[Federal Register: October 19, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 201)]
[Notices]
[Page 60807-60808]
[DOCID:fr19oc05-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-15-000]

Garden Banks Gas Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Proposed Changes in
FERC Gas Tariff

October 12, 2005.
    Take notice that on October 7, 2005, Garden Banks Gas Pipeline, LLC
(Garden Banks) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective
November 7, 2005:

Eighth Revised Sheet No. 2.
Third Revised Sheet No. 3.
Eighth Revised Sheet No. 57.
Second Revised Sheet No. 138.
Original Sheet No. 139.
Sheet Nos. 140-209 (sheets reserved for future use).

    Garden Banks states it is filing these tariff sheets to reflect
currently effective service agreements which do not conform with its
form of service agreement. Garden requests that the Commission accept
these non-conforming agreements for filing and grant any and all
waivers necessary to allow these agreements to be effective as of their
respective effective dates and to remain in effect in accordance with
their respective terms.
    Garden Banks states that copies of its filing have been mailed to
all affected customers of Garden Banks and any interested state
commissions. Garden Banks further states that due to the voluminous
nature of this filing, it is not providing copies of the filed
agreements or red-lines of such agreements as part of each service
copy. Garden Banks states that the entire filing (excluding certain
confidential information, as explained more fully in the filing) will
be available in its offices and that it will provide copies of such
agreements (excluding certain confidential information) to any affected
customer or interested state commission who requests such copies.
    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 in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
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 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 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>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-5772 Filed 10-18-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 204)]
[Notices]
[Page 62102]
[DOCID:fr23oc06-37]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER06-1122-000]

High Trail Wind Farm, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

October 16, 2006.
    High Trail Wind Farm, LLC (High Trail) filed an application for
market-based rate authority, with an accompanying tariff. The proposed
market-based rate tariff provides for the sale of energy, capacity and
ancillary services at market-based rates. High Trail also requested
waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, High Trail
requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part
34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability
by High Trail.
    On July 13, 2006, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development--West, granted the requests
for blanket approval under part 34. The Director's order also stated
that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the Federal
Register establishing a period of time for the filing of protests.
Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket
approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by
High Trail should file a motion to intervene or protest with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214
(2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to
intervene or protest is November 15, 2006.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above,
High Trail is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or
liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect
of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or
assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of
High Trail, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably
necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of High Trail's issuance of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order 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
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-17627 Filed 10-20-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 23515]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08371]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP21-340-000; RP21-794-000.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: Motion of ANR Pipeline Company to Withdraw Tariff
Filing RP21-340-000, et al.
    Filed Date: 04/12/2022.
    Accession Number: 20220412-5177.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/27/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-818-000.
    Applicants: LA Storage, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Negotiated Rate,
Conforming IW Agreement 4.11.22 to be effective 4/11/2022.
    Filed Date: 4/12/22.
    Accession Number: 20220412-5107.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/25/22.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 13, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-08371 Filed 4-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 181 (Thursday, September 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56081-56082]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22198]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2014-0664; OMB Control Number 1625-0012]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of an
extension to the following collection of information: 1625-0012,
Certificate of Discharge to Merchant Mariner. Our ICR describes the
information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this
ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before November 17,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2014-0664] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). To avoid duplicate
submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely manner, mark the fax, to attention Desk Officer for the Coast
Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Copies of the ICR are available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
COMMANDANT (CG-612), ATTN PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, US COAST
GUARD, 2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE SE. STOP 7710, WASHINGTON, DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether the ICR should be
granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the
Collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
information subject to the Collections; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the Collections on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. In response to your comments, we may revise these ICRs or
decide not to seek approval of revisions of the Collections. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2014-0664], and
must be received by November 17, 2014. We will post all comments
received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will
include any personal information you provide. We have an agreement with
DOT to use their DMF. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2014-0664], indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit
your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov), by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If
you submit a comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit
the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be
considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is
received at the DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing
address, an email address, or other contact information in

the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have
questions regarding your submission.
    You may submit your comments and material by electronic means,
mail, fax, or hand delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES;
but please submit them by only one means. To submit your comment
online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2014-0664''
in the ``Search'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11
inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and will address them accordingly.
    Viewing comments and documents: To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ``read comments'' box,
which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ``Search'' box
insert ``USCG-2014-0664'' and click ``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. You may also visit the DMF in Room
W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Information Collection Request

    1. Title: Certificate of Discharge to Merchant Mariner.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0012.
    Summary: Title 46, United States Code 10311, requires each master
or individual in charge of a vessel, for each merchant mariner being
discharged from the vessel to prepare a Certificate of Discharge to
Merchant Mariners and two copies. These documents are used to establish
evidence of sea service aboard U.S. flagged merchant vessels for
merchant mariners to upgrade their credentials, establish proof of
eligibility for union and other benefits, and in litigation where
vessel service is an issue.
    Need: The information collected provides the U.S. Coast Guard
evidence of sea service used in determining eligibility for issuance of
a merchant mariner credential, to determine eligibility for various
benefits such as medical and retirement, and to provide information to
the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) on the availability of
mariners in a time of a national emergency.
    Forms: CG-718A.
    Respondents: Shipping companies, masters or individuals in charge
of a vessel.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden remains the same at 1,478 per
year.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: September 11, 2014.
Thomas P. Michelli,
U.S. Coast Guard, Deputy Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-22198 Filed 9-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 1254]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00280]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-552-000]

Clean Energy Future-Lordstown, LLC; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding
Clean Energy Future-Lordstown, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is January 24, 2018.
    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
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website 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 protected]. or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 4, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-00280 Filed 1-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57862-57863]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22691]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93309; File No. SR-NYSE-2021-60]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Its Rules To Add New Rule 7.13

October 13, 2021.
    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 October 6, 2021, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to add new Rule 7.13
(Trading Suspensions). The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to add new Rule 7.13
(Trading Suspensions).
    Proposed Rule 7.13 would permit the Chair of the Board of the
Exchange, or the CEO, or the officer designee of the Chair or the CEO,
to suspend trading in any and all securities trading on the Exchange
whenever in his or her opinion such suspension would be in the public
interest. No such suspension would continue longer than a period of two
days, or as soon thereafter as a quorum of Directors can be assembled,
unless the Board approves the continuation of such suspension.
    Proposed Rule 7.13 is identical to the rule text governing Trading
Suspensions currently in place on the Exchange's affiliate exchanges
NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American''), NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''),
NYSE Chicago, Inc. (``NYSE Chicago''), and NYSE National, Inc (``NYSE
National'').\4\ The Exchange is proposing to add Rule 7.13 to the
Exchange in order to harmonize the Exchange's rules with those of its
affiliate exchanges and to provide for consistent authority to suspend
trading

across the Exchange and its affiliate exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NYSE American Rule 7.13E; NYSE Arca Rule 7.13-E; NYSE
Chicago Rule 7.13; and NYSE National Rule 7.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and in general, protect investors and the
public interest because identical authority to suspend trading already
exists on each of the Exchange's affiliate exchanges, and therefore is
not novel.\7\ The proposed rule change would further remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public
interest because it would [sic]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change would further remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, protect investors and the public interest because it
would permit the Chair of the Board of the Exchange, or the CEO, or the
officer designee of the Chair or the CEO, to act in the public interest
to suspend trading in any and all securities trading on the Exchange
when he or she believes that such a suspension is warranted. Such a
suspension would not impact the ability of NYSE-listed securities to
trade on an unlisted trading privileges basis other markets.

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will not impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not
intended to address competitive issues but rather would harmonize the
Exchange's rules with those of its affiliate exchanges and provide for
consistent authority to suspend trading across the Exchange and its
affiliate exchanges.

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

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

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

    Because the 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) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \10\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2021-60 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-NYSE-2021-60. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2021-60, and should be submitted on
or before November 9, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-22691 Filed 10-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


1 Reference Document: " Source apportionment of PM2.5 using a three dimensional air quality model and a receptor model," Park, S K, L. Ke, B. Yan, A. G. Russell, M. Zheng ( 2005), Proceedings of an AAAR international specialty conference  Particulate Matter Supersites Program and Related Studies, Atlanta, Georgia.

Source apportionment of PM 2.5 using a three dimensional air quality model and a receptor model Sun Kyoung Park*, Lin Ke**, Bo Yan**, Armistead G. Russell*, Mei Zheng**

* School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, GA ** School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, GA Sources of PM2.5 are apportioned using a three dimensional air quality model and a receptor model. Objectives of this paper are to compare source contributions calculated from the two modeling approaches, and to identify origins of discrepancies. In addition, this paper investigates ways by which methods of source apportionment can be improved. Air quality modeling is done with CMAQ applied over the United States, with a detailed grid over the southeastern US, and receptor modeling is conducted using the chemical mass balance model with organic molecular markers ( CMB MM) applied to observations from eight SEARCH stations in July 2001, and in January 2002 ( ESP01/ 02). Sources of primary PM2.5 in the JST station are apportioned as detailed in Table 1. Results from the two different methods match reasonably well, but discrepancies exist. Discrepancies can come from the direct comparison between point measurement ( CMB MM) and the volume averaged prediction( CMAQ), but more importantly differences come from the uncertainty of each model. Sources of uncertainty in CMB MM include source profiles and ambient data, which have been studied by Yan et al., ( 2004: companion paper). When different source profiles of wood burning are used, contributed masses change from 1.7 to 14.4ug/ m3 on January 27, 2002. When different levels of uncertainty are applied to the ambient data, contributed masses from gasoline emissions change as much as 35%. Sources of uncertainty in CMAQ include the size of the grid emission inventory, and meteorological field uncertainties. As can be seen in Table 1, contributed masses are different up to 43% when different sizes of the grids are applied. Emission inventory uncertainties include not only the total mass of emissions, but the temporal and compositional profiles and spatial surrogate as well. At this point, it is difficult to assess which approach is " better", and indeed, they both have their strengths and limitations, which are further explored. 2 Table 1. Source apportionments of primary PM2.5 in the JST station using CMB MM and CMAQ. Unit:[ ug/ m3]

July 2001 January 2002 CMB MM CMAQ( 12/ 36km) CMB MM CMAQ( 12/ 36km) Diesel exhaust 1.35 2.28/ 1.48 1.84 2.17/ 1.44 Gasoline exhaust 0.07 0.61/ 0.48 0.60 0.65/ 0.50 Road dust 0.44 2.29/ 1.97 0.00 2.86/ 2.45 Wood burning 0.33 1.96/ 2.34 3.09 2.24/ 2.67 Sec. Sulfate 7.85 10.76/ 11.37 2.21 3.56/ 3.19 Sec. Nitrate 0.44 1.77/ 1.38 1.65 8.05/ 8.23 Sec. Ammonium 3.26 4.36/ 4.18 1.34 3.68/ 3.60 Other organic matter 3.35 2.76/ 3.23 1.47 2.55/ 2.25 Unclassified mass 5.44 3.52/ 2.99 1.08 4.53/ 3.74 Table 2. Source apportionment of primary and secondary PM2.5 in the JST station using CMAQ. Unit:[ ug/ m3]

July 2001 January 2002 CMAQ( 12/ 36km) CMAQ( 12/ 36km) Diesel exhaust 3.94/ 3.51 3.88/ 3.02 Gasoline exhaust 3.45/ 2.88 3.24/ 3.02 Road dust 2.46/ 2.17 3.09/ 2.67 Wood burning 2.39/ 2.95 2.94/ 3.47 Power plant 9.25/ 10.21 3.09/ 3.26 Unclassified mass 8.83/ 7.70 14.04/ 12.62


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 173 (Monday, September 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53192-53193]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21299]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9916-29-OAR]

Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC): Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces upcoming
public meetings of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC). The

EPA established the CAAAC on November 19, 1990, to provide independent
advice and counsel to EPA on policy issues associated with
implementation of the Clean Air Act of 1990. The Committee advises on
economic, environmental, technical, scientific and enforcement policy
issues.

DATES & ADDRESSES: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 2 Section 10(a)(2), notice
is hereby given that the CAAAC will hold its next face-to-face meeting
on October 29, 2014, tentatively from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the
Holiday Inn and Suites Alexandria, 625 First Street, Alexandria, VA
22314. The Permits, New Source Review and Toxics Subcommittee will meet
at the same location on October 28, 2014, tentatively from 1:30 p.m. to
4:30 p.m.
    Inspection of Committee Documents: The Committee agenda, confirmed
times for the meetings, and any documents prepared for these meetings
will be publicly available on the CAAAC Web site at http://www.epa.gov/oar/caaac/ prior to the meeting. Thereafter, these documents, together
with CAAAC meeting minutes, will also be available on the CAAAC Web
site or by contacting the Office of Air and Radiation Docket and
requesting information under docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0075. The Docket
office can be reached by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FAX: 202-
566-9744.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information about the CAAAC,
please contact Jeneva Craig, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Office
of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or, for information on the Permits, New
Source Review and Toxics Subcommittee, please contact Alan Rush at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>. Additional information on these
meetings, CAAAC, and its Subcommittees can be found on the CAAAC Web
site: http://www.epa.gov/oar/caaac/.
    For information on access or services for individuals with
disabilities, please contact Jeneva Craig at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>preferably at least 10 days prior to the meetings
to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: August 26, 2014.
Jeneva Craig,
Designated Federal Officer, Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, Office of
Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2014-21299 Filed 9-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 31, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 62)]
[Notices]
[Page 16950-16952]
[DOCID:fr31mr08-132]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2007-0071]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 31 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting
the prescribed vision standard. The Agency has concluded that granting
these exemptions will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions are effective March 31, 2008. The exemptions
expire on March 31, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476, Apr. 11, 2000). This
information is also available at http://Docketinfo.dot.gov.

Background

    On February 1, 2008, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments
from the public (73 FR 6242). That notice listed 31 applicants' case
histories. The 31 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 31 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to all of them. The
comment period closed on March 3, 2008.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard
red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision standard,
but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision limitation
and demonstrated their ability to drive safely.

    The 31 exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this
category. They are unable to meet the vision standard in one eye for
various reasons, including amblyopia, prosthesis, posterior uveitis,
optic nerve atrophy, retinal detachment, macular scar, macular
degeneration, cataract, retinal scar, retinal vein occlusion, and loss
of vision due to trauma. In most cases, their eye conditions were not
recently developed. All but nine of the applicants were either born
with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood. The
nine individuals who sustained their vision conditions as adults have
had them for periods ranging from 5 to 47 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV. All these
applicants satisfied the testing standards for their State of
residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the applicants
demonstrated their ability to operate a commercial vehicle, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 31 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from 3 to 45
years. In the past 3 years, five of the drivers had convictions for
traffic violations and none of them were involved in crashes.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the February 1, 2008
notice (73 FR 6242).

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered not only the medical reports about the applicants' vision,
but also their driving records and experience with the vision
deficiency. To qualify for an exemption from the vision standard, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at docket number FMCSA-98-3637.
    We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively. (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly. (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952.) Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes. (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971) A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 31 applicants, three of the applicants had a traffic violation for
speeding, one of the applicants had a traffic violation for passing in
a wrong lane, and one of the applicants had a traffic violation for
failure to obey a traffic sign but none of the applicants were involved
in crashes. The applicants achieved this record of safety while driving
with their vision impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that they
have adapted their driving skills to accommodate their condition. As
the applicants' ample driving histories with their vision deficiencies
are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA concludes their
ability to drive safely can be projected into the future.
    We believe the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision standard in
49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 31 applicants

listed in the notice of February 1, 2008 (73 FR 6242).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 31 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification
file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of
the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
    In a previous final disposition (72 FR 52419), the Agency stated
that a public comment challenging the validity of Mr. Raymond Ochse's
reported CMV driving experience and other information submitted in his
application was received. Therefore, the Agency was unable to make a
decision regarding his exemption application at that time. As part of
the investigation, we requested that Mr. Ochse provide additional
employment information within 30 days; this information was never
received. In the absence of this information, the Agency has made the
decision to deny Mr. Ochse's request to receive a Federal vision
exemption.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. The comment was
considered and discussed below.
    Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) expressed
opposition to FMCSA's policy to grant exemptions from the FMCSRs,
including the driver qualification standards. Specifically, Advocates:
(1) Objects to the manner in which FMCSA presents driver information to
the public and makes safety determinations; (2) objects to the Agency's
reliance on conclusions drawn from the vision waiver program; (3)
claims the Agency has misinterpreted statutory language on the granting
of exemptions (49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315); and finally (4) suggests
that a 1999 Supreme Court decision affects the legal validity of vision
exemptions.
    The issues raised by Advocates were addressed at length in 64 FR
51568 (September 23, 1999), 64 FR 66962 (November 30, 1999), 64 FR
69586 (December 13, 1999), 65 FR 159 (January 3, 2000), 65 FR 57230
(September 21, 2000), and 66 FR 13825 (March 7, 2001). We will not
address these points again here, but refer interested parties to those
earlier discussions.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 31 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Dennis R. Baillargeon, Alberto Blanco, Michael B. Canedy, John
Cencora, Larry A. Cossin, Charles W. Cox, Gary W. Ellis, Dennis J.
Evers, Hector O. Flores, Roger W. Goold, K. Lee Guse, Steven W. Halsey,
John D. Hamm, Clifford J. Harris, John C. Henricks, Michael A.
Hilderbrand, Richard L. Larson, Thomas M. Leadbitter, John L. Lewis,
Jonathan P. Lovel, Douglas A. Mendoza, Antonio Ribeiro, Enrique G.
Salinas, Jr., Anthony T. Smith, David N. Stubbs, J.D. Taylor, Charles
W. Towner, Jr., James D. Tucker, John J. Wagner, Kevin D. White, and
Richard W. Wylie, from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR 391.64(b)).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: March 21, 2008.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E8-6485 Filed 3-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 6639]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02325]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34491; 812-15276]

John Hancock Asset-Based Lending Fund and John Hancock Investment
Management LLC

January 31, 2022.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from sections
18(a)(2), 18(c) and 18(i) of the Act and for an order pursuant to
section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.

Summary of Application:  Applicants request an order to permit certain
registered closed end investment companies to issue multiple classes of
shares of beneficial interest with varying sales loads and to impose
asset-based distribution and/or service fees.

Applicants:  John Hancock Asset-Based Lending Fund (the ``Trust''), and
John Hancock Investment Management LLC (the ``Advisor'').

Filing Dates:  The application was filed on October 21, 2021, and
amended on November 5, 2021, and January 10, 2022.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing:  An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing
the SEC's Secretary at [email protected] and serving the
relevant applicant with a copy of the request by email, if an email
address is listed for the relevant applicant below, or personally or by
mail, if a physical address is listed for the relevant applicant below.
    Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m.
on February 25, 2022, and should be accompanied by proof of service on
applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate
of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should
state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the
desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request,
and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing
may request notification by emailing the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: [email protected] and [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Reid Ragen, Branch Chief, at
(202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's
Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For Applicants' representations, legal
analysis, and condition, please refer to Applicants' application, dated
January 10, 2022, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by
searching for the file number, using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-02325 Filed 2-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 25, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16271-16274]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06579]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R02-OAR-2014-0127, FRL-9908-45-Region-2]

Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated
Facilities; New York

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the State plan submitted by New York State to implement and
enforce the Emission Guidelines (EG) for existing sewage sludge
incineration (SSI) units. The State plan is consistent with the EG
promulgated by EPA on March 21, 2011. New York's plan establishes
emission limits and other requirements for the purpose of reducing
toxic air emissions and other air pollutants from SSI units throughout
the State. New York submitted its plan to fulfill the requirements of
sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 24, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R02-OAR-2014-0127 by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: EPA-R02-OAR-2014-0127, Richard Ruvo, Chief, Air
Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290
Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
     Hand Delivery: Richard Ruvo, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-
2014-0127. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dpckets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal
business hours at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office,
Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York
10007-1866. EPA requests, if at all possible, that you contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the
docket Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony (Ted) Gardella
(Gardella.anthony@epa.gov), Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following table of contents describes
the format for the Supplementary Information section:

I. EPA Action
    A. What action is EPA proposing today?
    B. Why is EPA taking this action?
    C. Who is affected by New York's State plan?
    D. How does this approval affect sources located in Indian
Nation Land?
II. Background
    A. What is a State plan?
    B. What is an SSI State plan?
    C. Why is EPA requiring New York to submit an SSI State plan?
    D. What are the requirements for an SSI State plan?
III. New York's State Plan
    A. What is contained in the New York State plan?
    B. What approval criteria did we use to evaluate New York's
State plan?
IV. What is EPA's conclusion?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. EPA Action

A. What action is EPA proposing today?

    EPA is proposing to approve New York's State plan, submitted on
July 1, 2013, for the control of air emissions from existing sewage
sludge incinerator (SSI) units throughout the State, except for any
existing SSI units located in Indian Nation Land. New York submitted
its plan to fulfill the requirements of section 111(d) and 129 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA). The State plan adopts and implements the Emission
Guidelines (EG) applicable to existing SSI units, and establishes
emission limits and other requirements for units constructed on or
before October 14, 2010. This proposed approval, once finalized and
effective, will make the New York SSI rules included in the State plan
federally enforceable.

B. Why is EPA taking this action?

    EPA has evaluated New York's SSI State plan for consistency with
the CAA, EPA guidelines and policy. EPA has determined that New York's
State plan meets all applicable requirements and therefore, EPA is
proposing to approve New York's State plan to implement and enforce the
EG applicable to existing SSI units.

C. Who is affected by New York's State plan?

    New York's State plan regulates all the units designated by the EG
for existing SSI units which commenced construction on or before
October 14, 2010 and which are located at a wastewater treatment
facility designed

to treat domestic sewage sludge. If the owner or operator of an SSI
unit made changes after September 21, 2011, that meet the definition of
modification (see Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, section
60.5250 (40 CFR 60.5250)), the SSI unit becomes subject to subpart LLLL
(New Source Performance Standards for New Sewage Sludge Incineration
Units) of 40 CFR part 60, and the State plan no longer applies to that
unit.

D. How does this approval affect sources located in Indian Nation Land?

    New York's State plan is not applicable to units located in Indian
Nation Land. Therefore, if there are any existing SSI units located in
Indian Nation Land these existing SSI units will be subject to the
Federal plan.

II. Background

A. What is a State plan?

    Section 111 of the CAA, ``Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources,'' authorizes EPA to set air emissions standards for
certain categories of sources. These standards are called New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS). When a NSPS is promulgated for new
sources, section 111(d) also requires that EPA publish an EG applicable
to control the same pollutants from existing (or designated)
facilities. States with designated facilities must then develop a State
plan to adopt the EG into the State's body of regulations. States must
also include in their State plan other requirements, such as
inventories, legal authority, reporting and recordkeeping, and public
participation documentation, to demonstrate their ability to enforce
the State plans.
    Section 129 of the CAA requires EPA to establish performance
standards and emission guidelines for various types of new and existing
solid waste incineration units. Section 129(b)(2) requires States to
submit to EPA for approval section 111(d)/129 plans that implement and
enforce the promulgated EG. Section 129(b)(3) requires EPA to
promulgate a Federal plan (FP) within two years from the date on which
the EG, or when revision to the EG, is promulgated. The FP is
applicable to affected facilities when the state has failed to receive
EPA approval of the section 111(d)/129 plan. The FP remains in effect
until the state submits and receives EPA approval of its section
111(d)/129 plan.
    State plan submittals under CAA sections 111(d) and 129 must be
consistent with the relevant EG, in this instance 40 CFR part 60,
subpart MMMM, and the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart B and
part 62, subpart A. Section 129 of the CAA regulates air pollutants
that include organics (dioxins/furans), carbon monoxide, metals
(cadmium, lead, and mercury), hydrogen chloride, sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and opacity (as appropriate).

B. What is an SSI State plan?

    An SSI State plan is a State plan, as described above, that
controls air pollutant emissions from existing sewage sludge
incinerators located at a wastewater treatment facility designed to
treat domestic sewage sludge and that commenced construction on or
before October 14, 2010. The applicable types of SSI units include
fluidized bed and multiple hearth incinerators.

C. Why is EPA requiring New York to submit an SSI State plan?

    When EPA developed the NSPS for SSI units, we simultaneously
developed the EG to control air emissions from existing SSI units (see
76 FR 15371, March 21, 2011). Under section 129 of the CAA, the EG is
not federally enforceable; therefore, section 129 of the CAA also
requires states to submit to EPA for approval State plans that
implement and enforce the EG. Under section 129 of the CAA, these State
plans must be at least as protective as the EG, and they become
federally enforceable upon approval by EPA.
    The procedures for adopting and submitting State plans are located
in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. If a state fails to have an approvable
plan in place by March 21, 2013, the EPA is required to promulgate a
federal plan to establish requirements for those sources not under an
EPA-approved State plan. The procedures for EPA's approval and
disapproval of State plans are located in 40 CFR part 62, subpart A.
EPA is proposing to approve New York's State plan since it is deemed at
least as protective as the standards set in the EG. New York has
developed and submitted a State plan, as required by sections 111(d)/
129 of the CAA, to gain federal approval to implement and enforce the
EG for existing SSI units.

D. What are the requirements for an SSI State plan?

    A section 111(d) State plan submittal must meet the requirements of
40 CFR part 60, subpart B, sections 60.23 through 60.26, and the EG
found at 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM (see 76 FR 15371, March 21,
2011). Subpart B contains the procedures for the adoption and submittal
of State plans. This subpart addresses public participation, legal
authority, emission standards and other emission limitations,
compliance schedules, emission inventories, source surveillance, and
compliance assurance and enforcement requirements.
    EPA promulgated the EG at 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM on March 21,
2011. Subpart MMMM contains guidelines to the states for submittal of
plans that address existing SSI units. In addition, subpart MMMM
contains the technical requirements for existing SSI units located at a
wastewater treatment plant designed to treat domestic sewage sludge and
applies to SSI units that commenced construction on or before October
14, 2010. A state can address the SSI technical requirements by
adopting its own regulation that includes all the applicable
requirements of subpart MMMM or by adopting by reference subpart MMMM.
The section 111(d) State plan is required to be submitted within one
year of the EG promulgation date, i.e. by March 21, 2012. Prior to
submittal to EPA, the State must make available to the public the State
plan and provide opportunity for public comment, including a public
hearing.

III. New York's State Plan

A. What is contained in the New York State plan?

    On July 1, 2013,\1\ the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) submitted its section 111(d) State plan for
implementing EPA's EG for existing SSI units located in New York State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In an email dated 02/28/14, New York responded to an EPA
request to provide clarifying information concerning the State's
plan. This clarifying information also is available in EPA's docket
at www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New York has adopted by reference the applicable requirements of
the EG in Part 200 of Title 6 of the New York Code of Rules and
Regulations (6NYCRR) of the State of New York, entitled ``General
Provisions'' and in Subpart 219-1 of 6NYCRR entitled ``Incineration-
General Provisions'' and Subpart 219-9 of 6NYCRR entitled ``Emission
Guidelines and Compliance Schedules for Existing Sewage Sludge
Incineration Units.'' These amended regulations became effective on May
12, 2012. By incorporating the EG by reference into Part 200, NYSDEC
has the authority to include them as applicable within Subpart 219-9,
which addresses the applicability of the various Part 219 (New York's
incineration rules) requirements. Part 219 now includes the new
requirements incorporated from the EG, as well as the necessary
compliance schedules and necessary definition

changes required for the transformation of emission guidelines into a
State plan. As a result, the Part 219 requirements are enforceable by
New York and become federally enforceable once the State plan is
approved by EPA.
    Section 60.5015 of the EG describes all of the required elements
that must be included in a state's plan for SSI units. New York's State
plan includes all of the required elements described in section 60.5015
of the EG, as summarized herein:
    (1) A demonstration of the State's legal authority to implement the
sections 111(d) and 129 State plan;
    (2) State rules adopted into 6NYCRR Parts 200 and 219 as the
mechanism for implementing and enforcing the State plan;
    (3) An inventory of twelve known SSI facilities, including twenty-
one SSI units, along with an inventory of their air pollutant emissions
(see sections A and B of New York's State plan as well as the
clarifying information submitted by New York). Of these twenty-one SSI
units, at least seven units, and possibly more, will have ceased
operation by the March 21, 2016 compliance date. Also, the inventory
includes an additional nine facilities with fifteen SSI units that have
expired permits and that are no longer in operation--New York has
indicated in its State plan that these facilities would be considered
new facilities subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL (Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources) should they apply for a new air
permit;
    (4) Emission limits, emission standards, operator training and
qualification requirements, and operating limits that are at least as
protective as the EG;
    (5) Enforceable compliance schedules incorporated into Subpart 219-
9, part of New York's incineration rule, as follows: either (a) a one
year schedule whereby full compliance is achieved by twelve months
after EPA's approval of New York's State plan or June 21, 2013,
whichever is earlier, or (b) an extended schedule whereby full
compliance is achieved by thirty-six months after EPA's approval of New
York's State plan or March 21, 2016, whichever is earlier.
    (6) Testing, monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements
for the designated facilities;
    (7) Records of the public hearing on the State plan; and,
    (8) Provisions for annual state progress reports to EPA on
implementation of the State plan.
    EPA proposes to determine that New York's State plan for SSI units
includes all the required State plan elements described in section
60.5015 of the EG.

B. What approval criteria did we use to evaluate New York's State plan?

    EPA reviewed New York's State plan for approval against the
following criteria: 40 CFR 60.23 through 60.26, ``Subpart B-Adoption
and Submittal of State Plans for Designated Facilities;'' and 40 CFR
60.5000 through 60.5250, ``Subpart MMMM-Emission Guidelines and
Compliance Times for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units;'' and
40 CFR 62, subpart A, ``General Provisions'' for ``Approval and
Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants.''

IV. What is EPA's conclusion?

    The EPA has determined that New York's State plan meets all the
applicable approval criteria as discussed above and, therefore, EPA is
proposing to approve New York State's sections 111(d) and 129 State
plan for existing sewage sludge incineration units.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)).
This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Public Law 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it
merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal
requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This proposed rule
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal
standard.
    In reviewing NYSDEC's submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a NYSDEC submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a NYSDEC
submission, to use VCS in place of a NYSDEC submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of
Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this
proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a
clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with
Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the
takings implications of the rule in accordance with the Attorney
General's ``Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order.
This proposed rule for the approval of NYSDEC's section 111(d)/129 plan
for SSI units does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

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

    Date: March 12, 2014.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2014-06579 Filed 3-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 159)]
[Notices]
[Page 41881-41882]
[DOCID:fr19au09-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-1554-000]

RMH Energy, LP; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

August 12, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
RMH Energy. LP's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is September 1, 2009.
    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-referenced proceeding 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 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>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19829 Filed 8-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P