[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 246 (Thursday, December 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 94013-94015]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30831]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0210]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 22 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions were granted November 22, 2016. The exemptions
expire on November 22, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On October 20, 2016, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments
from the public (81 FR 72664). That notice listed 22 applicants' case
histories. The 22 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 22 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

III. Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green,
and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 22
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including amblyopia, cataract, enucleation, glaucoma, macular
atrophy, macular scar, maculopathy, optic atrophy, optic neuropathy,
prosthetic eye, retinal detachment, and retinal scar. In most cases,
their eye conditions were not recently developed. Fourteen of the
applicants were either born with their vision impairments or have had
them since childhood.
    The 8 individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults
have had it for a range of 3 to 36 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 22 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging for 3 to 52
years. In the past three years, no drivers were involved in crashes and
no drivers were convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the October 20, 2016
notice (81 FR 72664).

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex,

geographic location, mileage driven and conviction history--are used
every day by insurance companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict
the probability of an individual experiencing future crashes (See
Weber, Donald C., ``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple
Regression Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American
Statistical Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record
Study prepared by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded
that the best overall crash predictor for both concurrent and
nonconcurrent events is the number of single convictions. This study
used 3 consecutive years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers
in the first 2 years with their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 22 applicants, no drivers were involved in crashes and no drivers
were convicted of a moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants
achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 22 applicants listed in the notice of October
20, 2016 (81 FR 72664).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 22 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2)
that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a
copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

V. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received two comments in this proceeding. An anonymous
commenter stated that they believe the drivers should not be granted
the exemptions, citing safety concerns related to their vision loss.
The basis for granting exemptions is explained in Section IV of this
document, and FMCSA has determined that all drivers listed in this
document meet the criteria required for an exemption. Deb Carlson
stated that Derrick P. Moore currently holds an intrastate exemption in
Minnesota, and that James F. McLaughlin was involved in a motor vehicle
crash and cited for an equipment violation in 2016. The motor vehicle
crash was in Mr. McLaughlin's personal vehicle and not a CMV. The
equipment violation was not a moving violation. Therefore, neither of
these incidents are disqualifying factors for obtaining a vision
exemption.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 22 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above 49 CFR
391.64(b):

Gary A. Behrends (NE)
Harry R. Brewer (TN)
Johnnie B. Bush (MS)
Nathan J. Bute (IN)
Gary L. Cox (KY)
Kevin J. Embrey (IL)
Peter J. Faber (NE)
Ricky L. Gillum (OH)
Johnny E. Hill (AL)
Justin A. Hooper (MO)
John R. Horst (PA)
Robert E. Kelley, Jr. (WA)
David L. Manktelow (MA)
James F. McLaughlin (MN)
Derrick P. Moore (MN)
Richard L. Moores (CO)
Brian T. Morrison (MO)
Tad W. Sexsmith (WA)
Dennis M. Varga, Jr. (OH)
Michael J. Weber (NJ)
Mark B. Wilmer (VA)
Hezekiah Woodrup Sr. (MD)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: December 8, 2016.
 Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-30831 Filed 12-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 148 (Friday, July 31, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45995-45996]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16297]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0192; Airspace Docket No. 20-AEA-3]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Glens Falls, NY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E surface airspace, and Class E
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Floyd
Bennett Memorial Airport, (previously Warren County Airport), Glens
Falls, NY due to the decommissioning of the Glens Falls very high
frequency omnidirectional range collocated tactical air navigation
(VORTAC) system, and cancellation of associated approaches. Controlled
airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument
flight rules (IFR) operations in the area. This action also updates the
airport's name.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, November 5, 2020. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Ave, College Park, GA 30337; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: July 31, 2020

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rule regarding aviation safety if
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
airspace necessary to insure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends Class E airspace in Glens Falls, NY to support IFR
operations in the area.

History

    The FAA published a notice of prosed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (85 FR 21793, April 20, 2020) for Docket No. FAA-2020-0192 to
amend Class E surface airspace and Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet or more above the surface at Floyd Bennett Memorial
Airport, Glens Falls, NY, due to the decommissioning of the Glens Falls
VORTAC, and cancellation of the associated approaches.
    The NPRM also proposed to update the airport's name. Also,
subsequent to publication of the NPRM, the FAA found the Class E
surface description contained unnecessary verbiage. On page 21795,
column 1, line 24, the number 124 was inadvertently entered in the
middle of the word `from'. This action corrects that error. Interested
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments
were received that were associated to this action.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 6002, and
6005, respectively of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and
effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document
will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15,
2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic routes, and reporting
points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 amends Class E surface airspace and Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Floyd Bennett Memorial
Airport, Glens Falls, NY, due to the decommissioning of the Glens Falls
VORTAC, and the cancellation of the associated approaches. In addition,
the FAA is updating the airport's name.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It
therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures an 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 qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air)

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019,
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Airspace.

* * * * *

AEA NY E2 Glens Falls, NY [Amended]

Floyd Bennett Memorial Airport, NY
    (Lat. 43[deg]20'28'' N, long. 73[deg]36'37'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4-mile
radius of the Floyd Bennett Memorial Airport extending clockwise
from a 357[deg] bearing to a 275[deg] bearing from the airport and
within a 9.6-mile radius of the Floyd Bennett Memorial Airport
extending clockwise from a 275[deg] bearing to a 307[deg] bearing
from the airport and within a 6.6-mile radius of the Floyd Bennett
Memorial Airport extending clockwise from a 307[deg] bearing to a
357[deg] bearing from the airport, and within 2 miles each side of a
121[deg] bearing extending from the airport to 10-miles southeast of
the airport.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AEA NY E5 Glens Falls, NY [Amended]

Floyd Bennett Memorial Airport, NY
    (Lat. 43[deg]20'28'' N, long. 73[deg]36'37'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 12.3-mile radius of Floyd Bennett Memorial Airport
extending clockwise from a 050[deg] bearing to a 220[deg] bearing
from the airport and within a 16.1-mile radius of the airport
extending clockwise from a 220[deg] bearing to a 050[deg] bearing
from the airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 22, 2020.
Andreese C. Davis,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2020-16297 Filed 7-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION SAN3827 Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement, and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. EPA/ Office of Air and Radiation 2. OMB control number b. X None a. ___________  ________________ OMB Comment # 2060 0047 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. X New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement instructions 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: ______/______/______ c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: ______/______

7. Title NESHAP for Paper and Other Web Coating ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ)( Final Rule)

8. Agency form number( s) ( if applicable) EPA ICR# 1951.02 9. Keywords Environmental Protection, Air Pollution Control, Hazardous Substances, Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, Standard for Paper and Other Web Coating Industry 10. Abstract Respondents are owners and operators of facilities in the paper and other web coating source category. Respondents will submit notification and information indicating the performance of air pollution controls, product substitution and/ or reformulation. This information is needed to ensure compliance with the rule.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. ___ Individuals or households d.___ Farms b. P Business or other for profit e.___ Federal Government c. ___ Not for profit institutions f. ___ State, Local, or Tribal Governments 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 441 b. Total annual responses 1,477 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0% c. Total annual hours requested 41,462 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 41,462 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 41,462 2. Adjustment _______________ 0___________________ 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 2,249 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 679 c. Total annualized cost requested 2,928 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 2,928 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 2,928 2. Adjustment ________________ _ 0_______________

15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. ____ Application for benefits e. ____ Program planning or management b. ____ Program evaluation f. ____ Research c. ____ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. ____ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. G Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. G Weekly 3. X Monthly 4. G Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. G Annually 7. G Biennially 8. G Other ( describe) _________________

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

G Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer question regarding the content of this submission)

Name: Mr. Paul Almodovar, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Phone: ( 919) 541 0283 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.

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

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

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

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

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

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

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

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8 ( b)( 3):

( I) Why the information is being collected;

( ii) Use of information;

( iii) Burden estimate;

( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory);

( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

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

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

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

Signature of Program Office Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Director, Collection Strategies Division Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 83 (Wednesday, April 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24416-24417]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09805]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14612-000]

Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and
Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications:
New Summit Hydro, LLC

April 23, 2014.
    On April 1, 2014, New Summit Hydro, LLC, filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the New Summit Pumped
Storage Project (New Summit Project or project) to be located in the
City of Norton, Summit County, Ohio. The sole purpose of a preliminary
permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a
license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does
not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing
activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others
without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) An
excavated, diked, and asphalt-lined upper reservoir with a storage
capacity of 8,000 acre-feet with a water surface area of 150 acres; (2)
a lower underground reservoir created by previous limestone mining
activities with a storage capacity of 7,760 acre-feet; (3) an
underground powerhouse and appurtenant structures including six 250-
megawatt (MW) variable speed reversible pump turbines for a total
installed capacity of 1,500 MW; (4) power plant buildings and surface
structures that occupy approximately 70 acres, including a 17.5 foot-
diameter vent stack, up to 100 feet high and flaring to a 30-foot
diameter at the top; (5) a concrete-lined power tunnel located 300 feet
below the ground surface that extends from the upper reservoir to two
17.5-foot-diameter, 2400-foot-long, concrete-lined vertical shafts that
connect the power tunnel with the underground powerhouse penstocks. The
power tunnel would be approximately 30 feet in diameter and
approximately 8,000 feet long; (6) an underground transformer gallery;
(7) six steel concrete-lined penstocks, that would be approximately six
feet in diameter and 235 feet long; (8) four 345-kilovolt overhead
transmission line circuits, approximately 3 miles long, arranged in two
parallel double circuit tower sets within an existing transmission line
corridor located north of the proposed reservoir; (9) offsite and
onsite recreational facilities. The estimated annual generation of the
New Summit Project would between 1,300,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) and
2,000,000 MWh.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Kevin Young, Managing Member, New Summit
Hydro, LLC, 2112 Talmage Drive, Leland, North Carolina 28451-9340;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Bryan Roden-Reynolds; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60

days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and
notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14612-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14612) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-09805 Filed 4-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 152 (Monday, August 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48187-48189]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19982]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65011; File No. SR-ISE-2011-42]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule
Change by International Securities Exchange, Inc., Relating to Rule 717

August 2, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 25, 2011, the International Securities Exchange, Inc. (``ISE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE is proposing to specify in its rules an existing policy
related to the application of Rule 717(d) and (e). The text of the
proposed rule change is as follows (additions are in italics):

Rule 717. Limitation on Orders

    (a) through (g) no change.

Supplementary Material to Rule 717

    .01 through .05 no change.
    .06 The exposure requirement of paragraph (d) and (e) of Rule 717
applies to the entry of orders with knowledge that there is a pre-
existing unexecuted agency, proprietary, or solicited order on the
Exchange. Members may demonstrate that orders were entered without
knowledge by providing evidence that effective information barriers
between the persons, business units and/or systems entering the orders
onto the Exchange were in existence at the time the orders were
entered. Such information barriers must be fully documented and
provided to the Exchange upon request.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of 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
    Rule 717(d) and (e) requires members to expose orders entered on
the limit order book for at least one second before executing them as
principal or against orders that were solicited from other broker-
dealers. This requirement gives

other market participants an opportunity to participate in the
execution of orders before the entering member executes them. The
Exchange recognizes, however, that because the Exchange does not
identify the member that entered an order on the limit order book,
orders from the same firm may inadvertently execute against each other
as a result of being entered by disparate persons and/or systems at the
same member firm. Therefore, when enforcing Rule 717(d) and (e), the
Exchange has never considered the inadvertent interaction of orders
from the same firm within one second to be a violation of the exposure
requirement.
    When investigating potential violations of Rule 717(d) and (e), the
Exchange takes into consideration whether orders that executed against
each other within one second on the limit order book were entered by
persons, business units and/or systems at the same firm that did not
have knowledge of the order on the limit order book.\3\ Commonly,
member firms are able to demonstrate that orders were entered by
individuals or systems that did not have the ability to know of the
pre-existing order on the limit order book due to information barriers
in place at the time the orders were entered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange conducts routine surveillance to identify
instances when an order on the limit order book is executed against
an order entered by the same firm within one second.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to codify this longstanding policy in
Supplementary Material .06 to Rule 717. The proposed rule text
specifies that members can demonstrate that orders were entered without
knowledge of a pre-existing order on the book represented by the same
firm by providing evidence that effective information barriers between
the persons, business units and/or systems entering the orders onto the
Exchange were in existence at the time the orders were entered. The
rule requires that such information barriers be fully documented and
provided to the Exchange upon request.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange reviews information barrier documentation to
evaluate whether a member has implemented processes that are
reasonably designed to prevent the flow of pre-trade order
information given the particular structure of the member firm.
Additionally, information barriers are reviewed as part of the
Exchange's examination program, which is administered by the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'') pursuant to a
regulatory services agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'')
for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b),\5\
in general, and Section 6(b)(5) \6\ in particular, that an exchange
have rules that are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism for a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. In particular, the Exchange believes
that codifying the Exchange's policy that appropriate information
barriers can be used to demonstrate that the execution of two orders
within one second was inadvertent because the orders were entered
without knowledge of each other, will clarify the intent and
application of Rule 717(d) and (e) for ISE members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that proposed rule change also is consistent
with Section 6(b)(7) of the Act,\7\ which requires the rules of an
exchange to provide a fair procedure for the disciplining of members
and persons associated with members. In particular, by specifying that
the information barriers must be fully documented, members will be
better prepared to properly respond to requests for information by the
Exchange in the course of a regulatory investigation. Moreover, while
members are generally required to provide information to the Exchange
as requested, specifying that members must provide written
documentation regarding information barriers within the context of this
rule will assure that all members adhere to the same standard for
demonstrating compliance with the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

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

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2011-42 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2011-42. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from

submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-
2011-42 and should be submitted on or before August 29, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-19982 Filed 8-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 150 (Monday, August 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 52158]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16708]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 15038-001]

Let It Go, LLC; Notice of Availability of Environmental
Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for an exemption from licensing for the
Jefferson Mill Hydroelectric Project, to be located on the Hardware
River near the Town of Scottsville, Albemarle County, Virginia, and has
prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project.
    The EA contains staff's analysis of the potential environmental
impacts of the project and concludes that issuing an exemption for the
project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not
constitute a major Federal action that would significantly affect the
quality of the human environment.
    The Commission provides all interested persons with an opportunity
to view and/or print the EA via the internet through the Commission's
Home Page (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 protected], or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may also register online at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/eSubscription.aspx to be notified via email of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this
notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. Please file
comments using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/eFiling.aspx. Commenters can submit brief comments
up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment
system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/Quick Comment.aspx. You must
include your name and contact information at the end of your comments.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support. In lieu of
electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via
the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier
must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
The first page of any filing should include docket number P-15038-001.
    For further information, contact Andy Bernick at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
by email at [email protected].

    Dated: July 31, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-16708 Filed 8-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 217)]
[Notices]
[Page 65800-65801]
[DOCID:fr09no06-86]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP07-14-000]

Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd.; Notice of Application

November 2, 2006.
    Take notice that on October 23, 2006, Wyoming Interstate Company,
Ltd. (WIC), Post Office Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944,
filed an application in Docket No. CP07-14-000, pursuant to section
7(c) of the Natural Gas Act for a certificate of public convenience and
necessity authorizing the construction and operation of a new supply
lateral pipeline and metering facilities, with appurtenances, to be
located in Uintah and Daggett Counties, Utah. Known as the Kanda
Lateral, the facilities will be comprised of approximately 123 miles of
24-inch diameter pipeline, with appurtenances, designed to transport
and deliver up to 406,000 Dth per day into WIC's mainline. In addition,
WIC is also proposing to construct mainline expansion facilities that
will consist of two compressor units totaling approximately 20,620
horsepower to be sited inside Colorado Interstate Gas Company's (CIG)
existing Wamsutter

Compressor Station located in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. WIC estimates
the total cost for the Kanda Lateral and Mainline Expansion project to
be $143 million, all as more fully set forth in the application which
is on file with the Commission and open for public inspection. This
filing 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, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to
Richard Derryberry, Director, Regulatory Affairs, Wyoming Interstate
Company, Ltd., P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado, 80944 at
(719) 520-3788 or by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Craig V. Richardson,
Vice President and General Counsel, Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd.;
P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado, 80944 at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    On February 8, 2006, the Commission staff granted WIC's request to
utilize the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Pre-Filing Process
and assigned Docket No. PF06-15-000 to staff activities involving the
WIC's expansion project. Now, as of the filing of WIC's application on
October 23, 2006, the NEPA Pre-Filing Process for this project has
ended. From this time forward, WIC's proceeding will be conducted in
Docket No. CP07-14-000, as noted in the caption of this Notice.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    Comment Date: November 24, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-18924 Filed 11-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62991-62992]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24940]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73351; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2014-77]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 15--
Equities To Specify That Exchange Systems Can Publish Pre-Opening
Indications and To Extend the Time Order Imbalance Information is
Disseminated When an Opening Is Delayed

October 15, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on October 6, 2014, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 15--Equities to specify that
Exchange systems can publish pre-opening indications and to extend the
time order imbalance information is disseminated when an opening is
delayed. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 15--Equities (``Rule 15'') to
specify that Exchange systems can automatically publish pre-opening
indications utilizing the same guidelines set forth in Rule 15 for
manual publications by Designated Market Makers (``DMM''). The Exchange
also proposes to amend Rule 15 to extend the time order imbalance
information is disseminated when an opening is delayed from the current
9:35 a.m. to the time the security opens for trading. Finally, the
Exchange proposes to correct a typographical error in subsection (b)(2)
of the Rule.
    Rule 15 currently provides that an Exchange DMM, in arranging an
opening transaction on the Exchange in any security, shall issue a pre-
opening indication whenever the DMM anticipates that the opening
transaction will be at a price that represents a change of more than
the ``applicable price change'' specified in the Rule from either:
     The security's last reported sale price on the Exchange;
\4\ or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Except for American Depositary Receipts (``ADR''), where the
DMM shall use the closing price of the primary foreign market to
determine whether the price of such opening transaction represents a
change of more than the ``applicable price change.'' See Rule 15(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     the security's offering price in the case of an initial
public offering (``IPO''); or
     the security's last reported sale price on the securities
market from which the security is being transferred to the Exchange, on
the security's first day of trading on the Exchange (a ``transferred
security'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A pre-opening indication includes the security and the price
range within which the DMM anticipates the opening transaction will
occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``applicable price changes'' governing pre-opening indications
represent a numerical or percentage change from the security's closing
price per share, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Applicable
                 Exchange  closing price                   price change
                                                            (more than)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under $20.00............................................           $0.50
$20-$49.99..............................................           $1.00
$50.00-$99.99...........................................           $2.00
$100-$500...............................................           $5.00
Above $500..............................................            1.5%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pre-opening indications pursuant to this rule are published on the
Exchange's proprietary data feeds.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 15 to add that either the DMM
or the Exchange shall issue a pre-opening indication, but not change
any of the applicable parameters for publishing a pre-opening
indication. To reflect that the Exchange may be publishing these pre-
opening indications, the Exchange proposes to delete the following
phrase at the beginning of section (a) of the rule, ``Whenever an
Exchange DMM, in arranging an opening transaction on the Exchange in
any security anticipates that,'' and state instead that ``If the
opening transaction on the Exchange is anticipated to be at a price
that represents a change from. . . .'' The Exchange further proposes to
add that the DMM or the Exchange shall issue the pre-opening
indication, and specify that such pre-opening indication shall include
the security and the price range within which the opening transaction
is anticipated to occur.
    The Exchange would publish automatic indications when the Opening
Imbalance Information in Exchange systems indicates an opening price
that would be more than the applicable price range away from the
defined reference price. Because Exchange systems would not have access
to orally-represented interest in the trading crowd, the Exchange
believes that a pre-opening indication entered by a DMM would likely be
based on information not available to Exchange systems, and therefore a
DMM-entered pre-opening indication should have priority over an
Exchange-generated pre-opening indication. Accordingly, the Exchange
further proposes that if a DMM issues a pre-opening indication or a
mandatory indication pursuant to Rule 123D(1)--Equities,\6\ the
Exchange would not publish a pre-opening indication in that security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Rule 123D(1)--Equities provides that an indication is
mandatory for an opening which will result in a ``significant''
price change from the previous close. For securities priced under
$10, such indications are mandatory if the price change is one
dollar of more; for securities between $10 and $99.99, indications
are required for price movements of the lesser of 10% or three
dollars; and for securities over $100, indications are required for
price movements of five dollars or more. These guidelines are
applicable to IPOs based on the offering price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 15 to permit opening order
imbalance publications to continue until a security is opened.
Currently, Rule 15 provides that order imbalance information
disseminated prior to the opening of a security will be disseminated
approximately every five minutes between 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time
(``E.T.'') and 9 a.m. E.T.; approximately

every minute between 9 a.m. E.T. and 9:20 a.m. E.T.; and approximately
every 15 seconds between 9:20 a.m. E.T. and the opening. If the opening
is delayed, Rule 15 provides that order imbalance information will be
published until 9:35 a.m. E.T. Under the proposed rule change, order
imbalance information would continuously disseminate until the opening
of trading in that security and not cease at 9:35 a.m. E.T.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to correct a typographical error in
the published text of Rule 15(b)(2), which currently contains the word
``underling'' that should be ``underlying.''
    Because of the technology changes associated with the proposed rule
change, the Exchange proposes to announce the implementation date via
Trader Update.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, because it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and protect investors and the public interest. The
Exchange believes that permitting the Exchange to automatically publish
pre-opening indications and extending opening order imbalance
publications until a security is opened removes impediments to and
perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system by continuing to advance the efficiency and transparency of the
opening process and fostering price discovery at the open of trading,
thereby minimizing information imbalances in the marketplace.
Similarly, the proposal promotes just and equitable principles of trade
and removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and
open market by providing customers and the investing public with
continuous, automated information for securities where there will
likely be a significant price change from the previous day's closing
price or for which there is a significant published imbalance. For the
same reasons, the proposal is also designed to protect investors as
well as the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not intended to address competitive issues but rather technologically
augment the current process of providing pre-market information to
customers and the investing public.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \11\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2014-77 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-NYSEMKT-2014-77. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for Web
site viewing and printing at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.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-NYSEMKT-2014-77 and should be submitted on or before
November 12, 2014.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-24940 Filed 10-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P