[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3603-3604]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00293]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31112; Amdt. No. 3727]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain
airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption
of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective January 12, 2017. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of January 12, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to
register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part Sec.  97.20. The
applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A,
and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex
nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead
refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of
aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by
reference are realized and publication of the complete description of
each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and
specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their
applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport
and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff
Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part
97 of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less
than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary
to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d),
good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and
(3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 16, 2016.
John S. Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113,
40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 2 February 2017

Auburn, AL, Auburn University Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Amdt 2A
Geneva, AL, Geneva Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Orig-A
Geneva, AL, Geneva Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Orig-A
Sebastian, FL, Sebastian Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig-C
Sebastian, FL, Sebastian Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig-C
Madison, GA, Madison Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Orig-A
St Joseph, MO, Rosecrans Memorial, RADAR 1, Amdt 2
Medford, WI, Taylor County, NDB RWY 34, Amdt 7, CANCELED

Effective 2 March 2017

Healy, AK, Healy River, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Orig
Healy, AK, Healy River, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig
Nondalton, AK, Nondalton, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig-A
Flippin, AR, Marion County Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 1
Flippin, AR, Marion County Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 1
Flippin, AR, Marion County Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 1
Flippin, AR, Marion County Rgnl, VOR-A, Amdt 15
Clifton/Morenci, AZ, Greenlee County, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig-A
Stockton, CA, Stockton Metropolitan, ILS OR LOC RWY 29R, Amdt 21
Stockton, CA, Stockton Metropolitan, RNAV (GPS) RWY 11L, Amdt 1
Stockton, CA, Stockton Metropolitan, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29R, Amdt 1
Rota Island, CQ, Benjamin Taisacan Manglona Intl, NDB RWY 27, Amdt
4A
Rota Island, CQ, Benjamin Taisacan Manglona Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27,
Amdt 1A
Macon, GA, Macon Downtown, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 8
Clarinda, IA, Schenck Field, NDB-A, Amdt 5B, CANCELED
Evansville, IN, Evansville Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 4, Amdt 4
Evansville, IN, Evansville Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 22, Amdt 23
Madison, IN, Madison Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Amdt 1C
Fort Scott, KS, Fort Scott Muni, NDB RWY 18, Amdt 12, CANCELED
Larned, KS, Larned-Pawnee County, NDB RWY 17, Amdt 4A, CANCELED
Mayfield, KY, Mayfield Graves County, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 8A
Tompkinsville, KY, Tompkinsville-Monroe County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4,
Amdt 1C
Vivian, LA, Vivian, NDB RWY 9, Amdt 2B, CANCELED
Lansing, MI, Capital Region Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 10R, Amdt 11A
Lansing, MI, Capital Region Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 28L, Amdt 27B
Perryville, MO, Perryville Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig-A
Perryville, MO, Perryville Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Orig-A
Perryville, MO, Perryville Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Orig-A
Perryville, MO, Perryville Rgnl, VOR-A, Amdt 5A
Shelby, MT, Shelby, NDB RWY 23, Amdt 7A
Shelby, MT, Shelby, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig-B
Shelby, MT, Shelby, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 2B
Omaha, NE., Eppley Airfield, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
6
Claremont, NH, Claremont Muni, NDB-A, Amdt 1B
Nashua, NH, Boire Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 1C
Ashland, OH, Ashland County, VOR-A, Amdt 9C
Batavia, OH, Clermont County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 1C
Batavia, OH, Clermont County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 1D
Batavia, OH, Clermont County, VOR-B, Amdt 7C
Pittsburgh, PA, Allegheny County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 4C
Marion, SC, Marion County, NDB RWY 4, Amdt 5, CANCELED
Pageland, SC, Pageland, NDB RWY 24, Amdt 1
Pageland, SC, Pageland, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Dayton, TN, Mark Anton, NDB RWY 3, Amdt 2A
Littlefield, TX, Littlefield Muni, NDB RWY 1, Amdt 1A, CANCELED
Seminole, TX, Gaines County, NDB RWY 35, Amdt 1, CANCELED
Provo, UT, Provo Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 13, Amdt 3

[FR Doc. 2017-00293 Filed 1-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 129 (Tuesday, July 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38793-38795]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16546]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75338; File No. SR-BATS-2015-50]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Extend
the Penny Pilot Program

June 30, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 29, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Exchange has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to

solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

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

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal for the BATS Options Market (``BATS
Options'') to extend through June 30, 2016, the Penny Pilot Program
(``Penny Pilot'') in options classes in certain issues (``Pilot
Program'') previously approved by the Commission.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The rules of BATS Options, including rules applicable to
BATS Options' participation in the Penny Pilot, were approved on
January 26, 2010. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61419
(January 26, 2010), 75 FR 5157 (February 1, 2010) (SR-BATS-2009-
031). BATS Options commenced operations on February 26, 2010. The
Penny Pilot was most recently extended for BATS Options through June
30, 2015. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73888 (December
19, 2014), 79 FR 78114 (December 29, 2014) (SR-BATS-2014-070).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.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 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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to extend the Penny Pilot, which was
previously approved by the Commission, through June 30, 2016, and to
provide revised dates for adding replacement issues to the Pilot
Program. The Exchange proposes that any Pilot Program issues that have
been delisted may be replaced on the second trading day following July
1, 2015 and January 1, 2016. The replacement issues in each instance
will be selected based on trading activity for the most recent six
month period excluding the month immediately preceding the replacement
(i.e., beginning December 1, 2014, and ending May 31, 2015, and
beginning June 1, 2015, and ending November 30, 2015).
    The Exchange represents that the Exchange has the necessary system
capacity to continue to support operation of the Penny Pilot. The
Exchange believes the benefits to public customers and other market
participants who will be able to express their true prices to buy and
sell options have been demonstrated to outweigh the increase in quote
traffic.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ In particular, the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ because it
would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system. The Exchange believes that the Pilot
Program promotes just and equitable principles of trade by enabling
public customers and other market participants to express their true
prices to buy and sell options. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that
the proposal is consistent with the Act because it will allow the
Exchange to extend the Pilot Program prior to its expiration on June
30, 2015. The Exchange notes that this proposal does not propose any
new policies or provisions that are unique or unproven, but instead
relates to the continuation of an existing program that operates on a
pilot basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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. In this regard, the Exchange
notes that the rule change is being proposed in order to continue the
Pilot Program, which is a competitive response to analogous programs
offered by other options exchanges. The Exchange believes this proposed
rule change is necessary to permit fair competition among the options
exchanges.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
Because the 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 prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act\10\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing.\11\
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\12\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because doing so will
allow the Pilot Program to continue without interruption in a manner
that is consistent with the Commission's prior approval of the
extension and expansion of the Pilot Program and will allow the
Exchange and the Commission additional time to analyze the impact of

the Pilot Program.\13\ Accordingly, the Commission designates the
proposed rule change as operative upon filing with the Commission.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and the 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 pre-filing requirement.
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61061 (November 24,
2009), 74 FR 62857 (December 1, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-44). See
also supra note 5.
    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B)\15\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 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-BATS-2015-50 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-BATS-2015-50. 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-BATS-2015-50 and should be
submitted on or before July 28, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-16546 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52677-52678]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18798]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1597-006; ER10-1620-006; ER10-1624-006; ER10-
1625-006; ER10-1626-006.
    Applicants: Kiowa Power Partners, LLC, Tenaska Alabama II Partners,
L.P., Tenaska Gateway Partners, Ltd., Tenaska Georgia Partners, L.P.,
Tenaska Virginia Partners, L.P.
    Description: Notification of Change in Status of the Tenaska MBR
Sellers, et al.
    Filed Date: 7/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160729-5241.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2641-025; ER10-2663-025; ER10-2881-025; ER10-
2882-026; ER10-2883-025; ER10-2884-025; ER10-2885-025; ER10-2886-026;
ER13-1101-021; ER13-1541-020; ER14-661-012; ER14-787-014; ER15-54-006;
ER15-55-006; ER15-647-003; ER15-1475-007; ER15-2191-002; ER15-2453-002;
ER15-2593-006; ER16-452-006; ER16-705-004; ER16-706-004; ER16-1154-004.
    Applicants: Oleander Power Project, LP, Southern Company-Florida
LLC, Alabama Power Company, Southern Power Company, Georgia Power
Company, Mississippi Power Company, Gulf Power Company, Southern Turner
Cimarron I, LLC, Spectrum Nevada Solar, LLC, Campo Verde Solar, LLC,
SG2 Imperial Valley LLC, Macho Springs Solar, LLC, Lost Hills Solar,
LLC, Blackwell Solar, LLC, Kay Wind, LLC, North Star Solar, LLC, Grant
Wind, LLC, Passadumkeag Windpark, LLC, Desert Stateline LLC, RE Garland
LLC, RE Tranquillity LLC, RE Garland A LLC, Parrey, LLC.
    Description: Notification of Non-Material of Change in Status of
Oleander Power Project, Limited Partnership, et al.
    Filed Date: 7/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160729-5238.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2759-005; ER10-2732-011; ER10-2733-011; ER10-
2734-011; ER10-2736-011; ER10-2737-011; ER10-2741-011; ER10-2749-011;
ER10-2752-011; ER12-2492-007; ER12-2493-007; ER12-2494-007; ER12-2495-
007; ER12-2496-007; ER14-264-002; ER10-2631-005; ER10-1437-004; ER13-
815-003.
    Applicants: Bridgeport Energy LLC, Emera Energy Services Inc.,
Emera Energy U.S. Subsidiary No. 1, Inc., Emera Energy U.S. Subsidiary
No. 2, Inc., Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 1 LLC, Emera Energy
Services Subsidiary No. 2 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 3
LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 4 LLC, Emera Energy Services
Subsidiary No. 5 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 6 LLC, Emera
Energy Services Subsidiary No. 7 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary
No. 8 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 9 LLC, Emera Energy
Services Subsidiary No.

10 LLC, Emera Maine, Rumford Power Inc., Tampa Electric Company,
Tiverton Power LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the Emera Entities, et
al.
    Filed Date: 8/1/16.
    Accession Number: 20160801-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2855-021; ER11-2856-021; ER11-2857-021; ER10-
2488-013; ER10-2722-006; ER10-2787-005; ER12-2037-007; ER10-2532-007;
ER13-343-006; ER13-342-011.
    Applicants: Avenal Park LLC, Sand Drag LLC, Sun City Project LLC,
Oasis Power Partners, LLC, Eurus Combine Hills I LLC, Eurus Combine
Hills II LLC, Crescent Ridge LLC, Spearville 3, LLC, CPV Maryland, LLC,
CPV Shore, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the Eurus
MBR Affiliates, et al.
    Filed Date: 7/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160729-5274.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2328-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: New England Power--
Facilities Use Agreement with Deepwater Block Island Wind to be
effective 7/28/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160729-5228.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2329-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Termination of Clatskanie PUD E&P
Agreement ? Troutdale Sub to be effective 10/3/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160729-5230.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2330-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Petition of Southwest Power Pool, Inc. for Tariff
Waiver.
    Filed Date: 7/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160729-5284.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2332-000.
    Applicants: Emera Maine.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amend Market-Based Rate
Tariff to be effective 7/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/1/16.
    Accession Number: 20160801-5060.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2333-000.
    Applicants: Emera Energy U.S. Subsidiary No. 1, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amend Market-Based Rate
Tariffs to be effective 7/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/1/16.
    Accession Number: 20160801-5062.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2334-000.
    Applicants: Emera Energy U.S. Subsidiary No. 2, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amend Market-Based Rate
Tariff to be effective 7/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/1/16.
    Accession Number: 20160801-5063.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2335-000.
    Applicants: Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 1 LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amend Market-Based Rate
Tariff to be effective 7/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/1/16.
    Accession Number: 20160801-5066.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2336-000.
    Applicants: Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 2 LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amend Market-Based Rate
Tariff to be effective 7/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/1/16.
    Accession Number: 20160801-5067.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2337-000.
    Applicants: Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 3 LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amend Market-Based Rate
Tariff to be effective 7/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/1/16.
    Accession Number: 20160801-5069.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/22/16.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES16-49-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Company.
    Description: Application of New England Power Company under Section
204 of the Federal Power Act for Authorization to Issue Securities.
    Filed Date: 7/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160729-5275.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH16-10-000.
    Applicants: Southern Company Gas.
    Description: Southern Company Gas submits FERC 65-A Exemption
Notification.
    Filed Date: 7/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160729-5240.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    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.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 1, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-18798 Filed 8-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 107)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 31614-31616]
[DOCID:fr03jn08-8]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1097; FRL-8572-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
MN; Maintenance Plan Update for Dakota County Lead Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving an update to the lead maintenance plan for
Dakota County, Minnesota. This plan update demonstrates that Dakota
County will maintain attainment of the lead National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) through 2014. Minnesota has verified that the
emission limits adopted to demonstrate modeled attainment continue to
be met, that there are no new significant sources of lead or increases
in background emissions, and that the state has in place a
comprehensive program to identify sources of violations and address any
violation through enforcement and implementation of a contingency plan.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective August 4, 2008, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by July 3, 2008. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not
take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2007-1097, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Doug Aburano, Acting Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section,
Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Doug Aburano, Acting Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office 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-R05-OAR-
2007-1097. 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 e-mail.
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 e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., 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.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental
Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What Is the Background of This Action?
II. What Has Minnesota Submitted?
III. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Submittal?
IV. What Action Is EPA Taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Is the Background of This Action?

    On January 6, 1992, EPA designated Dakota County, Minnesota as
nonattainment for the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for
lead. On June 22, 1993, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing an
administrative order for the Gopher Smelting and Refining Company (now
known as Gopher Resources Corporation) as well as air modeling and
monitoring data demonstrating attainment of the NAAQS in the area. The
State also requested that EPA redesignate the area to attainment and
included a maintenance plan, as required by section 175A of the Clean
Air Act (CAA), which demonstrated maintenance of the standard for a ten
year period. As part of this maintenance plan, Minnesota included
contingency measures to be implemented by the

Gopher facility within 30 days should a violation of the lead NAAQS
occur. EPA approved the redesignation of Dakota County to attainment
for lead on October 18, 1994 (59 FR 52431).
    Under section 175A(b) of the CAA, 8 years after an area is
redesignated to attainment, the state is required to submit a revision
to the SIP demonstrating maintenance of the NAAQS for ten years after
the expiration of the initial ten year period.

II. What Has Minnesota Submitted?

    On November 18, 2002, the MPCA submitted a SIP revision for the
Gopher Resources Corporation facility and an update to the lead
maintenance plan for Dakota County. The maintenance plan revision was
intended to meet the requirement of section 175A(b) of the CAA.
However, among other things, the revisions to the SIP for Gopher
Resources Corporation removed contingency measures from the maintenance
plan.
    On November 19, 2007, MPCA withdrew the SIP revision for the Gopher
Resources Corporation facility, clarified that the contingency measures
contained in the administrative order currently in the SIP remain in
the maintenance plan, and requested that EPA act on the maintenance
plan update.

III. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Submittal?

    The SIP for the Dakota County lead area identified only one major
source of lead emissions, the facility now known as Gopher Resources
Corporation. There are no new sources of lead in or near the area which
could be anticipated to jeopardize attainment in the area.
    The administrative order issued to the facility now known as Gopher
Resources remains in effect. This administrative order contains
emissions limits and procedures which have been demonstrated, through
modeling, to result in attainment of the NAAQS. In addition, since
December 23, 1997, the facility has been complying with the
requirements of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for secondary lead smelting (40 CFR 63, subpart X).
To the extent that the NESHAP requirements are more stringent than the
requirements contained in the SIP, the area would be expected to
experience improvements in air quality.
    Because there are no new major sources of lead emissions in the
area and Gopher Resources Corporation now must also comply with the
NESHAP for secondary lead smelting, the modeling originally submitted
with the attainment SIP for Dakota County could be considered to
provide a conservative representation of the current air quality status
of the area.
    In the event of future growth in the area, any new lead source will
be subject to MPCA permitting requirements. New facilities with the
potential to emit lead of more than 0.5 tons per year must go through
the MPCA's permitting process before construction can begin. In
addition, MPCA has the authority to require any source, even one with a
potential to emit less than 0.5 tons per year, to obtain a permit in
order to ensure compliance with the lead NAAQS.
    To verify the attainment status of the area, MPCA has committed to
continue ambient lead monitoring for the area, in accordance with 40
CFR part 58. Should a violation of the lead NAAQS be monitored in the
area, the administrative order requires the Gopher Resource Corporation
facility to implement the specified contingency measures within 30
days, without further action from Minnesota or EPA.
    EPA believes that the MPCA has adequately demonstrated that the
lead NAAQS will continue to be maintained in Dakota County through the
additional 10 year maintenance period, as required under section
175A(b) of the CAA.

IV. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is approving Minnesota's plan for maintaining the lead NAAQS in
the Dakota County area through 2012. We are publishing this action
without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial
amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed
rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a
separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state
plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be
effective August 4, 2008 without further notice unless we receive
relevant adverse written comments by July 3, 2008. If we receive such
comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by
publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action.
All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent
final rule based on the proposed action. The EPA will not institute a
second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this
action should do so at this time. If we do not receive any comments,
this action will be effective August 4, 2008.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 4, 2008. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead.

    Dated: May 12, 2008.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart Y--Minnesota

0
2. In Sec.  52.1220 the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for ``Lead Maintenance Plan'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Minnesota Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State submittal
   Name of nonregulatory SIP      Applicable geographic    date/effective   EPA approved date       Comments
           provision               nonattainment area           date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Lead Maintenance Plan..........  Dakota County.........  11/18/2002 and 11/ 8/4/2008, [Insert  Maintenance plan
                                                          19/2007.           page number        update.
                                                                             where the
                                                                             document begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-12240 Filed 6-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 93 (Friday, May 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29868-29869]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11323]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0001]

Advisory Committee; Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee,
Renewal

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; renewal of advisory committee.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
renewal of the Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee by the
Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner). The Commissioner has
determined that it is in the public interest to renew the Pulmonary-
Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee for an additional 2 years beyond the
charter expiration date. The new charter will be in effect until May
30, 2018.

DATES: Authority for the Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee
will expire on May 30, 2016, unless the Commissioner formally
determines that renewal is in the public interest.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Hong, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Issued in 41 CFR 102-3.65 and approval by
the Department of Health and Human Services issued in 45 CFR part 11
and by the General Services Administration, FDA is announcing the
renewal of the Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee. The
committee is a discretionary Federal advisory committee established to
provide advice to the Commissioner. The Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs
Advisory Committee advises the Commissioner or designee in discharging
responsibilities as they relate to helping to ensure safe and effective
drugs for human use and, as required, any other product for which the
Food and Drug Administration has regulatory responsibility. The
Committee reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety
and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products
for use in the treatment of pulmonary disease and diseases with
allergic and/or immunologic mechanisms and makes appropriate
recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
    The Committee shall consist of a core of 11 voting members
including the Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the
Commissioner or designee from among authorities knowledgeable in the
fields of pulmonary medicine, allergy, clinical immunology, and
epidemiology or statistics. Members will be invited to serve for
overlapping terms of up to four years. Almost all non-Federal members
of this committee serve as Special Government Employees. The core of
voting members may include one technically qualified member, selected
by the Commissioner or designee, who is identified with consumer
interests and is recommended by either a consortium of consumer-
oriented organizations or other interested persons. In addition to the
voting members, the Committee may include one non-voting member who is
identified with industry interests.
    Further information regarding the most recent charter and other
information can be found at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/Pulmonary-AllergyDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/ucm107567.htm or by contacting the
Designated Federal Officer (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Since
no change has been made to the committee name or description of duties,
no amendment will be made to 21 CFR 14.100.
    This document is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app.). For general information related to FDA advisory
committees, please visit us at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

    Dated: May 10, 2016.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2016-11323 Filed 5-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: November 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 217)]
[Notices]
[Page 66289-66290]
[DOCID:fr07no08-108]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

Metro-North Railroad

[Docket Number FRA-2007-0006]

    The Metro-North Railroad (Metro-North) seeks a permanent waiver of
compliance from certain specific requirements in the testing protocol
of the Locomotive Safety Standards, 49 CFR 229.129(c), as it pertains
to railroad locomotive horn testing. Metro-North seeks to utilize an
acoustic enclosure specially designed for the purpose of testing horns
removed from the locomotives in lieu of the requirements required in
CFR Sec.  229.129(c)(4), (5) and (7). The data from the acoustic
enclosure testing would be used to calculate the level to be expected
at the location 100 feet in front of the locomotive as required under
CFR Sec.  229.129(c)(7).
    Metro-North has requested the Acoustical Society of America to work
towards a new ANSI standard that supports the approach proposed by
Metro-North. Metro-North further proposes to fund the design,
fabrication and pilot testing of the testing facility proposed if this
waiver application is granted on a conditional basis. In addition to
the requested waiver of the technical requirements described above,
Metro-North is also requesting an extension of five (5) years to June
24, 2015, in which to complete the required testing of its
approximately 762 train horns.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2007-0006) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our 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 DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78).

    Issued in Washington, DC on November 3, 2008.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. E8-26665 Filed 11-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: March 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 51)]
[Notices]
[Page 12650-12651]
[DOCID:fr16mr07-112]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55439; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-16]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Eliminate the Individual Investor Express Delivery Service

March 9, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 14, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``Exchange'' or
``NYSE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comment
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 is proposing to amend Exchange Rule 123B, ``Exchange
Automated Order Routing Systems,'' by eliminating the functionality of
the Individual Investor Express Delivery Service[supreg] (``IIEDS'').
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site (http://www.nyse.com), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary,

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 NYSE included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The NYSE 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
    IIEDS is an order processing service that, in certain situations,
provides priority delivery to the specialist's post through
SuperDOT[supreg] for simple round-lot market orders and market GTC
(``good 'til canceled'') orders that are for an amount up to 2,099
shares and are for the account of an individual investor \3\ as
identified by the member organization or its customer, if enabled by
the member organization, entering the order. Market orders to buy
minus, sell plus, sell short, buy or sell stop, as well as limit orders
are not eligible for IIEDS. In addition, a limit order that is
cancelled and replaced with a market order when entered as a single
cancel/replacement order is not eligible for IIEDS. IIEDS was adopted
in the wake of the 1987 market correction to enable retail-sized orders
to avoid being negatively impacted by a sudden and significant influx
of non-retail orders such as what generally happens when automated
program trading benchmarks are reached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``individual investor'' is defined to parallel the
concept of ``natural person'' contained in Section 11(a)(1)(E) of
the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78k(a)(1)(E), including the interpretations made
by the Commission pursuant to that section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IIEDS provides eligible orders with priority systematized delivery,
ahead of other orders, to the specialist's post only when a queue of
orders, which is caused by extraordinarily high levels of message
traffic, exists in the Common Message Switch (``CMS'').\4\ Where no
queue exists in CMS, IIEDS-eligible orders received by the Exchange are
routed to the specialist's post through SuperDOT, along with all other
orders received by CMS, in the normal sequence in which they are
received. Once an IIEDS order reaches the specialist's post, whether it
received priority delivery or not in arriving there, all normal
Exchange market procedures, including rules related to priority and
parity, are applied in executing the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CMS is the central communications hub between member
organizations and the NYSE. CMS receives, validates, and passes
orders and administrative inquiries from member organizations to
other NYSE systems, including SuperDOT. In addition, CMS sends
execution reports, responses to administrative inquiries, and status
messages back to member organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NYSE is proposing to eliminate the functionality of IIEDS
because it is no longer necessary due to systems capacity upgrades made
to CMS that the Exchange has implemented over time. In addition, IIEDS
is infrequently used, and orders eligible for the service represent a
very small percentage of order flow received on the Exchange. Finally,
the service is no longer needed in light of the increased speed and
efficiency of order executions that will occur as a result of the NYSE
HYBRID MARKETSM initiative.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Hybrid Market initiative was proposed in SR-NYSE-2004-05
and Amendments No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 thereto, approved on
March 22, 2006. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53539 (March
22, 2006), 71 FR 16353 (March 31, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to capacity increases made to CMS on an annual basis over the
years, the Exchange rarely experiences order queues, a condition
precedent for an IIEDS order to be sent to the specialist's post ahead
of another order. Historically, the Exchange has maintained ``message
per second'' system capacity for CMS equaling approximately two times
the highest Floor-wide five-minute average message per second rate
experienced during the year. Thus, for example, during 2005, the
Exchange experienced a peak five-minute average message per second rate
of 6,043, while the actual CMS system capacity for year end 2005 was
increased to handle approximately 13,000 messages per second. Year-to-
year evaluation of actual message per second rate coupled with
attendant proportional increases in CMS capacity has enabled the
Exchange to experience a statistically insignificant number of order
queues, thereby obviating the need for IIEDS.
    The Exchange is also proposing to eliminate IIEDS because the
service is seldom used by its customers; less than two-tenths of 1%
(approximately .18%) of order flow received by the Exchange is eligible
for IIEDS processing. The average number of IIEDS-eligible orders is
approximately 64,000 orders per day, out of approximately 35.36 million

orders received by the Exchange per day.
    In addition, the wider availability and increased speed of NYSE
Direct+[supreg] (``Direct+''), the Exchange's electronic execution
facility, which is being implemented in connection with the Hybrid
Market, should prove a beneficial substitute to those Exchange
customers seeking processing for individual investor orders similar to
that obtained through IIEDS. The enhancements to Direct+ being
introduced involve immediate execution at the best bid and best offer
without restrictions on order size or frequency to the extent of the
displayed volume associated with the bid and offer. The speed and
continued operation of electronic executions through Direct+ will also
eliminate the queues that developed during the slower, more manual
execution process, further obviating the need for IIEDS.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) \6\ of the Act that an
Exchange have rules that are designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and national market system, and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    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.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act\7\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\8\ Because the Exchange has designated the foregoing
proposed rule change as one that: (i) Does not significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) does not become
operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule
change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily
abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-NYSE-2007-16 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-16. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commissions Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSE-2007-16 and should be submitted on or before April
6, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-4813 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


For each nonattainment area, the State must provide for implementation of all control measures needed for attainment no later than the beginning of the attainment year ozone season.

Sec. 51.909 [ Reserved]

Sec. 51.910 [ Reserved]

Sec. 51.911 [ Reserved] STAFF DRAFT   DO NOT QUOTE, CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 4/ 13/ 04 1: 30 pm 289 Sec. 51.912 [ Reserved]

Sec. 51.913 [ Reserved]

Sec. 51.914 [ Reserved]

Sec. 51.915 [ Reserved]

Sec. 51.916 [ Reserved]

40 CFR Part 81   Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes 40 CFR 81 is proposed to be amended by adding and reserving a new subpart E to read as follows:

Subpart E [ Reserved]

[ Note   this subpart will identify area designations and classifications for the 1 hour NAAQS in place at the time the 1 hour NAAQS no longer applies to each area; this is being done to implement the rule on anti backsliding under 40 CFR 51.905.]


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 193 (Thursday, October 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50127-50130]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21584]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84317; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2018-075]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Rules 7039, 7047, 7049, 7055, and 7061 To Update the Definition
of the Term FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility

September 28, 2018.
    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 September 19, 2018, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared 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 Rules \3\ 7039, 7047, 7049, 7055,
and 7061 to update the definition of the term ``FINRA/Nasdaq Trade
Reporting Facility (`TRF')'' for Nasdaq Basic, Nasdaq Last Sale
(``NLS''), Nasdaq InterACT, the Short Sale Monitor and the Limit
Locator to reflect approval of a second FINRA/Nasdaq TRF in Chicago, as
described in further detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ References to rules are to Nasdaq rules, unless otherwise
noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.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 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 Exchange proposes to update the definition of the term ``FINRA/
Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility (`TRF')'' for Nasdaq Basic, NLS, Nasdaq
InterACT, the Short Sale Monitor and the Limit Locator to reflect
approval of a second FINRA/Nasdaq TRF in Chicago.
    The Commission has approved a proposed rule change by FINRA to
establish a second FINRA/Nasdaq TRF in Chicago as consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities association.\4\ Consistent with the
findings of the Commission, the Exchange proposes to define the term
``FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility'' in Rules 7039 (NLS and NLS
Plus Data Feeds), 7047 (Nasdaq Basic), 7049 (Nasdaq InterACT), 7055
(Short Sale Monitor) and 7061 (Limit Locator) as the ``FINRA/Nasdaq
Trade Reporting Facility (`TRF') Carteret and the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF
Chicago.'' The Exchange anticipates that the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago
will begin to accept trade reports for Reg NMS securities on September
24, 2018, and the Exchange will begin to distribute such data in the
NLS and NLS Plus Data Feeds, Nasdaq Basic, Nasdaq InterACT, the Short
Sale Monitor, and the Limit Locator on that same date. The Exchange
expects to retire existing versions of these products, which do not
include reports from the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago, on December 31,
2018.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83559 (June 29,
2018), 83 FR 31589 (July 6, 2018) (SR-FINRA-2018-013) (approving the
FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago); see also Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 83082 (April 20, 2018), 83 FR 18379 (April 26, 2018) (SR-FINRA-
2018-013) (proposing the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago).
    \5\ The new data feeds for NLS, NLS Plus, Nasdaq Basic, the
Short Sale Monitor, and the Limit Locator will include coding that
identifies the market system that generated the trade report
message, which will enable the recipient to distinguish between
information from the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago and the FINRA/Nasdaq
TRF Carteret. To utilize that coding, Distributors will be required
to make certain technical modifications to their software. Nasdaq is
working with Distributors to ensure that all such modifications will
be complete before the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago commences
operations, but, as a courtesy to any Distributor that has not made
such modifications before such operations commence, Nasdaq will
continue to make legacy feeds available until December 31, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is a conforming change to the FINRA filing that will not
change any fee or charge by the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it fosters cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and processing
information with respect to securities, facilitates transactions in
securities, protects investors and the public interest, and does not
unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
As described above, the Exchange proposes to update the definition of
the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF for Nasdaq Basic, NLS, Nasdaq InterACT, the Short
Sale Monitor and the Limit Locator to reflect approval of a second
FINRA/Nasdaq TRF in Chicago. Updating the definition of ``FINRA/Nasdaq
TRF'' to mean ``the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret and the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF
Chicago'' fosters cooperation with persons engaged in regulating and
processing securities information, facilitates transactions in
securities and protects investors and the public interest by conforming
the Exchange's rule book to FINRA's, and by reflecting the findings of
the Commission that creation of the Chicago facility is consistent with
the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities association. The proposal does not
unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers
because all customers, issuers, brokers and dealers will receive the
benefit of a Nasdaq rule book that conforms to FINRA's rule book and
decisions by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory
organizations (``SROs'') and broker-dealers increased authority and
flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It was
believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available
to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the
provision of market data. The Commission concluded that Regulation
NMS--by deregulating the market in proprietary data--would itself
further the Act's goals of facilitating efficiency and competition:

    [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the
NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that
efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive
(and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal
analysis of the need for such data.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').

    The Commission was speaking to the question of whether broker-
dealers should be subject to a regulatory requirement to purchase data,
such as depth-of-book data, that is in excess of the data provided
through the consolidated tape feeds, and the Commission concluded that
the choice should be left to them. Accordingly, Regulation NMS removed
unnecessary regulatory restrictions on the ability of exchanges to sell
their own data, thereby advancing the goals of the Act and the
principles reflected in its legislative history. If the free market
should determine whether proprietary data is sold to broker-dealers at
all, it follows that the price at which such data is sold should be set
by the market as well.
    The market data products affected by this proposal are all
voluntary products for which market participants can readily find
substitutes. Accordingly, Nasdaq is constrained from pricing these
products in a manner that would be inequitable or unfairly
discriminatory. Moreover, the fees for these products, like all
proprietary data fees, are constrained by the Exchange's need to
compete for order flow.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change--which will
simply define FINRA/Nasdaq TRF as it is used in the context of several
market data products to reflect approval of a second FINRA/Nasdaq TRF
in Chicago--does not impose a burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, but rather
provides both current and potential customers more precise description
of the information contained in certain Exchange products without
changing any fee or charge by the Exchange.
    The market for data products is extremely competitive and firms may
freely choose alternative venues and data vendors based on the
aggregate fees assessed, the data offered, and the value provided.
Numerous exchanges compete with each other for listings, trades, and
market data itself, providing virtually limitless opportunities for
entrepreneurs

who wish to produce and distribute their own market data. This
proprietary data is produced by each individual exchange, as well as
other entities, in a vigorously competitive market.
    Transaction execution and proprietary data products are
complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of
the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a
paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. The decision
whether and on which platform to post an order will depend on the
attributes of the platform where the order can be posted, including the
execution fees, data quality and price, and distribution of its data
products. Without trade executions, exchange data products cannot
exist. Moreover, data products are valuable to many end users only
insofar as they provide information that end users expect will assist
them or their customers in making trading decisions.
    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform, the cost of implementing cybersecurity to protect the data
from external threats and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure
its fair operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return
that a trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from
both products and the joint costs it incurs.
    Moreover, the operation of the Exchange is characterized by high
fixed costs and low marginal costs. This cost structure is common in
content and content distribution industries such as software, where
developing new software typically requires a large initial investment
(and continuing large investments to upgrade the software), but once
the software is developed, the incremental cost of providing that
software to an additional user is typically small, or even zero (e.g.,
if the software can be downloaded over the internet after being
purchased).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See William J. Baumol and Daniel G. Swanson, ``The New
Economy and Ubiquitous Competitive Price Discrimination: Identifying
Defensible Criteria of Market Power,'' Antitrust Law Journal, Vol.
70, No. 3 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Nasdaq's case, it is costly to build and maintain a trading
platform, but the incremental cost of trading each additional share on
an existing platform, or distributing an additional instance of data,
is very low. Market information and executions are each produced
jointly (in the sense that the activities of trading and placing orders
are the source of the information that is distributed) and each are
subject to significant scale economies. In such cases, marginal cost
pricing is not feasible because if all sales were priced at the margin,
Nasdaq would be unable to defray its platform costs of providing the
joint products. Similarly, data products cannot make use of TRF trade
reports without the raw material of the trade reports themselves, and
therefore necessitate the costs of operating, regulating,\10\ and
maintaining a trade reporting system, costs that must be covered
through the fees charged for use of the facility and sales of
associated data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ It should be noted that the costs of operating the FINRA/
Nasdaq TRF borne by Nasdaq include regulatory charges paid by Nasdaq
to FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An exchange's broker-dealer customers view the costs of transaction
executions and of data as a unified cost of doing business with the
exchange. A broker-dealer will disfavor a particular exchange if the
expected revenues from executing trades on the exchange do not exceed
net transaction execution costs and the cost of data that the broker-
dealer chooses to buy to support its trading decisions (or those of its
customers). The choice of data products is, in turn, a product of the
value of the products in making profitable trading decisions. If the
cost of the product exceeds its expected value, the broker-dealer will
choose not to buy it. Moreover, as a broker-dealer chooses to direct
fewer orders to a particular exchange, the value of the product to that
broker-dealer decreases, for two reasons. First, the product will
contain less information, because executions of the broker-dealer's
trading activity will not be reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more
important, the product will be less valuable to that broker-dealer
because it does not provide information about the venue to which it is
directing its orders. Data from the competing venue to which the
broker-dealer is directing more orders will become correspondingly more
valuable.
    Similarly, vendors provide price discipline for proprietary data
products because they control the primary means of access to end users.
Vendors impose price restraints based upon their business models. For
example, vendors that assess a surcharge on data they sell may refuse
to offer proprietary products that end users will not purchase in
sufficient numbers. Internet portals impose a discipline by providing
only data that will enable them to attract ``eyeballs'' that contribute
to their advertising revenue. Retail broker-dealers offer their retail
customers proprietary data only if it promotes trading and generates
sufficient commission revenue. Although the business models may differ,
these vendors' pricing discipline is the same: They can simply refuse
to purchase any proprietary data product that fails to provide
sufficient value. Exchanges, TRFs, and other producers of proprietary
data products must understand and respond to these varying business
models and pricing disciplines in order to market proprietary data
products successfully. Moreover, Nasdaq believes that market data
products can enhance order flow to Nasdaq by providing more widespread
distribution of information about transactions in real time, thereby
encouraging wider participation in the market by investors with access
to the internet or television. Conversely, the value of such products
to Distributors and investors decreases if order flow falls, because
the products contain less content.
    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint
products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible,
and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering
total costs. Nasdaq pays rebates to attract orders, charges relatively
low prices for market information and charges relatively high prices
for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy
of paying lower liquidity rebates to attract orders, setting relatively
low prices for accessing posted liquidity, and setting relatively high
prices for market information. Still others may provide most data free
of charge and rely exclusively on transaction fees to recover their
costs. Finally, some platforms may incentivize use by providing
opportunities for equity ownership, which may allow them to charge
lower direct fees for executions and data.
    In this environment, there is no economic basis for regulating
maximum prices for one of the joint products in an industry in which
suppliers face competitive constraints with regard to the joint
offering. Such regulation is unnecessary because an ``excessive'' price
for one of the joint products will ultimately have to be reflected in
lower prices for other products sold by the firm, or otherwise the firm
will experience a loss in the volume of its sales that will be adverse
to its overall profitability. In other words, an increase in the price
of data will ultimately have to be accompanied by a decrease in the

cost of executions, or the volume of both data and executions will
fall.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Cf. Ohio v. American Express, No. 16-1454 (S. Ct. June 25,
2018), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1454_5h26.pdf
(recognizing the need to analyze both sides of a two-sided platform
market in order to determine its competitiveness).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the level of competition and contestability in the market
is evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order
flow, including SRO markets, internalizing broker-dealers and various
forms of alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools
and electronic communication networks (``ECNs''). Each SRO market
competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and the
FINRA-regulated TRFs compete to attract internalized transaction
reports. It is common for broker-dealers to further exploit this
competition by sending their order flow and transaction reports to
multiple markets, rather than providing them all to a single market.
Competitive markets for order flow, executions, and transaction reports
provide pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data products.
The large number of SROs, TRFs, broker-dealers, and ATSs that currently
produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it
provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each
SRO, TRF, ATS, and broker-dealer is currently permitted to produce
proprietary data products, and many currently do or have announced
plans to do so, including Nasdaq, NYSE, NYSE American, NYSE Arca, IEX,
and BATS/Direct Edge.

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) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \14\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \15\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so
that the proposed rule change may become operative upon filing. Waiver
of the operative delay would allow the Exchange to reflect in its rules
that there are now two Nasdaq TRFs to which trades can be reported and
would provide customers with more precise information about the data
contained within certain Exchange products. For these reasons, the
Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and
designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2018-075 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-NASDAQ-2018-075. 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-NASDAQ-2018-075, and should be submitted
on or before October 25, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-21584 Filed 10-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P