[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 189 (Thursday, September 29, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60373-60376]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24811]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0719-201144; FRL-9472-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana; Cincinnati-Hamilton Nonattainment Area;
Determinations of Attainment of the 1997 Annual Fine Particulate
Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is determining that the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton,
Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana, fine particulate (PM2.5)
nonattainment Area (hereafter referred to as ``the Cincinnati Area'' or
``Area'') has attained the 1997 annual average PM2.5
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and additionally, that
the Area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by its

applicable attainment date of April 5, 2010. The Cincinnati Area is
comprised of Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren Counties in Ohio;
Boone, Campbell and Kenton Counties in Kentucky; and a portion of
Dearborn County in Indiana. These determinations of attainment are
based upon quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data
for the 2007-2009 period showing that the Area has monitored attainment
of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The requirements for the
Area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated reasonably
available control measures (RACM), a reasonable further progress (RFP)
plan, contingency measures, and other planning State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revisions related to attainment of the standard shall be
suspended so long as the Area continues to attain the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on October 31,
2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0719. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted 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 through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal
business hours at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In Region 4, Joel Huey or Sara
Waterson, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Huey's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Huey can
also be reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ms. Waterson
may be reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>In Region 5, John Summerhays, Attainment
Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604-3507. Mr. Summerhays' telephone number is (312)
886-6067. Mr. Summerhays can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What actions is EPA taking?
II. What are the effects of these actions?
III. What are EPA's final actions?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What actions is EPA taking?

    EPA is determining that the Cincinnati Area (comprised of Butler,
Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren Counties in Ohio; Boone, Campbell and
Kenton Counties in Kentucky; and a portion of Dearborn County in
Indiana) has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This
determination is based upon quality-assured, quality-controlled and
certified ambient air monitoring data that shows the Area has monitored
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 2007-
2009 data and is continuing to attain with 2008-2010 data. EPA is also
determining, in accordance with EPA's PM2.5 Implementation
Rule of April 25, 2007 (72 FR 20664), that the Cincinnati Area has
attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by its applicable
attainment date of April 5, 2010.
    Other specific requirements of the determination and the rationale
for EPA's action are explained in the notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR) published on June 3, 2011 (76 FR 32110). For summary purposes,
the Cincinnati Area did not meet the 75 percent completeness criteria
in three cases. The Northern Kentucky University site began operation
on August 1, 2007, and thus did not obtain complete data for the first
three quarters of 2007. This would not be considered an incomplete
record due to it being a new site. Nevertheless, the average
concentration for the remainder of 2007 and all of 2008 and 2009 was
12.5 micrograms per meter cubed ([mu]g/m\3\). Scarlet Oaks School ended
operation December 31, 2008 and Hook Field Airport ended operation
December 31, 2007. The Scarlet Oaks School site monitored an average
concentration of 14.8 [mu]g/m\3\ in 2007, and an annual average
concentration in 2008 of 13.3 [mu]g/m\3\. The Hook Field Airport site
monitored an annual average concentration of 14.6 [mu]g/m\3\ for 2007.
These values are below the NAAQS. The complete 2010 year had not been
certified at the time of the NPR; therefore, the data were not
considered complete for 2010. All of the 2008-2010 design values are
below 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\, except for the Murray Road site in Cincinnati.
The Murray Road site had a preliminary 2008-2010 design value of 15.1
[mu]g/m\3\; however, the site was shut down in February of the first
quarter of 2010 due to safety issues. The partial first quarter of 2010
data before the monitor shut down showed the only data above the NAAQS
for the 2008-2010 period. Approval was granted for the site to be shut
down because the Carthage Fire site registered a higher design value
and is located approximately a mile from the Murray Road site. A
comparison of the 2007-2009 data showed the sites were well correlated
with each other. The comment period closed on July 5, 2011. No comments
were received in response to the NPR.

II. What are the effects of these actions?

    This final action, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.1004(c), suspends
the requirements for this Area to submit attainment demonstrations,
associated RACM, RFP plans, contingency measures, and other planning
SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS as
long as this Area continues to meet the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. Finalizing this action does not constitute a redesignation of
the Cincinnati Area to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS under section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Further,
finalizing this action does not involve approving maintenance plans for
the Area as required under section 175A of the CAA, nor does it involve
a determination that the Area has met all requirements for a
redesignation.
    In addition, EPA is making a separate and independent determination
that the Area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard by
its applicable attainment date (April 5, 2010), thereby satisfying
EPA's requirement pursuant to section 179(c)(1) of the CAA to make such
a determination based on the Area's air quality data as of the
attainment date.

III. What are EPA's final actions?

    EPA is determining that the Cincinnati Area has data indicating it
has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and additionally,
that the Area has attained the standard by its applicable attainment
date (April 5, 2010). These determinations are based upon quality-
assured, quality-controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data
showing that this Area has monitored attainment of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS during the period 2007-2009 and continues to
monitor attainment during the 2008-2010 period. This final action, in
accordance

with 40 CFR 51.1004(c), will suspend the requirements for this Area to
submit attainment demonstrations, associated RACM, RFP plans,
contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS as long as the Area continues to
meet the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. These actions are being
taken pursuant to section 179(c)(1) of the CAA and are consistent with
the CAA and its implementing regulations.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    These actions make a determination of attainment based on air
quality, and will result in the suspension of certain federal
requirements, and it will not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Are not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition,
this 1997 PM2.5 clean NAAQS data determination for the
Cincinnati Area does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and
EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 28, 2011. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
    For purposes of judicial review, the two determinations approved by
today's action are severable from one another.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 18, 2011.
Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    Dated: September 12, 2011.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart P--Indiana

0
2. Section 52.774 is amended by designating the existing text as
paragraph (a) and by adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.774  Determination of attainment.

* * * * *
    (b) Based upon EPA's review of the air quality data for the 3-year
period 2007-2009, EPA determined that the Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio,
Kentucky, and Indiana PM2.5 nonattainment Area attained the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of
April 5, 2010. Therefore, EPA has met the requirement pursuant to CAA
section 179(c) to determine, based on the Area's air quality as of the
attainment date, whether the Area attained the standard. EPA also
determined that the Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana
PM2.5 nonattainment Area is not subject to the consequences
of failing to attain pursuant to section 179(d).

0
3. Section 52.776 is amended by adding paragraph (x) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.776  Control strategy: Particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (x) Determination of Attainment. EPA has determined, as of
September 29, 2011, that based upon 2007-2009 air quality data, the
Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana, nonattainment Area
has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This
determination, in accordance with 40 CFR 52.1004(c), suspends the
requirements for this Area to submit an attainment demonstration,
associated reasonably available control measures, a reasonable further
progress plan, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to
attainment of the standard for as long as this Area continues to meet
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

Subpart S--Kentucky

0
4. Section 52.929 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.929  Determination of attainment.

* * * * *
    (c) Based upon EPA's review of the air quality data for the 3-year
period 2007-2009, EPA determined that the Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio,
Kentucky, and Indiana PM2.5 nonattainment Area attained the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of
April 5, 2010. Therefore, EPA has met the requirement pursuant to CAA
section 179(c) to determine, based on

the Area's air quality as of the attainment date, whether the Area
attained the standard. EPA also determined that the Cincinnati-
Hamilton, Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana PM2.5 nonattainment
Area is not subject to the consequences of failing to attain pursuant
to section 179(d).

0
5. Section 52.933 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.933  Control Strategy: Sulfur oxides and particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (e) Determination of Attainment. EPA has determined, as of
September 29, 2011, that based upon 2007-2009 air quality data, the
Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana nonattainment Area has
attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This determination, in
accordance with 40 CFR 52.1004(c), suspends the requirements for this
Area to submit an attainment demonstration, associated reasonably
available control measures, a reasonable further progress plan,
contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of
the standard for as long as this Area continues to meet the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.

Subpart KK--Ohio

0
6. Section 52.1880 is amended by adding paragraph (o) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1880  Control strategy: Particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (o) Determination of Attainment. EPA has determined, as of
September 29, 2011, that based upon 2007-2009 air quality data, the
Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana nonattainment Area has
attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This determination, in
accordance with 40 CFR 52.1004(c), suspends the requirements for this
Area to submit an attainment demonstration, associated reasonably
available control measures, a reasonable further progress plan,
contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of
the standard for as long as this Area continues to meet the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.

0
7. Section 52.1892 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1892  Determination of attainment.

* * * * *
    (c) Based upon EPA's review of the air quality data for the 3-year
period 2007-2009, EPA determined that the Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio-
Kentucky-Indiana PM2.5 nonattainment Area attained the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of
April 5, 2010. Therefore, EPA has met the requirement pursuant to CAA
section 179(c) to determine, based on the Area's air quality as of the
attainment date, whether the Area attained the standard. EPA also
determined that the Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana
PM2.5 nonattainment Area is not subject to the consequences
of failing to attain pursuant to section 179(d).

[FR Doc. 2011-24811 Filed 9-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 24 (Monday, February 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 5096]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02239]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-724-000]

Grid Power Direct, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Grid Power Direct, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is February 20, 2018.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected] or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 30, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-02239 Filed 2-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 69646]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28108]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4086-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

New Jersey; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New Jersey (FEMA-4086-DR), dated October 30, 2012, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: November 5, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New Jersey is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of October 30, 2012.

    Atlantic, Bergen, Cape May, Essex, Hudson, Middlesex, Monmouth,
Ocean, Somerset, and Union Counties for Public Assistance
[Categories C-G] (already designated for Individual Assistance and
Public Assistance [Categories A and B], including direct federal
assistance).
    Burlington, Camden, Cumberland, Gloucester, Hunterdon, Mercer,
Morris, Passaic, Salem, Sussex, and Warren Counties for Public
Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-28108 Filed 11-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77295-77297]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26403]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90504; File No. SR-CBOE-2020-111]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
To Amend Its Fees Schedule

November 24, 2020.
    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 November 16, 2020, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the 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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend its fees schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new COVID-19 Test Fee in
connection with the COVID-19 pandemic. By way of background, on March
16, 2020, the Exchange suspended open outcry trading to help prevent
the spread of COVID-19 \3\ and was operating in an all-electronic
configuration until June 15, 2020. On June 15, 2020, the Exchange
reopened its trading floor, but with a modified configuration of
trading crowds in order to implement social distancing and other
measures consistent with local and state health and safety guidelines
to help protect the safety and welfare of individuals accessing the
trading floor. In order to further protect the safety and welfare of
individuals accessing the trading floor during the COVID-19 pandemic,
the Exchange has determined to implement on-site COVID-19 testing for
all trading floor personnel, beginning November 16, 2020. The Exchange
has contracted with an independent health care provider who will
conduct the tests, which the Exchange anticipates will be conducted
twice weekly. The Exchange proposes to adopt a pass-through fee of $150
per test for each TPH or associated person of a TPH \4\ that is tested.
The proposed COVID-19 Test Fee allows the Exchange to offset the costs
incurred with on-site testing. The Exchange also notes that since the
reopening of the trading floor, the Exchange has, and continues to,
incur other COVID-19 related costs that it has not passed through in
connection with protecting the health and safety of TPHs and exchange
personnel, including costs related to daily-deep cleaning. The Exchange
represents that the proposed fee is a pass-through of the costs to the
Exchange and that the Exchange will not generate any revenue in excess
of those costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization
characterized COVID-19 as a pandemic and to slow the spread of the
disease, federal and state officials implemented social-distancing
measures, placed significant limitations on large gatherings,
limited travel, and closed non-essential businesses.
    \4\ For example, a TPH may have personnel other than Nominees on
the floor that need to access the trading floor. Such persons will
also be subject to testing requirements and will be assessed the
proposed fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\5\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes the proposed COVID-19 Test Fee is reasonable
as the amount of the proposed fee is the same amount that is assessed
to the Exchange by the independent health care provider that will be
administering the tests. As noted above, the revenue generated from the
proposed fee will not be more than the cost to the Exchange for
administering the tests. The Exchange also notes that to date, it has
absorbed all the costs incurred in connection with the safety and
health protocols it has taken to ensure the safety and welfare of
individuals access the trading floor, including daily deep-cleaning of
its facilities. The Exchange believes administering COVID-19 tests will
help further protect the safety and welfare of individuals accessing
its trading floor. The Exchange believes the proposed fee is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because such fee will be assessed to
any TPH or associated person of a TPH that is tested and accesses the
trading floor. The Exchange also notes that implementing on-site COVID-
19 testing would benefit all persons accessing the trading floor as it
is an additional precautionary measure intended to limit their exposure
to COVID-19 and better ensure their safety and welfare.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition that are not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes the
proposed fee is not intended to address any competitive issue, but
rather to recoup costs associated with COVID-19 testing in order to
help protect the safety and welfare of individuals access the trading
floor. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the
proposed changes apply equally to all similarly situated market
participants. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule
changes will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act
because the proposed changes only affect trading on the Exchange in
limited circumstances.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \9\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of

the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2020-111 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-CBOE-2020-111. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-CBOE-2020-111 and should be submitted on or before
December 22, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-26403 Filed 11-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 184 (Monday, September 25, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44513-44514]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20435]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0886; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-11]

Amendment of Restricted Areas R-3004A and R-3004B and
Establishment of R-3004C; Fort Gordon, GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies the restricted areas at Fort Gordon, GA
to further subdivide the vertical limits of the airspace. The
designated altitudes for R-3004A and R-3004B are realigned and a new
subarea, designated R-3004C, is established above R-3004B. The FAA is
taking this action to allow for more efficient use of the airspace
during periods when military activities only require restricted
airspace below 3,500 feet MSL. The modifications are fully contained
within the existing lateral and vertical boundaries of the restricted
airspace.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, December 7, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy Group,
Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    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 since it vertically subdivides the restricted airspace at
Fort Gordon, GA, into three sections to enable more efficient use of
airspace.

Background

    The restricted airspace at Fort Gordon, GA consists of R-3004A,
extending from the surface to 7,000 feet MSL; and R-3004B, extending
from 7,001 feet MSL to 16,000 feet MSL. The time of designation for
both areas is as activated by NOTAM 24 hours in advance.
    A FAA review of the utilization of the airspace revealed that most
activities being conducted only require restricted airspace below 3,500
feet MSL. However, when R-3004A was activated, restrictions were in
effect up to 7,000 feet MSL.
    While lateral boundaries of the restricted airspace remain the same
as currently charted and the overall vertical limits of the restricted
airspace are unchanged, in order to provide for more efficient use of
airspace, the FAA and the using agency agreed to further subdivide the
restricted airspace vertically. The FAA is realigning the designated
altitudes for R-3004A and R-3004B and establishing R-3004C as a third
subdivision. The new configuration enables activation of restricted
airspace to the lower altitude required for the majority of the using
agency's training needs while maintaining the ability to activate
additional restricted airspace for missions that require higher
altitudes.
    The designated altitudes for R-3004A are amended to read ``surface
to but not including 3,500 feet MSL'' (decreased from 7,000 feet MSL).
The designated altitudes for R-3004B are amended to read ``3,500 feet
MSL to but not including 7,000 feet MSL,'' instead of the current
``7,001 feet MSL to 16,000 feet MSL.'' This amendment also established
a third subdivision, designated R-3004C, which extends from 7,000 feet
MSL to 16,000 feet MSL. These changes accommodate the using agency's
requirements while releasing unneeded restricted airspace for access by
other users.
    In addition, the aircraft activity limitations on use of the areas
are amended to clarify the limitations in effect during the annual
Masters Golf Tournament.
    These changes enhance the efficient use of the National Airspace
System by providing for activation of the minimum amount of restricted
airspace needed for the specific mission being conducted resulting in
the release of unneeded restricted airspace for access by other users.

The Rule

    This rule amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part
73 by further dividing the current restricted airspace at Fort Gordon,
GA, into three subareas instead of two. The designated altitudes for R-
3004A are amended from the current ``surface to 7,000 feet MSL,'' to
``surface to but not including 3,500 feet MSL.'' The designated
altitudes for R-3004B are amended from the current ``7,001 feet MSL to
16,000 feet MSL'' to ``3,500 feet MSL to but not including 7,000 feet
MSL.'' A new third subdivision, designated R-3004C, is established and
extends from 7,000 feet MSL to 16,000 feet MSL.''
    Additionally, the terms and conditions listed in the restricted
area legal descriptions for aircraft activities in the restricted areas
are revised, in part. Specifically, in order to clarify aircraft
operations during the annual Masters Golf tournament, the text of item
number 1 is changed from ``1. Aircraft activities may not be conducted
on weekends, National holidays, or the entire week of the Masters Golf
Tournament'' to: ``1. Aircraft activities must not be conducted on
weekends, national holidays, or from the Sunday prior to the Masters
Golf Tournament through the Monday after (and subsequent weather days
if required).'' The terms and conditions in Items 2 and 3 remain
unchanged.
    The above modifications enhance the efficient use of airspace and
reduce the burden on the public by lessening the amount of restricted
airspace at Fort Gordon, GA, that is activated on a routine basis.
These modifications do not change the current lateral boundaries,
overall designated altitudes, or activities conducted within the
restricted areas; therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C.
553(b) are unnecessary.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this action only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified
that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action of vertically subdividing
limits of existing restricted airspace within the current lateral and
vertical limits qualifies for categorical exclusion under

the National Environmental Policy Act and in accordance with FAA Order
1050.1F--Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Categorical
Exclusions for Procedural Actions, paragraph 5-6.5d--Modification of
the technical description of special use airspace (restricted areas)
that does not alter the dimensions, altitudes, or times of designation
of the airspace. Therefore, this airspace action is not expected to
result in any significant environmental impacts. In accordance with
FAAO 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, this
action has been reviewed for factors and circumstances in which a
normally categorically excluded action may have a significant
environmental impact requiring further analysis, and it is determined
that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of
an environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 73, as follows:

PART 73--SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  73.30   [Amended]

0
 2. Sec.  73.30 is amended as follows:
* * * * *

R-3004A Fort Gordon, GA [Amended]

    By removing the current designated altitudes and aircraft
activity limitations and inserting the following in their places:
    Designated Altitudes. Surface to but not including 3,500 feet
MSL.
    Aircraft activity is limited to the following terms and
conditions:
    Aircraft activities must not be conducted on weekends, national
holidays, or from the Sunday prior to the Masters Golf Tournament
through the Monday after (and subsequent weather days if required).
    2. Aircraft activities may only be conducted from the surface to
12,000 feet AGL.
    3. Weather conditions required for aircraft activities are 5
miles visibility and with prevailing clouds or obscuring phenomena
no greater than five-tenths coverage of the sky and bases no lower
than 3,000 feet AGL.

R-3004B Fort Gordon, GA [Amended]

    By removing the current designated altitudes and aircraft
activity limitations and inserting the following in their places:
    Designated Altitudes. 3,500 feet MSL to but not including 7,000
feet MSL.
    Aircraft activity is limited to the following terms and
conditions:
    1. Aircraft activities must not be conducted on weekends,
national holidays, or from the Sunday prior to the Masters Golf
Tournament through the Monday after (and subsequent weather days if
required).
    2. Aircraft activities may only be conducted from the surface to
12,000 feet AGL.
    3. Weather conditions required for aircraft activities are 5
miles visibility and with prevailing clouds or obscuring phenomena
no greater than five-tenths coverage of the sky and bases no lower
than 3,000 feet AGL.

R-3004C Fort Gordon, GA [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 33[deg]21'54'' N., long.
82[deg]12'14'' W.; to lat. 33[deg]19'44'' N., long. 82[deg]12'14''
W.; to lat. 33[deg]16'21'' N., long. 82[deg]17'59'' W.; to lat.
33[deg]17'30'' N., long. 82[deg]22'59'' W.; to lat. 33[deg]21'16''
N., long. 82[deg]18'46'' W.; to lat. 33[deg]22'16'' N., long.
82[deg]16'59'' W.; to the point of beginning.
    Designated Altitudes. 7,000 feet MSL to 16,000 feet MSL.
    Times of designation. By NOTAM 24 hours in advance.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Atlanta ARTCC.
    Using agency. U.S. Army, Commanding Officer, Fort Gordon, GA.
    Aircraft activity is limited to the following terms and
conditions:
    Aircraft activities must not be conducted on weekends, national
holidays, or from the Sunday prior to the Masters Golf Tournament
through the Monday after (and subsequent weather days if required).
    2. Aircraft activities may only be conducted from the surface to
12,000 feet AGL.
    3. Weather conditions required for aircraft activities are 5
miles visibility and with prevailing clouds or obscuring phenomena
no greater than five-tenths coverage of the sky and bases no lower
than 3,000 feet AGL.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 19, 2017.
Rodger A. Dean, Jr.,
Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2017-20435 Filed 9-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 227 (Friday, November 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 72850]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29720]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63340, File No. SR-MSRB-2010-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change Consisting of
Fee Changes to Its Real-Time Transaction Price Service and
Comprehensive Transaction Price Service, and Termination of its T+1
Transaction Price Service

November 18, 2010.

I. Introduction

    On September 30, 2010, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``MSRB'' or ``Board''), filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change relating to the MSRB's Real-time
Transaction Reporting System (``RTRS''). The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on October 18, 2010.\3\
The Commission received no comment letters about the proposed rule
change. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63089 (October 13,
2010), 75 FR 63883 (the ``Commission's Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change consists of fee changes to the MSRB's
Real-Time Transaction Price Service and Comprehensive Transaction Price
Service of RTRS and the consolidation into the Comprehensive
Transaction Price Service of its existing T+1 Transaction Price
Service. In addition, the proposed rule change would change the name of
the Real-Time Transaction Price Service to the ``MSRB Real-Time
Transaction Data Subscription Service'' and would change the name of
the Comprehensive Transaction Price Service to the ``MSRB Comprehensive
Transaction Data Subscription Service.'' The MSRB proposes an effective
date for this proposed rule change of January 1, 2011.
    A more complete description of the proposal is contained in the
Commission's Notice.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully considered the proposed rule change
and finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to the MSRB \4\ and, in particular, the
requirements of Section 15B(b)(2)(J) of the Exchange Act \5\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder. Section 15B(b)(2)(J) of the Exchange
Act requires, in pertinent part, that the MSRB's rules shall:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(J).

    Provide that each municipal securities broker, municipal
securities dealer, and municipal advisor shall pay to the Board such
reasonable fees and charges as may be necessary or appropriate to
defray the costs and expenses of operating and administering the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Board. Such rules shall specify the amount of such fees and charges.

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the Exchange Act because the proposed rule change provides for
commercially reasonable fees to partially offset costs associated with
operating RTRS and producing and disseminating transaction reports to
subscribers. The proposal will become effective January 1, 2011, as
requested by the MSRB.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act,\6\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MSRB-2010-09), be,
and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29720 Filed 11-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


SUPPORTING STATEMENT 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION a) This information request, which EPA is tracking under Information Collection Request ( ICR) 1038 10, covers the procedures for requesting information in Requests for Proposals ( RFP) and Invitations for Bids ( IFB). The current 0MB control number is 2030 0006.

b) The Office of Acquisition Management of EPA issues RFPs or IFBs to vendors who are interested in selling products or services to the Agency. The method for soliciting bids or proposals from the public is set forth in the Federal Acquisition Regulation ( FAR). FAR 14.201 1 sets forth the uniform format for IFBs while FAR 15.406 1 sets forth the format for RFPs. RFPs are generally issued for more complex services or supplies and are used more frequently by EPA than are IFBs. Both IFBs or RFPs, depending on the circumstances surrounding the acquisition, are used when the estimated price of the procurement is over the simplified acquisition threshold of $ 100,000.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION a) The legal authority for this collection is 41 USC 253. Collection of responses to Agency RFPs and IFBs is essential to the Agency's mission. Contractor provided supplies and services, such as emergency and remedial clean up services, treatability studies, and equipment are all procured through this process. A description of the supplies or services needed is developed by the requiring office. The contracting office composes an RFP or IFB based on these needs.

b) Information provided by vendors in response to an RFP/ IFB is used to evaluate which vendor will provide the best product in terms of quality, timeliness and price. This evaluation is completed by the contracting staff and may include input from the requiring office.

3. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED a) Respondents will normally be large or small businesses, profit making or nonprofit, which are interested in selling their goods or services to the Agency. Typically, these respondents fall into one of the following Standard Industrial Classifications: 1629  dredging and surface cleanup activities, 3821  laboratory apparatus, 7379  computer related services and 8748  business consulting services.

b) FAR Parts 14 and 15 set forth the types of information requested in an IFB and RFP. This information request will discuss information which EPA requests in IFBs or RFPs, and which is not specifically addressed in FAR clauses or certifications already cleared through the Office of Management and Budget ( 0MB). Information collections required by FAR 15.8, Price Negotiation, are approved by 0MB under Control Number 900 0013. All information collections required by FAR and approved by 0MB are listed in FAR 1.106. c) For IFBs, the Agency requires the respondent to provide:

1) prices for the supplies/ services requested 2) a list of contracts, by number, for the same or similar supplies/ services to include a description of the product, type of contract awarded, and a list of the Agencies to which this product was provided.

d) For RFPs the respondents must provide the following:

1) prices for the supplies/ services requested;

2) information on past performance;

3) technical and cost information; and 4) general financial and organizational information e) In order to submit the information requested, a respondent would have to gather available data, such as history of previous contracts. In formulating pricing or cost information, a respondent may have to research or analyze company financial records. Information would then be compiled, reviewed and recorded.

4. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED AGENCY ACTIVITIES COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT a) Agency activities in preparing the IFB/ RFP include the following tasks: developing the specifications or statement of work, putting together the solicitation, answering respondent questions, and reviewing respondent data.

b) Respondent data will be reviewed by a contract specialist and technical specialist, if required. Computer software will be used to review and check cost or pricing data for correctness and completeness. A copy of the response will be kept in the contract file.

c) SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY The information collected is essential to evaluating the respondents' ability to meet the Agency's needs for supplies and services. This information must be provided by both large and small businesses. Only the minimum information necessary to ensure the submission of complete and proper bids and proposals is required. Because the information is necessary for bid review and proposal evaluation, separate or simplified procedures cannot be developed for small businesses. d) COLLECTION SCHEDULE This information is collected on a one time basis when the Agency has a requirement for supplies or services. RFPs/ IFBs are mailed to respondents who are interested in providing the required products or services to the Government.

5. NONDUPLICATION CONSULTATION AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA a) Information requested in an IFB/ RFP is unique to a specific procurement; this information cannot be obtained from any other source.

b) The following vendors were contacted to discuss this collection activity:

Representative Firm Phone Barbara Gleason Laucks Testing, Inc. ( 206) 767 5060 Mike Pierce Compuchem Lab, Inc. ( 919) 248 6415 Craig Roberts EDS, Corp. ( 703) 742 1587 Keven Loughman Unisys ( 703) 847 3818 Each individual consulted indicated that he/ she understood the need for the information collected and did not find the collection excessively burdensome. Estimated time to complete the information collection, given by each firm, was considered in the " Respondent Burden Estimate."

c) IFBs and RFPs are only issued when the Agency has a need for a particular supply or service. Respondents reply only if they are interested in selling products or providing services to the Government.

d) This information is in accordance with OMB's general guidelines for Federal data collection with the exception of requiring the same information from small business as from large businesses.

e) Information collected under this request, particularly cost and pricing data, is treated as Confidential Business Information( CBI). CBI is protected from public release in accordance with the Agency's confidentially regulation, 40 CFR Part 2.201 et seq.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION a) ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN i. Labor Costs Respondent burden estimates for this collection are divided into two categories: burden for responding to an IFB and burden for responding to an RFP. Sealed bidding, or responding to an IFB is a simpler process than responding to an RFP. Only fixed price contracts can be awarded through the sealed bidding process and the Agency requires much less information in IFBs. More complex, cost reimbursement contracts are awarded in response to RFPs. The Agency requires extensive cost and pricing and technical data in RFPs.

Respondent Burden/ Cost Estimate for IFBS Collection Activity Burden Hours Cost 1. Read IFB and research 2 hrs $ 175.00 information requested 2. Create/ gather information 4 hrs $ 174.80 3. Compile/ review information 1 hr $ 87.50 4. Type report lhr $ 24.00 TOTAL 8 hrs. $ 461.30 Steps 1 and 3 of the information collection are generally completed by a company program manager. This is an administrative person responsible for coordinating with the technical and financial specialists and placing the proposal or bid. Specialists, both financial and scientific, are responsible for completing step 2. Information compiled by the technicians is put in report format by a typist. EPA's Cost Advisory Branch estimates the loaded hourly rate for a program manager is $ 87.50 for a technician the rate is $ 43.70 and for a typist the rate is $ 24.00. These rates are based on the Cost Advisory Branch's experience with EPA contract rates which they audit routinely. Rates are also consistent with prior information collection clearances, adjusted for inflation. Estimated time to complete each step is based on consultations with contractors and Agency contracting staff.

Based on the Agency's tracking system for contracts, last fiscal year 288 bids were submitted, and we expect this to remain fairly constant for the period covered by this request. With each response taking 8 hours to complete, the total estimated contractor burden for completing IFBs is 2,304 hours. The annual cost to respondents is $ 132,854.40.

Respondents Burden/ Cost Estimate for RFPs Collection Activity Burden Hours Cost 1. Read RFP/ research information 30 hrs $ 2,625.00 2. create/ gather information 118 hrs $ 5,156.60 3. compile/ review information 67 hrs $ 5,862.50 4. type/ report information 36 hrs $ 864.00 TOTAL 251 hrs $ 14,508.10 The rates and division of labor is the same for IFBs and RFPs. ( Rates and duties are discussed above.) The total burden hours to respond to one RFP is 251 hours. Agency records show last fiscal year 1,081 proposals were reviewed. We anticipate a 10% reduction in proposals received for the coming year due to increased use of other Agency's contract vehicles, and increased use of contract reform measures such as oral proposals. Therefore, we are utilizing a projected quantity of 973 proposals to calculate the contractor burden for this information collection request. This puts the total hourly burden for RFPs at 244,223 hours. Annual cost for RFP information collection is estimated at $ 14,116,381.

The total respondent burden for both IFBs and RFPs is 246,527 hours. Total annual cost for IFBs and RFPs is estimated at $ 14,249,235.

( ii) Capital/ Start up Costs Because it will not be necessary for respondents to acquire any capital goods to provide the requested information, EPA has estimated no incurred capital/ start up costs.

( iii) Operating and Maintenance Costs Operating and Maintenance costs, which include such items as file storage, photocopying, and postage, are negligible.

c) ESTIMATING AGENCY BURDEN AND COST Agency burden is presented separately for IFBs and RFPs. As noted before, much more time is needed to review respondent data on an RFP because there is more data to review and the data is more complex.

Agency Burden/ Cost Estimate for IFBs Collection Activity Burden Hours Cost 1. Develop specifications 38 hrs $ 1,140.00 2. Compile IFB 30 hrs $ 789.00 3. Review data received contract specialist 24 hrs $ 631.20 contract officer 4 hrs $ 120.00 TOTAL 96 hrs $ 2,680.20 Specifications are developed by a technical specialist in the program office. Salary for a technical specialist was calculated at the GS 13 level. Estimate includes GS 13 salary at $ 25.86 per hour, multiplied by a factor of 1.16 to account for benefits, which yields a loaded rate of $ 30.00. A contract specialist is responsible for compiling the IFB, consultations with the technical specialist concerning contractual requirements, and reviewing the respondents' bids. The rate for the contract specialist is calculated at a GS 12 level, and an hourly loaded rate of $ 26.30 is utilized. The contract specialist is supervised by a contracting officer who will review the contract specialist's findings concerning the information received. Median grade for a contracting officer is GS 13, so the loaded hourly rate is $ 30.00 as described in the preceding paragraph.

Agency records indicate that 62 IFBs were issued in preceding fiscal year. This number is expected to remain fairly constant. Therefore, total Agency burden for IFBs is 5,952 hours ( 62 IFBs per year x 96 hours per IFB.) Total Agency cost for IFB preparation is calculated at $ 2,680.20 per IFB times 62 IFBs for a total of $ 166,172.40.

Agency Burden / Cost Estimate for RFPs Collection Activity Burden Hours Cost 1. Develop specifications 80 hrs $ 2,663.20 2. Compile IFB 40 hrs $ 1,200.00 3. Answer respondent questions 40 hrs $ 1,200.00 4. Review cost data contract specialist 80 hrs $ 2,400.00 contract officer 24 hrs $ 928.80 cost analyst 60 hrs $ 1,800.00 manager 4 hrs $ 175.08 TOTAL 328 hrs $ 10,367.08 Due to the increase in the amount and complexity of data required under an RFP, some of the labor categories involved in the review are more skilled than those required to evaluate an IFB. For example, a contract specialist who completes steps 2, 3, and 4 above, would be a GS 13. The contracting officer would be a GS 14. An audit of the cost data would be performed by a cost analyst who would generally be a GS 13. A managerial review is also required, and would be accomplished at the GS 15 level. All rates are calculated as described in above, utilizing the medium salary for the grade, multiplied by a factor of 1.16 to account for benefits. A GS 13 is calculated at $ 30.00 per hour; a GS 14 at 38.70 per hour, and a GS 15 at 43.77 per hour.

Agency records indicate that a total of 248 RFPs were issued in the preceding fiscal year. We anticipate issuing 5% fewer IFBs in the coming year due to increased use of other Agency contract vehicles. Therefore, a quantity of 261 RFPs was utilized to calculate the following estimated total Agency burden hours. 261 RFPs requiring 328 hours each, represents a total Agency burden of 85,608 hours associated with this element. Total Agency cost is estimated at $ 2,705,807.80 for 261 RFPs at $ 10,367.08 each.

Agency burden for IFBs and RFPs combined is 91,560 hours and $ 2,871,980.20.

d) REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN The last information collection clearance request approved by OMB contained 399,342 hours for 1,731 responses. This request estimates 246,527 burden hours for 1,261 responses. Overall, the respondent burden has decreased by 152,815 hours. This decrease is due to a decrease in the number of proposals anticipated as a result of Government wide contract reform measures. There are also smaller adjustments in the time required to complete each submission due to increased use of and improvements in technology..

e) BURDEN STATEMENT Public reporting for this collections of information is estimated to average 195.5 per response based on total projected burden hours ( 246,527) divided by the number of bids and proposals expected to be received by the Agency ( 1,261).

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, OP Regulatory Information Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2137), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, D. C. 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number and OMB control number in any correspondence.

Burden time means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions, to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; to train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search the data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9, and 48 CFR Chapter 15. 7


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 202 (Friday, October 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58713-58715]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23024]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93376; File No. SR-LTSE-2021-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Extend the Date of the Pilot Related to the Market-Wide Circuit
Breaker in Rule 11.280

October 18, 2021.
    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 October 15, 2021, Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc. (``LTSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    LTSE proposes a rule change to extend the pilot related to the
market-wide circuit breaker in Rule 11.280.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at https://longtermstockexchange.com/, at the principal office
of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot related to the market-
wide circuit breaker in Rule 11.280 to the close of business on March
18, 2022.
Background
    The Market-Wide Circuit Breaker (``MWCB'') rules, including the
Exchange's Rule 11.280, provide an important, automatic mechanism that
is invoked to promote stability and investor confidence during periods
of significant stress when cash equities securities experience extreme
market-wide declines. The MWCB rules are designed to slow the effects
of extreme price declines through coordinated trading halts across both
cash equity and equity options securities markets.
    The cash equities rules governing MWCBs were first adopted in 1988
and, in 2012, all U.S. cash equity exchanges and FINRA amended their
cash equities uniform rules on a pilot basis (the ``Pilot Rules'').\3\
The Pilot Rules currently provide for trading halts in all cash equity
securities during a severe market decline as measured by a single-day
decline in the S&P 500 Index (``SPX'').\4\ Under the Pilot Rules, a
market-wide trading halt will be triggered if SPX declines in price by
specified percentages from the prior day's closing price of that index.
The triggers are set at three circuit breaker thresholds: 7% (Level 1),
13% (Level 2), and 20% (Level 3). A market decline that triggers a
Level 1 or Level 2 halt after 9:30 a.m. and before 3:25 p.m. would halt
market-wide trading for 15 minutes, while a similar market decline at
or after 3:25 p.m. would not halt market-wide trading. (Level 1 and
Level 2 halts may occur only once a day.) A market decline that
triggers a Level 3 halt at any time during the trading day would halt
market-wide trading for the remainder of the trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67090 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33531 (June 6, 2012) (SR-BATS-2011-038; SR-BYX-2011-
025; SR-BX-2011-068; SR-CBOE-2011-087; SR-C2-2011-024; SR-CHX-2011-
30; SR-EDGA-2011-31; SR-EDGX-2011-30; SR-FINRA-2011-054; SR-ISE-
2011-61; SR-NASDAQ-2011-131; SR-NSX-2011-11; SR-NYSE-2011-48; SR-
NYSEAmex-2011-73; SR-NYSEArca-2011-68; SR-Phlx-2011-129) (``Pilot
Rules Approval Order''). LTSE adopted Pilot Rules as part of its
approval as a national securities exchange. See generally [cite to
Form 1 approval][sic].
    \4\ The rules of the equity options exchanges similarly provide
for a halt in trading if the cash equity exchanges invoke a MWCB
Halt. See, e.g., NYSE Arca Rule 6.65-O(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission approved the Pilot Rules, the term of which was to
coincide with the pilot period for the Plan to Address Extraordinary
Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS (the ``LULD
Plan''),\5\ including any extensions to the pilot period for the LULD
Plan.\6\ In April 2019, the Commission approved an amendment to the
LULD Plan for it to operate on a permanent, rather than pilot,
basis.\7\ In conjunction with the proposal to make the LULD Plan
permanent, the Exchange amended Rule 11.280 to untie the Pilot Rules'
effectiveness from that of the LULD Plan and to extend the Pilot Rules'
effectiveness to the close of business on October 18, 2020.\8\ The
Exchange subsequently amended Rule 11.280, to extend the Pilot Rules'
effectiveness for an additional year to the close of business on
October 18, 2021.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012). The LULD Plan provides a
mechanism to address extraordinary market volatility in individual
securities.
    \6\ See e.g. Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67090 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33531 (June 6, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2011-48) (Approval
Order); and 68784 (January 31, 2013), 78 FR 8662 (February 6, 2013)
(SR-NYSE-2013-10).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85623 (April 11,
2019), 84 FR 16086 (April 17, 2019).
    \8\ See https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/ltse/2019/34-87357.pdf.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90125 (October 8,
2020), 85 FR 65114 (October 14, 2020) (SR-LTSE-2020-18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to amend Rule 11.280 to extend the pilot
to the close of business on March 18, 2022. This filing does not
propose any substantive or additional changes to Rule 11.280.
The MWCB Task Force and the March 2020 MWCB Events
    In late 2019, Commission staff requested the formation of a MWCB
Task Force (``Task Force'') to evaluate the operation and design of the
MWCB mechanism. The Task Force included representatives from the SROs,
the Commission, CME, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(``CFTC''), and the securities industry and conducted several
organizational meetings in December 2019 and January 2020.
    In Spring 2020, the MWCB mechanism proved itself to be an effective
tool for protecting markets through turbulent times. In March 2020, at
the outset of the worldwide COVID-

19 pandemic, U.S. equities markets experienced four MWCB Level 1 halts,
on March 9, 12, 16, and 18, 2020. In each instance, the markets halted
as intended upon a 7% drop in the S&P 500 Index, and resumed as
intended 15 minutes later.
    In response to these events, in the Spring and Summer of 2020, the
Task Force held ten meetings that were attended by Commission staff,
with the goal of performing an expedited review of the March 2020 halts
and identifying any areas where the MWCB mechanism had not worked
properly. Given the risk of unintended consequences, the Task Force did
not recommend changes that were not rooted in a noted deficiency. The
Task Force recommended creating a process for a backup reference price
in the event that SPX were to become unavailable, and enhancing
functional MWCB testing. The Task Force also asked CME to consider
modifying its rules to enter into a limit-down state in the futures
pre-market after a 7% decline instead of 5%. CME made the requested
change, which became effective on October 12, 2020.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See https://www.cmegroup.com/content/dam/cmegroup/market-regulation/rule-filings/2020/9/20-392_1.pdf; https://www.cmegroup.com/content/dam/cmegroup/market-regulation/rule-filings/2020/9/20-392_2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The MWCB Working Group's Study
    On September 17, 2020, the Director of the Commission's Division of
Trading and Markets asked the SROs to conduct a more complete study of
the design and operation of the Pilot Rules and the LULD Plan during
the period of volatility in the Spring of 2020.
    In response to the request, the SROs created a MWCB ``Working
Group'' composed of SRO representatives and industry advisers that
included members of the advisory committees to both the LULD Plan and
the NMS Plans governing the collection, consolidation, and
dissemination of last-sale transaction reports and quotations in NMS
Stocks. The Working Group met regularly from September 2020 through
March 2021 to consider the Commission's request, review data, and
compile its study. The Working Group's efforts in this respect
incorporated and built on the work of an MWCB Task Force.
    The Working Group submitted its study to the Commission on March
31, 2021 (the ``Study'').\11\ In addition to a timeline of the MWCB
events in March 2020, the Study includes a summary of the analysis and
recommendations of the MWCB Task Force; an evaluation of the operation
of the Pilot Rules during the March 2020 events; an evaluation of the
design of the current MWCB system; and the Working Group's conclusions
and recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Report of the Market-Wide Circuit Breaker (``MWCB'')
Working Group Regarding the March 2020 MWCB Events, submitted March
31, 2021 (the ``Study''), available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/Report_of_the_Market-Wide_Circuit_Breaker_Working_Group.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Study, the Working Group concluded: (1) The MWCB mechanism
set out in the Pilot Rules worked as intended during the March 2020
events; (2) the MWCB halts triggered in March 2020 appear to have had
the intended effect of calming volatility in the market, without
causing harm; (3) the design of the MWCB mechanism with respect to
reference value (SPX), trigger levels (7%/13%/20%), and halt times (15
minutes) is appropriate; (4) the change implemented in Amendment 10 to
the Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility (the ``Limit Up/
Limit Down Plan'' or ``LULD Plan'') did not likely have any negative
impact on MWCB functionality; and (5) no changes should be made to the
mechanism to prevent the market from halting shortly after the opening
of regular trading hours at 9:30 a.m.
    In light of the foregoing conclusions, the Working Group also made
several recommendations, including that the Pilot Rules should be
permanent without any changes.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See id. at 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal To Extend the Operation of the Pilot Rules Pending the
Commission's Consideration of the Exchange's Filing To Make the Pilot
Rules Permanent
    On July 16, 2021, the NYSE proposed a rule change to make the Pilot
Rules permanent, consistent with the Working Group's
recommendations.\13\ On August 27, 2021, the Commission extended its
time to consider the proposed rule change to October 20, 2021.\14\ The
Exchange now proposes to extend the expiration date of the Pilot Rules
to the close of business on March 18, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92428 (July 16,
2021), 86 FR 38776 (July 22, 2021) (SR-NYSE-2021-40).
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92785A (August 27,
2021), 86 FR 50202 (September 7, 2021) (SR-NYSE-2021-40).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\15\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\16\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest. The market-wide circuit breaker mechanism under Rule 11.280
is an important, automatic mechanism that is invoked to promote
stability and investor confidence during a period of significant stress
when securities markets experience extreme broad-based declines.
Extending the market-wide circuit breaker pilot for an additional five
months would ensure the continued, uninterrupted operation of a
consistent mechanism to halt trading across the U.S. markets while the
Commission reviews the Exchange's[sic] proposed rule change to make the
Pilot Rules permanent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change promotes
just and equitable principles of trade in that it promotes transparency
and uniformity across markets concerning when and how to halt trading
in all stocks as a result of extraordinary market volatility. Based on
the foregoing, the Exchange believes the benefits to market
participants from Pilot Rules should continue on a pilot basis because
they will promote fair and orderly markets and protect investors and
the public interest.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposal would
ensure the continued, uninterrupted operation of a consistent mechanism
to halt trading across the U.S. markets while the Commission reviews
the Exchange's[sic] proposed rule change to make the Pilot Rules
permanent.
    Further, the Exchange understands that FINRA and other national
securities exchanges have filed or will file proposals to extend their
rules regarding the market-wide circuit breaker pilot. Thus, the
proposed rule change will help to ensure consistency across market
centers without implicating any competitive issues.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \17\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\18\
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \19\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Commission has waived this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \21\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\22\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange asked
that the Commission waive the 30 day operative delay so that the
proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. Extending the
Pilot Rules' effectiveness to the close of business on March 18, 2022
will extend the protections provided by the Pilot Rules, which would
otherwise expire in less than 30 days. Waiver of the operative delay
would therefore permit uninterrupted continuation of the MWCB pilot
while the Commission reviews the NYSE's proposed rule change to make
the Pilot Rules permanent. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the
30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change as
operative upon filing.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \23\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-LTSE-2021-06 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-LTSE-2021-06. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of LTSE and on its internet website
at https://longtermstockexchange.com/.
    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-LTSE-2021-06
and should be submitted on or before November 12, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-23024 Filed 10-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 194)]
[Notices]
[Page 57324-57325]
[DOCID:fr09oc07-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 7528-009]

Public Service Company of New Hampshire; Notice of Application
Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests,
Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments,
Recommendations, Preliminary Terms and Conditions, and Preliminary
Fishway Prescriptions

September 25, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Subsequent License.
    b. Project No.: 7528-009.
    c. Date Filed: July 30, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Public Service Company of New Hampshire.
    e. Name of Project: Canaan Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the northern Connecticut
River in Coos County, New Hampshire and Essex County, Vermont. The
project does not occupy United States land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: James K. Kerns, Project Manager, Public
Service Company of New Hampshire, 780 North Commercial Street,
Manchester, NH 03101<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Kristen Murphy<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. The deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests,
comments, recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and
preliminary fishway prescriptions is November 27, 2007, in accordance
with the schedule set by the Commission's August 10, 2007, Notice of
Application Tendered; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance
date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    Motions to intervene, protests, comments, recommendations,
preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions
may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site
(http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is ready for
environmental analysis.
    l. The existing project consist of: (1) A 275-foot-long, 14.5-foot-
high concrete gravity dam with a spillway equipped with 3.5-foot-high
wooden flashboards, utilized year-round; (2) a 20-acre reservoir with a
gross storage capacity of approximately 200 acre-feet; (3) an intake
structure with a 12.5-foot-wide, 12-foot-high timber gate leading to;
(4) a 1,360-foot-long, 9-foot-diameter wood stave penstock; (5) two
21.3-foot-high, 15.3-foot-diameter steel surge tanks; (6) a powerhouse
with one generating unit with an installed capacity of 1,100 kW; and
(7) appurtenant facilities. The estimated average annual generation of
the project is 7,300 megawatt-hours.
    The project is currently operated in a run-of-river mode. Under the
existing license, a total minimum flow of 136 cfs or inflow, whichever
is less, is released downstream of the dam, with 50 cfs released
through the 1,600-foot-long bypassed reach and the remaining 86 cfs
released through the project turbine. As proposed, the project would
continue to be operated in a run-of-river mode. Further, a total
minimum flow of 165 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, would be released
downstream of the project dam through the bypassed reach.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''

link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm to be

notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene
in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to
take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments
filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with
the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any
comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified comment date for the particular application.
    All filings must (1) Bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'', ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', ``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,''
``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``PRELIMINARY TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or
``PRELIMINARY FISHWAY PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or
motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the
applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.
    o. Procedural Schedule:
    The application will be processed according to the following Hydro
Licensing Schedule, as described in the Commission's August 10, 2007
Notice of Application Tendered. Revisions to the schedule may be made
as appropriate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Milestone                                               Target date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing of recommendations, preliminary terms and             November 27, 2007.
 conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions.
Commission issues Non-Draft EA or EIS......................  March 26, 2008.
Comments on EA or EIS......................................  April 25, 2008.
Modified terms and conditions..............................  June 24, 2008.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    p. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    q. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following
the date of issuance of the notice of acceptance and ready for
environmental analysis provided for in Sec.  5.22: (1) A copy of the
water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for
certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying
agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality
certification.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-19772 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P