Rulebook with minor changes. The minor changes,
consistent with prior interpretive guidance, clarify that the initial
margin disclosure statement may be furnished to customers in a separate
document (or contained by itself on a separate page as part of another
document), and that the annual disclosure statement may be provided
within other documentation, such as the account statement, and does not
have to be on a separate page.\5\ In addition, FINRA is proposing a
minor change to clarify and update the rule text provisions stating
that disclosure statements may be provided to individuals either ``in
writing or electronically.'' Because electronic documents may be
considered a form of ``writing,'' FINRA is proposing to amend the text
to state that the documents may be provided ``in paper or electronic
form.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In 2001, FINRA issued interpretive guidance that, while the
rule requires the initial disclosure statement to be provided in a
separate document, the disclosure statement can be provided with or
as part of another document provided that it is contained by itself
on a separate page. The interpretation also clarified that the
annual disclosure statement may be provided within other
documentation, such as the account statement, and does not have to
be on a separate page. Regulatory and Compliance Alert (Summer
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule
change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later than 90 days
following Commission approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\6\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the required margin disclosures
provide investors with important information with which they can better
understand the operation of margin accounts and the risks associated
with margin trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date 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 such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2009-052 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-FINRA-2009-052. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 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 FINRA. 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-FINRA-2009-052 and should be
submitted on or before September 1, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19147 Filed 8-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 87 (Monday, May 6, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26241-26243]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10270]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1172; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-040-AD;
Amendment 39-17447; AD 2013-04-08 R1]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH
Powered Gliders

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Models HK 36 R, HK 36 TS, and HK 36
TTS powered gliders. AD 2013-04-08 required replacement of each
elevator bell crank assembly and elevator bell crank mount. This AD
retains the actions of AD 2013-04-08 but decreases gliders in the
Applicability by removing the Model H-36 from the Applicability. This
AD was prompted by reports of installation of an unsuitable self-
locking nut on the bell crank of the elevator push rod that can cause
failure of the elevator, resulting in loss of control. We are issuing
this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This final rule is effective May 6, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 9, 2013
(78 FR 14160, March 5, 2013).
    We must receive any comments on this AD by June 20, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, Diamond Aircraft
Industries GmbH, N.A. Otto-Stra[szlig]e 5, A-2700 Wiener Neustadt,
Austria, telephone: +43 2622 26700; fax: +43 2622 26780; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: www.diamond-air.at/hk36--super--
dimona+M52087573ab0.html. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On February 14, 2013, we issued AD 2013-04-08, amendment 39-17365
(78 FR 14160, March 5, 2013), for all Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH
Models HK 36 R, HK 36 TS, and HK 36 TTS powered gliders. That AD
requires replacement of the elevator bell crank assembly and elevator
bell crank mount. That AD resulted from installation of an unsuitable
self-locking nut on the bell crank of the elevator push rod that can
cause failure of the elevator, resulting in loss of control. We issued
that AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

Actions Since AD Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2013-04-08 (78 FR 14160, March 5, 2013), it was
determined that Model H-36 airplanes do not have the elevator control
and bellcrank assembly part numbers associated with the unsafe
condition of this AD. Since Model H-36 airplanes do not have the unsafe
condition, it is not necessary or possible for those airplanes to
comply with this AD, so we are removing the Model H-36 from the
Applicability section.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory Service
Bulletin MSB 36-108, dated February 28, 2012; and Diamond Aircraft

Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-MSB 36-108, dated February 28,
2012. The service information describes procedures for replacement of
the elevator bell crank assembly and elevator bell crank mount.

FAA's Determination

    We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined it is not necessary or possible for Diamond
Aircraft Industries GmbH Model H-36 airplanes to comply with the
previous AD.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service
information described previously.

Change to Existing AD

    This AD would retain all requirements of 2013-04-08 (78 FR 14160,
March 5, 2013), but decrease the Applicability by removing Model H-36.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the
Diamond Model H-36 does not have the same elevator control and bell
crank assembly. It is not necessary and not possible for these powered
gliders to comply with the AD action items. Therefore, we find that
notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary and
that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than
30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite
you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send
your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include
the docket number FAA-2012-1172 and directorate identifier 2012-CE-040-
AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments
on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects
of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date
and may amend this AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 25 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $352 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $13,050, or $522 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2013-04-08 (78 FR 14160, March 5, 2013) and adding the following new
AD:

2013-04-08 R1 Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH: Amendment 39-17447;
Docket No. FAA-2012-1172; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-040-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 6, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD revises AD 2013-04-08 (78 FR 14160, March 5, 2013),
Amendment 39-17365.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the following Diamond Aircraft Industries
GmbH models and serial number (S/N) powered gliders, certificated in
any category: HK 36 R powered gliders, S/Ns 36.300 through 36.414;
HK 36 TS powered gliders, S/Ns 36.415 and 36.416; and HK 36 TTS
powered gliders, S/N 36.393.

 (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of installation of an unsuitable
self-locking nut on the bell crank of the elevator push rod that can
cause failure of the elevator, resulting in loss of control. We are
issuing this revised AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined it is not necessary or possible for the
Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Model H-36 to comply with the
previous AD. Installation of an unsuitable self-locking nut on the
bell crank of the elevator push rod that can cause failure of the
elevator, resulting in loss of control.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions specified in
paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD following Diamond Aircraft
Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB 36-108 and Diamond
Aircraft

Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-MSB 36-108, both dated February
28, 2012:
    (1) Within the next 200 hours time-in-service (TIS) after April
9, 2013, (the effective date retained from AD 2013-04-08, Amendment
39-17365 (78 FR 14160, March 5, 2013)) or within the next 12 months
after April 9, 2013, (the effective date retained from AD 2013-04-
08, Amendment 39-17365 (78 FR 14160, March 5, 2013)), whichever
occurs first, replace each elevator bell crank assembly with part
number (P/N) 820-2730-12-00, and replace each elevator bell crank
mount with P/N 820-2730-11-00.
    (2) After April 9, 2013, (the effective date retained from AD
2013-04-08, Amendment 39-17365 (78 FR 14160, March 5, 2013)), only
install on the powered glider elevator bell crank assemblies with P/
N 820-2730-12-00 and elevator bell crank mounts with P/N 820-2730-
11-00.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (816)
329-4090; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(h) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Mike Kiesov,
Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
April 9, 2013 (78 FR 14160, March 5, 2013).
    (i) Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin
MSB 36-108, dated February 28, 2012.
    (ii) Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-MSB
36-108, dated February 28, 2012.
    (4) For Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH service information
identified in this AD, contact Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH,
N.A. Otto-Stra[szlig]e 5, A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria,
telephone: +43 2622 26700; fax: +43 2622 26780; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: www.diamond-air.at/hk36--super--
dimona+M52087573ab0.html.
    (5) You may view this service information at FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.
    (6) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 24, 2013.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-10270 Filed 5-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Appendix 1: Review Comments and Federal Register Comments Received

								June 10, 2013

To: Matt Weber
From: Kerry Smith
Subject: Arizona River Valuation Survey
   As promised, I went through the survey. It is a very interesting project. I was really impressed by all of the documentation developed in planning the survey. There were a number of other aspects I liked in the research design. However, I will focus my comments on the issues where I felt there was some need for changes. I have listed them in order of importance:
   (1) The payment vehicle is not explained well or justified. Which taxes will go up and why?  Why will the water be reduced in the "expected future"? You suggest on page 6 it is to reduce the amount of water used by the river ecosystem. What is the alternative use for the water that is not going to the ecosystem services?  This is not explained. How will the proposed changes be maintained and why does it cost more to maintain a system that is the current baseline (without the water quality improvements)? These issues are not adequately explained. Until they are, as a reader I don't know how or why this ends up increasing my taxes indefinitely. People know that taxes depend on income  - how do you know what they will pay before you know their income? I realize in a mail question it cannot be dynamic in the way envisioned by this comment. Nonetheless it suggests the tax payment vehicle must be explained carefully.
   (2) There are too many choice panels. I would explain the number respondents get and have no more than two or three. Respondents are not told each panel is independent of the one before. Since it is expected to be mailed, you need to allow in your experimental design that they will read ahead. It is essential that they cannot find the same option or a better option at a cheaper cost. With most conventional experimental design software programs, the blocking process for selecting choice sequences will not include this constraint. I have had to manually inspect all design panels in previous studies  to be sure "better" options are not included as part of the randomization process.
I realize that this affects the assumption of randomization but respondents read ahead.  It is the bundle of choice sets you give them that have to be considered as an integrated whole.
   (3) I felt the choice set panels were too dense. I also felt "expected future" needs to be more carefully identified as what will happen if they do nothing. This is too implicit for me.  Also, when is the expected future?  What is the time horizon for this to happen?  The timing and details on page 6 are too vague.
   (4) A key element is using these conjoint or CV questions is that respondents believe their answers will be consequential. This follows from the Carson-Groves argument in ERE and Vossler and others recently in the AEJ  supporting it. Your discussion on page 1 gives the impression opinions will be used in selecting "best" options.  I believe the statements need to be stronger  -  results based on respondents' votes will be presented to policymakers and their decisions consider constituents desires.  Explanation must be consistent with alternative uses for the water that are motivating the change from the status quo.
   (5) For me, the description of ecosystem services and situation with and without flow is inadequate.  All one knows is the new miles of river and forest acres that is it. A little text that there are other "stuff" affected but little details.
   (6) The term "Full body contact" in my opinion  is terrible. Explain what you mean in plain English. Water will never be deep enough for swimming, but one could wade, raft and not be concerned if you felt in and went underwater. You also need to be specific about current water quality, fish live there, some other species are supported, "no full body contact" is inadequate.
   (7) As you note reminding respondents what to consider on page 12  -  telling them the questions display "different tradeoffs" is inappropriate. Questions display alternative choices  -  don't tell them to make tradeoffs.  We assume they do but that is an assumption on our part.
You say there are three voting questions. I saw four plus an example. None of the explanation on this page was adequate. It really needs to be re-worked.
   (8) You indicate in your discussion of recreation trips per year. You need to give the context in the text  -  trips in a typical year or trips last year; where do they go most often?
   (9) Question 14 is too direct  -  you are using economic explanations rather than what people might use to explain their motivations.
(10) I would want varialbes to characterize respondents:
         * education
         * employment status
         * own a home
         * boat ownership
         * more income categories (and leave out "estimated")
         * define what you mean by income and then ask them to give their best assessment
      I realize most of my suggestions are written in fairly direct terms. I don't mean them to be critical of you -- I just wanted to emphasize their importance. I also wrote this quickly.
      Finally, I did not get into issues with the application of that conjoint framework for valuation and the implicit assumptions about estimating WTP versus MWTP for changes in an attribute. You did not have much detail on this in what you sent.  It might be worth sketching what you hope to derive from the model for policy analysis before finalizing the survey.

                      Arizona Stream Issue Questionnaire
                             Issues and Questions
                                  John Hoehn
                                 June 23, 2013

The questionnaire overall is very well put together. The text is readable and information. The sequencing
of sections and questions is logical. The diagrams and graphics are clear and helpful in understanding the
text and issues.

The key questionnaire is how your respondents react to and understand the issues in the questionnaire. I
assume that you've either tested or have plans to test the questionnaire with respondents like those in your
sample. With that assumption out of the way, I do have some comments on the questionnaire. None are
game changers but they are offered as issues to consider before testing and finalizing the questionnaire.
Here they are:

	1. Page 3. What is treated wastewater? What's meant by "this was just a method of disposing of"?
		I think I understand, but I'm not sure. I suppose treated wastewater is sewage that's been 			through some type of treatment facility? How much treatment? Is it discolored and 			smelly? Does it contain harmful bacteria, viruses or chemicals that may hurt plants, 			animals or me if I come into contact with it? Is there another term that could be used -- 			recycled water maybe?
	2. Pages 3 to 12 are a little much in terms of explanation overload. The 10%/90% information
		seems unnecessary to selection the options. Page 5 doesn't seem relevant either. Page 6 			could be edited to reduce the amount of info and focus attention on options and issues in 			a choice table. The Expected Future lays out what you get for no additional cost. Options 			A and B are also possible if people are wtp. The Expected Future and the Options differ 			in the following:
			a. Miles of streambed flooded
			b. Acres of cottonwood/willow ecosystem
			c. Whether the water is safe enough for full body contact
			d. How the N and S are affected
			e. Cost
		The cost issue is somewhat confusing to me. How does one get more water by simply 			payingmore? Water has to come from someplace -- will it raise water prices where I live? 			Can you offer a little more explanation?
	3. Page 7. It seems like what's represented is with and without water flow. Why not just label the
		scenes accordingly -- With and Without?
	4. Page 9 Why is a sample table necessary? Respondents have probably already read ahead and
		know what's coming. Respondents typically skim through a questionnaire before 				deciding to take the time to answer it.
	5. Page 13-15 Option B in page 15 seems like a real bargain compared to option A on page 16 			when I'm indifferent to north or south flows.

	This raises a question -- is the N/S question issue really important enough for the added
	complexity. Water for the south seems cheap which seems a little surprising with Tucson in the
	N. Why is water for S so much cheaper than water in N?

	Would it be better to focus the cost/service tradeoffs on total flow miles, forest acres and body 	contact while leaving the N/S question as a separate allocation question? Are there returns to
	scope or scale in provision that make the N/S question significant? If not, it might be better to go
	with a simpler structure by eliminating separate rows for N and S flows, acres and body contact.
Hi Matt,
As we discussed on the phone just now, Emily and I are very supportive of your work on the "Willingness to Pay" survey focused on the Santa Cruz River. The results of this work will be very helpful for Sonoran Institute's Santa Cruz River Initiative. Understanding community values regarding natural resource management is critical for prioritizing on the ground actions, crafting policy, leveraging additional funds.
We found this version of the survey to be much improved from the earlier draft you shared. We have some specific comments/edits regarding the language in the survey that I list here in order by page:
* Page 2  -  the italicized intro language makes it seem like these are real options that authorities are considering. We suggest a rewording of the third sentence. Instead of "Your responses will help authorities to select the best option."...we suggest something more like: Your responses will help authorities to better understand public opinion regarding management of the river.
* Page 6  -  the language is misleading regarding the cut back to river flows in the "expected future". Seems river flows would be reduced because managers think the river uses too much. Rather flows will be reduced because effluent may be used for other purposes. Instead of "In the future, river flows are expected to be cut back to reduce the amount of water used by the river ecosystem." ....perhaps something more like this: In the future, river flows are expected to be cut back as effluent is used for other purposes rather than released into the riverbed. To me this is more accurate.
* Page 6  -  reference to voting in the Flow & Forest description implies that the outcome is really up to the survey respondents.
* Page 9  -  provide an explanation as to why certain boxes within the questions are shaded. We assumed these were items that did not change from the expected future. This should be more explicitly stated.
* Page 12  -  there is a typo in the first sentence. There are 5 voting questions, not 3.
* Page 12  -  the language in the third bullet referencing voting again implies that these are real options that people are voting for. Perhaps reword to say something like: Review and answer each question carefully. Understanding your opinion will help authorities to best manage the river.
* Page 18  -  minor formatting typo under question 9, first bullet. The text "Never chose" is not the same font as the subsequent questions.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this work. We would be happy to discuss this work further with you.
Claire and Emily

Claire Zugmeyer
Ecologist

The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed EPA public opinion survey (EPA-HQ-ORD-2013-0282-0001) regarding future options for the water quality, water quantity, and other environmental benefits of the effluent-dependent reaches of the Upper and Lower Santa Cruz River.  Our comments will focus on the Lower Santa Cruz River as that is the reach managed by various Pima County Government entities and utilized for effluent discharge and aquifer recharge by this Department.
The survey approach is to present the public with several potential future outcomes for the water quality, water quantity and habitat ("forest cover") of a reach of the River (with photos and graphic illustrations) and ask that survey recipients choose from several incremental, per-household tax amounts that participants would be willing to pay for these outcomes.  Although we are very interested in public perception and opinion related to water quality of this effluent-dependent portion of the Lower Santa Cruz (LSC) River, we nevertheless have significant concerns about the survey methodology and approach, background information provided, and the alternatives presented to the public in this survey.  Highlights of our concerns are as follows:
   * The survey approach assumes that the outcomes listed are feasible given the amount of funding stated.  In fact, the legal, scientific and physical circumstances of these effluent-dependent flows combine to make many of the outcomes highly unlikely (if not nearly physically impossible), such as the river to meet "full-body contact" water-quality standards.  For more information about the complex and unique issues of water quality and water quantity for effluent-dependent waters in the arid west, we recommend that the survey personnel review the Arid West Water Quality Research Project, which took place from 1995 to 2007 and which was funded and supervised by EPA Region IX.  If necessary, we can provide copies of reports from this effort.

   * The survey does not  provide adequate background to the public as to the nature and impact of the over $600 million in water-quality improvements to its two major metropolitan Water Reclamation Facilities (WRFs) that Pima County is currently constructing in coordination with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. These facilities provide the effluent flow in this reach of the Lower Santa Cruz River and will have state-of-the-art water-quality treatment processes and advanced odor control for which Pima County ratepayers are totally responsible for paying through increased sewer user charges.  We can provide more details about this effort.

   * The future alternatives presented in the survey neglect the economic and environmental benefits of using the water beneficially off-channel as reclaimed water or in-channel for aquifer augmentation.

   * The survey approach includes sending the survey to selected residents in the Phoenix and Tucson Metropolitan areas, but the effluent-dependent flows of the Santa Cruz do not extend to the Phoenix areas and those residents are generally unaware of the River at all.  Furthermore, people living along the Upper Santa Cruz River in Santa Cruz County are not surveyed.  Therefore, half of the targeted survey recipients who have no connection to the Santa Cruz will be surveyed, while others with a direct connection will not.

In closing, the Department would recommend that, prior to proceeding further with this survey, EPA staff discuss the survey formally and fully with the Pima County Government management and staff to reconcile these and other discrepancies. We feel that addressing these concerns will lead to an improved survey and research study.


[Federal Register: September 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 180)]
[Notices]
[Page 54638-54639]
[DOCID:fr18se06-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-439-000]

Southern Natural Gas Company; Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporation; Notice of Joint Application for Abandonment

September 11, 2006.
    Take notice that on August 30, 2006, Southern Natural Gas Company
(Southern) and Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Applicants)
tendered for filing a joint application in abbreviated format for an
order permitting and approving abandonment of the transportation
services provided pursuant to the following rate schedules:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Transco rate schedule                Southern rate schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
X-213..................................  X-47
X-225..................................  ...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time September 22, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-15399 Filed 9-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81319-81320]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32372]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Form S-3; OMB Control No. 3235-0073; SEC File No. 270-61.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Form S-3 (17 CFR 239.13) is used by issuers to register securities
pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.). Form S-
3 gives investors the necessary information to make investment
decisions regarding securities offered to the public. Form S-3 takes
approximately 459 hours per response and is filed by approximately
2,065 issuers annually. We estimate that 25% of the 459 hours per
response (114.75 hours) is prepared by the issuer for a total annual
reporting burden of 236,959 hours (114.75 hours per response x 2.065
responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312, or
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Dated: December 20, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-32372 Filed 12-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 40 (Thursday, February 28, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 6778]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03441]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 2897-048, 2932-047, 2941-043, 2931-042, 2942-051]

Sappi North America, Inc.; Notice of Comment Period Extension

    On January 23, 2019, the Commission issued a notice through the
FERC eLibrary system \1\ setting February 22, 2019, as the end of the
formal period to file comments on the Notice of Availability of Draft
Environmental Assessment for the surrender of the Saccarappa Project
(P-2897-048), and amendments to the licenses for the Mallison Falls,
Little Falls, Gambo, and Dundee projects (P-2932-047, P-2941-043, P-
2931-042, and P-2942-051), respectively. Due to the funding lapse at
certain federal agencies between December 22, 2018 and January 25,
2019, the Commission is extending the comment period until March 1,
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Go to https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/intermediate.asp?link_file=yes&doclist=14738486 and select the file
link to view the document.

    Dated: February 14, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-03441 Filed 2-27-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 92 (Monday, May 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 20944]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09894]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 84 FR 19979, 7 May
2019.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: Thursday, May 9,
2019 at 9:00 a.m.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The following item will not be considered
during the Open Meeting on Thursday, May 9, 2019:
     Whether to propose certain rule amendments and
interpretive guidance regarding the cross-border application of certain
security-based swap requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 that were added by Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed,
please contact the Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 8, 2019.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-09894 Filed 5-9-19; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P