[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 146 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44700-44701]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18449]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 30145; 812-14022]

Saratoga Investment Corp., et al.; Notice of Application

July 23, 2012.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from
sections 18(a) and 61(a) of the Act.

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

Applicants: Saratoga Investment Corp. (the ``Company''), Saratoga
Investment Advisors, LLC (the ``Investment Adviser''), Saratoga
Investment Corp. SBIC GP, LLC (the ``General Partner''), and Saratoga
Investment Corp. SBIC LP (``Saratoga SBIC'').

Summary of the Application: The Company requests an order to permit it
to adhere to a modified asset coverage requirement.

Filing Dates: The application was filed April 2, 2012. Applicants have
agreed to file an amendment during the notice period, the substance of
which is reflected in this notice.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on August 17, 2012, and should be accompanied by proof of service
on the Applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants:
535 Madison Avenue, NY, NY 10022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lewis B. Reich, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6919, or Jennifer L. Sawin, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Company, a Maryland corporation, is an externally managed,
non-diversified, closed-end management investment company that has
elected to be regulated as a business development company (``BDC'')
under the Act.\1\ The Company seeks to generate both current income and
capital appreciation on its investments primarily through mezzanine
debt, leveraged loans and to a lesser extent equity. The Investment
Adviser, a Delaware limited liability company, is the investment
adviser to the Company. The Investment Adviser is registered under the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 2(a)(48) defines a BDC to be any closed-end
investment company that operates for the purpose of making
investments in securities described in section 55(a)(1) through
55(a)(3) of the Act and makes available significant managerial
assistance with respect to the issuers of such securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Saratoga SBIC, a Delaware limited partnership, is a small
business investment company (``SBIC'') licensed by the Small Business
Administration (``SBA'') to operate under the Small Business Investment
Act of 1958 (``SBIA''). Saratoga SBIC is excluded from the definition
of investment company by section 3(c)(7) of the Act. The Company
directly owns 99% of Saratoga SBIC in the form of a limited partnership
interest and is the sole member of the General Partner. The General
Partner, a Delaware limited liability company that is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company, owns 1% of Saratoga SBIC in the form of a
general partnership interest. The Company acts as manager of and
investment adviser to Saratoga SBIC.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. The Company requests an exemption pursuant to section 6(c) of
the Act from the provisions of sections 18(a) and 61(a) of the Act to
permit it to adhere to a modified asset coverage requirement with
respect to any direct or indirect wholly owned subsidiary of the
Company that is licensed by the SBA to operate under the SBIA as a SBIC
and relies on Section 3(c)(7) for an exception from the definition of
``investment company'' under the 1940 Act (each, a ``SBIC
Subsidiary'').\2\ Applicants state that companies operating under the
SBIA, such as SBIC Subsidiaries, will be subject to the SBA's
substantial regulation of permissible leverage in their capital
structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ All existing entities that currently intend to rely on the
order are named as applicants. Any other existing or future entity
that may rely on the order in the future will comply with the terms
and condition of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Section 18(a) of the Act prohibits a registered closed-end
investment company from issuing any class of senior security or selling
any such security of which it is the issuer unless the company complies
with the asset coverage requirements set forth in that section. Section
61(a) of the Act makes section 18 applicable to BDCs, with certain
modifications. Section 18(k) exempts an investment company operating as
an SBIC from the asset coverage requirements for senior securities
representing indebtedness that are contained in section 18(a)(1)(A) and
(B).
    3. Applicants state that the Company may be required to comply with
the asset coverage requirements of section 18(a) (as modified by
section 61(a)) on a consolidated basis because the Company may be
deemed to be an indirect issuer of any class of senior security issued
by Saratoga SBIC or another SBIC Subsidiary. Applicants state that
applying section 18(a) (as modified by section 61(a)) on a consolidated
basis generally would require that the Company treat as its own all
assets and any liabilities held directly either by itself, by Saratoga
SBIC, or by another SBIC Subsidiary. Accordingly, the Company requests
an order under section 6(c) of the Act exempting the Company from the
provisions of section 18(a) (as modified by section 61(a)), such that
senior securities issued by each SBIC Subsidiary that would be excluded
from the SBIC Subsidiary's asset coverage ratio by section 18(k) if it
were itself a BDC would also be excluded from the Company's
consolidated asset coverage ratio.
    4. Section 6(c) of the Act, in relevant part, permits the
Commission to exempt any transaction or class of transactions from any
provision of the Act if and to the extent that such exemption is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the
protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy
and provisions of the Act. Applicants state that the requested relief
satisfies the section 6(c) standard. Applicants contend that, because
the SBIC Subsidiary would be entitled to rely on section 18(k) if it
were a BDC itself, there is no policy reason to deny the benefit of
that exemption to the Company.

Applicants' Condition

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following condition:
    The Company shall not issue or sell any senior security and the
Company shall not cause or permit Saratoga SBIC or any other SBIC
Subsidiary to issue or sell any senior security of which the Company,
Saratoga SBIC or any other SBIC Subsidiary is the issuer except to the
extent permitted by section 18 (as modified for BDCs by section 61) of
the Act; provided that, immediately after the issuance or sale by any
of the Company, Saratoga SBIC or any other SBIC Subsidiary of any such
senior security, the Company, individually and on a consolidated basis,
shall have the asset coverage required by section 18(a) of the Act (as
modified by section 61(a)). In determining whether the Company has the
asset coverage on a consolidated basis required by section 18(a) of the
Act (as modified by section 61(a)), any senior securities representing
indebtedness of Saratoga SBIC or another SBIC Subsidiary shall not be
considered senior securities and, for purposes of the definition of
``asset coverage'' in section 18(h), shall be treated as indebtedness
not represented by senior securities.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-18449 Filed 7-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 246)]
[Notices]
[Page 68432]
[DOCID:fr24de09-34]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement: 74 FR 66178,
December 14, 2009.

Status: Closed Meeting.

Place: 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC.

Date and Time of Previously Announced Meeting: Thursday, December 17,
2009 at 2 p.m.

Change in the Meeting: Additional Item.
    The following item was added to the Thursday, December 17, 2009
Closed Meeting agenda:

    [A] matter involving confidential, privileged, commercial, or
financial information.

    Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, determined that Commission
business required the above change.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed,
please contact the Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 18, 2009.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-30601 Filed 12-22-09; 11:15 am]


II. D. 5  Page 1 of 5 II. D Appendices: Drinking Water Exposure 5. Chemical Specific Fate and Transport Properties Used For the Water Exposure Models Table II. D. 5.1: Aldicarb ( total residues including the sulfone and sulfoxide degradates) fate and transport properties Property/ Parameter Variable Name Value Units References Molecular weight mwt 190.2 g/ mol MRID 00152095 Henry's Law Const. henry 1.70E 10 atmm 3/ mol Acc 255979 Vapor Pressure vapr 1.00E 06 torr MRID 00152095 Solubility sol 6000.0 mg/ L Acc 255979 Kd or Koc Kd 0.12 mL/ g Minimum non sand value for aldicarb sulfone ( MRID 43560302) Photolysis half life kdp 4 days MRID 42498201 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 4 ( x3) = 12 days MRID 44592107. Single acceptable guideline study for ( parent/ sulfoxide/ sulfone) x 3; corresponds w/ DT90 Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 24 days No data; use 2X aerobic aquatic half life Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 55 days Revised from 2001 Aldicarb RED ( Carleton); Upper 90th pct bound on mean for combined parent+ sulfoxide+ sulfone half life from 19 soils in x studies (. Hydrolysis: pH 5 stable days Hydrolysis: pH 7 stable days Hydrolysis: pH 9 > 30 da days Hydrolyzed only at pH9 ( MRID 00102065).

Application Type granular NOTES: Modeled total aldicarb residues Half life values used in inputs based on combined aldicarb + sulfone + sulfoxide residues; lowest Kd of the 3 chemicals used for mobility. Assumes equal toxicity of parent, degradates App adjusted for granular, 15% left on surface Assumed 15% granules left on surface. Adjusted rate to 15% of reported rate, assumed no incorporation, no drift II. D. 5  Page 2 of 5 Table II. D. 5.2. Carbaryl fate and transport properties Property/ Parameter PRZM Variable Name Value Units Comments / References Molecular weight mwt 201.22 g/ mol Henry's Law Const. henry 1.28E 08 atmm 3/ mol Vapor Pressure vapr 1.36E 07 torr Solubility sol 32 mg/ L Koc Koc 196 mL/ g Photolysis half life kdp 21 days Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 29.6 days Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 216.6 days Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 12 days Hydrolysis: pH 5 na days Stable Hydrolysis: pH 7 12 days Hydrolysis: pH 9 0.13 days Method: CAM 2 integer Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Foliar Degradation Rate PLDKRT 3.71 days 90% upper CI from mean of 30 studies ( MRID 45860501) Foliar Washoff Coefficient FEXTRC 0.91 Table II. D. 5.3. Carbofuran fate and transport properties Property/ Parameter PRZM Variable Name Value Units Comments / References Molecular weight mwt 221.5 g/ mol Henry's Law Const. henry 2.20E 10 atmm 3/ mol Vapor Pressure vapr 6.00E 07 torr Solubility sol 7 mg/ L Koc Koc 36 mL/ g mean = 36 ( n= 23, stdev = 31) Photolysis half life kdp 6 days Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 642 days No data; 2X aer soil metabolism half life Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs days Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 321 days 1 value on an acidic soil Hydrolysis: pH 5 days Hydrolysis: pH 7 28 days Hydrolysis: pH 9 days II. D. 5  Page 3 of 5 Table II. D. 5.4. Formetanate HCL fate and transport properties Property/ Parameter PRZM Variable Name Value Units Comments / References Molecular weight mwt 258 g/ mol 1997 EFED RED Henry's Law Const. henry atmm 3/ mol Vapor Pressure vapr 1.60E 06 torr 1997 EFED RED Solubility sol 500000 mg/ L 1997 EFED RED Koc Koc 340 mL/ g 1997 EFED RED Photolysis half life kdp 0.33 days 8 hr/ 24 hr; 1997 EFED RED Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 12.8 days No data; 2X aer soil metabolism data Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs days Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 6.4 days 1997 EFED RED Hydrolysis: pH 5 1515 days 1997 EFED RED Hydrolysis: pH 7 24 days 1997 EFED RED Hydrolysis: pH 9 24 days 1997 EFED RED Method: CAM 2 integer Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Table II. D. 5.5. Methomyl fate and transport properties Property/ Parameter PRZM Variable Name Value Units Comments / References Molecular weight mwt 162 g/ mol Henry's Law Const. henry 1.80E 10 atmm 3/ mol Vapor Pressure vapr 5.00E 05 torr Solubility sol 58000 mg/ L Koc Koc 24 mg/ L average of range 19 34; MRID 00161884 Photolysis half life kdp 3 days MRID 00161885 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 7 days MRID 43325401; 90th c. b. 4, 5 Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 28 days MRID 41384301, supported by supplemental data; 2x anaerobic soil metabolism Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 79 days 90% upper c. b. of 2 studies ( 14, 46) ( MRIDs 008568, 43217901) Hydrolysis: pH 5 stable ( 0) days MRID 00131249 Hydrolysis: pH 7 stable ( 0) days MRID 00131249 Hydrolysis: pH 9 30 days MRID 00131249 Method: CAM 2 integer aerial/ foliar Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm II. D. 5  Page 4 of 5 Table II. D. 5.6. Oxamyl fate and transport properties Property/ Parameter PRZM Variable Name Value Units Comments / References Molecular weight mwt 219 g/ mol Henry's Law Const. henry 2.38E 07 atmm 3/ mol Vapor Pressure vapr 3.80E 07 torr Solubility sol 280000 mg/ L Koc Koc 6 mL/ g Mean Koc of 9 soils ( Acc. No. 154748 ( s), 40494( s) Photolysis half life kdp 11 days MRID 406065 15; Acc. No. 40494 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 40 days No data; assume 2X aer soil met half life Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 7 days MRID 428200 01 ( c), 413462 01 ( s), Acc. No. 4094 ( s), 113366 ( s) Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 20 days MRID 428200 01 ( c), 413462 01 ( s), Acc. No. 63012 ( c), 40494 ( s), 154748 ( s) Hydrolysis: pH 5 stable days MRID 40605 16( c), ACC No. 40494 ( s) Hydrolysis: pH 7 8 days MRID 40605 16( c), ACC No. 40494 ( s) Hydrolysis: pH 9 0.13 days MRID 40605 16( c), ACC No. 40494 ( s) Method: CAM 2 integer Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm II. D. 5  Page 5 of 5 Table II. D. 5.7. Thiodicarb fate and transport properties Property/ Parameter PRZM Variable Name Value Units Comments / References Molecular weight mwt 354.46 g/ mol Henry's Law Const. henry 1.10E 06 atmm 3/ mol Vapor Pressure vapr 4.30E 05 torr Solubility sol 19 mg/ L Koc Koc 485 mL/ g average Photolysis half life kdp 8 days Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 3 days No data available; 2X aer soil met halflife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0.375 days Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 1.5 days Hydrolysis: pH 5 78 days Hydrolysis: pH 7 32 days Hydrolysis: pH 9 0.50 days Method: CAM 2 integer Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm NOTES Model methomyl as degradate w/ 80% conversion Take thiodicarb app rate * 0.80 ( conversion based on soil metabolism studies). Shift app date + 2 days ( asm half life); no drift since this is transformation after app only


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 50 (Thursday, March 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14106-14108]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05262]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0131]

Pipeline Safety: Deactivation of Threats

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice; issuance of advisory bulletin.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is issuing this Advisory Bulletin to inform owners and
operators of gas transmission pipelines that PHMSA has developed
guidance on threat identification and the minimum criteria for
deactivation of threats, as established by a previously issued rule.
This Advisory Bulletin also provides guidance to gas transmission
pipeline operators regarding documenting their rationale of analyses,
justifications, determinations, and decisions related to threat
deactivation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allan Beshore by phone at (816) 329-
3811 or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All materials in this docket
may be accessed electronically at http://www.regulations.gov.
Information about PHMSA may be found at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    A critical element in an integrity management (IM) program is the
identification of threats to pipeline integrity. As required by section
192.911(c), an IM program must contain ``[a]n identification of threats
to each covered pipeline segment, which must include data integration
and a risk assessment. An operator must use the threat identification
and risk assessment to prioritize covered segments for assessment
(section 192.917) and to evaluate the merits of additional preventive
measures and mitigative measures (section 192.935) for each covered
segment.'' Further requirements detailed in section 192.921(a) state,
``[a]n operator must select the [assessment] method or methods best
suited to address the threats identified to the covered segment.'' The
threats to a particular pipeline segment dictate the type of
assessments the operator must perform to fulfill the requirements of
section 192.921(a).
    According to the Standard established by the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME), ASME B31.8S-2004, Section 2.2, an operator
must consider nine individual threat categories as part of an IM
program. As stated by ASME B31.8S-2004, Section 5.10, an IM program
should provide criteria for eliminating a threat from consideration
during a risk assessment; however, 49 CFR part 192--Subpart O does not
include provisions for the permanent elimination of threats. An
operator, therefore, must continually consider all threats in the
evaluation of their IM program through periodic reviews and
assessments, as required by section 192.937.
    PHMSA acknowledges that threats may be categorized as active,
requiring an integrity assessment, or inactive, meaning that during a
specific assessment cycle the threat does not trigger an integrity
assessment, per section 192.921(a). Operators, however, must understand
that threats to a pipeline are not static, but vary over time. Changes
in threats can occur suddenly, as in the case of catastrophic outside
forces like hurricanes, earthquakes, or down-slope land movements, or
they can be gradual changes, such as the introduction of new wet-
production gas sources into a previously dry gas environment. Issues
may also develop into active threats over time, such as coating
degradation that allows stress corrosion cracking or external corrosion
to develop. In other cases, threats may become inactive over time due
to pipeline replacement programs, the implementation of effective
preventative actions, or other improvements to systems.
    The periodic review required by section 192.937 for a mature IM
plan must include the re-analysis of the nine threat categories to
determine status changes for active or inactive threats. An operator
must continually monitor operations and maintenance (O&M) and other
activities, integrating relevant information during a threat analysis
that might indicate a change in the status of a threat. Some operators
inappropriately label threats as inactive after they are eliminated
from consideration during prior reviews and assessments, ignoring the
continuous supply of new information provided during routine O&M
activities.
    Some operators have opted to eliminate threats from consideration
based on a lack of data, including missing, incomplete, or
unsubstantiated data. Using insufficient data to eliminate a threat is
not technically justified and is contrary to the guidance in ASME
B31.8S-2004, Appendices A1-A9. Each of these appendices includes
language that states, ``[w]here the operator is missing data,
conservative assumptions shall be used when performing the risk
assessment or, alternatively, the segment shall be prioritized
higher.'' Additionally, section 192.947(d) requires that operators
maintain, ``[d]ocuments to support any decision, analysis and process
developed and used to implement and evaluate each element of the
baseline assessment plan and integrity management program.'' Section
192.947(d) further states, ``[d]ocuments include those developed and
used in support of any identification, calculation, amendment,
modification, justification, deviation and determination made, and any
action taken to implement and evaluate any of the program elements.''
    PHMSA provides the following guidance for determining the active or
inactive status of the nine threat categories, with the understanding
that the status of a threat will change over time:

Time-Dependent Threats

1. External Corrosion
    For steel pipelines, the threat of external corrosion may never be
eliminated.
2. Internal Corrosion
    An operator should consider the past operational history of the
pipeline, including, but not limited to: Upset conditions, gas
monitoring (including partial-pressure analysis), bacterial culture
tests, flow direction and rates, gas sources, solid and liquid
analyses, critical angles and liquid holdup points, pigging and other
cleaning history, the presence of internal coatings, chemical

treatments, and internal pipeline inspection reports.
    After consideration of operational history and supporting
documentation, the threat of internal corrosion may be deemed inactive
if:
    i. It can be demonstrated that a corrosive gas is not being
transported, per section 192.475(a);
    ii. In-line inspection data confirms that a corrosive environment
does not exist within the pipeline; or
    iii. Application of internal corrosion direct assessment (ICDA)
demonstrates that there is no internal corrosion occurring at the most
likely locations, and is accompanied by sufficient documentation to
demonstrate the assumptions used with the ICDA model (normally dry gas
with occasional upsets) are valid for the pipeline's entire operating
history.
    The threat of internal corrosion should be considered active if:
    i. Production, storage, or non-pipeline-quality gas was transported
at any time during the history of the pipeline;
    ii. The pipeline has been converted from another type of service
that is susceptible to internal corrosion;
    iii. Unmonitored or inoperative drips, siphons, dead legs, or other
liquid holdup points are present anywhere in the pipeline;
    iv. There is evidence that liquids from drips, siphons, dead legs,
or other liquid holdup points are present anywhere in the pipeline;
    v. Pipe inspection reports, as required by section 192.475(b),
indicate evidence of internal corrosion; or
    vi. The operator does not have a complete pipeline operating
history.
3. Stress Corrosion Cracking
    The threat of stress corrosion cracking (SCC) should always be
considered active. The operator must continually inspect the pipeline
for the presence of SCC during pipeline examination, as required by
section 192.459.

Static or Stable Threats

4. Manufacturing
    There is substantial guidance provided in the original Gas
Transmission IM protocols (e.g. Protocol C.01 Threat Identification),
part 192--subpart O, ASME B31.8S-2004, and the PHMSA Gas Transmission
IM FAQs (e.g., 219, 220, 221, and 231) regarding the deactivation of
manufacturing threats for a segment for any given assessment cycle.
Some of this guidance includes FAQ 219 (manufacturing and construction
(M&C) defects when subpart J tested), FAQ 220 (M&C defects when never
subpart J tested), and FAQ 231 (5-year operating history).
    Additionally, section 192.917(e)(3) provides guidance for
determining when a manufacturing threat is active. Section
192.917(e)(3) states, ``[i]f any of the following changes occur in the
covered segment, an operator must prioritize the covered segment as a
high-risk segment for the baseline assessment or a subsequent
reassessment.
    i. Operating pressure increases above the maximum operating
pressure experienced during the preceding five years;
    ii. MAOP increases; or
    iii. The stresses leading to cyclic fatigue increase.''
5. Construction
    There is substantial guidance provided in the original Gas
Transmission IM protocols, part 192--subpart O, ASME B31.8S-2004, and
the PHMSA Gas Transmission IM FAQs regarding deactivation of
construction threats for a segment for any given assessment cycle. Some
of this guidance includes FAQ 219 (M&C defects when subpart J tested),
FAQ 220 (M&C defects when never subpart J tested), and FAQ 231 (5-year
operating history).
    Section 192.917(e)(3) provides guidance for determining when a
construction threat is active, stating, ``[i]f any of the following
changes occur in the covered segment, an operator must prioritize the
covered segment as a high-risk segment for the baseline assessment or a
subsequent reassessment:
    i. Operating pressure increases above the maximum operating
pressure experienced during the preceding five years;
    ii. MAOP increases; or
    iii. The stresses leading to cyclic fatigue increase.''
6. Equipment
    An equipment threat is defined in ASME B31.8S-2004, Appendix A6.1,
as pressure control equipment, relief equipment, gaskets, O-rings,
seal/pump packing, or any equipment other than pipe and pipe
components. The equipment threat may be inactive depending on an
operator's history and review of the records, as required by sections
192.613, 192.617, 192.603, 192.605, 192.739, and 192.743. Operating
history, failures, and abnormal operations records should be evaluated
by integrity personnel to assist in determining trends and issues that
may not be recognized by local or other operations personnel.
    As identified in ASME B31.8S-2004, Appendix A6.4, assessments for
equipment threats are normally conducted during maintenance activities,
per the requirements of the O&M procedures. Monitoring the data from
operating history and failures is essential for identifying trends
related to this threat. Communication between O&M and integrity
personnel is a key component to integrating this threat, as well as the
potential increased risk that it poses to pipeline segments, into risk
assessments.
    Preventative measures and mitigative measures are an important
factor in maintaining the inactive status of equipment threats. For
example, recognizing a system-wide problem with set point drift in a
particular regulator may necessitate a shorter maintenance cycle or the
replacement of the in-service regulators impacted by this problem.

Time Independent Threats

7. Third-Party Damage
    The third-party threat should never be considered inactive.
8. Incorrect Operations
    Incorrect operations are defined in ASME B31.8S-2004, Appendix
A8.1, as incorrect operating procedures or failure to follow a
procedure. This threat should always be considered active.
9. Weather-Related and Outside Forces
    Weather-related and outside forces are defined in ASME B31.8S-2004,
Appendix A9.1, as earth movement, heavy rains or floods, cold weather
and lightning, or events that may cause pipe to be susceptible to
extreme loading. This threat should always be considered active.

Cyclic Fatigue

    In addition to the nine threats referenced in ASME B31.8S-2004,
Sec.  192.917(e)(2) states, ``[a]n operator must evaluate whether
cyclic fatigue or other loading condition (including ground movement,
suspension bridge condition) could lead to a failure or a deformation,
including a dent or gouge, or other defect in the covered segment. An
evaluation must assume the presence of threats in the covered segment
that could be exacerbated by cyclic fatigue. An operator must use the
results from the evaluation together with the criteria used to evaluate
the significance of this threat to the covered segment to prioritize
the integrity baseline assessment or reassessment.''
    Cyclic fatigue is a concern because it is a threat that interacts
with all other threats. Interactive threats are two or more threats
acting on a pipeline or pipeline segment that increase the

probability of failure to a level significantly greater than the
effects of the individual threats acting alone. In order to manage
cyclic fatigue, therefore, operators must have system-specific data
applicable to their unique operating environment to justify the
inactive status of the cyclic fatigue threat. A system-wide or generic
study of cyclic fatigue may be used by an operator as long as the
operator documents why the study is applicable to the segment-specific
conditions.

II. Advisory Bulletin (ADB-2017-01)

To: Owners and Operators of Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines
Subject: Deactivation of Threats

    Advisory: The threats identified in ASME B31.8S-2004 may be
considered active or inactive, but are never permanently eliminated.
ASME B31.8S-2004, Appendix A, identifies the information an operator
must collect and analyze for threats, which must demonstrate an
individual threat is not acting on the pipe before an operator can
properly declare the threat inactive for each assessment period. A
threat must be considered active if any data required by Appendix A is
missing, as lack of data indicating the existence of a threat is not
acceptable justification for considering the threat inactive. Documents
to support the determination of an inactive threat status must be
maintained, as per the requirements of Sec.  192.947(d). An operator
does not need to assess a threat for the current assessment cycle if
that threat is properly deemed inactive. When conditions warrant a
review or new information becomes available during the required Sec.
192.937 evaluation operators are required to examine each applicable
threat to determine its active or inactive status.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 9, 2017, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2017-05262 Filed 3-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 111]
[FR Doc No: 2017-28277]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-494-000]

Beech Ridge Energy II Holdings LLC; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Beech Ridge Energy II Holdings LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is January 15, 2018.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected]. or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 26, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-28277 Filed 12-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 22)]
[Notices]
[Page 5047]
[DOCID:fr02fe07-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD06-9-000]

RTO Border Utility Issues; Notice of Technical Conference on
Seams Issues for RTOs and ISOs in the Eastern Interconnection

January 25, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 29, 2007, at 9 a.m. (EST), the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission will convene a technical conference on RTO
and ISO seams issues in the Eastern Interconnection. Members of the
public are welcome to attend, and no pre-registration is required. The
conference will be held at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    In a Commission proceeding in 2006, parties raised the issue of an
electric utility's ability to benefit from an RTO/ISO's transmission
system, markets and reliability investments while avoiding some or all
of the costs attributable to membership in the RTO/ISO. The Commission
found that this issue raised ``generic concerns with implications
applicable to all RTOs and ISOs and to all market participants with
whom they interact, whether directly or indirectly.'' \1\ The
Commission then announced its intention to establish a technical
conference to hear from interested parties concerning this issue and
other issues involving seams between RTO/ISOs and companies on their
borders. Subsequently, the Commission determined that the western seams
agenda should proceed on a separate track and held a technical
conference on seams issues in the Western Interconnection in December
2006. Also, Commission staff heard concerns about seams issues between
RTO/ISO markets in the Eastern Interconnection region. Hence, we have
determined that the technical conference should include discussion of
the broader range of RTO/ISO seams issues, but limited to the Eastern
Interconnection. The Commission invites representatives of all regions
to participate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Louisville Gas and Electric Company, et al., 114 FERC ]
61,282 (2006) at P 64-65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is now soliciting nominations for speakers at the
technical conference. Persons wishing to nominate themselves as
speakers should do so using this electronic link: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/rto-03-29-speaker-form.asp.
 Such nominations

must be made before the close of business, February 16, 2007 so that an
agenda for the technical conference can be drafted and published.
    An agenda will be issued prior to the conference. You may use the
Commission's e-subscription service to be notified of future notices in
this proceeding. Please visit http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
.

    A free webcast of this event will be available through
http://www.ferc.gov. Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this

event can do so by navigating to http://www.ferc.gov's Calendar of

Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain
a link to its Webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical
support for the webcasts. It also offers access to open meetings via
television in the DC area and via phone bridge for a fee. Visit http://www.CapitolConnection.org
 or contact Danelle Perkowski or David

Reininger at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free<PHONE_NUMBER>
(voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER> with the
required accommodations.
    For further information on this conference, please contact: Udi
Helman, Office of Energy Markets and Reliability, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
202-502-8080<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-1667 Filed 2-1-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 66)]
[Notices]
[Page 15980-15981]
[DOCID:fr08ap09-60]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0207; FRL-8408-4]

Petition Requesting Cancellation of Propoxur Pet Collar Uses;
Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is seeking public comment on a November 26, 2007 petition
from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), requesting that the
Agency cancel propoxur pet collar uses. The petitioner, NRDC, requests
this action because they believe that modifications to the non-dietary
oral exposure pathway presented in the Revised N-methyl Carbamate (NMC)
Cumulative Risk Assessment (CRA) underestimate exposure to propoxur
from pet collar uses.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0207, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2009-0207. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Monica Wait, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA requests public comment during the next 60 days on a petition
received from the NRDC requesting that the Agency cancel all pet collar
uses for the pesticide propoxur. NRDC submitted a petition dated
November 26, 2007 as a public comment to the Revised N-methyl Carbamate
Cumulative Risk Assessment docket (available under docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0935). NRDC claims that the NMC CRA underestimates
exposure to propoxur from pet collar uses, that there are effective
alternatives to this use, and therefore, EPA should cancel all pet
collar uses for propoxur. NRDC states that exposure levels from pet
collars for household children may be significantly higher than EPA
estimates through common daily activities and intimate contact between
children and pets. NRDC cites specific revised hand-to-mouth exposure
parameters and claims that these revisions to the NMC CRA non-dietary
exposure assessment are biased towards reducing the exposure estimate,
making it appear that the pet collar uses do not exceed the Agency's
level of concern.
    EPA's 1997 Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Propoxur
is available on EPA's pesticide webpage at http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/reregistration/status.htm. The 2007 NMC CRA, related
documents, and comments are available in the electronic docket at
http://www.regulations.gov/ and can be found under the docket number
provided in the paragraph above.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Natural Resources Defense Council,
pesticides and pests, propoxur.

    Dated: March 25, 2009.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E9-7991 Filed 4-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: October 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 204)]
[Notices]
[Page 62579-62581]
[DOCID:fr21oc08-117]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58770; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-103]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Its
Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services That Apply to the
Primary Only Plus Order

October 10, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 29, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NYSE Arca proposes to add new fees to the Schedule of Fees and
Charges for Exchange Services (the ``Schedule'') that apply to the new
Primary Only Plus (``PO+'') Order type. The text of the proposed rule
change is available at NYSE Arca, the Commission's Public Reference
Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange recently filed for approval by the Commission a new
order type known as the PO+ Order.\5\ The PO+ Order is an enhanced
version of the Primary Only (``PO'') Order, which is a market or limit
order that is routed to the primary, listing market, without sweeping
the NYSE Arca book.\6\ PO Orders are a form of directed order, and are
only eligible for participation in the primary listing market's
opening. The PO+ Order allows Equity Trading Permit (``ETP'') Holders
to route an order to the primary listing market at any time during the
primary market's trading session. The PO+ Order is intended to provide
additional flexibility and increased system functionality for NYSE Arca
Users \7\ by modifying the operability and eligibility of PO Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58431 (August 27,
2008), 73 FR 51681 (September 4, 2008) (notice of filing for SR-
NYSEArca-2008-90).
    \6\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(x).
    \7\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(yy) for the definition of
``User.'' Under Rule 1.1(yy), the term User means any ETP Holder or
Sponsored Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the NYSE
Marketplace pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.29. PO Orders,
similar to all other order types offered by the Exchange, are
available only to authorized Users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In anticipation of the approval of the PO Plus Order type filing by
the Commission, the Exchange proposes to add new fees to the Schedule.
The proposal establishes a fee of $0.0008 for PO+ Orders routed to the
NYSE during the core trading session that remove liquidity from the
NYSE Order Book. No fee will be charged for Primary Only (``PO'') and
PO+ Orders routed to the NYSE for participation in the opening.
Additionally, there will be no fee charged for PO+ Orders routed to the
NYSE that provide liquidity the NYSE Order Book. The Exchange proposes
a $0.0004 per share fee for PO+ Market-On-Close and Limit-On-Close
Orders routed to the NYSE. Finally, the Exchange proposes a $0.0004 per
share fee for odd-lots and partial odd-lots in PO Orders and PO+ Orders
routed to the NYSE.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees will foster additional
flexibility and increased system functionality for NYSE Arca Users. The
Exchange further believes that the proposed fees and credits are
reasonable and that the proposed changes to the Schedule are equitable
in that they apply uniformly to our Users.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it is designed to
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees and credits are
reasonable. The proposed rates further the objectives of Regulation NMS
by promoting competition and granting fair and equal access to all
exchange participants. The Exchange also believes that the proposed
changes to the Schedule are equitable in that they apply uniformly to
our Users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    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 proposed rule change is effective upon filing
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder,\11\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee,
or other charge applicable only to a member imposed by the Exchange. At
any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSEArca-2008-103 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-NYSEArca-2008-103. 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 inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-103 and should be submitted on or before
November 12, 2008.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-24739 Filed 10-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P