[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 3431]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02080]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator and Foreign
Utilty Company Status

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
TG High Prairie, LLC..........................  EG19-16-000
Bridgewater Power Company, L.P................  EG19-17-000
Peony Solar LLC...............................  EG19-18-000
Marengo Energy Storage........................  EG19-19-000
KCE NY 1, LLC.................................  EG19-20-000
DG Whitefield LLC.............................  EG19-21-000
Springfield Power, LLC........................  EG19-22-000
Antelope DSR 3, LLC...........................  EG19-23-000
San Pablo Raceway, LLC........................  EG19-24-000
Calpine Gilroy Cogen, L.P.....................  EG19-25-000
Solomon Forks Wind Project, LLC...............  EG19-26-000
LUZ Solar Partners VIII, Ltd..................  EG19-27-000
LUZ Solar Partners IX, Ltd....................  EG19-28-000
Ibereolica Solar Moron, S.L.U.................  FC19-1-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that during the month of January 2019, the status of
the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign
Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's
regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a) (2018).

    Dated: February 6, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-02080 Filed 2-11-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 17, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9857-9859]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03055]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2019-0720; FRL-10017-00-Region 2]

Approval of Source-Specific Air Quality Implementation Plans; New
Jersey

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approves a revision
to the State of New Jersey's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) related to a
source-specific SIP for CMC Steel New Jersey, located at 1 N Crossman,
Sayreville, New Jersey (Facility). The control options in this source-
specific SIP address volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen
oxide (NOX) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
for the Facility's electric arc furnace (Sayreville EAF) to continue to
operate under the current New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) approved VOC and NOX emission limits for
the Sayreville EAF.

DATES: The final rule is effective on March 19, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2019-0720. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information 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 electronically through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Longo, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. The EPA's Evaluation of New Jersey's Submittal
III. What comments were received in response to the EPA's proposed
action?
IV. Summary of EPA's Final Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    The EPA approves a revision to the State of New Jersey's (the
State) SIP for attainment and maintenance of the ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). On July 15, 2020 (85 FR 42803), the EPA
proposed to approve the State's April 30, 2019, SIP revision, which
relates to the application of the New Jersey Administrative Code (NJAC)
Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 16, ``Control and Prohibition of Air
Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds'' (NJAC 7:27-16) and the
NJAC, Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 19, ``Control and Prohibition of
Air Pollution from Oxides of Nitrogen'' (NJAC 7:27-19) to the
Sayreville EAF. Under this SIP revision, the emission limits for VOC
and NOX for the Sayreville EAF are the lowest emission
limits achievable with the application of control technology that is
reasonably available given the

technological and economic feasibility considerations associated with
operating the Sayreville EAF (i.e., RACT for the Sayreville EAF). The
Facility is allowed to continue to operate under its current approved
emission limits of 57 pounds per hour (lb/hr) of VOC and 31 lb/hr of
NOX for the Sayreville EAF, because its request to be
covered under alternative control plans for VOC pursuant to NJAC 7:27
Subchapter 16 and for NOX pursuant to NJAC 7:27 Subchapter
19 met the State's deadlines and statutory criteria for approval. A
full summary of EPA's findings for this source-specific SIP revision is
included in the technical support document that is contained in EPA's
docket assigned to this Federal Register document.

II. The EPA's Evaluation of New Jersey's Submittals

    The EPA's approval is based on the conclusion that the State's
April 30, 2019 SIP revision to authorizing the Facility to continue to
operate under existing VOC and NOX emission limits for the
Sayreville EAF operated by CMC Steel New Jersey conforms with the
State's regulations under NJAC 7:27-16.17 and NJAC 7:27-19.13. After
reviewing CMC Steel New Jersey's updated facility-specific VOC and
NOX control plans, which were submitted to NJDEP, that are
the subject of this source-specific SIP revision, the EPA makes the
following determination:
    (1) The Facility qualifies to continue to operate under the current
NJDEP-approved emission limits for VOC and NOX. Under NJAC:
7:27-16.17(c)(3), facilities that sought to continue operating with an
alternative VOC control plan that was approved prior to May 19, 2009,
were required to submit updated proposed VOC control plans to NJDEP for
review by August 17, 2009. Similarly, under NJAC: 7:27-19.13(a)(3),
facilities that sought to continue to operate under existing facility-
specific NOX control plans that were approved prior to May
1, 2005, were required to submit updated proposed NOX
control plans to NJDEP for review by August 17, 2009. The Facility met
both deadlines with the submission of its VOC and NOX
control plans, respectively.
    (2) The Facility's Operating Permit, issued pursuant to Title V of
the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7661a, describes a facility-specific
VOC emission limit of 57 lb/hr and a facility-specific maximum
allowable NOX emission limit of 31 lb/hr, both of which are
consistent with the updated VOC and NOX control plans that
are the subject of this SIP revision.
    (3) The EPA's consultation with air pollution control experts from
NJDEP and EPA confirms the Facility's RACT analysis conclusion that no
comparable electric arc furnace emission control technologies are
deployed at other facilities nationwide. For a detailed explanation and
evaluation of the SIP revision, refer to the proposed rulemaking. See
85 FR 42803, July 15, 2020.

III. What comments were received in response to the EPA's proposed
action?

    The EPA received no public comments in response to the July 15,
2020 proposed rulemaking. Therefore, the EPA approves this SIP revision
with no further changes.

IV. Summary of the EPA's Final Action

    The EPA approves the State of New Jersey's SIP revision dated April
30, 2019, which includes a source-specific SIP for CMC Steel New
Jersey, located at 1 N Crossman, Sayreville, New Jersey. The control
options in this source-specific SIP address the State of New Jersey's
RACT requirements included in NJAC 7:27-16, ``Control and Prohibition
of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds'' and New Jersey NJAC
7:27-19, ``Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from Oxides of
Nitrogen'', both effective January 16, 2018. The EPA makes the
following findings: (1) The Facility met NJDEP's statutory criteria and
deadlines to qualify for continuing to operate under existing VOC and
NOX emission limits; (2) the Facility meets emission limits
set by NJDEP for VOC emission rate at 57 lb/hr and for NOX
emission rate at 31 lb/hr; and (3) the Facility implements RACT
controls for VOC and NOX--for VOC, through execution of the
Scrap Management Plan and operating a direct evacuation system and for
NOX, through application of good operating practices that
maintain a constant temperature in the preheater chamber and minimizes
electricity consumption to avoid indirect NOX emissions. The
Facility has demonstrated that it meets all applicable requirements of
the CAA and it will not interfere with any applicable requirements
pertaining to attainment of the NAAQS and reasonable further progress
or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of
1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is incorporating by reference the provisions
described above in Section IV. Summary of the EPA's Final Action. The
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 2 Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore,
these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the
State Implementation Plan, have been incorporated by reference by the
EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110
and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of
the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next
update to the SIP compilation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this final action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National

Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with
the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    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. The 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 19, 2021. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: February 10, 2021.
Walter Mugdan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart FF--New Jersey

0
2. Section 52.1570 is amended in paragraph (d) by adding an entry for
CMC Steel New Jersey to the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                               EPA-Approved New Jersey Source-Specific Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         State effective
         Name of source              Identifier No.            date          EPA approval date      Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
CMC Steel New Jersey............  BOP 150002; PI       May 1, 2019........  February 17, 2021.  None.
                                   18052; Emission
                                   Unit U1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-03055 Filed 2-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73389-73390]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28869]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Availability for the Cal Black Memorial Airport Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS) and Section
4(f) Evaluation; Notice of Public Comment Period; and Notice of
Opportunity for a Public Hearing

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability, notice of comment period, and notice of
opportunity for a public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and Council on Environmental
Quality regulations (40 CFR part 1500-1508), the Federal Aviation
Administration announces the availability and request for comment on a
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS) and
Section 4(f) Evaluation for the Cal Black Memorial Airport. The Section
4(f) Evaluation was prepared pursuant to Section 4(f) of the Department
of Transportation Act of 1966 (recodified at 49 U.S.C. 303(c)).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before 45 days from the date of
the publication of the Notice of Availability by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency in the Federal Register. Anyone interested in the
project has up to 15 days from the date of EPA's publication of the
Notice of Availability in the Federal Register to request a hearing.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Draft SEIS may be viewed during regular
business hours at the following locations:
    1. Federal Aviation Administration Airports Division, Suite 315,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057.
    2. Federal Aviation Administration, Airports District Office, Suite
224, 26805 East 68th Avenue, Denver, CO 80249.
    3. San Juan County Courthouse, County Executive Office, 117 S Main,
Monticello, Utah 84535.
    4. Web site: http://halls.crossing.airportnetwork.com/.
    Written requests for the Draft SEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation,
submittal of comments on the documents, and requests for a public
hearing can be submitted to the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janell Barrilleaux, Environmental
Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration Airports Division,
Northwest Mountain Region, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057. Mrs.
Barrilleaux may be contacted during business hours at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(phone),<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax), or via email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Northwest Mountain Region of the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) as lead agency and the National Park
Service (NPS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as a cooperating
agencies have prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (Draft SEIS) and Section 4(f) Evaluation to address issues
arising from the 1993 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Decision
concerning the development of Cal Black Memorial Airport. The U.S.
National Park Service (NPS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are
cooperating agencies, by virtue of their jurisdictional authority and/
or resource management responsibilities. This Draft SEIS and Section
4(f) Evaluation does not involve any new development or project at the
airport. The Cal Black Memorial Airport opened in April 1992.
    Halls Crossing Airport was located within the boundary of the Glen
Canyon National Recreation Area, a unit of the National Park Service
(NPS). Due to safety issues with that airport, an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) was prepared concerning the development of a
replacement airport. In 1990, the FAA issued a Draft and Final EIS for
the development of a replacement Airport. In August 1990, the FAA
issued a record of decision approving the development of Cal Black
Memorial Airport. The FAA determined in the record of decision that the
use of the BLM lands upon which the airport was built was reasonably
necessary for the project. Accordingly, the BLM issued a Patent for the
airport land to San Juan County on September 25, 1990. In reaching its
approval, the FAA determined that no significant impacts would result
from the new airport to the recreational experience of visitors to the
recreational area.
    In 1990, the National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA), et
al. brought suit against the FAA concerning the adequacy of the EIS and
the adequacy of the BLM Plan Amendment and land transfer process. In
its July 7, 1993, decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit,
remanded the EIS decision back to the FAA and BLM for further
environmental analysis of aircraft noise impacts to the recreational
use of public lands and the BLM's plan amendment and transfer of land.
    On November 17, 2008 the BLM issued the Monticello Field Office
Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. The document
provides guidance for the management of Federal lands administered by
the BLM in San Juan County and a small portion of Grant County in
southeast Utah and includes provisions for the disposal of the Cal
Black Memorial Airport property.
    Thus, the purpose of the Draft SEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation is
to address the requirements of the U.S. Court of Appeals findings. The
scope of the Draft SEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation includes: (1) The
measurement of actual aircraft noise levels in GCNRA and visitor
survey, (2) an updated evaluation of existing and future aircraft noise
levels; (3) a Section 4(f) evaluation using the updated noise analysis;
and (4) an analysis on potential cumulative effects.
    The FAA encourages all interested parties to provide comments
concerning the scope and content of the Draft SEIS. Comments should be
as specific as possible and address the analysis of potential
environmental impacts and the adequacy of the proposed action.
Reviewers should organize their participation so that it is meaningful
and makes the agency aware of the viewer's interests and concerns using
quotations and other specific references to the text of the Draft SEIS
and related documents. Matters that could have been raised with
specificity during the comment period on the Draft SEIS may not be
considered if they are raised for the first time later in the decision
process. This commenting procedure is intended to ensure that
substantive comments and concerns are made available to the FAA in a
timely manner so that the FAA has the opportunity to address them.
    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or
other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that
your entire comment--including your personal identifying information--
may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in
your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying
information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 3, 2014.
Carol Suomi,
Acting Division Manager, Airports Division, Northwest Mountain Region.
[FR Doc. 2014-28869 Filed 12-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 247 (Thursday, December 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66822-66824]
[FR Doc No: 2018-28006]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84854; File No. SR-NYSE-2018-61]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending Section 902.02 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual To Modify the
Investment Management Entity Group Fee Discount

December 19, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on December 7, 2018, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III 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 Section 902.02 of the NYSE Listed
Company Manual (the ``Manual'') to modify the Investment Management
Entity Group Fee Discount. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Section 902.02 of the Manual provides for a fee discount applicable
only to an Investment Management Entity \4\ and its Eligible Portfolio
Companies \5\ (the ``Investment Management Entity Group Fee
Discount''). The Investment Management Entity Group Fee Discount is
subject to a maximum aggregate discount of $500,000 in any given year
(the ``Maximum Discount'') distributed among the Investment Management
Entity and each of its Eligible Portfolio Companies in proportion to
their respective eligible fee obligations in such year.\6\ In addition
to benefiting from the Investment Management Entity Group Fee Discount,
the Investment Management Entity and each of the Eligible Portfolio
Companies continue to have fees capped by the applicable company's
individual Total Maximum Fee of $500,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ An Investment Management Entity is a listed company that
manages private investment vehicles not registered under the
Investment Company Act.
    \5\ An ``Eligible Portfolio Company'' of an Investment
Management Entity is a company in which the Investment Management
Entity has owned at least 20% of the common stock on a continuous
basis since prior to that company's initial listing.
    \6\ The current rule provides that, for years prior to calendar
2019, the Investment Management Entity Group Fee Discount is based
on both annual and listing fees paid in the applicable year and, for
calendar 2019 and subsequent years, the discount is based only on
annual fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Investment Management Entity Group Fee Discount is
as follows:
     A 30% discount on all eligible fees of an Investment
Management Entity and each of its Eligible Portfolio Companies in any
year in which the Investment Management Entity has two Eligible
Portfolio Companies, subject to the Maximum Discount.
     a 50% discount on all eligible fees of an Investment
Management Entity and each of its Eligible Portfolio Companies in any
year in which the Investment Management Entity has three or more
Eligible Portfolio Companies, subject to the Maximum Discount.

    The Exchange proposes to modify the Investment Management Entity
Group Fee Discount effective January 1, 2019. For calendar 2019 and all
calendar years thereafter, the Investment Management Entity Group Fee
Discount will be a 50% discount on all annual fees of an Investment
Management Entity and each of its Eligible Portfolio Companies in any
year in which the Investment Management Entity has one or more Eligible
Portfolio Companies, subject to the Maximum Discount.
    The Exchange established the Investment Management Entity Group Fee
Discount \7\ because, in the Exchange's experience, an Investment
Management Entity puts high-quality and experienced management teams in
place at its portfolio companies prior to listing and the Investment
Management Entity continues to provide significant support to those
companies after listing. Consequently, those companies require lower
levels of support from the NYSE's business and Regulation groups to
assist them in navigating the initial and continued listing process and
the Exchange devotes significantly smaller staff resources to those
companies on average than to the typical newly-listed company that is
not controlled prior to listing by an Investment Management Entity. The
Exchange believed that it was reasonable to share some of the cost
savings derived from its relationship with an Investment Management
Entity with the Investment Management Entity and its listed portfolio
companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79582 (December 16,
2016), 81 FR 93976 (December 22, 2016) (SR-NYSE-2016-70).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now believes that it is appropriate to adjust the
discount by providing it where there is a single listed portfolio
company and to provide the discount at a fixed 50% level (rather than
the current 30% and 50% tiers based on the number of Eligible Portfolio
Companies), because the Exchange has observed that the reduction in
work load and expense it experiences due to the relationship of an
Eligible Portfolio Company to the Investment Management Entity are
proportionally the same with respect to each Eligible Portfolio Company
regardless of how many other Eligible Portfolio Companies there may be.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to provide a single
tier discount without regard to the number of Eligible Portfolio
Companies an Investment Management Entity may have. The Exchange also
notes that the proposed amendment is substantially similar to a fee
discount provided by NASDAQ \8\ and therefore will enable the Exchange
to better compete for the listing of eligible companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Note 14 infra. [sic]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not expect the reduction in revenues associated
with the proposed fee change to be substantial or to have any effect on
its ability to appropriately fund its regulatory program.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) \10\ of the Act, in particular, in that
it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges. The Exchange also believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\
in that it is designed 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 and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is not unfairly discriminatory and
represents an equitable allocation of reasonable fees to amend the
Investment Management Entity Group Discount as set forth in this
proposal, as the amended discount provision better reflects the
benefits the Exchange derives from the relationship between and
Investment Management Entity and its Eligible Portfolio Companies, as
described in more detail above.

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
designed to ensure that the fees charged by the Exchange accurately
reflect the services provided and benefits realized by listed
companies. The market for listing services is extremely competitive.
Each listing exchange has a different fee schedule that applies to
issuers seeking to list securities on its exchange. Issuers have the
option to list their securities on these alternative venues based on
the fees charged and the value provided by each listing. Because
issuers have a choice to list their securities on a different national
securities exchange, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
fee changes impose a burden on competition.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \12\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \13\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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) \14\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 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-NYSE-2018-61 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2018-61. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2018-61 and should be submitted on
or before January 17, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-28006 Filed 12-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


NOTE SUBJECT: Consultation with US Bureau of Indian Affairs TO: File FROM: Stephen Hoffman DATE: 2/ 27/ 06 The purpose of this note is to document consultation between USEPA and the US Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs ( BIA) regarding the use of chat in transportation projects and in non transportation cement and concrete uses.

On September 28, 2005 Richard Kinch, OSW/ USEPA and I met with representatives of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to assure that consultation with tribes during the development of the proposal would be deemed adequate by BIA. BIA staff were led by Mr Robert M. Laidlaw, Office of the Secretary DOI and Mr. Allen Sedik of BIA.

We presented a briefing to BIA which included an outline of the proposal with a draft schedule. BIA strongly suggested that EPA participate in an upcoming meeting of the Tri State Natural Resource Damage Committee in Pittsburg, Kansas where BIA and all of the areas tribes would be meeting. This would be a good opportunity to present information about this rulemaking and seek input from the tribes. I was told to contact Mr. Jim Dwyer, NRD Coordinator to be placed on that meeting's agenda. Notes from attending this meeting are found under separate cover. BIA also suggested that regular contact be maintained with tribes throughout the development of the proposal.


[Federal Register: March 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 44)]
[Notices]
[Page 11989-11990]
[DOCID:fr05mr08-126]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-99-5578, FMCSA-99-6156, FMCSA-99-6480, FMCSA-00-7363,
FMCSA-01-9258, FMCSA-03-16564, FMCSA-05-23238, FMCSA-06-23773]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
34 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals
from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent
to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the
exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective April 14, 2008. Comments must be
received on or before April 4, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-99-5578, FMCSA-99-6156, FMCSA-
99-6480, FMCSA-00-7363, FMCSA-01-9258, FMCSA-03-16564, FMCSA-05-23238,
FMCSA-06-23773, using any of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78; Apr. 11, 2000).
This information is also available at http://DocketInfo.dot.gov.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-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 procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 34 individuals who have requested a renewal
of their exemption in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 34 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:

Scott E. Ames
Otto J. Ammer, Jr.
Nick D. Bacon
Mark A. Baisden
Johnny W. Bradford
Lawrence M. Daley
Clifford H. Dovel
Ray L. Emert
Arthur L. Fields
John W. Forgy
Daniel R. Franks
Glenn E. Gee
Rupert G. Gilmore, III
Albert L. Gschwind
Walter R. Hardiman
George A. Hoffman, III
Laurent G. Jacques
Michael W. Jones
Matthew J. Konecki
Duane R. Krug
Paul E. Lindon
Jack D. Miller
Eric M. Moats, Sr.
Rick Moreno
Robert W. Nicks
Joseph S. Nix, IV
Monte L. Purciful
George S. Rayson
Luis F. Saavedra
Gerald M. Smith
Edward J. Sullivan
Steven Valley
Darel G. Wagner
Bernard J. Wood

    These exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual have a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and
(b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise
physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual
provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the
medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3)
that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification
to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and
retain a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for
presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement
official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded
earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded 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(e) and 31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 34 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (64 FR 27027; 64 FR 51568; 67 FR 10475; 69 FR 8260; 71 FR
16410; 64 FR 54948; 65 FR 159; 67 FR 17102; 69 FR 17267; 71 FR 6824; 64
FR 68195; 65 FR 20251; 65 FR 45817; 65 FR 77066; 68 FR 1654; 70 FR
7545; 66 FR 17743; 66 FR 33990; 68 FR 35772; 71 FR 644; 68 FR 74699; 69
FR 10503; 71 FR 6829; 71 FR 5105; 71 FR 19600; 71 FR 6826; 71 FR
19602). Each of these 34 applicants has requested renewal of the
exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the standard specified at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a
review of each record of safety while driving with the respective
vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant
continues to meet the vision exemption standards. These factors provide
an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to
drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that
extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two
years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing
without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by April 4, 2008.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 34 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was based on the merits of each
case and only after careful consideration of the comments received to
its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That
information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register
publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all of these drivers, are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

    Issued on: February 26, 2008.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
 [FR Doc. E8-4192 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P