[Federal Register: June 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 109)]
[Notices]
[Page 27358-27359]
[DOCID:fr09jn09-144]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, June
11, 2009 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(5),
(7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at
the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
June 11, 2009 will be:
    institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
    other matters related to enforcement proceedings.

    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: June 4, 2009.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-13547 Filed 6-5-09; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23950-23951]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09515]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12740-008]

Jordan Hydroelectric Limited Partnership, Virginia; Notice of
Application for Amendment of License, Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Proceeding: Amendment of License.
    b. Project No.: 12740-008.
    c. Date Filed: March 10, 2021.
    d. Licensee: Jordan Hydroelectric Limited Partnership, Virginia.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On March 12, 2021, subsequent to filing the amendment
application, Jordan Hydroelectric Limited Partnership and Flannagan
Hydro, LLC filed an Application for Approval of Transfer of License.
Commission staff is reviewing the transfer of license under a
separate proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    e. Name of Project: Flannagan Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located at the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' (Corps) John W. Flannagan Dam and Reservoir, which is on the
Pound River, near the Town of Clintwood, in Dickenson County, Virginia.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Licensee Contact: Mr. James B. Price, President, General Partner
Jordan Hydroelectric Limited Partnership, P.O. Box 903 Gatlinburg, TN
37738,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Jeremy Jessup,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests, is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the
Commission.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-12740-008. Comments emailed to Commission staff
are not considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: The applicant proposes to redesign the

project to have four smaller Turgo-type turbine-generators in lieu of
the approved two Francis-type turbine-generators. The design change
would decrease the project capacity from 1.8 megawatts (MW) to 1.4 MW
and decreases the hydraulic capacity from 180 cubic feet per second
(cfs) to 150 cfs. The licensee states that this redesign will better
align with the existing features of the Flannagan Dam and produce more
energy on a yearly basis than the previous design. The licensee states
that it is not proposing changes to any other aspects of the project
and that the environmental impact of the project will not change from
previously analyzed.
    l. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. Agencies may
obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.

    Dated: April 29, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-09515 Filed 5-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12770-12775]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05322]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77292; File No. SR-ISEMercury-2016-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Mercury, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Establish the
Schedule of Fees

March 4, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'' or ``Exchange Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\
notice is hereby given that on February 18, 2016, ISE Mercury, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or ``ISE Mercury'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change, as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    ISE Mercury proposes to establish a Schedule of Fees by adopting
fees and rebates for all Regular Orders in standard options traded on
ISE Mercury, and adopting route-out fees and marketing fees. The text
of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Internet Web
site at http://www.ise.com, at the principal office of the Exchange,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule filing is to establish a Schedule
of Fees by adopting fees and rebates for Regular Orders \3\ in standard
options traded on ISE Mercury, and adopting route-out fees and
marketing fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Regular Order is an order that consists of only a single
option series and is not submitted with a stock leg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regular Order Fees and Rebates
    The Exchange proposes to assess per contract transaction fees and
rebates in all option classes traded on the Exchange to market
participants that trade on the Exchange. The fees and rebates depend on
the category of market participant submitting orders to the Exchange
and the type of orders submitted to the Exchange.
    The proposed Schedule of Fees identifies the following categories
of market participants: (1) Market Maker; \4\ (2) Non-ISE Mercury
Market Maker; \5\ (3) Firm Proprietary \6\/Broker-Dealer; \7\ (4)
Professional Customer; \8\ (5) Priority

Customer; \9\ and (6) Retail.\10\ The fees and rebates to be assessed
for Regular Orders in standard options that are in the Penny Pilot \11\
are: (1) $0.20 fee per contract for Market Maker orders,\12\ (2) $0.47
fee per contract for Non-ISE Mercury Market Maker, Firm Proprietary/
Broker-Dealer, and Professional Customer orders; and (3) ($0.18) rebate
per contract for Priority Customer orders. The transaction fees and
rebates to be assessed for Regular Orders in standard options that are
not in the Penny Pilot are: (1) $0.20 fee per contract for Market Maker
orders; (2) $0.90 fee per contract for Non-ISE Mercury Market Maker,
Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer, and Professional Customer orders; and
(3) ($0.18) rebate per contract for Priority Customer orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term Market Makers refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. Market Maker
orders sent to the Exchange by an Electronic Access Member are
assessed fees at the same level as Market Maker orders.
    \5\ A Non-ISE Mercury Market Maker, or Far Away Market Maker
(``FARMM''), is a market maker as defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (``Exchange Act''),
registered in the same options class on another options exchange.
    \6\ A Firm Proprietary order is an order submitted by a member
for its own proprietary account.
    \7\ A Broker-Dealer order is an order submitted by a member for
a non-member broker-dealer account.
    \8\ A Professional Customer is a person who is not a broker/
dealer and is not a Priority Customer.
    \9\ A Priority Customer is a person or entity that is not a
broker/dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders
in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its
own beneficial account(s).
    \10\ A Retail order is a Priority Customer order that originates
from a natural person, provided that no change is made to the terms
of the order with respect to price or side of market and the order
does not originate from a trading algorithm or any other
computerized methodology. On ISE Mercury, Retail orders will be
charged the same fee and receive the same rebate as Priority
Customer orders.
    \11\ Under the Penny Pilot, the minimum price variation for all
participating options classes, except for the Nasdaq-100 Index
Tracking Stock (``QQQ''), the SPDR S&P 500 Exchange Traded Fund
(``SPY'') and the iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund (``IWM''), is
$0.01 for all quotations in options series that are quoted at less
than $3 per contract and $0.05 for all quotations in options series
that are quoted at $3 per contract or greater. The proposed fees and
rebates for Penny Pilot symbols apply to all classes in the Penny
Pilot, i.e., to series that are quoted at less than $3 that have a
minimum price variation of $0.01 and to series that are quoted at $3
or more that have an minimum price variation of $0.05. QQQ, SPY, and
IWM are quoted in $0.01 increments for all options series.
    \12\ This fee applies to ISE Mercury Market Maker orders sent to
the Exchange by Electronic Access Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fees and rebates noted above also apply to orders that are
exposed at the National Best Bid or Offer (NBBO) by the Exchange
(``Flash Order'').\13\ When ISE Mercury is not at the NBBO, certain
orders are exposed to members to give them an opportunity to match the
NBBO before those orders are sent for execution pursuant to intermarket
linkage rules. For all Flash Orders, the Exchange will charge the
applicable fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See ISE Mercury Rule 1901, Supplementary Material .02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt a fee of $0.20 per contract for
Crossing Orders \14\ in all symbols traded on the Exchange for all
market participants, except Priority Customers who will be charged
$0.00 per contract for Crossing Orders. A Crossing Order is an order
executed in the Exchange's Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order
Mechanism, Price Improvement Mechanism (``PIM''), or submitted as a
Qualified Contingent Cross order. Orders executed in the Block Order
Mechanism are also considered Crossing Orders. As an exception to the
fees for Crossing Orders, the Exchange proposes to adopt a fee of $0.05
per contract for PIM orders of 500 or fewer contracts in all symbols
traded on the Exchange for all market participants, except that
Priority Customer orders on the originating side of a PIM auction will
receive a rebate of ($0.13) per contract. Priority Customer orders on
the contra-side of a PIM auction will pay no fee and receive no rebate.
PIM orders greater than 500 contracts will pay the Fee for Crossing
Orders, described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ These fees apply to both originating and contra orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed Fees for Crossing Orders are
competitive with fees charged by other options exchanges that have
functionality for crossing orders. For example, International
Securities Exchange, LLC's (``ISE'') \15\ and ISE Gemini, LLC's (``ISE
Gemini'') \16\ Fees for Crossing Orders in all symbols are almost
identical to those charged by ISE Mercury in all symbols. Additionally,
ISE Mercury's Fees for PIM Orders of 500 or Fewer Contracts are similar
to ISE's Fee for PIM Orders of 100 or Fewer Contracts,\17\ except that
Priority Customers on ISE Mercury receive a rebate rather than not
being charged. Rebates for orders of 500 contracts or fewer are
designed to increase Priority Customer order flow to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See ISE Fee Schedule, I. Regular Order Fees and Rebates,
Fee for Crossing Orders at http://www.ise.com/assets/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/ISE_fee_schedule.pdf.
    \16\ See ISE Gemini Fee Schedule, I. Regular Order Fees and
Rebates, Fee for Crossing Orders at http://www.ise.com/assets/gemini/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/Gemini_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
    \17\ See ISE Fee Schedule, I. Regular Order Fees and Rebates,
Fee for PIM Orders of 100 or Fewer Contracts at http://www.ise.com/assets/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/ISE_fee_schedule.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to adopt Fees for Responses to Crossing
Orders. A Response to a Crossing Order is any contra-side interest
(i.e., orders and quotes) submitted after the commencement of an
auction in the Exchange's Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order
Mechanism, Block Order Mechanism, or PIM. The Exchange proposes to
adopt a fee of (1) $0.20 per contract for Market Maker orders and (2)
$0.50 per contract for Non-ISE Mercury Market Maker, Firm Proprietary/
Broker-Dealer, Professional Customer, and Priority Customer orders.
    The Exchange also believes the proposed fees for Responses to
Crossing Orders are competitive with fees charged by other options
exchanges that have functionality for crossing orders. ISE Mercury's
Fees for Responses to Crossing Orders in all symbols are in line with
those on ISE,\18\ except that ISE Mercury offers a reduced fee to
Market Makers because they have requirements and obligations to the
Exchange that the other market participants do not (such as quoting
requirements). Market Makers are also charged Marketing Fees, discussed
below, which are not assessed to other market participants. The
Exchange therefore believes it is appropriate to charge these fees for
Responses to Crossing Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See id. at I. Regular Order Fees and Rebates, Fee for
Responses to Crossing Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Route-Out Fees
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a Route-Out Fee of $0.55 per
contract for executions of all market participant orders for standard
options in symbols that are in the Penny Pilot that are routed to one
or more exchanges in connection with the Options Order Protection and
Locked/Crossed Market Plan. The Exchange further proposes to adopt a
Route-Out Fee of $0.96 per contract for executions of all market
participant orders for standard options in symbols that are not in the
Penny Pilot that are routed to one or more exchanges in connection with
the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan. No
additional transaction fees are added to the Route-Out Fees, unlike
other exchanges, which, in addition to a fixed route-out fee, assess
the actual transaction fees charged by the exchange the order is routed
to.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See MIAX Fee Schedule, (1) Transaction Fees, (c) Fees and
Rebates for Customer Orders Routed to Another Options Exchange at
https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/MIAX_Options_Fee_Schedule_02012016B.pdf and PHLX Fee Schedule, V.
Routing Fees, at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=phlxpricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Route-Out Fees offset costs incurred by the Exchange in
connection with using unaffiliated broker-dealers to access other
exchanges for linkage executions and are therefore appropriate because
market participants that are submitting these orders can route them
directly to away exchanges, if desired, and should not be able to forgo
an away market fee by directing their orders to the Exchange. The
Exchange therefore believes it is appropriate to charge these orders
the proposed fee in order to

recoup costs associated with routing out these orders.
Marketing Fees
    The Exchange proposes Marketing Fees that help its Market Makers
establish marketing fee arrangements with Electronic Access Members
(``EAM'') in exchange for EAMs routing some or all of their order flow
to those Market Makers. This program is funded through a fee paid by
Exchange Market Makers for each Priority Customer contract they execute
against in the symbols that are subject to their respective Marketing
Fees.\20\ In particular, ISE Mercury proposes to charge Market Makers
$0.25 per contract for options classes that are in the Penny Pilot and
$0.70 per contract for options classes not in the Penny Pilot when
trading against a Priority Customer order.\21\ These fees are the same
as those charged by NASDAQ OMX PHLX (``PHLX''),\22\ which calls these
fees Payment for Order Flow Fees. The Exchange believes these fees are
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Marketing Fees apply to ISE Mercury Market Makers for each
Regular Priority Customer contract executed. Marketing Fees are
waived for Flash Order responses.
    \21\ These Marketing Fees will be rebated proportionately to the
members that paid the fee such that on a monthly basis the marketing
fee fund balance administered by a Primary Market Maker for a group
of options established under Rule 802(b) does not exceed $100,000
and the marketing fee fund balance administered by a preferenced
Competitive Market Maker for such a Group does not exceed $100,000.
A preferenced Competitive Market Maker that elects not to administer
a fund will not be charged the marketing fee. The Exchange also
assesses an administrative fee of .45% on the total amount of the
fund collected each month.
    \22\ See PHLX Fee Schedule, II. Multiply Listed Options Fees,
Payment For Order Flow Fees at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=phlxpricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FINRA Web CRD Fees
    The Exchange proposes to adopt regulatory fees related to Web CRD,
which are collected by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(``FINRA'') (``FINRA Web CRD Fees'').\23\ The proposed fees are
collected and retained by FINRA via Web CRD for the registration of
employees of ISE Mercury members that are not FINRA members (``Non-
FINRA members''). The Exchange is merely listing these fees on its
Schedule of Fees. The Exchange does not collect or retain these fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ FINRA operates Web CRD, the central licensing and
registration system for the U.S. securities industry. FINRA uses Web
CRD to maintain the qualification, employment and disciplinary
histories of registered associated persons of broker-dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FINRA Web CRD Fees listed on the ISE Mercury Schedule of Fees
consists of General Registration Fees of $100 (for each initial Form U4
filed for the registration of a representative or principal), $110 (for
the additional processing of each initial or amended Form U4, Form U5
or Form BD that includes the initial reporting, amendment or
certification of one of more disclosure events or proceedings), and $45
(annual system processing fee assessed only during renewals). The FINRA
Web CRD Fees also consist of Fingerprint Processing Fees for the
initial, second and third submissions. There is a separate fee for
electronic submissions and paper submissions. The initial electronic
and paper submission fees are $27.75 and $42.75, respectively. The
second electronic and paper submission fees are $15.00 and $30.00,
respectively. The third electronic and paper submission fees are $27.75
and $42.75, respectively. Finally, there is a $30 processing fee for
fingerprint results submitted by self-regulatory organizations other
than FINRA. The FINRA Web CRD Fees are user-based and there is no
distinction in the cost incurred by FINRA if the user is a FINRA member
or a Non-FINRA member. Accordingly, the proposed fees mirror those
currently assessed by FINRA.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67247 (June 25,
2012), 77 FR 38866 (June 29, 2012) (SR-FINRA-2012-030) (the ``FINRA
Fee Filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\25\ in general, and
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\26\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the fees proposed for transactions on ISE
Mercury are reasonable. ISE Mercury will operate within a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily send order
flow to any of the thirteen other competing venues if they deem fees at
a particular venue to be excessive. The proposed fee structure is
intended to attract order flow to ISE Mercury by offering certain
market participants incentives to submit their orders to ISE Mercury.
Regular Order Fees and Rebates
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to assess a per contract
fee or rebate for Market Maker, Non-ISE Mercury Market Maker, Firm
Proprietary/Broker-Dealer, Professional Customer, and Priority Customer
orders is reasonable and equitable because the proposed fees are within
the range of fees assessed by other exchanges employing similar pricing
schemes. For example, the fees in the Penny Pilot on ISE Mercury for
all market participants, except Priority Customers, are similar to the
non-Priority Customer fees charged on PHLX,\27\ which range from $0.22
to $0.49 \28\ per contract. Further, the rebate provided for Priority
Customer orders on ISE Mercury is competitive with the rebates offered
by MIAX Options Exchange (``MIAX'') in its Priority Customer Rebate
Program. MIAX offers members a per contract rebate as high as ($0.24)
in MIAX select symbols and ($0.21) in non-MIAX select symbols for
Priority Customer orders when the member reaches MIAX's highest rebate
tier.\29\ Additionally, the fees for symbols not in the Penny Pilot for
Non-ISE Mercury Market Maker, Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer, and
Professional Customer orders are similar to those on ISE Gemini, which
are $0.89 per contract.\30\ The Exchange believes the proposed fees and
rebates are not unfairly discriminatory because they would apply
uniformly to similarly situated market participants and they are
competitive with the fees charged by other exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See PHLX Fee Schedule, II. Multiply Listed Options Fees, at
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=phlxpricing.
    \28\ See id. at I. Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing
Liquidity in SPY, Part A. Simple Order.
    \29\ See MIAX Fee Schedule, (1) Transaction Fees, (a) Exchange
Fees, (iii) Priority Customer Rebate program at https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/MIAX_Options_Fee_Schedule_01012015C.pdf.
    \30\ See ISE Gemini Fee Schedule, I. Regular Order Fees and
Rebates, Non-Penny Symbols, Taker Fee Tiers 1-4 at http://www.ise.com/assets/gemini/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/Gemini_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed Fees for Crossing Orders are
reasonable and equitably allocated because the proposed fees are also
within the range of fees assessed by other exchanges. For example,
ISE's \31\ and ISE Gemini's \32\ Fees for Crossing Orders in all
symbols are almost identical to those proposed by ISE Mercury. Further,
the Exchange believes the proposed Fee for Crossing Orders is not
unfairly discriminatory because it would uniformly apply to all market
participants, except Priority Customers, who historically have paid

lower fees than other market participants as an incentive to attract
that order flow to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See ISE Fee Schedule, I. Regular Order Fees and Rebates,
Fee for Crossing Orders at http://www.ise.com/assets/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/ISE_fee_schedule.pdf.
    \32\ See ISE Gemini Fee Schedule, I. Regular Order Fees and
Rebates, Fee for Crossing Orders at http://www.ise.com/assets/gemini/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/Gemini_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed Fees for PIM Orders of 500 or
Fewer Contracts are reasonable and equitably allocated because the
proposed fees are also within the range of fees assessed by other
exchanges. ISE Mercury's Fee for PIM Orders of 500 or Fewer Contracts
are the same as ISE's Fee for PIM Orders of 100 or Fewer Contracts,\33\
except that Priority Customers orders on ISE Mercury receive a rebate
while ISE does not charge a fee for Priority Customer orders. For
example, in all symbols, ISE charges $0.05 for all non-Priority
Customers orders and does not charge a fee for Priority Customer
orders. While ISE Mercury's rebate is specifically targeted towards
Priority Customer orders, the Exchange does not believe that this is
unfairly discriminatory. Priority Customer orders on the Exchange are
generally entitled to lower or no fees and the Exchange believes that
attracting more liquidity from Priority Customers will benefit all
market participants that trade on ISE Mercury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See ISE Fee Schedule, I. Regular Order Fees and Rebates,
Fee for PIM Orders of 100 or Fewer Contracts at http://www.ise.com/assets/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/ISE_fee_schedule.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes it is reasonable and equitable to
charge the proposed Fees for Responses to Crossing Orders because an
execution resulting from a Response to a Crossing Order is akin to an
execution and therefore its proposal to establish execution fees is
reasonable and equitable. The Exchange believes that while the
differential between the fees charged for Crossing Orders and the Fees
for Responses to Crossing Orders is significant, the differential on
ISE Mercury is similar to the differential that currently exists on
other exchanges that offer a similar functionality. For example, as
noted above, ISE's Fees for Crossing Orders, which are $0.20 per
contract in all symbols for all market participants, except Market
Makers in non-select symbols,\34\ are identical to those proposed by
ISE Mercury.\35\ And, ISE's fees for Responses to Crossing Orders,
which are $0.47 per contract for all market participants in all
symbols, \36\ are in line with those on ISE Mercury, except that ISE
Mercury charges a lower fee to Market Makers. ISE Mercury charges a
lower fee to Market Maker orders because Market Makers have
requirements and obligations to the Exchange that the other market
participants do not (such as quoting requirements). Market Makers are
also charged Marketing Fees, which are not assessed to other market
participants. Therefore, the Exchange believes the proposed fees are
reasonable and equitably allocated because they are within the range of
fees assessed by other exchanges employing similar pricing schemes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ These Market Maker fees are subject to tier discounts on
ISE. See ISE Fee Schedule, IV. Other Options Fees and Rebates, C.
ISE Market Maker Discount Tiers at http://www.ise.com/assets/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/ISE_fee_schedule.pdf.
    \35\ See id. at I. Regular Order Fees and Rebates, Fee for
Crossing Orders.
    \36\ Id. at I. Regular Order Fees and Rebates, Fee for Responses
to Crossing Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is not introducing a novel pricing scheme for Crossing
Orders or for Responses to Crossing Orders. This functionality is
currently available on a number of exchanges, all of which have pricing
differentials that promote internalizing customer orders. The Exchange
believes these are not unfairly discriminatory because they would
uniformly apply to all similarly situated market participants.
    The Exchange further believes charging lower fees and providing
higher rebates to Priority Customer orders attracts that order flow to
the Exchange and thereby creates liquidity to the benefit of all market
participants who trade on the Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes
that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess lower
fees to Priority Customer orders. A Priority Customer is by definition
not a broker or dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390
orders in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for
its own beneficial account(s). This limitation does not apply to
participants on the Exchange whose behavior is substantially similar to
that of market professionals, including Professional Customers, Non-ISE
Mercury Market Makers, and Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealers, who will
generally submit a higher number of orders (many of which do not result
in executions) than Priority Customers. Further, Professional Customers
engage in trading activity similar to that conducted by Market Makers
and proprietary traders. Finally, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rebates are competitive with rebates provided by other
exchanges, as discussed above, and are therefore reasonable and
equitable.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the price differentiation
between the other market participants is justified. With respect to
fees for Market Maker orders, as noted above, the Exchange believes
that the price differentiation between the other market participants is
appropriate and not unfairly discriminatory because Market Makers have
requirements and obligations to the Exchange that the other market
participants do not (such as quoting requirements). Market makers also
incur Marketing Fees, which the other market participants do not. The
Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
to assess a higher fee to certain market participants that do not have
such requirements and obligations that Exchange Market Makers do. The
Exchange believes that the proposed fees are fair, equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory because the proposed fees are consistent with
price differentiation that exists today at other options exchanges.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See PHLX Fee Schedule, II. Multiply Listed Options Fees at
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=phlxpricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Route-Out Fees
    The Exchange believes the proposed route-out fees are reasonable
and equitable as they provide the Exchange the ability to recover costs
associated with using unaffiliated broker-dealers to route orders to
other exchanges for linkage executions. The Exchange also believes that
the proposed fees are not unfairly discriminatory because these fees
would be uniformly applied to all market participant orders. As fees to
access liquidity for orders have risen at other exchanges, it has
become necessary for the Exchange to adopt routing fees in order to
recoup the costs associated with routing linkage orders. The Exchange
notes that a number of other exchanges currently charge a variety of
routing related fees associated with customer and non-customer orders
that are subject to linkage handling. The Exchange also notes that the
fees proposed herein are within the range of fees charged by other
Exchanges.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See ISE Fee Schedule, IV. Other Options Fees and Rebates,
F. Route-Out Fees at http://www.ise.com/assets/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/ISE_fee_schedule.pdf and ISE Gemini Fee
Schedule, II. Other Options Fees and Rebates, A. Route-Out Fees at
http://www.ise.com/assets/gemini/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/Gemini_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marketing Fees
    The Exchange believes the proposed Marketing Fees are reasonable
and equitable because the proposed fees will allow the Exchange and its
Market Makers to better compete for order flow since the Exchange will
now collect the same amount of fees as PHLX in options classes that are
subject to its Payment for Order Flow Fees.\39\ The Exchange

believes that with these proposed fees, Market Makers will have greater
incentive to trade on ISE Mercury in the symbols that are subject to
Marketing Fees and thus enhance competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See PHLX Fee Schedule, II. Multiply Listed Options Fees,
Payment for Order Flow Fees at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=phlxpricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FINRA Web CRD Fees
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt the FINRA Web CRD
Fees is reasonable because the proposed fees are identical to those
adopted by FINRA for use of Web CRD for disclosure and the registration
of FINRA members and their associated persons. In the FINRA Fee Filing,
FINRA noted that it believed that its fees are reasonable based on the
increased costs associated with operating and maintaining Web CRD, and
listed a number of enhancements made to Web CRD in support of its fee
change. These costs are borne by FINRA when a Non-FINRA member uses Web
CRD. FINRA further noted its belief that the fees are reasonable
because they help to ensure the integrity of the information in Web
CRD, which is very important because the Commission, FINRA, other self-
regulatory organizations and state securities regulators use Web CRD to
make licensing and registration decisions, among other things. The
Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is reasonable because the
amount of the fees are those provided by FINRA, and the Exchange does
not collect or retain these fees. The proposed rule change is also
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will not
be collecting or retaining these fees, therefore will not be in a
position to apply them in an inequitable or unfairly discriminatory
manner.
    The Exchange notes that all of the proposed fees and rebates,
discussed above, are intended to establish ISE Mercury as an attractive
venue for market participants to direct their order flow as the
proposed fees and rebates are competitive with those established by
other exchanges for similar trading activities. The Exchange will be
operating in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily direct order flow to another exchange if they deem fees at
a particular exchange to be too high, or in the case of rebates, not
high enough. For the reasons noted above, the Exchange believes that
the proposed fees are fair, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\40\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the difference between the Fees for
Crossing Orders and the Fees for Responses to Crossing Orders are not
unfairly discriminatory and do not impose an undue burden on
competition. The Exchange believes the crossing mechanisms on ISE
Mercury provide incentives for market participants to submit customer
order flow to the Exchange and thus, creates a greater opportunity for
customers to receive better executions. The crossing mechanisms on ISE
Mercury provide an opportunity for market participants to compete for
customer orders, and have no limitations regarding the number of and
type of market participant that can participate and compete for such
orders. ISE Mercury notes that its market model and fees are generally
intended to attract a specific segment of the options industry and the
Exchange is competing with other exchanges that currently attract that
segment.
    Unilateral action by ISE Mercury in establishing fees for services
provided to its members and others using its facilities will not have
any adverse impact on competition. As a new entrant in the already
highly competitive environment for equity options trading, ISE Mercury
does not have the market power necessary to set prices for services
that are inequitably allocated, unreasonable or unfairly discriminatory
in violation of the Act. ISE Mercury's proposed fees and rebates, as
described herein, are comparable to fees charged and rebates provided
by other options exchanges for the same or similar services. To the
extent the proposed fees and rebates fail to attract order flow away
from its competitors, ISE Mercury may have to adjust level of fees and
rebates.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\41\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\42\ because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by ISE Mercury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \42\ 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 to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISEMercury-2016-02 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISEMercury-2016-02. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the

public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-ISEMercury-2016-02, and should be submitted on or before
March 31, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\43\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-05322 Filed 3-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 164 (Friday, August 23, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 44295]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18237]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9997-93-OA]

Notice of Meeting of the EPA Children's Health Protection
Advisory Committee (CHPAC)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act, notice is hereby given that the next meeting of the Children's
Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) will be held September 5
and 6, 2019 at Milken Institute School of Public Health, located at 950
New Hampshire Ave NW, Washington, DC 20052. Due to unforeseen
administrative circumstances, EPA is announcing this meeting with less
than 15 calendar days' notice. The CHPAC advises the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) on science, regulations and other issues
relating to children's environmental health.

DATES: September 5, 2019 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and September 6, 2019
from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.

ADDRESSES: 950 New Hampshire Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20052.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nica Louie, Office of Children's
Health Protection, U.S. EPA, MC 1107T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460,<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meetings of the CHPAC are open to the
public. An agenda will be posted to https://www.epa.gov/children/childrens-health-protection-advisory-committee-chpac.
    Access and Accommodations: For information on access or services
for individuals with disabilities, please contact Nica Louie at 202-
564-7633 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 10, 2019.
Nica Louie,
Environmental Health Scientist.
[FR Doc. 2019-18237 Filed 8-22-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28635-28636]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13208]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2331-083]

Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments,
Motions To Intervene, and Protests: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and is available
for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Non-Project Use Application.
    b. Project No: 2331-083.
    c. Date Filed: May 25, 2018.
    d. Applicant: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (licensee).
    e. Name of Project: Ninety-Nine Islands Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Broad River in Cherokee
County South Carolina.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Jeff Lineberger, Director, Duke Energy
Carolinas, LLC, 526 S. Church Street--Mail Stop EC12Y, Charlotte, NC
28202, energy.com">[email protected]energy.com.
    i. FERC Contact: Michael Calloway at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests
is 30 days from the issuance of this notice by the Commission. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions
to intervene, protests, and comments using the Commission's eFiling
system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-2331-083.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee requests Commission
approval to allow Thomas Sand Company, Inc. to utilize 33.51 acres of
project lands and waters in the upper part of the project reservoir for
mining and processing sand. The mining facility has the capacity to
withdraw 2.88 million gallons of water per day for processing sand even
though it does not achieve this amount daily in practice. The water is
returned to the river after processing. The mine has extracted 42,000
tons of sand per year on average since operations began. The licensee
proposes that the Thomas Sand Mine will operate under the conditions of
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (South
Carolina DHEC) Section 401 Water Quality Certification P/N SAC 2017-
01073, South Carolina DHEC Mining Permit No. 0869, and National
Pollutant Discharge Permit for Discharges Associated with Nonmetal
Mineral Mining Facilities Permit No. SCG730627.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC
20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed on
the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
[email protected], for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also
available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h)
above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title COMMENTS; PROTEST, or MOTION TO
INTERVENE as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions
to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and
otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments,
motions to intervene, or protests should relate to the non-project use
application. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly
from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must
be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the
particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents
with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect
the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also
serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all
other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by
proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by
the

Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.

    Dated: June 13, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-13208 Filed 6-19-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 12280]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4797]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 14131-000, 14138-00, 14135-000]

Riverbank Hydro No. 1, LLC, Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XXXVII;
Qualified Hydro 20, LLC; Notice Announcing Filing Priority for
Preliminary Permit Applications

    On February 22, 2012, the Commission held a drawing to determine
priority among competing preliminary permit applications with identical
filing times. In the event that the Commission concludes that none of
the applicants' plans are better adapted than the others to develop,
conserve, and utilize in the public interest the water resources of the
region at issue, the priority established by this drawing will serve as
the tiebreaker. Based on the drawing, the order of priority is as
follows:
    1. Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XXXVII, Project No. 14138-000.
    2. Qualified Hydro 20, LLC, Project No. 14135-000.
    3. Riverbank Hydro No. 1, LLC, Project No. 14131-000.

    Dated: February 22, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-4797 Filed 2-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 23, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71369-71371]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29448]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1157; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-137-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103,
-106, -201, -202, -301, -311, -315, -401, and -402 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    There have been several in-service reports of finding trapped
water on the bottom of the cockpit windshield frames (or lower
windshield frames) that resulted in either corrosion or water
ingress into the cockpit. In one occurrence, the trapped water
caused severe corrosion of numerous anchor nuts that secure the
windshield to the lower windshield frame, such that the intended
fastening function was seriously compromised.
    Corrosion of the lower windshield frames, including the anchor
nuts that secure the windshield to the aircraft structure, can
result in a serious structural degradation possibly leading to the
loss of the windshield during flight. Also, water could leak into
the cockpit and cause either a malfunction or failure of the
electrical and electronics systems in the area of the cockpit
instrument panels.

* * * * *
    The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address
the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 7, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard,
Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 416-375-
4539; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Yates, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-1157;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-137-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2010-16, dated May 18, 2010 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''),
to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI
states:

    There have been several in-service reports of finding trapped
water on the bottom of the cockpit windshield frames (or lower
windshield frames) that resulted in either corrosion or water
ingress into the cockpit. In one occurrence, the trapped water
caused severe corrosion of numerous anchor nuts that secure the
windshield to the lower windshield frame, such that the intended
fastening function was seriously compromised.
    Corrosion of the lower windshield frames, including the anchor
nuts that secure the windshield to the aircraft structure, can
result in a serious structural degradation possibly leading to the
loss of the windshield during flight. Also, water could leak into
the cockpit and cause either a malfunction or failure of the
electrical and electronics systems in the area of the cockpit
instrument panels.
    The lower windshield frames do not have drain provisions to
prevent moisture or water run-off from the condensation of the
windshields from being trapped. The consequences of trapped water in
the lower windshield frames can result in unsafe conditions, as
noted above. This Directive mandates the installation of a drain
system for the lower windshield frames.

    For Model DHC-8-401 and -402 airplanes, the installation also
includes a related investigative action, and corrective actions if
necessary. The related investigative action is an inspection for
corrosion of the anchor nuts and window frame. Corrective actions
include replacing any corroded anchor nut with a new or serviceable
anchor nut, or contacting the manufacturer for repair instructions and
doing the repair. You may obtain further information by examining the
MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletins 84-53-43, dated April 27,
2010 (for Model DHC-8-401 and -402 airplanes, serial numbers 4001,
4003, 4004, 4006, and 4008 through 4274 inclusive); and 8-53-78,
Revision C, dated April 29, 2010 (for Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -
201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes, serial numbers 003 through
566 inclusive). The actions described in this service information are
intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 191 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 20 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,660 per product. Where
the service information lists required parts costs that are covered
under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these
costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties,
some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $641,760, or $3,360 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs''
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2010-1157; Directorate Identifier
2010-NM-137-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by January 7, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the Bombardier, Inc. airplanes,
certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and
(c)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -
315, serial numbers 003 through 566 inclusive.
    (2) Model DHC-8-401, and -402 airplanes, serial numbers 4001,
4003, 4004, 4006, and 4008 through 4274 inclusive.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 56: Windows.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    There have been several in-service reports of finding trapped
water on the bottom of the cockpit windshield frames (or lower
windshield frames) that resulted in either corrosion or water
ingress into the cockpit. In one occurrence, the trapped water
caused severe corrosion of numerous anchor nuts that secure the
windshield to the lower windshield frame, such that the intended
fastening function was seriously compromised. Corrosion of the lower
windshield frames, including the anchor nuts that secure the
windshield to the aircraft structure, can result in a serious
structural degradation possibly leading to the loss of the
windshield during flight. Also, water could leak into the cockpit
and cause either a malfunction or failure of the electrical and
electronics systems in the area of the cockpit instrument panels.
* * * * *

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Actions

    (g) Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first, install a drain system in
the cockpit windshield lower frames, and do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions, in accordance With the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-53-78,
Revision C, dated April 29, 2010 (for Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -
201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes); or 84-53-43, dated April
27, 2010 (for Model DHC-8-401 and -402 airplanes); except where the
service bulletins state to contact the manufacturer, contact the New
York Aircraft Certification Office or Transport Canada Civil
Aviation (TCCA) or its delegated agent. Do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions before further flight.

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    (h) For Models DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311,
and -315 airplanes: Modification of the drain system is also
acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (g) of
this AD, if done before the effective date of this AD, in accordance
with Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-53-78, dated December 23, 1999;
Revision A, dated June 7, 2001; or Revision B, dated May 2, 2002.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (i) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office, ANE-170, FAA, has the authority
to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Program Manager,
Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to
which the AMOC applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector
(PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or
lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District
Office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5
minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.,
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

Related Information

    (j) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2010-16,
dated May 18, 2010; Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-53-78, Revision C,
dated April 29, 2010; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-53-43,
dated April 27, 2010; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 15, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-29448 Filed 11-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 24, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 164)]
[Notices]
[Page 48713-48715]
[DOCID:fr24au07-131]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56279; File No. SR-NASD-2007-047]

Self-Regulatory Organizations: National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc. (n/k/a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.);
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Amendments to Certain Rules in Light of Amendments to SEC
Rule 10a-1 and Regulation SHO

August 17, 2007.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 5, 2007, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(n/k/a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'')) filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which
Items have been substantially prepared by FINRA. FINRA has designated
the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-controversial'' rule
change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\3\ which
renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to amend certain rules and repeal Rule 5100 and
IM-5100 in light of the elimination of SEC Rule 10a-1 of the Act and
the amendments to Regulation SHO under the Act.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at FINRA, the
Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.finra.org.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
Background and Discussion
    On June 13, 2007, the Commission voted to adopt certain amendments
to SEC Rule 10a-1 and Regulation SHO under the Act. The amendments,
among other things: (1) Eliminate the short sale price test contained
in SEC Rule 10a-1; (2) add Rule 201(a) of Regulation SHO to provide
that no price test, including any price test of any self-regulatory
organization (``SRO''), shall apply to short sales in any security; (3)
add Rule 201(b) of Regulation SHO to prohibit any SRO from having a
price test; and (4) amend Rule 200(g) of Regulation SHO to remove the
requirement that a broker-dealer mark a sell order of an equity
security as ``short exempt'' if the seller is relying on an exception
from the price test of Rule 10a-1, or any price test of any exchange or
national securities association. The amendments to SEC Rule 10a-1 and
Regulation SHO became effective on July 3, 2007.\4\ However, the
compliance date of the amendments was July 6, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55970 (June 28,
2007), 72 FR 36348 (July 3, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to make conforming
changes to FINRA rules to reflect the elimination of SEC Rule 10a-1 and
other amendments to Regulation SHO by: (1) Eliminating references to
SEC Rule 10a-1 in FINRA rules; (2) repealing FINRA's short sale rule
contained in Rule 5100 and IM-5100, as well as amending FINRA rules
that reference Rule 5100 or IM-5100; and (3) removing any ``short
exempt'' marking requirements in FINRA rules.
Elimination of References to SEC Rule 10a-1 in FINRA Rules
    Currently, Rule 3360 (Short-Interest Reporting) requires members to
record and report short interest information to FINRA. Reportable short
positions are those resulting from ``short sales'' as the term is
defined in SEC Rule 200 of Regulation SHO, with the exception of
positions that meet the requirements of subsections (e)(1), (6), (7),
(8), and (10) of Rule 10a-1 of the Act.\5\ As a result of the repeal of
SEC Rule 10a-1, these subsections will no longer exist. Therefore,
FINRA is proposing a technical change to Rule 3360 to replace the
references to these exceptions to SEC Rule 10a-1 with the underlying
rule text of each provision.\6\ FINRA also is proposing to make
conforming amendments to IM-6130, IM-6130C, IM-6130D, IM-6130E to
remove references to SEC Rule 10a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 3360(b)(1).
    \6\ As part of the Commission's approval of amendments to expand
Rule 3360 to OTC equity securities, the Commission urged FINRA to
review the exceptions to short interest reporting to determine
whether further rulemaking is appropriate. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 53224 (February 3, 2006), 71 FR 7101 (February 10,
2006) (order approving SR-NASD-2005-112). Additionally, as part of
the Commission's approval of rule changes by FINRA, Amex, and the
NYSE to increase the frequency of short interest reporting to twice
per month, the Commission instructed FINRA, among other SROs, to
review the exceptions to short interest reporting to determine
whether further rulemaking is appropriate. FINRA, together with the
other SROs, is currently conducting such a review. If, based on this
review, a determination is made that further rulemaking is
warranted, FINRA will file a separate rule change with the
Commission. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55406 (March 6,
2007), 72 FR 11071 (March 12, 2007) (order approving SR-NASD-2006-
131; SR-NYSE-2006-111; SR-Amex-2007-05).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Repeal of FINRA's Short Sale Rule
    As noted above, the Commission has removed the restrictions on the
execution prices of short sales and prohibited SROs from having price
tests. Rule 5100 governs short sales of over-the-counter (``OTC'')
transactions reported to the Alternative Display Facility or a Trade
Reporting Facility. More specifically, Rule 5100 generally prohibits a
member from effecting short sales in NASDAQ Global Market securities
otherwise than on an exchange for a customer account, or the member's
own account, at or below the current national best (inside) bid, when
the current national best (inside) bid is below the preceding national
best (inside) bid. As an SRO, FINRA now is prohibited from having such
a short sale price test under newly adopted SEC Rule 201.
    Accordingly, FINRA is proposing to repeal its short sale rule
contained in Rule 5100 and the related interpretive material in IM-5100
and is proposing conforming changes to IM-6130, IM-6130C, IM-6130D, IM-
6130E and Rule 9610 to delete references to Rule 5100 in such rules.
Removal of Short Exempt Marking Requirements
    Currently, Rule 200(g)(2) of Regulation SHO provides that a short
sale order must be marked short exempt if relying on an exception from
the short sale price test in SEC Rule 10a-1 or any short sale price
test of an exchange or national securities association.

Likewise, certain FINRA rules require members to indicate on their
transaction reports whether a transaction is a short exempt
transaction, in conformance with SEC Rule 200(g)(2). In light of the
Commission's recent amendments to delete the short exempt marking
requirement from its rule, FINRA is proposing conforming changes to
delete any references to that requirement in its rules. As such, FINRA
proposes to amend Rules 4632, 4632A, 4632C, 4632D, 4632E, 6130, 6130C,
6130D, 6130E, and IM-6130, IM-6130C, IM-6130D, IM-6130E to remove the
short exempt marking requirements.
Technical Changes
    FINRA also is proposing to make certain technical changes to the
text of Rule 3360. Specifically, Rule 3360(b) provides that, subject to
certain limited exceptions, short positions required to be reported
under the rule are those resulting from short sales as the term is
defined in Rule 200 of Regulation SHO. The term ``short sale'' is
actually defined in Rule 200(a) of Regulation SHO. Therefore, FINRA is
proposing to amend the text of Rule 3360 to reference Rule 200(a) of
Regulation SHO, not Rule 200 of Regulation SHO to eliminate any
confusion.
    Additionally, FINRA is proposing to amend the definition of ``OTC
equity security'' in Rule 3360 to delete the specific reference to The
Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. as it is now covered under the term
``national securities exchange.''
Implementation
    As noted above, FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for
immediate effectiveness. FINRA proposes July 6, 2007 as the compliance
date of the proposed rule change, to coincide with the compliance date
of the amendments to SEC Rule 10a-1 and Regulation SHO. However, with
respect to the repeal of the short sale exempt marking requirements,
firms are permitted to continue to mark transactions as ``short
exempt'' for a ninety-day transitional period after the July 6, 2007
compliance date in accordance with the SEC No-Action relief relating to
the ``short exempt'' marking requirement of Rule 200(g) of Regulation
SHO.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\7\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is
necessary and appropriate to comply with the amendments to SEC Rule
10a-1 and Regulation SHO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \8\ of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay.
The Commission believes such waiver is consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest because it would allow the
proposed rule change to be effective on July 6, 2007, the compliance
date for the amendments to Rule 10a-1 and Regulation SHO.\10\ For this
reason, the Commission designates the proposal to be operative upon
filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day pre-operative
period, the Commission has considered the proposed rule change's
impact on efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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-NASD-2007-047 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2007-047. 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, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2007-047 and should be
submitted on or before September 14, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E7-16758 Filed 8-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: June 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 126)]
[Notices]
[Page 36853-36854]
[DOCID:fr30jn08-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-418-000]

Southeast Gas Storage, LLC; Notice of Application

June 20, 2008.
    Take notice that on June 6, 2008, Southeast Gas Storage LLC (SGS),
1001 Louisisana, Houston, TX 77002, filed in the above referenced
docket an abbreviated application pursuant to section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Parts 157 and 284 of the Commission's
regulations for an order granting a certificate of public convenience
to develop, construct, own and operate an underground gas storage
facility (Black Warrior Storage Project), which will allow SGS to
provide up to 24.7 Bcf of working gas capacity in Monroe and Lowndes
Counties, Mississippi. Additionally, SGS requests a blanket certificate
authorizing it to engage in certain self-implementing routine
activities under Part 157, Subpart F, and a blanket certificate under
Part 284, Subpart G, authorizing SGS to provide open-access non-
discriminatory firm and interruptible natural gas storage services. SGS
also requests authorization to charge market-based rates for the
proposed storage services and the Commission's approval of SGS's Pro-
Forma Gas Tariff, all as more fully set forth in the application which
is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The
filing may also be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Susan
T. Halbach, El Paso Corporation, Senior Counsel, 1001 Louisiana,
Houston, TX 77002, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to

participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon
as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in
opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a
comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the
proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments
in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to
the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: July 14, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-14683 Filed 6-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P