[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33194-33197]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15101]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81140; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2017-77]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE
Arca Options Fee Schedule

July 13, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on July 10, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule
(``Fee Schedule''). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change
effective July 10, 2017.\4\ The proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange originally filed to amend the Fee Schedule on
July 3, 2017 (SR-NYSEArca-2017-74) and withdrew such filing on July
10, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change

and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend the Fee Schedule to offer an
incentive for Market Makers to post liquidity in the SPDR S&P 500 ETF
Trust (``SPY''). The Exchange also proposes a number of textual changes
designed to clarify certain aspects of the Fee Schedule.
    Currently, Market Makers receive a $0.28 per contract credit for
executions against Market Maker posted liquidity in Penny Pilot Issues
and Lead Market Makers (``LMMs'') may receive an additional $.04 per
contract credit (for a total of $0.32 per contract credit) for posted
liquidity in Penny Pilot Issues that are in the LMM's appointment.\5\
Similarly, Market Makers may receive a $0.28 per contract credit for
executions against Market Maker posted liquidity in SPY.\6\ The
Exchange currently offers additional incentives (i.e., enhanced
credits) to Market Makers to post liquidity.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Fee Schedule, Transaction Fee for Electronic Executions,
Per Contract. See also Market Maker Monthly Posting Credit Tiers and
Qualifications for Executions in Penny Pilot Issues and SPY (the
``MM Tiers'').
    \6\ See Fee Schedule, the MM Tiers, Base Rate.
    \7\ See id. See, e.g., the Market Maker Incentive for Penny
Pilot Issues (which provides a $0.41 per contract credit for
executions of Marker Maker posted interest provided the Market Maker
achieves at least 0.75% of total industry Customer equity and ETF
option average daily volume (``TCADV'') from Customer posted
interest (e.g., from the Marker Maker's affiliate of Appointed Order
Flow Provider) in all issues and an ADV from Market Maker posted
interest equal to 0.70% of TCADV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add a new incentive to encourage Market
Makers to post interest in SPY. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
offer any Market Maker that has posted interest of at least 0.20% of
TCADV in SPY during a calendar month, a per contract credit of $0.45
for electronic executions against such posted interest.\8\ As is the
case today, a Market Maker that qualifies for more than one available
credit will always receive the highest rebate applicable to a
transaction. For example, a Market Maker that is eligible to receive
both the $0.41 per contract credit via the Market Maker Incentive For
Penny Pilot Issues as well as the proposed $0.45 per contract credit
via the Market Maker Incentive for SPY would receive the latter
(higher) credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See proposed Fee Schedule, Market Maker Incentive for SPY
(including reference to Endnote 8, which sets forth the calculations
for monthly posting credits).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to make the following textual changes to
the Fee Schedule regarding Market Maker incentives, which are designed
to make the Fee Schedule easier to navigate and comprehend:
     The Exchange proposes to re-locate the reference to
Endnote 15 from the beginning to the end of each of the following
tables: The Market Maker Incentive For Penny Pilot Issues; the Market
Maker Incentive For Non-Penny Pilot Issues; and the MM Tiers
(collectively, the ``MM Tables''). Endnote 15 defines an Appointed
Market Maker (``MM'') and an Appointed Order Flow Provider (``OFP'').
     The Exchange proposes to add a sentence to the beginning
of Endnote 15 to make clear that the qualification thresholds set forth
in the MM Tables ``[i]ncludes transaction volume from the OTP Holder's
or OTP Firm's affiliates or its Appointed OFP or Appointed MM.'' \9\
Consistent with this proposed change, the Exchange proposes to remove
the language that appears at the end of each of the MM Tables providing
that volume of an Appointed MM or Appointed OFP may be included because
it would be duplicative of the proposed new next in Endnote 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See proposed Fee Schedule, Endnote 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Exchange proposes to modify Endnote 8 to define Total
Industry Customer equity and ETF option average daily volume as
``TCADV'' and to use this shorthand reference in each of the MM Tables.
     The Exchange proposes to clarify how the credit for each
of the MM Tables is applied, i.e., that it is applied to ``electronic
executions of Market Maker posted interest'' in the applicable
securities. Consistent with this change, the Exchange proposes to
delete the current language that provides the credit is applied to
``Posted Electronic Market Maker Executions'' in the applicable
securities.
     In each of the MM Tables, the Exchange proposes to replace
reference to ``Posted Orders'' with ``posted interest'' and ``orders''
with ``interest'' to make clear that, where applicable, liquidity may
include orders or quotes.
     In the fee table for Market Maker Incentive for Penny
Pilot Issues, the Exchange proposes to replace reference to ``both
Penny and Non-Penny Issues'' with ``all issues.''
     For consistency, the Exchange proposes to remove the
capitalization from ``Non-Penny,'' as appears in the Market Maker
Incentive For Non-Penny Pilot Issues, and to remove any capitalization
from ``all' and ``issues'' in reference to ``all issues'' in the MM
Tables.
     For ease of reference, the Exchange proposes to rename the
Market Maker Monthly Posting Credit Tiers and Qualifications for
Executions in Penny Pilot Issues and SPY (i.e., the MM Tiers) to
``MARKET MAKER PENNY PILOT AND SPY POSTING CREDIT TIERS,'' and to add
the following preamble, followed by reference to Endnotes 8 and 15 (as
modified herein): ``OTP Holders and OTP Firms meeting the
qualifications below will receive the corresponding credit on
electronic executions of Market Maker posted interest in Penny Pilot
issues and SPY.'' The Exchange also proposes to update a cross
reference to the MM Tiers to reflect the modified name.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See proposed Fee Schedule, Transaction Fee for Electronic
Executions, Per Contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\12\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that providing an enhanced incentive for
executions against posted liquidity in SPY is reasonable, equitable,
and not unfairly discriminatory because, among other things, it may
encourage greater participation in SPY--which is consistently the most
active options issue nationally. The proposed SPY incentive would also
provide an additional means for Market Makers to qualify for credits
for posting volume on the Exchange. By encouraging activity in SPY, the
Exchange believes that opportunities to qualify for other rebates are
increased, which benefits all participants through increased Market
Maker activity. The Exchange also believes that encouraging a higher
level of trading volume in SPY should increase opportunities for OTP
Holders and OTP Firms (``OTPs'') to achieve credits available through
existing incentive programs, such as the MM

Tiers, which provides OTPs the ability to achieve per contract credit
for electronic executions of posted Market Maker interest in SPY and
other Penny Pilot names by combining the volume of the OTP with volume
of their affiliates or Appointed Market Maker. To the extent that order
flow, which adds liquidity, is increased by the proposal, OTPs will be
encouraged to compete for the opportunity to trade on the Exchange,
including by sending additional order flow to the Exchange to achieve
higher tiers or enhanced rebates. The resulting increased volume and
liquidity would benefit all Exchange participants by providing more
trading opportunities and tighter spreads.
    The Exchange also believes the proposed SPY incentive is not
unfairly discriminatory to non-Market Markers (i.e., Customers,
Professionals Customers, Firms and Broker-Dealers) because such market
participants are not subject to the obligations that apply to Market
Makers. The Exchange believes the proposed incentive is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because encouraging Market
Makers to direct more volume to the Exchange would also contribute to
the Exchange's depth of book as well as to the top of book liquidity.
    The Exchange also notes that the proposed credit for posting in SPY
is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory as it is
consistent with credits offered to Market Makers by other options
exchanges.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., MIAX Pearl Fee Schedule, Section 1.a.,
Transaction Rebates/Fees, Exchange Rebates/Fees--Add/Remove Tiered
Rebates/Fees, available here, http://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/page-files/MIAX_PEARL_Fee_Schedule_06072017.pdf
(providing an alternative basis to achieve a $0.47 per contract
credit in Penny Pilot Issues based on a specified level of SPY
volume).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed textual modifications are
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because the
proposed changes would add clarity, transparency and internal
consistency to the Fee Schedule making it easier to navigate and
comprehend, which is in the public interest.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\14\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. Instead, the Exchange believes that the
proposed changes would encourage competition, including by attracting
additional liquidity to the Exchange, which would continue to make the
Exchange a more competitive venue for, among other things, order
execution and price discovery. The Exchange does not believe that the
proposed change would impair the ability of any market participants or
competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing
in the financial markets. Further, the incentive would not impose an
unfair burden on non-Market Markers because such market participants
are not subject to the heightened obligations that apply to Market
Makers. The Exchanges notes that the proposed textual changes are not
intended to have any impact on competition, but instead are designed to
make the Fee Schedule easier for market participants to navigate and
digest, which is in the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In
such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other
exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \15\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \16\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \17\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2017-77 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 SR-NYSEArca-2017-77. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-

NYSEArca-2017-77, and should be submitted on or before August 9, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-15101 Filed 7-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 10793]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04043]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL14-30-000]

Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. v. Southwest Power
Pool; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on February 18, 2014, pursuant to sections 206 and
212 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and 385.212 and sections 206 and
306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 USC 824(e) and 825(e), Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO or Complainant) filed a formal
complaint against Southwest Power Pool (SPP or Respondent) alleging
that the Respondent is violating its Open Access Transmission Tariff
(Tariff) and the MISO-SPP Joint Operating Agreement by invoicing
Complainant for certain transmission service. Among other things,
Complainant requests the Commission issue an order directing SPP to
cease issuing invoices to MISO for such service, including unreserved
use penalties, under the SPP's Tariff.
    The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served
on the contacts for the Respondent as listed on the Commission's list
of Corporate Officials.
    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, 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. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    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 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 10, 2014.

    Dated: February 19, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-04043 Filed 2-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 104)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30272-30274]
[DOCID:fr01jn10-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0286 Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-013-AD;
Amendment 39-16320; AD 2010-11-15]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; SOCATA Model TBM 700 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    The Civil Aviation Authority of the United Kingdom (UK) has
informed EASA that significant quantities of Halon 1211 gas,
determined to be outside the required specification, have been
supplied to the aviation industry for use in fire extinguishing
equipment. Halon 1211 (BCF) is used in portable fire extinguishers,
usually fitted or stowed in aircraft passenger cabins and flight
decks.
    EASA published Safety Information Bulletin (SIB) 2009-39 on 23
October 2009 to make the aviation community aware of this safety
concern.
    The results of the ongoing investigation have now established
that LyonTech Engineering Ltd, a UK-based company, has supplied
further consignments of Halon 1211 (BCF) to L'Hotellier that do not
meet the required specification. This Halon 1211 has subsequently
been used to fill certain P/N 863520-00 portable fire extinguishers
that are now likely to be installed in or carried on certain TBM700
aeroplanes.
    The contaminated nature of this gas, when used against a fire,
may provide reduced fire suppression, endangering the safety of the
aeroplane and its occupants. In addition, extinguisher activation
may lead to release of toxic fumes, possibly causing injury to
aeroplane occupants.

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective July 6, 2010.
    On July 6, 2010, the Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 19, 2010 (75
FR 13239). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    The Civil Aviation Authority of the United Kingdom (UK) has
informed EASA that significant quantities of Halon 1211 gas,
determined to be outside the required specification, have been
supplied to the aviation industry for use in fire extinguishing
equipment. Halon 1211 (BCF) is used in portable fire extinguishers,
usually fitted or stowed in aircraft passenger cabins and flight
decks.
    EASA published Safety Information Bulletin (SIB) 2009-39 on 23
October 2009 to make the aviation community aware of this safety
concern.
    The results of the ongoing investigation have now established
that LyonTech Engineering Ltd, a UK-based company, has supplied
further consignments of Halon 1211 (BCF) to L'Hotellier that do not
meet the required specification. This Halon 1211 has subsequently
been used to fill certain P/N 863520-00 portable fire extinguishers
that are now likely to be installed in or carried on certain TBM700
aeroplanes.
    The contaminated nature of this gas, when used against a fire,
may provide reduced fire suppression, endangering the safety of the
aeroplane and its occupants. In addition, extinguisher activation
may lead to release of toxic fumes, possibly causing injury to
aeroplane occupants.
    For the reason described above, this EASA AD requires the
identification and removal from service of certain batches of fire
extinguishers and replacement with serviceable units.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the

public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 364 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about .5 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product.
Where the service information lists required parts costs that are
covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge
for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected
parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S.
operators to be $15,470 or $43 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

    We determined that 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 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); and
    (3) 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket.

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 the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2010-11-15 SOCATA: Amendment 39-16320; Docket No. FAA-2010-0286;
Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-013-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective July 6,
2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model TBM 700 airplanes, all serial
numbers (SNs), that:
    (1) are certificated in any category; and
    (2) are equipped with part number (P/N) 863520-00 portable fire
extinguishers, serial numbers (S/N) as listed in L'Hotellier Service
Bulletin 863520-26-001, dated December 21, 2009.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 26: Fire
Protection.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    The Civil Aviation Authority of the United Kingdom (UK) has
informed EASA that significant quantities of Halon 1211 gas,
determined to be outside the required specification, have been
supplied to the aviation industry for use in fire extinguishing
equipment. Halon 1211 (BCF) is used in portable fire extinguishers,
usually fitted or stowed in aircraft passenger cabins and flight
decks.
    EASA published Safety Information Bulletin (SIB) 2009-39 on 23
October 2009 to make the aviation community aware of this safety
concern.
    The results of the ongoing investigation have now established
that LyonTech Engineering Ltd, a UK-based company, has supplied
further consignments of Halon 1211 (BCF) to L'Hotellier that do not
meet the required specification. This Halon 1211 has subsequently
been used to fill certain P/N 863520-00 portable fire extinguishers
that are now likely to be installed in or carried on certain TBM700
aeroplanes.
    The contaminated nature of this gas, when used against a fire,
may provide reduced fire suppression, endangering the safety of the
aeroplane and its occupants. In addition, extinguisher activation
may lead to release of toxic fumes, possibly causing injury to
aeroplane occupants.
    For the reason described above, this EASA AD requires the
identification and removal from service of certain batches of fire
extinguishers and replacement with serviceable units.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, within 3 months after July 6, 2010 (the
effective date of this AD), do the following in accordance with
DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-183,
dated January 2010:
    (1) Inspect the fire extinguisher(s) installed or carried on
board the airplane for any P/N and S/N fire extinguisher listed in
L'Hotellier Service Bulletin 863520-26-001, dated December 21, 2009;
and
    (2) If, as a result of the inspection required by paragraph
(f)(1) of this AD, you find any fire extinguisher listed in
L'Hotellier Service Bulletin 863520-26-001, dated December 21, 2009,
before further flight, remove it from the airplane and replace it
with a serviceable unit in accordance with L'Hotellier Service

Bulletin 863520-26-001, dated December 21, 2009.
    (3) As of July 6, 2010 (the effective date of this AD), do not
install any fire extinguisher listed in L'Hotellier Service Bulletin
863520-26-001, dated December 21, 2009, on any airplane, unless it
has been overhauled with compliant Halon 1211 (BCF) and re-
identified, in accordance with the instructions of L'Hotellier
Service Bulletin 863520-26-001, dated December 21, 2009.

FAA AD Differences

    Note:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): 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: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using
any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI EASA AD No.: 2010-0012, dated February 5,
2010; DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-
183, dated January 2010; and L'Hotellier Service Bulletin 863520-26-
001, dated December 21, 2009, for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service
Bulletin SB 70-183, dated January 2010; and L'Hotellier Service
Bulletin 863520-26-001, dated December 21, 2009, to do the actions
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
SOCATA--Direction des Services--65921 Tarbes Cedex 9--France;
telephone +33 (0)5 6241-7300, fax +33 (0)5 62 41 76 54, or for North
America: SOCATA NORTH AMERICA, 7501 South Airport Road, North Perry
Airport (HWO), Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023; telephone: 954-893-
1400; fax: 54-964-4141. For details on the fire extinguisher,
contact: L'HOTELLIER, 4 rue Henri Poincar[eacute], 92167 ANTONY
Cedex, France; telephone +33(0) 1 46 66 08 08; fax +33(0) 1 46 66 23
24; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To obtain a copy of the
referenced L'Hotellier service bulletin, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) You may review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD at the FAA, Central Region,
Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106. For information on the availability of this material at the
Central Region, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD 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/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 19, 2010.
John R. Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-12595 Filed 5-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request USEPA/ OSWER 2. OMB control number b.

None a_ _ _ _ __ __ __ __ 2050

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a.

New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a.

Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes

No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a.

Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Standardized Permit for RCRA Hazardous Waste Management Facilities 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) 1935.01 9. Keywords Waste Treatement and Disposal; Hazardous Waste 10. Abstract Under the authority of sections 3004, 3005, 3008 and 3010 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA), as amended, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) is proposing revisions to the RCRA hazardous waste permitting program to allow a " standardized permit." The standardized permit would be available to facilities that generate hazardous waste and routinely manage the waste on site in non thermal units such as tanks, containers, and containment buildings. This ICR presents a comprehensive description of the information collection requirements for owners and operators submitting applications for a standardized permit or a standardized permit modification under the proposed rule. This ICR also estimates the total annual burden and cost to respondents and government agencies under the proposed rule.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a.

Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. G Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 866 b. Total annual responses 175 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 13,367 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 13,367 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change ______________________________ 2. Adjustment 13,367 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 0.16 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 587 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 587 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference $ 587 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change _____________________________________ 2. Adjustment $ 587 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P_ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a.

Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c.

Reporting 1.

On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes

No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: David A. Eberly Phone: 703 308 8645 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Joseph Retzer, Director Regulatory Information Division Office of Regulatory Management and Evaluation ( OPPE) Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 76 (Tuesday, April 21, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22097-22100]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09038]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0807]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Mantua Creek, Paulsboro, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing the operating regulation that
governs the Conrail Railroad Bridge over Mantua Creek at mile marker
1.4 in Paulsboro, NJ. The bridge owner, Conrail, is modifying the
operating system which controls the bridge operations. Cameras will be
installed and the bridge will be remotely operated from Mt. Laurel, NJ.
The train crew will no longer be required to stop and check the
waterway for approaching vessel traffic prior to initiating a bridge
closure or be responsible to operate the bridge closure equipment
located at the bridge site.

DATES: This rule is effective May 21, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2014-0807. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West

Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mrs. Kashanda Booker, Fifth Coast Guard District Bridge
Administration Division, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
Conrail--Consolidated Rail Corporation
DHS--Department of Homeland Security
FR--Federal Register
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec.  --Section Symbol
U.S.C.--United States Code

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On December 30, 2014, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled, ``Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Mantua Creek,
Paulsboro, NJ'' in the Federal Register (79 FR 78365). We received no
comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and
none was held.
B. Basis and Purpose
    The bridge owner, Conrail, requested a change to 33 CFR 117.729 (a)
due to the replacement of the existing bridge structure. Conrail also
requested to modify the operating regulations due to their intent to
install sensor equipment as part of the reconstruction efforts for
their bridge across Mantua Creek. This rule will change three aspects
of the bridge operation. Specifically, the regulations will enable (1)
remote operation of the bridge, (2) installation of cameras and
infrared sensors to verify whether any vessels are transiting the
waterway before a bridge closure is initiated, and (3) alter the
requirement for signals to be used during drawbridge movement
operations. This rule will not change the operating schedule of the
bridge. The original structure for the bridge at mile marker 1.4 across
Mantua Creek was an A-Frame swing bridge with unlimited vertical
clearance in the open position. This swing bridge is being replaced by
a vertical lift bridge with a 25-foot vertical clearance in the open
position. The horizontal clearance for the swing bridge was 32 feet.
The vertical lift bridge will have a horizontal clearance of 44 feet.
    The scope of the waterway inspection is different between the
current on-site train crewmember inspection process and the range of
the camera installation. There is also a difference in the time it
takes between the inspection and the initiation of the bridge closure
operations. Currently, the regulation requires an on-site train
crewmember to conduct an inspection of the waterway for vessels by
stopping the train approximately 150 feet north of the bridge site when
approached from the north or 150 feet south of the bridge site when
approached from the south. Once the train is stopped, the train
crewmember walks to the bridge site and physically looks up and down
the channel. The time it takes to stop the train, walk to the bridge,
conduct the inspection, walk back to the train, and re-start the train
takes 5-10 minutes. This rule allows the remote operating station to
inspect the waterway with cameras without first stopping the train
which permits a more efficient operating system.
    The closer the vessels are to the bridge, the more likely it is
that the train crewmember will see them using the process required by
the current regulation. Under this rule, the camera inspection of the
waterway has the capability to zoom up and down stream allowing for
easier detection of a smaller vessel approaching the bridge. After
inspection of the waterway, using the cameras, the bridge closing
operations would then occur from a remote location at the Mt. Laurel
remote operating station.
    Currently, the bridge is designed to be operated by the train crew.
Under this rule Conrail will operate the Mantua Creek Bridge at mile
1.4 from a remote location, the Conrail Mt. Laurel, NJ, remote
operating station, at all times. A draw tender may be stationed at the
bridge at various times when it is deemed necessary for safety purposes
such as during times when bridge maintenance is being performed.
    Conrail operates other bridges at the Mt. Laurel, NJ remote
operating station. The change from on-site control of the bridge to the
Mt. Laurel, NJ operating station enables Conrail to consolidate its
control of the train line and Mantua Creek bridge. By controlling the
track as well as the bridge operating mechanism at the Mt. Laurel
station, the remote operator has access to more information regarding
the anticipated arrival time for when the trains will be at the bridge
site. Information such as train speed and location directly contribute
to when the bridge will need to be closed. This change to a remote
operating station may shorten the duration of the bridge closures due
to the higher accuracy of information on train speed and anticipated
arrival time at the bridge site.
    The depth of Mantua Creek at the bridge is 22 feet. The diurnal
tidal range is 6 feet. Mantua Creek is used by several recreational
vessels during the summer boating season. There is no commercial vessel
traffic on Mantua Creek.
    From March through November, the bridge is in the open to
navigation position and will only be lowered for the passage of train
and maintenance. Train activity in this location requires the bridge to
close to navigation up to eight times a day Monday thru Friday. On
Saturday and Sunday, the bridge is closed up to six times each day.
    From December through the end of February, the bridge is in the
closed to navigation position but will open if 4 hours notice is given.
    Conrail will also specify the dates when the bridge will be left in
the open to navigation position from March 1 through November 30 and
left in the closed to navigation position from December 1 through the
last day of February. This represents a clarification of the existing
regulatory language, and not a substantive change to the existing
bridge schedule.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard provided a comment period of 45 days and no
comments were received, therefore, no changes were made.
    Under this rule, the responsibility to operate the drawbridge is
being removed from the train crew and being transferred to the remote
operating station located in Mt. Laurel, NJ. The visual examination of
the waterway to confirm whether or not any vessels are present will
shift from the train crew to the Mt. Laurel remote operating station.
The train crew will not be required to stop and check the waterway
prior to the remote operating station closing or opening the bridge.
Cameras and sensors will be used to confirm whether any vessels are
navigating Mantua Creek near the CONRAIL Bridge prior to closing the
bridge.
    From the controls at the Mt. Laurel remote operating station, the
timeframe to initiate the bridge closure is not more than 15 minutes
before a train will arrive at the bridge location. The system currently
in place using local control of the operating mechanism works under a
similar timeframe. At the Mt. Laurel remote operating station, the
cameras and sensors will be used continuously during the bridge closure
operations to

monitor the waterway for the presence of vessels.
    With the limit of 25 feet of vertical clearance in the open
position, the movement of the bridge impacts vessels transiting the
waterway. Signals alerting any vessels on Mantua Creek about this
movement are being modified to reflect the operating process of a new
vertical lift bridge. The bridge will use flashing red lights along
with sounding the horn to notify waterway users that the bridge is
changing position. The current regulation requires a flashing red
light, one prolonged blast, one short blast, and an audio voice
announcement to indicate the bridge is opening. The new regulation
states that the light will change from fixed green to flashing red any
time the bridge is not in the full open position. Prior to bridge
movement, there will be two prolonged blasts followed by two short
blasts. This rule removes the audio voice announcement.
    The drawbridge operation schedule will not change under the Final
Rule. However, Conrail will specify the dates when the bridge will be
left in the open to navigation position from March 1 through November
30 and left in the closed to navigation position from December 1
through the last day of February. This represents a clarification of
the existing regulatory language, and not a substantive change to the
existing bridge schedule.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under
section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget
has not reviewed it under those Orders. The changes in this rule impact
the methods used to operate the drawbridge. There are no changes to the
drawbridge operating schedule.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. There
are no changes proposed to the drawbridge operating schedule. Vessels
that can safely transit under the bridge may do so at any time. The
vertical clearance of 25 feet is consistent with other approved bridges
on Mantua Creek.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule would call for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it would 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.

12. Energy Effects

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that this action is one of a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule promulgates the operating regulations or
procedures for drawbridges. This rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  117.729(a) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.729  Mantua Creek.

    (a) The draw of the Conrail automated railroad bridge, mile 1.4, at
Paulsboro, NJ shall operate as follows:
    (1) The bridge will be operated remotely by the South Jersey Train
Dispatcher located in Mt. Laurel, NJ. Operational information will be
provided 24 hours a day by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (2) From March 1 through November 30, the draw shall be left in the
open position and will only be lowered for the passage of trains and to
perform periodic maintenance authorized in accordance with subpart A of
this part.
    (3) From December 1 through the last day of February, the draw will
open on signal if at least 4 hours notice is given by telephone at
(856) 231-2282.
    (4) The timeframe to initiate the bridge closure will be not more
than 15 minutes before a train will arrive at the bridge location. If a
train moving toward the bridge has crossed the home signal for the
bridge, the train may continue across the bridge and must clear the
bridge prior to stopping for any reason. Trains shall be controlled so
that any delay in opening of the draw shall not exceed ten minutes
except as provided in Sec.  117.31(b).
    (5) The bridge will be equipped with cameras and channel sensors to
visually and electronically ensure the waterway is clear before the
bridge closes. The video and sensors are located and monitored at the
remote operating location in Mt. Laurel, NJ. The channel sensors signal
will be a direct input to the bridge control system. In the event of
failure or obstruction of the infrared channel sensors, the bridge will
automatically stop closing and the South Jersey Train Dispatcher will
return the bridge to the open position. In the event of video failure
the bridge will remain in the full open position.
    (6) The Conrail Railroad center span light will change from fixed
green to flashing red anytime the bridge is not in the full open
position.
    (7) Prior to downward movement of the span, the horn will sound two
prolonged blasts, followed by a pause, and then two short blasts until
the bridge is seated and locked down. At the time of movement, the
center span light will change from fixed green to flashing red and
remain flashing until the bridge has returned to its full open
position.
    (8) When the train controller at Mt. Laurel has verified that rail
traffic has cleared, they will sound the horn five times to signal the
draw is about to return to its full open position.
    (9) During upward movement of the span, the horn will sound two
prolonged blasts, followed by a pause, and then sound two short blasts
until the bridge is in the full open position. The center span light
will continue to flash red until the bridge is in the fully open
position.
    (10) When the draw cannot be operated from the remote site, a
bridge tender must be called to operate the bridge in the traditional
manner. Personnel shall be dispatched to arrive at the bridge as soon
as possible, but not more than one hour after malfunction or disability
of the remote system.
* * * * *

    Dated: April 3, 2015.
Stephen P. Metruck,
Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2015-09038 Filed 4-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31621-31623]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12437]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69610; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-54]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 3306 and Rule 3303 To Stipulate How Participants in NASDAQ OMX PSX
May Modify Previously Entered Orders and To Describe How Modified
Orders Are Processed

May 20, 2013.
    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 10, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') 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 have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 3306 (Entry and Display of
Quotes and Orders) and Rule 3303 (Short Sale Price Test Pursuant to
Rule 201 of Regulation SHO) to stipulate how Participants in NASDAQ OMX
PSX (``PSX'') may modify previously entered orders and to describe how
modified orders are processed. The text of the proposed rule change is
below; proposed new language is italicized, and proposed deletions are
in brackets.

3303. Short Sale Price Test Pursuant to Rule 201 of Regulation SHO

    (a)-(c) No change.
    (d) Re-pricing of Orders during Short Sale Period. Except as
provided below, [D]during the Short Sale Period, short sale orders that
are limited to the national best bid or lower and short sale market
orders will be re-priced by the

System one minimum allowable price increment above the current national
best bid (``Permitted Price''). To reflect declines in the national
best bid, the Exchange will continue to re-price a short sale order at
the lowest Permitted Price down to the order's original limit price, or
if a market order, until the order is filled. Non-displayed orders
between the PSX bid and offer at the time of receipt will also be re-
priced upward to a Permitted Price to correspond with a rise in the
national best bid.
    (1) No change.
    (2) During the Short Sale Period, if an order was entered as a long
sale order or a short sale exempt order but is subsequently marked
pursuant to Phlx Rule 3306(a)(3) as a short sale order, the System will
cancel the order unless it is priced at a Permitted Price or higher.
    (e)-(f) No change.
* * * * *

3306. Entry and Display of Quotes and Orders

    (a) Entry of Orders--Participants can enter orders into the System,
subject to the following requirements and conditions:
    (1)-(2) No change.
    (3) Orders can be entered into the System (or previously entered
orders cancelled or modified) from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Time. Participants may modify a previously entered order without
cancelling it or affecting the priority of the order on the book solely
for the purpose of modifying the marking of a sell order as long,
short, or short exempt; provided, however, that if an order is
redesignated as short, a Short Sale Period is in effect under Rule
3303, and the order is not priced at a Permitted Price or higher under
Rule 3303(d), the order will be cancelled. In addition, a partial
cancellation of an order to reduce its share size will not affect the
priority of the order on the book. All other modifications of orders
will result in the replacement of the original order with a new order
with a new time stamp.
    (b)-(c) No change.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to stipulate how
Participants in PSX may modify previously entered orders and to
describe how modified orders are processed. Currently, Rule 3306
permits previously entered orders to be cancelled, a fact that has been
interpreted by Phlx to allow a Participant to cancel an order in full
or in part. However, new language is being added to the rule to make it
clear that a partial cancellation of an order (i.e., a reduction in the
share size of the order) does not cause the order to lose priority on
the PSX book. Phlx believes that it is reasonable to allow the partial
cancellation of an order without the order losing priority because the
Participant that entered the order continues to express its willingness
to trade at the price entered when the order first came onto the book.
Moreover, if the order is displayed, other Participants quoting at the
same price are aware of the priority of their orders relative to the
partially cancelled order. While a partial cancellation may provide
these other Participants with greater opportunities to provide a fill,
Phlx does not believe that it would be reasonable for the Participants
to jump ahead of an order with time priority merely because the size of
the order has been reduced. Similarly, if the partially cancelled order
is non-displayed, other Participants would have no awareness of its
price, its original size, or its reduced size. Again, while other
Participants at that price may have an increased opportunity to provide
a fill when the order's size is reduced, they would not have an
expectation that the priority of their orders would change vis-
[agrave]-vis that of an order that arrived on the book at an earlier
time. Finally, with respect to Participants seeking to access
liquidity, the reduced size of the order would be disseminated (if a
displayed order) or not disseminated (if a non-displayed order) via
market data feeds, but these Participants would be indifferent as to
the order's priority vis-[agrave]-vis other orders with the same price.
    In addition, Phlx is modifying Rule 3303 to provide that a sell
order may be modified in order to change its marking as long, short, or
short exempt without affecting its priority on the book.\3\
Participants sometimes wish to modify the marking of a sell order on
the book due to changes in the Participant's holdings of the security
in question. At present, such a modification may only be achieved by
the cancellation of the existing order and its replacement with a new
order with a different time stamp. Phlx believes that it is reasonable
to allow the modification of an order for this purpose without
affecting its priority, since the order's marking has no bearing on the
timing of its entry onto the book vis-[agrave]-vis other orders at the
same price.\4\ In the event, however, that a long or short exempt order
is redesignated as a short sale order and the security that is the
subject of the order is in a Short Sale Period, as provided for in Rule
3303 and Rule 201 under Regulation SHO,\5\ the order will be evaluated
to determine whether its price would be a Permitted Price within the
meaning of Rule 3303(d). If not, the order will be cancelled rather
than repriced.\6\ Phlx believes that cancelling the order under these
circumstances is preferable to repricing it, because it alerts the
Participant entering the order to the existence of the Short Sale
Period and forces the Participant to evaluate its intentions with
regard to the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The proposed rule does not affect Participants' obligations
contained in Regulation SHO under the Act, and Participants must
continue to comply with such obligations, including the order
marking and locate requirements. See 17 CFR 242.200 et seq.
    \4\ A change to the marking of the order would be effected
through the submission of a ``modify order'' message.
    \5\ 17 CFR 242.201.
    \6\ If an order originally marked as long or short is marked as
short exempt, the order will not be cancelled or repriced. Rule
3303(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Phlx is amending Rule 3303 to make it clear that all other
modifications of previously submitted orders, including increases in
size \7\ and changes in price, will result in the cancellation of the
original order and its replacement with a new order with a new time
stamp. Although the addition of this rule language does not reflect a
change in the way the Phlx system currently operates, Phlx believes
that the clarity of the rule will be enhanced by including the new
language. Phlx further believes that the functionality described by the
rule language is important to ensuring that Participants cannot use an
existing order unfairly to

retain priority with respect to a materially different order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Phlx reminds Participants that if a seller increases the
size of a pending sell order, the resulting modified order is
considered a new order and must be marked by the broker-dealer to
reflect the seller's net position at the time of order modification
pursuant to Rule 200 of Regulation SHO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Phlx believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of
the Act \8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act \9\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general to protect investors and the public interest.
Specifically, Phlx believes that permitting Participants to change the
marking of sell orders without affecting their priority on the Phlx
book will eliminate an aspect of PSX that had unnecessarily made it
more difficult for posted sell orders to execute. Thus, the change will
enhance the fairness and efficiency of PSX without affecting the
ability of Participants to comply with applicable regulatory
requirements. In addition, the changes to the rule that describe the
effect of a partial order cancellation promote the clarity of the rule
with respect to the ability of a Participant to reduce the size of an
existing order without affecting its priority. Phlx further believes
that allowing an order to retain priority under these conditions is
consistent with the operation of a free and open market and the
protection of investors and the public interest, since the Participant
that entered an order that is partially cancelled has nevertheless
expressed a continued willingness to trade at a specified price, and
therefore should retain priority over Participants that joined that
price at a later time. Finally, Phlx believes that the proposed
addition of language to clearly stipulate that all other order
modifications will result in the cancellation and replacement of the
original order with a new order with new time priority is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest because the
new language will make clear an existing feature of the market that
Phlx believes is important to ensuring that Participants cannot use an
existing order unfairly to retain priority with respect to a materially
different order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Phlx 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, as amended. Specifically, Phlx
believes that the change with respect to allowing Participants to
modify the long, short, or short exempt marking of a sell order without
affecting its priority will assist Phlx in competing with the BATS
Exchange and the BATS Y-Exchange, which already allow their
Participants to do so. Phlx further believes that the other changes
will not have any effect on competition.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \10\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2013-54 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-Phlx-2013-54. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
    Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2013-54 and
should be submitted on or before June 14, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-12437 Filed 5-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 60273]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23880]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 5865-015]

David E. Cereghino, Idaho County Light & Power Cooperative
Association, Inc.; Notice of Transfer of Exemption

    1. By letter filed March 25, 2011, David E. Cereghino and Idaho
County Light & Power Cooperative Association, Inc. informed the
Commission that the exemption from licensing for the Cereghino Hydro
Project, FERC No. 5865, originally issued April 6, 1984,\1\ has been
transferred to Idaho County Light & Power Cooperative Association, Inc.
The project is located on John Day Creek in Idaho County, Idaho. The
transfer of an exemption does not require Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 27 FERC ] 61,052, Order Granting Exemption from Licensing of
a Small Project of 5 MW or Less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Idaho County Light & Power Cooperative Association, Inc. is now
the exemptee of the Cereghino Project, FERC No. 5865. Forward all mail
to Mr. Jay G. Eimers, General Manager, Idaho County Light & Power
Cooperative Association, Inc., P.O. Box 300, Grangeville, ID 83530.

    Dated: September 25, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-23880 Filed 9-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 182)]
[Notices]
[Page 48256]
[DOCID:fr22se09-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Filings

September 11, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER01-1099-000; ER02-1406-014; ER99-2928-020.
    Applicants: Cleco Power LLC; Acadia Power Partners, LLC; Cleco
Evangeline LLC.
    Description: Cleco Companies submit supplemental affidavit of Paul
Raab.
    Filed Date: 09/04/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090909-0151.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 25, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-411-003.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest ISO submits accepted provisions as
incorporated into the Open Access Transmission and Energy Markets
Tariff revised to reflect an effective date of 12/31/08, et al.
    Filed Date: 09/08/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090909-0159.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 29, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1685-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits Engineering and Procurement
Agreement dated 8/25/09 between PacifiCorp and Ridgeline Alternative
Energy, LLC.
    Filed Date: 09/08/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090909-0160.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 29, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1686-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits Fifth Revised Sheet
No. 523I.02 to FERC Electric Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 09/09/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090910-0061.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 30, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1687-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Co submits revised rate
sheets to the Mira Loma Peaker Project Large Generator Interconnection
Agreement etc.
    Filed Date: 09/09/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090910-0062.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 30, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1688-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: NorthWestern Corp submits an executed Large Generator
Interconnection Agreement with Martinsdale Wind Farm, LLC under.
    Filed Date: 09/09/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090910-0060.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 30, 2009.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES09-51-000.
    Applicants: Georgia Power Company.
    Description: Application of Georgia Power Company for Authorization
of Issuance of Securities under section 204 of the FPA under ES09-51.
    Filed Date: 09/09/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090909-5094.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 30, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings 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) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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 dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22722 Filed 9-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P