[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 190 (Friday, September 30, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67412-67414]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23610]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78931; File No. SR-NSX-2016-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Fee and Rebate Schedule To Create a Liquidity-Adding Volume
Threshold To Benefit From the Current Liquidity Taking Fee in
Securities Priced $1.00 or Greater

September 26, 2016.
    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 September 20, 2016, National Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NSX'' or
the ``Exchange'') 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 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 is proposing to amend its Fee and Rebate Schedule (the
``Fee Schedule''), issued pursuant to Exchange Rule 16.1, to: (1)
Create a monthly, liquidity-adding volume threshold that Equity Trading
Permit (``ETP'') Holders \3\ will be required to meet to continue to
pay for [sic] the current liquidity-taking fee in securities priced
$1.00 or greater and establish a different, higher liquidity-taking fee
for ETP Holders that do not meet the new volume threshold; and (2) make
ministerial changes to the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Exchange Rule 1.5E(1) defines ``ETP'' as the Equity Trading
Permit issued by the Exchange for effecting approved securities
transactions on the Exchange's trading facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nsx.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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule, issued pursuant to
Rule 16.1, with the goal of maximizing the effectiveness of its
business model and continuing to provide ETP Holders a cost-effective
execution venue. To further incentivize ETP Holders to post liquidity
on the NSX Book,\4\ the Exchange is proposing to create a monthly,
liquidity-adding volume threshold that an ETP Holder must reach to
continue to pay the current liquidity-taking fee for securities priced
$1.00 or greater. The Exchange proposes to adopt a different, higher
liquidity-taking fee for ETP Holders that do not meet the new
liquidity-adding volume threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Exchange Rule 1.5N(1) defines ``NSX Book'' as the trading
systems' electronic file of orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange charges ETP Holders $0.0003 per share
executed for liquidity-taking orders in symbols priced at $1.00 or
greater. The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to add
language in the Transaction Fees and Rebates section of the Fee
Schedule and an Explanatory Note 1 which will create two different
price structures depending on the amount of liquidity that an ETP
Holder adds on the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange will charge the
current ``taker'' fee of $0.0003 per executed share for any marketable
liquidity-removing order in securities priced at $1.00 or greater to
any ETP Holder that executes at least 50,000 shares of liquidity-adding
volume during a calendar month. An ETP Holder that does not execute at
least 50,000 shares of liquidity-adding volume during a calendar month
will be charged $0.0030 per executed share for any liquidity-removing
order in securities priced at $1.00 or greater. After each calendar
month, the Exchange will calculate the number of shares of liquidity-
adding volume that each ETP Holder executed and apply the appropriate
fee for the ETP Holder's liquidity-taking executions that calendar
month.
    The Exchange also proposes to make the ministerial change of
adjusting the numbering for Explanatory Notes in light of the addition
of proposed Explanatory Note 1.
    Pursuant to Exchange Rule 16.1(c), the Exchange will ``provide ETP
Holders with notice of all relevant dues, fees, assessments and charges
of the Exchange'' through the issuance of an Information Circular and
will post the Fee Schedule and the instant rule filing on the
Exchange's Web site, www.nsx.com.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general and, in
particular, Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\ which requires that the
rules of a national securities exchange provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. The
proposed rule change is also consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\7\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange not permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers, and be designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange submits that the proposed liquidity-adding volume

threshold and associated fee are reasonable and equitable, as required
by Section 6(b)(4) of the Act. The Exchange believes that the volume
thresholds are reasonable because they have been set at achievable
levels that will incentivize ETP Holders trading on the Exchange to add
a greater amount of liquidity to the Exchange. This will result in
greater price discovery and price improvement for ETP Holders and
market participants. Further, the proposed ``taker'' fee of $0.0030 per
share for securities priced $1.00 or greater is reasonable because it
is within the range of fees that other exchanges charge per executed
share for orders removing liquidity in securities priced $1.00 or
greater.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') Fee Schedule
and the Fee Schedule of the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'').
As of September 2016, both BZX and CHX charge a fee of $0.0030 per
executed share for orders removing liquidity in securities priced
$1.00 or greater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The liquidity-adding volume threshold is equitable because each ETP
Holder has the same opportunity to post liquidity on the Exchange
totaling 50,000 shares in order to continue to pay the current $0.0003
per share ``taker'' fee, as opposed to the new, higher taker fee. Thus,
the Fee Schedule provides for an equitable program which, the Exchange
believes, will operate to encourage increased quoting and trading by
ETP Holders on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that in the past it has
offered, as a part of its Fee Schedule, a similar minimum, liquidity-
adding volume threshold to qualify for a more advantageous ``taker''
fee.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange has utilized a similar program as a part of its
Fee Schedule in the past. That program provided that ``[e]ach ETP
Holder will be charged $0.0030 per share for any marketable order
that removes liquidity unless the ETP Holder executes at least
50,000 shares of liquidity-adding volume in Auto-Ex Mode per
month.'' See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67816 (September
10, 2012), 77 FR 56886 (September 14, 2012) SR-NSX-2012-14). The
Exchange notes that, when this program was previously in effect, the
majority of ETP Holders trading on the Exchange qualified for the
lower fee tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further submits that its proposal that ETP Holders
must attain at least 50,000 shares of executed liquidity-adding volume
in a calendar month to benefit from the lower ``take'' fee of $0.0003
satisfies the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it
does not permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers, is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system. Under the
proposed changes to the Fee Schedule, all ETP Holders executing orders
on the Exchange will have the same opportunity to qualify for the lower
priced fee tier through their trading activity adding liquidity on the
Exchange, and such changes are thereby designed to meet the
requirements of the Section 6(b)(5) that the rules of the Exchange not
permit unfair discrimination among ETP Holders and their customers. The
Exchange notes that, at present, approximately a dozen ETP Holders
would meet the volume threshold of 50,000 shares of liquidity-adding
volume to qualify for the current taker fee of $0.0003 per executed
share.
    The Exchange submits that the proposal will promote just and
equitable principles of trade by providing a reasonable and attainable
volume threshold that will potentially attract more displayed volume on
the Exchange. Incentivizing ETP Holders to add more liquidity on the
Exchange would inure to the benefit of all market participants seeking
additional execution opportunities. In this regard, the proposed Fee
Schedule will promote just and equitable principles of trade and
operate to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system under Section 6(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 Exchange Act. The proposed
changes will enhance rather than burden competition by operating to
incentivize increased liquidity and improve execution quality on the
Exchange through reasonable and equitably allocated economic
incentives.

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 proposed rule change has taken effect upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \10\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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-NSX-2016-11 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-NSX-2016-11. 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-NSX-2016-11 and should be
submitted on or before October 21, 2016.

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

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-23610 Filed 9-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 52997]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20831]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Connected Vehicle Research Program Public Meeting; Notice of
Public Meeting

AGENCY: ITS Joint Program Office, Research and Innovative Technology
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Intelligent
Transportation System Joint Program Office (ITS JPO) will host its
annual free public meeting to provide an overview of the ITS JPO
Connected Vehicle research program. The meeting will take place
September 24 to 26, 2013, at the Holiday Inn Arlington at Ballston,
4610 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA, 22203,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Persons
planning to attend the meeting should register online at www.itsa.org/connectedvehicleworkshop.
    The public meeting is the best opportunity to learn details about
the Connected Vehicle research program in anticipation of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's 2013 decision regarding vehicle
safety communications for light vehicles and 2014 decision for heavy
vehicles. The meeting will have focused discussions on the ITS JPO's
Connected Vehicle safety program, including vehicle-to-vehicle
communications, safety pilot, vehicle-to-infrastructure communications,
human factors, and policy. There will also be a special session
dedicated to the ITS Strategic Plan for 2015 to 2019 including a
session on the developing USDOT Multimodal Plan for Vehicle Automation.
The agenda for the meeting will be posted on the ITS JPO Web site at
www.its.dot.gov.

About the Connected Vehicle Research Program at USDOT

    Connected Vehicle research at USDOT is a multimodal program that
involves using wireless communication between vehicles, infrastructure,
and personal communications devices to improve safety, mobility, and
environmental sustainability. To learn more about the Connected Vehicle
program please visit www.its.dot.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on the 21st day of August 2013.
Stephen Glasscock,
Program Analyst, ITS Joint Program Office.
[FR Doc. 2013-20831 Filed 8-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-HY-P


[Federal Register: June 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 121)]
[Notices]
[Page 30284-30285]
[DOCID:fr25jn09-34]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP09-431-000]

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Application

June 18, 2009.
    Take notice that on June 11, 2009, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP
(Texas Eastern), 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, TX 77056-5310 filed an
application in Docket No. CP09-431-000 an application pursuant to
section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requesting permission and
approval to (1) abandon by removal two Pratt-Whitney units with a total
combined horsepower (HP) of 5,500 and related appurtenances at the
Hanover

Compressor Station in Morris County, New Jersey (Hanover Station), and
uprate to 6,500 HP the existing Solar compressor unit at the Hanover
Station such that the certificated HP at the station is reduced from
9,200 HP to 6,500, and (2) abandon in place one 2,000 HP compressor
unit and related appurtenances located at the Eagle Compressor Station
(Station No. 25) in Chester County, Pennsylvania (Eagle Station), all
as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection. This filing is accessible on-
line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link and is
available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in
Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that
enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is
added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online
service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call (866) 208-
3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Texas Eastern states that the two Pratt-Whitney compressor units at
the Hanover Station and the unit at the Eagle Station are outdated, and
in conjunction with approval of the requested uprate of the Solar unit
at the Hanover Station, are not needed for Texas Eastern to continue to
meet its current firm service obligations. Texas Eastern further states
that there will be no termination or reduction in service to any
existing firm customer of Texas Eastern as a result of the proposed
uprate and abandonments proposed in the application. According to Texas
Eastern, the proposed abandonment will not affect Texas Eastern's
existing tariffs. Texas Eastern states that the proposed abandonments
will reduce Texas Eastern's current repair and maintenance expenses and
eliminate the need for future capital expenditures at the stations
associated with the abandoned units. As a result, Texas Eastern submits
that the requested uprate and abandonment authorization is consistent
with the public convenience and necessity.
    In order to accomplish the abandonment at the Eagle Station, Texas
Eastern proposes to abandon in place the Westinghouse Type CS Frame 2-
36-26 compressor and associated piping.
    No work is required in order to accomplish the proposed uprate of
the Solar unit at the Hanover Station. In order to accomplish the
abandonment of the Pratt-Whitney units at the Hanover Station, Texas
Eastern proposes to (1) Remove the two units and the concrete
foundation and piers; (2) remove all associated valves, gas piping,
lube oil piping and control panels associated with the two units; and
(3) complete rehabilitation.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to:
Lisa A. Moore, General Manager, Rates and Certificates, Texas Eastern
Transmission, LP, PO Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, at (713) 627-
4102.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing''
link at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission strongly encourages
intervenors to file electronically. Persons unable to file
electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest
or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 9, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-14934 Filed 6-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 96 (Thursday, May 17, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29271-29275]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11843]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 131

[EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596; FRL-9670-7]
RIN 2040-AF41

Effective Date for the Water Quality Standards for the State of
Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed delay of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
extend the July 6, 2012, effective date of the ``Water Quality
Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters;

Final Rule'' (inland waters rule) for three months to October 6, 2012.
EPA also is soliciting comment on extending the July 6, 2012, effective
date by one year to July 6, 2013. EPA's inland waters rule as
promulgated on December 6, 2010, included an effective date of March 6,
2012, for the entire regulation except for the site-specific
alternative criteria provision, which took effect on February 4, 2011.
This proposal to extend the July 6, 2012, effective date for the inland
waters rule does not affect or change the February 4, 2011, effective
date for the site-specific alternative criteria provision. On March 5,
2012, EPA extended the March 6, 2012, effective date to July 6, 2012.
In this proposal, EPA is requesting comment on extending the effective
date for the ``Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes
and Flowing Waters; Final Rule'' from July 6, 2012 to October 6, 2012,
or in the alternative from July 6, 2012 to July 6, 2013.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 18, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2009-0596, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail to: Water Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Mail code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596.
    4. Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, EPA West Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-
0596. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.regulations.gov to view public comments,
access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket,
and access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically. For additional information about EPA's public docket,
visit EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. Although listed in the index, some information is not
publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information with disclosure restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyright material, is not placed on the Internet and
will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Docket Facility. The Office
of Water (OW) Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The OW Docket Center
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the Docket address is OW Docket,
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004.
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
rulemaking, contact: Tracy Bone, U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Mailcode
4305T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

Does this action apply to me?

    Citizens concerned with water quality in Florida may be interested
in this rulemaking. Entities discharging nitrogen or phosphorus to
lakes and flowing waters of Florida could be indirectly affected by
this rulemaking because water quality standards (WQS) are used in
determining National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit limits. Categories and entities that may ultimately be affected
include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Category            Examples of potentially affected entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.....................  Industries discharging pollutants to
                                lakes and flowing waters in the State of
                                Florida.
Municipalities...............  Publicly-owned treatment works
                                discharging pollutants to lakes and
                                flowing waters in the State of Florida.
Stormwater Management          Entities responsible for managing
 Districts.                     stormwater runoff in Florida.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for entities that may be directly or indirectly affected by this
action. This table lists the types of entities which EPA is now aware
could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table, such as nonpoint source contributors to
nitrogen/phosphorus pollution in Florida's waters may be affected
through implementation of Florida's water quality standards program
(i.e., through Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs)). Any parties or
entities conducting activities within watersheds of the Florida waters
covered by this rule, or who rely on, depend upon,

influence, or contribute to the water quality of the lakes and flowing
waters of Florida, may be affected by this rule. To determine whether
your facility or activities may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the language in 40 CFR 131.43, which is the final
rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Background

    On December 6, 2010, EPA's final inland waters rule, entitled
``Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing
Waters; Final Rule,'' was published in the Federal Register at 75 FR
75762, and codified at 40 CFR 131.43. The final inland waters rule
established numeric nutrient criteria in the form of total nitrogen,
total phosphorus, nitrate+nitrite, and chlorophyll a for the different
types of Florida's inland waters to assure attainment of the State's
applicable water quality designated uses. More specifically, the
numeric nutrient criteria translate Florida's narrative nutrient
provision at Subsection 62-302-530(47)(b), Florida Administrative Code
(F.A.C.), into numeric values that apply to lakes and springs
throughout Florida and flowing waters outside of the South Florida
Region. (EPA has distinguished the South Florida Region as those areas
south of Lake Okeechobee and the Caloosahatchee River watershed to the
west of Lake Okeechobee and the St. Lucie watershed to the east of Lake
Okeechobee.) The December 2010 final action seeks to improve water
quality, protect public health and aquatic life, and achieve the long-
term recreational uses of Florida's waters, which are a critical part
of the State's economy.
    As stated in 75 FR 75807 (December 6, 2010), the rule was scheduled
to take effect on March 6, 2012, except for the site-specific
alternative criteria (SSAC) provision at 40 CFR 131.43(e), which took
effect on February 4, 2011. EPA selected the March 6, 2012, effective
date for the criteria part of the rule to allow time for EPA to work
with stakeholders and the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) on important implementation issues; to help the
public and all affected parties better understand the final criteria
and the basis for those criteria; and for EPA to engage and support, in
full partnership with FDEP, the general public, stakeholders, local
governments, and sectors of the regulated community across the State in
a process of public outreach education, discussion, and constructive
planning, (75 FR 75787, December 6, 2010).
    On December 22, 2011 (76 FR 79604), EPA proposed to extend the
March 6, 2012, effective date of the inland waters rule to June 4,
2012. EPA received six comments on its proposal. EPA considered the
public comments and the continued progress by the FDEP toward adoption
of nutrient water quality standards. EPA decided that a four month
extension was warranted (77 FR 13497), and thus extended the effective
date of the inland waters rule to July 6, 2012.

III. Proposed Extension of July 6, 2012 Effective Date

A. Current Inland Waters Rule Effective Date and Rationale

    The current effective date for the inland waters rule is July 6,
2012 except, as noted earlier, for the site-specific alternative
criteria (SSAC) provision, which became effective February 4, 2011.
    As discussed at length in the December 22, 2011, proposal to extend
the effective date of the inland waters rule (76 FR 79604), EPA at both
the Headquarters and Regional levels has worked in collaboration with
the State on outreach and education efforts. In the same proposal, EPA
also discussed that a further extension of the effective date of the
inland waters rule might be needed to allow FDEP to submit the recently
established State numeric nutrient rules to EPA for review and action
under section 303(c) of the CWA, for EPA to complete its review of the
State rules, and for EPA to withdraw any Federal numeric nutrient
criteria corresponding to any State-adopted numeric nutrient criteria
that have been approved by EPA.

B. Rationale for Extending the July 6, 2012 Effective Date

    EPA is proposing to extend the effective date of the inland waters
rule (with the exception of the SSAC provision, which is already in
effect) for three months to October 6, 2012 for the reasons discussed
in this section. EPA also requests comment on the possibility of
extending the July 6, 2012 effective date for one year to July 6, 2013
or further.
    Since the promulgation of the December 6, 2010 final rule for
Florida's inland waters, EPA has continued to work in close
coordination with the State of Florida as the State develops its own
rulemaking for numeric nutrient criteria (NNC rules) that are
consistent with requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA), address the
water quality needs of the State, and support effective permit
implementation, water body assessment and listing, and development of
TMDLs. The State legislature has exempted the state NNC rules from
legislative ratification and directed the FDEP to submit the rules to
the EPA for review. On February 20, 2012, the FDEP sent the rules to
EPA, which sets numeric nutrient criteria for lakes, spring vents,
streams, and certain estuaries in Florida. The FDEP also submitted
material supporting those criteria. EPA looks forward to receiving
notification from the State of Florida that the rules have been
officially adopted as revisions to the State's water quality standards.
    A petition was filed with the Florida Department of Administrative
Hearings challenging the validity of FDEP's NNC rules. A hearing was
held the week of February 27, 2012, and the Administrative Law Judge
has not yet issued an order in the case. EPA anticipates that the judge
will issue a ruling in May. At the time of this proposal, the outcome
of the administrative challenge is uncertain. The three month extension
of the effective date of the inland waters rule would allow time for
the administrative challenge to be resolved, and, if FDEP prevails, for
FDEP to notify EPA that the NNC rules have been officially adopted as
revisions to the State's water quality standards. If EPA were to
approve Florida's rules, EPA would then consider proposing and
finalizing an additional extension to allow time for EPA to withdraw
any Federal numeric nutrient criteria that correspond to criteria that
have been adopted by Florida and approved by EPA.
    Final State numeric nutrient criteria could have significant
implications for many interested parties and members of the public in
the State. In the event that alternative Florida numeric nutrient
criteria are established that assure attainment of State designated
uses consistent with applicable CWA provisions, there could be
uncertainty regarding implementation of EPA's inland water numeric
criteria. Successful State action on this issue could also affect the
obligations and expectations of a wide range of affected stakeholders
whose actions relate to the discharge or contribution of nitrogen and
phosphorus pollution to State waters. Extending the effective date of
EPA's inland waters rule from July 6, 2012, to October 6, 2012, would
avoid the confusion and inefficiency that could occur should Federal
criteria become effective while EPA reviews State criteria for approval
or disapproval under CWA section 303(c). Further,

extending the effective date to July 6, 2013, would avoid the confusion
and inefficiency that could occur should Federal criteria take effect
after State criteria have been approved and while EPA is in the process
of withdrawing Federal criteria for corresponding waters.
    Should EPA decide to extend the effective date of the inland waters
rule, the Agency will continue to work with Florida towards
implementation of either Federal or State numeric nutrient criteria. As
EPA stated in the preamble to the final inland waters rule, the
opportunity presented by numeric nutrient criteria--for substantial
nitrogen and phosphorus loadings reductions in the State--``would be
greatly facilitated and expedited by strongly coordinated and well-
informed stakeholder engagement, planning, and support before a rule of
this significance and broad scope begins to take effect and be
implemented through the State's regulatory programs'' (75 FR 75787,
December 6, 2010).
    EPA solicits comments regarding the proposed extension of three
months to October 6, 2012, for the effective date of the inland waters
rule, as well as a proposed extension of one year to July 6, 2013, for
the same.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), since it
merely extends the effective date of an already promulgated rule, and
is, therefore, not subject to review under Executive Order 12866 and
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action does not impose any
information collection burden, reporting or record keeping requirements
on anyone.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that
the rule will not have significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes
of assessing the impacts of this action on small entities, small entity
is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    This proposed rule does not establish any requirements that are
applicable to small entities, but rather merely extends the date of
already promulgated requirements. Thus, I certify that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. This action merely extends
the effective date of an already promulgated regulation. Therefore,
this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205
of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action does not have Federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action merely extends the
effective date of an already promulgated regulation.

F. Executive Order 13175

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). In the State of
Florida, there are two Indian Tribes, the Seminole Tribe of Florida and
the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, with lakes and flowing
waters. Both Tribes have been approved for treatment in the same manner
as a State (TAS) status for CWA sections 303 and 401 and have
federally-approved WQS in their respective jurisdictions. These Tribes
are not subject to this proposed rule. This rule will not impact the
Tribes because it merely extends the date of already promulgated
requirements. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed
action from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO 12866
and because the Agency does not believe this action includes
environmental health risks or safety risks that would present a risk to
children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994))
establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main
provision directs agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to

make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States. This proposed action is not subject to E.O. 12898
because this action merely extends the effective date for already
promulgated requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131

    Environmental protection, Water quality standards, Nitrogen/
phosphorus pollution, Nutrients, Florida.

    Dated: May 5, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-11843 Filed 5-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 123 (Monday, June 27, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37261-37263]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15885]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0078; Airspace Docket No. 10-AEA-20]

Establishment of Helicopter Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes;
Northeast United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes helicopter RNAV routes as part of the
U.S. air traffic service route (ATS) structure and designates two
helicopter RNAV routes (TK-routes) in the northeast corridor between
the Washington, DC, and New York City metropolitan areas. The TK-routes
are for use by helicopters having IFR-approved Global Positioning
System (GPS)/Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) equipment. The
FAA is taking this action to enhance safety and to improve the
efficient use of the navigable airspace for en route IFR helicopter
operations.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, August 25, 2011. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace, Regulations
and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On Tuesday, March 8, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal
Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish two helicopter
RNAV routes in Northeast United States (76 FR 12643). Interested
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the proposal. Four people submitted
comments on the proposal.

Discussion of Comments

    Two commenters wrote expressing support for the proposal. Two
commenters raised several issues which are discussed below. One
commenter questioned the need for a new type of airway for helicopters
stating that the existing system of VOR Federal airways and RNAV T-
routes should be sufficient. The commenter wrote, in the past, the FAA
had designated routes for helicopters in the northeast, but they were
seldom available for use. Additionally, the commenter asked if the air
traffic control separation standards for IFR helicopters differ from
those that apply to fixed-wing aircraft; contending that, if they are
the same, there is no need for helicopter airways.
    The past routes noted by the commenter were initiated in FAA
Advisory Circular AC 73-2, ``IFR Helicopter Operations in the Northeast
Corridor,'' dated June 11, 1979. AC 73-2 advised of special RNAV
helicopter routes between Washington, DC, and Boston, MA. The routes
were developed consistent with conventional traffic flows for use by
helicopters under IFR conditions. Use of these routes was limited only
to those operators that met specified criteria and were issued a letter
of authorization from the FAA. Therefore, the routes were not available
for general use and they were not depicted on IFR Enroute Low Altitude
charts. The Advisory Circular was subsequently cancelled because the
routes were designed for first generation RNAV systems which lacked the
accuracy and reliability of satellite navigation and other advanced
RNAV systems. Additionally, it was determined that the routes do not
meet current Air Traffic Service route criteria. On March 26, 2007, the
FAA issued a Letter to Airmen containing new routings to be filed with
a ``fix-to-fix'' flight plan along the ``old'' IFR northeast corridor.
As with the Advisory Circular routes, these routes are not depicted on
IFR En route Low Altitude charts. The new TK routes in this rule
approximate the former northeast corridor route

tracks. In addition, the new TK routes are public routes that will be
depicted on the IFR Enroute Low Altitude charts and available for use
by suitably equipped helicopters.
    Regarding IFR separation standards, there is no difference between
IFR helicopters and IFR fixed wing aircraft. The question of
establishing a new type of route for IFR helicopters was raised in
response to user requests. In March 2006, the Helicopter Association
International (HAI) requested that the FAA take action to develop and
chart IFR RNAV airways for use by helicopters having IFR-approved GPS
equipment. Of particular interest was the use of RNAV to assist IFR
helicopter pilots transiting though busy terminal airspace areas while
providing routes separate from fixed-wing traffic. This issue was
studied by members of the Government/Industry Aeronautical Charting
Forum (ACF), which is comprised of both FAA and Industry participants.
The ACF supported the establishment of RNAV helicopter routes and
concluded that a unique prefix should be used to identify these routes.
Establishment of charted helicopter RNAV TK-routes will enhance safety
and facilitate more flexible and efficient access to the NAS for IFR
helicopter operations. In addition, the TK-routes will enable the
designation of waypoints and feeder routes that would provide a
connection between the NAS and instrument procedures serving helicopter
landing/departure facilities. Among the potential benefits of these
routes are more efficient and safer operations for helicopter emergency
medical services flights.
    One commenter asked if he could file a TK-route for a flight in a
Cessna 150. The answer is no, due in part to the differing missions of
fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, TK-routes may start and end at
locations inappropriate for fixed wing aircraft, such as in the
vicinity of hospital or other helipad locations. Due to this difference
TK-routes will be designated specifically for helicopter use;
therefore, only suitably equipped helicopters will be able to file for
the routes.
    A commenter asked about the expected usage of the routes and the
altitudes flown. It is anticipated the average usage rate would be
around 30 to 50 flights per month for those route segments between the
Philadelphia and the New York City areas. Usage of the full route
between New York and Washington, DC, is expected to be about five per
month. Altitude use on the routes will vary as with other ATS routes.
Each TK-route will have a designated minimum en route IFR altitude
(MEA). Assigned altitudes will be determined based on the requested
altitude filed in the flight plan by the pilot and ATC requirements.
    The FAA received one request to extend the comment period. We feel
that sufficient information was received to issue a final rule;
therefore, an extension is not needed.
    One commenter questioned whether an environmental categorical
exclusion (CATEX), as noted in the NPRM, was appropriate for this rule.
This comment is addressed in the ``Environmental Review'' section,
below.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 adding low altitude helicopter RNAV routes (TK-routes) to the
U.S. ATS route structure and designating the first two such helicopter
RNAV routes. Helicopter RNAV routes will be identified by the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) prefix ``TK'' followed
by a 3-digit number. ICAO has allocated the number block 501 through
650 for U.S. use in identifying the routes. The two new routes in this
rule, designated TK-502 and TK-504, will provide more direct routing
for IFR helicopters in the northeast corridor between the New York City
and Washington, DC, metropolitan areas. The routes will serve New York
City, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, DC area airports/
heliports. The helicopter RNAV routes will be depicted on the
appropriate IFR Enroute Low Altitude charts. Only GNSS equipped RNAV
helicopters may file for the TK-routes.
    Helicopter RNAV routes are published in paragraph 6012 of FAA Order
7400.9U dated August 18, 2010 and effective September 15, 2010, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The helicopter RNAV routes
listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.
    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.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so
minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air
traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it designates new helicopter RNAV air traffic service routes to
enhance the safe and efficient use of the NAS in the northeastern
United States.

Environmental Review

    The TK routes have been determined to be Categorically Excluded
from further environmental review in accordance with paragraphs 311a of
FAA Order 1050.1E and documented under the provisions outlined in
paragraph 305 of that order. The estimated number of daily helicopter
operations is low, with an estimate of less than 50 helicopter
operations on the routes per month. Based on the low number of
operations, no noise analysis was needed as per FAA Order 1050.1E.
Other environmental impact categories were considered as well as the
potential for extraordinary circumstances before reaching this
environmental determination of CATEX. The Air Traffic Initial
Environmental Review (IER) is not a mandatory document and was not
required for this action. The FAA issued a Categorical Exclusion/Record
of Decision dated June 14, 2011.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p.389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9U,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, Dated August 18, 2010 and
effective September 15, 2010, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6012 Helicopter Area Navigation Routes [New]

* * * * *

TK-502 Westminster (EMI), MD to DECKR, PA [New]
Westminster (EMI), MD   VORTAC                 (Lat. 39[deg]29'42'' N., long. 76[deg]58'43'' W.)
TAYLO, MD               WP                     (Lat. 39[deg]39'48'' N., long. 76[deg]27'43'' W.)
WINGO, PA               WP                     (Lat. 39[deg]45'59'' N., long. 76[deg]06'55'' W.)
SINON, PA               WP                     (Lat. 40[deg]02'14'' N., long. 75[deg]34'46'' W.)
GRIBL, PA               WP                     (Lat. 40[deg]14'30'' N., long. 74[deg]53'31'' W.)
TOLAN, NJ               WP                     (Lat. 40[deg]21'58'' N., long. 74[deg]25'23'' W.)
BALDE, NJ               WP                     (Lat. 40[deg]28'42'' N., long. 74[deg]11'33'' W.)
SPATE, NY               WP                     (Lat. 40[deg]31'22'' N., long. 74[deg]07'31'' W.)
DECKR, NY               WP                     (Lat. 40[deg]39'07'' N., long. 74[deg]02'42'' W.)

                                                  * * * * * * *
TK-504 RUSEY, MD to BANKA, NJ [New]
RUSEY, MD               WP                     (Lat. 39[deg]16'07'' N., long. 76[deg]11'19'' W.)
CIDOB, MD               WP                     (Lat. 39[deg]25'47'' N., long. 75[deg]58'43'' W.)
HAMOR, PA               WP                     (Lat. 39[deg]51'21'' N., long. 75[deg]47'17'' W.)
ARCUM, PA               WP                     (Lat. 40[deg]01'26'' N., long. 75[deg]20'54'' W.)
TULLY, PA               WP                     (Lat. 40[deg]10'38'' N., long. 74[deg]51'48'' W.)
BORKE, NJ               WP                     (Lat. 40[deg]10'12'' N., long. 74[deg]22'32'' W.)
BANKA, NJ               WP                     (Lat. 40[deg]22'53'' N., long. 74[deg]03'04'' W.)

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 20, 2011.
Gary A. Norek,
Acting Manager, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group.

[FR Doc. 2011-15885 Filed 6-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 7)]
[Notices]
[Page 1212]
[DOCID:fr12ja09-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-5947-000]

Schwirtz, Mark W.; Notice of Filing

January 5, 2009.
    Take notice that on December 31, 2008, Mark W. Schwirtz submitted
for filing, an application for authority to hold interlocking
positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. 825d(b)(2008), Part 45 of Title 18 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, 18 CFR Part 45 (2008), and Commission Order No. 664
(2005).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 21, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-253 Filed 1-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68113-68115]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27041]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70817; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2013-115]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To
Adopt Commentary .03 to Rule 6.91 To Limit the Volume of Complex Orders
by a Single OTP Holder or OTP Firm During the Trading Day

November 6, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 28, 2013, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') 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 prepared by the Exchange. On
November 5, 2013, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposal.\3\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1
thereto, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange proposed to delete the
phrase ``at any given time'' located on page six of the Form 19b-4
and in the second full paragraph on page 14 of the Exhibit 1 to the
Form 19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is proposing to adopt as Commentary .03 to Rule 6.91,
which was reserved, a Complex Order Table Cap, to limit the volume of
complex orders by a single OTP Holder or OTP Firm during the trading
day. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to adopt as Commentary .03 to Rule 6.91,
which was reserved, a Complex Order Table Cap, to limit the volume of
complex orders entered by a single OTP Holder or OTP Firm
(collectively, ``OTPs'') during the trading day. The Exchange believes
that the Complex Order Table Cap would help maintain a fair and orderly
market because it is a system protection tool designed to assist the
Exchange in preventing any single OTP from utilizing more than a
specified percentage of the complex order table during the trading day.
    Rule 6.91 governs trading of ``Complex Orders'' \4\ on the NYSE
Arca

System (``Electronic Complex Orders''). Rule 6.91(a)(2)(i) currently
provides that Electronic Complex Orders accepted in the Exchange's
Complex Matching Engine (``CME'') \5\ are executed automatically
against other Electronic Complex Orders in the Consolidated Book,\6\
unless individual orders or quotes in the Consolidated Book can execute
against incoming Electronic Complex Orders, subject to specified
conditions, in which case such individual orders and quotes have
priority. Rule 6.91(a)(2)(ii) currently provides that Electronic
Complex Orders in the CME that are not marketable against other
Electronic Complex Orders automatically execute against individual
quotes or orders in the Consolidated Book, provided that the Electronic
Complex Orders can be executed in full or in a permissible ratio by the
individual quotes or orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.62(e) defines an Complex Order as
``any order involving the simultaneous purchase and/or sale of two
or more different option series in the same underlying security, for
the same account, in a ratio that is equal to or greater than one-
to-three (.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00) and
for the purpose of executing a particular investment strategy.''
    \5\ NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.91(a) defines the CME as ``the
mechanism in which Electronic Complex Orders are executed against
each other or against individual quotes and orders in the
Consolidated Book.''
    \6\ NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.1(b)(37) defines the Consolidated
Book as ``the Exchange's electronic book of limit orders for the
accounts of Public Customers and broker-dealers, and Quotes with
Size. All orders and Quotes with Size that are entered into the Book
will be ranked and maintained in accordance with the rules of
priority as provided in Rule 6.76. There is no limit to the size of
orders or quotes that may be entered into the Consolidated Book.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 6.91(a)(2)(iv) currently provides that OTPs have the ability
to view the Electronic Complex Orders in the Consolidated Book via an
electronic interface and may submit orders to the CME to trade against
orders in the Consolidated Book.\7\ Current Rule 6.91 does not impose
any cap on the volume of Electronic Complex Orders entered by OTPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Under Rules 6.91(a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii) and (a)(2)(iv),
incoming orders or quotes, or those residing in the Consolidated
Book, that execute against Electronic Complex Orders are allocated
pursuant to Rule 6.76A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange ranks and tracks Electronic Complex Orders in the
Consolidated Book in a ``complex order table.'' The complex order table
has sufficient capacity (i.e., the maximum allowable Electronic Complex
Orders during the trading day) to accept all Complex Orders submitted
by all OTPs under normal operating conditions. However, that capacity
is not unlimited.\8\ Thus, if an OTP were to experience a systems
malfunction that led to the entry of an inordinate number of Electronic
Complex Orders, the entire capacity of the complex order table could
potentially be utilized solely by that one OTP. If this were to happen,
the Exchange would have to reject all subsequent Electronic Complex
Orders--from all OTPs--exceeding the total capacity of the complex
order table on that trading day. Under current Rule 6.91, there is no
limitation to the number of Electronic Complex Orders that a single OTP
may submit, which, as explained above, could result in a single OTP
utilizing the entire capacity of the complex order table. Thus, the
Exchange is proposing to adopt as Commentary .03 to Rule 6.91 a cap to
prevent an OTP from utilizing more than a specified percentage of the
complex order table during the trading day (the ``Complex Order Table
Cap'' or ``Cap'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The complex order table currently has the capacity to hold
Electronic Complex Orders containing up to 14 million legs
throughout the trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to proposed Commentary .03 to Rule 6.91, if an OTP exceeds
the Complex Order Table Cap by submitting orders that comprise more
than ``n%'' of the capacity of the complex order table, the Exchange
would reject that OTP's Electronic Complex Orders for the remainder of
the trading day. Prior to breaching the Complex Order Table Cap, the
OTP would receive a warning to signal a potential breach. Specifically,
when an OTP utilizes more than ``n%-x'' of the complex order table, the
OTP's Electronic Complex Orders would be rejected until such time that
the OTP has notified the Exchange to re-enable the submission of
Electronic Complex Orders. If, however, the Complex Order Table Cap is
breached (i.e., the OTP submits orders in excess of ``n%'' of the
complex order table), all Electronic Complex Orders submitted by that
OTP would be rejected for the remainder of the trading day. The
Exchange would not reject any Electronic Complex Orders until after an
OTP had breached either the warning threshold (i.e., ``n%-x'') or the
Cap. Thus, for example, if an OTP submits an Electronic Complex Order
that, once accepted, breaches the Cap, the Exchange would accept that
order in its entirety and then would reject all subsequent Electronic
Complex Orders from that OTP for the remainder of the trading day.
Unless determined otherwise by the Exchange and announced to OTPs via
Trader Update, the specified percentage (i.e., ``n% [sic]) would be no
less than 60%, and ``n%-x'' would be no less than 40%.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Trader Updates are disseminated electronically to all OTP
Holders and OTP Firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Exchange does not currently anticipate having to adjust
the proposed Cap, the Exchange recognizes that under certain market
conditions (e.g., extreme volatility) or in unforeseen circumstances
(e.g., unusual influx of market participants) the specified percentages
prescribed by the Exchange may be overly restrictive at times and there
could be situations where the Exchange may need to temporarily reduce
the percentages applicable to the Cap to accommodate these situations.
Thus, the Exchange proposes that in the interest of a fair and orderly
market, the applicable percentages may be temporarily modified by a
Trading Official to a percentage lower than prescribed. The Trading
Officials are presently authorized to make similar determinations
regarding such matters as position limits \10\ and quote-width
differentials.\11\ Permitting a Trading Official to temporarily modify
the percentages applicable to the Cap is consistent with their ability
to recommend and enforce rules and regulations relating to trading,
access, order, decorum, health, safety and welfare on the Exchange
which contributes to the Exchange's obligation to maintain a fair and
orderly market. If a Trading Official were to temporarily modify the
percentages applicable to the Cap, the Exchange would contemporaneously
announce the new settings to all OTPs via Trader Update. Temporary
modifications to the percentages applicable to the Cap would be
completed at the Exchange level. OTPs will not have to make any
adjustments to proprietary systems to accommodate such modifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Exchange Rule 6.8.04.
    \11\ See Exchange Rule 6.37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At present, the Exchange estimates that, on average, during the
trading day, the volume of orders populating the complex order table
from all OTPs combined is less than 40%. Because under normal operating
conditions all OTPs combined utilize less than 40% of the complex order
table, the Exchange believes that setting the Cap for a single OTP at
60% would ensure that 40% of the complex order table--which is
typically sufficient to accommodate all OTP's orders--would remain
accessible to the balance of OTPs and would not unfairly deny these
OTPs access to the market. Moreover, the Exchange believes that a
single OTP would only exceed the Cap (or receive a warning of a near
breach) in the event of a bona fide problem (e.g., a system error or
malfeasance).
    The Exchange believes that the Complex Order Table Cap would
improve the efficiency of the Electronic Complex Order process and help
maintain a fair and orderly market because it is designed as a system
protection tool that will enable the

Exchange to prevent any single OTP from utilizing more than a specified
percentage of the complex order table during the trading day.

Implementation

    The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed
rule change by Trader Update to be published no later than 60 days
following approval. The implementation date will be no later than 60
days following the issuance of the Trader Update.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\13\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to, and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that providing
the Complex Order Table Cap removes impediments to, and perfects the
mechanism of a free and open market because it would provide the
Exchange with a system protection tool designed to assist in addressing
the risk that a single OTP could--either intentionally or inadvertently
and erroneously--utilize the entire complex order table, effectively
shutting out from the market for the remainder of the trading day all
other OTPs' Electronic Complex Orders. By rejecting an OTP's Electronic
Complex Orders when that OTP's orders encroach upon or exceed the Cap,
the Exchange would ensure that the complex order table could fairly
accommodate Electronic Complex Orders from all OTPs. The Cap would
provide the ancillary benefit of reducing the risk that options orders
submitted in error or otherwise by a single OTP could clog the complex
order table, potentially foreclosing the execution of valid orders.
Thus, the Exchange believes that the Complex Order Table Cap would
protect investors and the public interests because the Cap would ensure
the optimal functioning of the complex order table by disabling the
submission of Electronic Complex Orders of a single OTP that has
exceeded the Cap, thereby allowing the Exchange to accommodate
Electronic Complex Orders from all other OTPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes that the implementation of the
Cap would not unfairly deny any OTP access to the market. Under normal
operating conditions, the Electronic Complex Orders of all OTPs
combined does not exceed 40% of the complex order table. Therefore, the
Exchange believes that setting the Cap for a single OTP at 60% would
ensure that 40% of the complex order table--which is typically
sufficient to accommodate all OTP's orders--would remain accessible to
the balance of OTPs and would not unfairly deny these OTPs access to
the market. Moreover, the Exchange believes that a single OTP would
only exceed the Cap (or receive a warning of a near breach) in the
event of a bono [sic] fide problem (e.g., a system error or
malfeasance).

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. The Exchange believes the
proposal will provide market participants with additional protection
from erroneous executions. Thus, the Exchange does not believe the
proposal creates any significant impact on competition.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-115 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-115. 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 on
official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying
at the principal offices of the Exchange. All comments received will be
posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-115, and should be
submitted on or before December 4, 2013.

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

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-27041 Filed 11-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 177)]
[Notices]
[Page 47239]
[DOCID:fr15se09-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR09-23-002]

Overland Trail Transmission, LLC; Notice of Compliance Filing

September 4, 2009.
    Take notice that on August 28, 2009, Overland Trail Transmission,
LLC (OTTCO) filed its Statement of Operating Conditions in compliance
with the August 17, 2009 Letter Order (August 17th Letter Order) in
Docket Nos. PR09-23-000 and PR09-23-001 pursuant to section 284.123(e)
of the Commission's regulations. OTTCO states that it made revisions to
include a statement of rates, as required by the August 17th Letter
Order.
    Any person desiring to participate in this proceeding must file a
motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by
the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but
will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Friday, September 11, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22102 Filed 9-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 185 (Monday, September 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48316-48317]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20640]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-N-3405]

Patient Engagement Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a
forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Patient Engagement
Advisory Committee (the Committee). The general function of the
Committee is to provide advice to the Commissioner, or designee, on
complex issues relating to medical devices, the regulation of devices,
and their use by patients. The meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on November 15, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 5
p.m.

ADDRESSES: Hilton Washington DC North/Gaithersburg, Grand Ballroom, 620
Perry Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD 20877. The hotel's telephone number is
301-977-8900; additional information available online at: https://

www3.hilton.com/en/hotels/maryland/hilton-washington-dc-north-
gaithersburg-GAIGHHF/index.html. Answers to commonly asked questions
including information regarding special accommodations due to a
disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Letise Williams, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5441, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER>, or FDA Advisory Committee
Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC
area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications
that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot
always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore,
you should always check the Agency's website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda: On November 15, 2018, the Committee
will discuss and make recommendations on the topic ``Connected and
Empowered Patients: E-Platforms Potentially Expanding the Definition of
Scientific Evidence.'' The recommendations will address how FDA can
leverage patient-driven platforms, such as social media and registries,
to better engage patients and consumers as empowered partners in the
work of protecting public health and promoting responsible innovation.
Social media and other web platform enablers are facilitating the
growth of virtual patient communities. Increasingly, patients and
health care consumers are using these platforms to share their health
experiences and seek information from other patients and consumers,
rather than their health care providers alone. Novel approaches and
methodologies are being used to tap into some of these platforms as
potentially rich sources of patient-generated health data, which could
be used as relevant and reliable real-world evidence (https://www.fda.gov/ucm/groups/fdagov-public/@fdagov-meddev-gen/documents/document/ucm513027.pdf).
    This meeting will help advance FDA's objective to assure the needs,
experiences, and perspectives of patients are included as part of FDA's
deliberations involving the regulation of medical devices and their use
by patients. For this meeting, FDA is seeking input from the Committee
and the public on whether and how FDA can harness the emerging
potential of these patient platforms to better engage patients and
consumers as empowered partners in the work of protecting public health
and promoting responsible innovation. In addition, FDA is seeking
recommendations from the Committee on ways to leverage these platforms
to disseminate as well as potentially collect and evaluate health
information to and from patients and consumers.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is
available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee-meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the Committee.
Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between
approximately 11:15 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. on November 15, 2018. Those
individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should
notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general
nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and
addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before
October 15, 2018. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited.
If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the
scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify
interested persons regarding their request to speak by October 17,
2018. Individuals who do not wish to speak at the open public hearing
session but would like their comments to be heard by the Committee may
send written submissions to the contact person on or before October 23,
2018.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact AnnMarie Williams at [email protected], or 301-796-
5966 at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings. Please be advised
that, for the round table portion of the meeting, FDA will prepare a
summary of the discussion in lieu of detailed transcripts.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: September 18, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-20640 Filed 9-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 38391]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15472]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 22, 2021.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS:  This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date,
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the
following topics:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.

    Dated: July 15, 2021.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-15472 Filed 7-16-21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 230 (Friday, December 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 83936]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26464]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP24-170-000.
    Applicants: Viking Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement
AF0554 to be effective 12/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 11/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20231127-5030.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/11/23.
    Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a
complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with
Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211,
385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the
specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is
necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: November 27, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-26464 Filed 11-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P