[Federal Register: October 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 207)]
[Notices]
[Page 66081]
[DOCID:fr27oc10-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13823-000]

 Natural Currents Energy Services, LLC; Notice of Preliminary
Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions
To Intervene, and Competing Applications

October 20, 2010.
    On August 5, 2010, Natural Currents Energy Services, LLC filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Killisnoo
Tidal Energy Project (Killisnoo Project), located in Kootznahoo Inlet
northeast of Killisnoo Island, near the City of Angoon in the Skagway-
Hoonah-Angoon Census Area of southeastern Alaska. The sole purpose of a
preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority
to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary
permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land
disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by
others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed Killisnoo Project would consist of: (1) A moored test
platform or dock, or underwater tethering device, pending evaluation of
specific site conditions; (2) ten 25-kilowatt (kW) Red Hawk in-stream
turbine modules for a total generating capacity of 250 kW; (3) an
approximately 650-foot-long, 480-volt underwater transmission line
connecting the Red Hawk modules to an existing above-ground local
distribution system; and (4) appurtenant facilities. The project would
have an estimated average annual generation of 1,000 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Roger Bason, President, Natural Currents Energy
Services, LLC, 24 Roxanne Boulevard, Highland, NY 12528; phone: (845)
691- 4008.
    FERC Contact: Jennifer Harper,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications has been extended 60 days from the issuance of
this notice to December 20, 2010. Competing applications and notices of
intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to
intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications may be filed
electronically via the Internet. Entities that have already filed
comments, motions to intervene, competing applications, or notices of
intent to file competing applications do not need to refile. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
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. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing,
documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and
seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13823) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27127 Filed 10-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1982-1986]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00376]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74018; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2014-150]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change to Amend Rule 6.60 and to Adopt Rule 6.61,
Which was Previously Reserved, to Provide Price Protection for Market
Maker Quotes

January 8, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on December 29, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.60 (Price Protection) and to
adopt Rule 6.61, which was previously Reserved, to provide price
protection for Market Maker quotes. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below.

The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C
below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 6.60 (Price Protection) and
to adopt Rule 6.61, which was previously Reserved, to provide price
protection for Market Maker quotes. The Exchange currently offers price
protection mechanisms for orders and, at this time, is proposing to
expand its mechanisms to make price protection available for Market
Maker quotes as well. The Exchange believes that this proposed
enhancement would assist with the maintenance of fair and orderly
markets by averting the risk of Market Maker quotes sweeping through
multiple price points resulting in executions at prices that are
through the last sale price or National Best Bid or Best Offer
(``NBBO'') and potentially erroneous.
    Rule 6.60, which applies solely to orders, affords price protection
to orders priced a specified percentage through the prevailing contra-
side market.\4\ Specifically, Rule 6.60(b) provides a price protection
filter for incoming limit orders, pursuant to which the Exchange
rejects limit orders priced a specified percentage \5\ through the NBB
or NBO (``Limit Order Filter'').\6\ To clarify that Rule 6.60 applies
only to orders, the Exchange proposes [sic] append the word ``Orders''
to the Rule 6.60 header to provide ``Rule 6.60. Price Protection--
Orders.'' The Exchange believes that this proposed change would reduce
any potential confusion regarding the applicability of Rule 6.60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange adopted Rule 6.60 in 2013. See Exchange Rule
6.60; see also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70038 (July 25,
2013), 78 FR 46392 (July 31, 2013) (NYSEArca-2013-72).
    \5\ Pursuant to Rule 6.60(b), unless determined otherwise by the
Exchange and announced to OTP Holders via Trader Update, the
specified percentage is 100% for the contra-side NBB or NBO priced
at or below $1.00 and 50% for contra-side NBB or NBO priced above
$1.00.
    \6\ Until recently the Limit Order Filter was only applicable to
orders received during Core Trading Hours, but the Exchange has
expanded this price protection feature to limit orders received
before the opening of trading. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 73026 (September 9, 2014), 79 FR 55038 (September 15, 2014) (SR-
NYSEArca-2014-97).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Market Maker Quote Price Protection
    To further enhance the price protection functionality available on
the Exchange, the Exchange proposes to adopt a new rule, Rule 6.61,
which was previously Reserved, that would provide for a price
protection mechanism for quotes entered by a Market Maker. To be clear
that the proposed rule is for Market Maker quotes only, and consistent
with the proposed change to the title for Rule 6.61, the Exchange
proposes to title this new rule ``Price Protection--Quotes.'' In
addition, Rule 6.61(a) would provide that the proposed price protection
filters would be applicable only for quotes entered by a Market Maker
pursuant to Rule 6.37B and would not be applicable to orders entered by
a Market Maker.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Orders entered by a Market Maker are covered by Rule 6.60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To take into consideration the unique role of Market Makers to
enter two-sided quotations in their appointments, the Exchange proposes
to provide for two layers of price protection that would be applicable
to all incoming Market Maker quotes. As discussed in detail below, the
first layer of price protection would assess incoming sell quotes
against the National Best Bid (``NBB'') and incoming buy quotes against
the National Best Offer (``NBO''). The second layer of price protection
would assess the price of call or put bids against a specified
benchmark.
NBBO Price Reasonability Check
    Proposed Rule 6.61(a)(1) would set forth the Exchange's proposed
NBBO price reasonability check, which would compare Market Maker bids
with the NBO and Market Maker offers with the NBB. This proposed price
protection is [sic] mechanism is similar to the Limit Order Filter.
Specifically, provided that an NBBO is available, a Market Maker quote
would be rejected if it is priced a specified dollar amount or
percentage through the contra-side NBBO as follows:
    (A) $1.00 for Market Maker bids when the contra-side NBO is priced
at or below $1.00; or
    (B) 50% for Market Maker bids (offers) when the contra-side NBO
(NBB) is priced above $1.00.
    The Exchange would reject inbound Market Maker quotes that exceed
the parameters set forth in proposed Rule 6.61(a)(1)(A)-(B) as
presumptively erroneous. The Exchange believes that the proposed
percentages are appropriate because they are based on the percentages
already approved for the Limit Order Filter and are thus calibrated to
enable the Exchange to reject quotes that otherwise may cause price
dislocation before the erroneous quotes could cause harm to the market.
The Exchange is also proposing a specific dollar threshold for when the
NBO is priced at or below $1.00 because the Exchange believes that the
specified dollar amount provides more granular price protection than a
percentage-based protection. For example, if the NBO were $0.06, when
using a 100% filter, the Exchange would be required to reject any bids
priced $0.12 or more. For such low-priced NBOs, the Exchange believes
it is appropriate to provide Market Makers with the ability to enter
quotes at least $1.00 higher than the prevailing NBO.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that it continually assesses whether its
price protection mechanisms are appropriately calibrated and if it
proposes to amend the percentages for the Limit Order Filter, it
would do so by means of a separate rule filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, pursuant to proposed Rule 6.61(a)(1)(A), Market Maker
offers that arrive when the NBB is priced at or below $1.00 would not
be subject to this filter. The Exchange believes that when the NBB is
priced at or below $1.00, the price of an offer would be bound by
$0.00, and therefore an offer would always be less than $1.00 away from
the NBB. Such offer prices would likely not be erroneous and therefore
the Exchange does not believe it necessary to reject such Market Maker
offers.
    Because there may be market scenarios that require the proposed
parameters to be adjusted, for example, during periods of extreme price
volatility, the Exchange further proposes to specify that the Exchange
may revise these parameters, provided such revised parameters are
announced to OTP Holders or OTP Firms via a Trader Update.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See proposed Rule 6.61(a)(1)(A)-(B) (setting forth the
specified dollar amount or percentages ``unless determined otherwise
by the Exchange and announced to OTP Holders and OTP Firms via
Trader Update'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an additional safeguard and risk-control feature, if a Market
Maker quote is rejected pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this proposed
Rule, the Exchange would also cancel any resting same-side quote in the
affected series from that Market Maker.\10\ The Exchange believes it is
appropriate to reject any resting same-side quote because when a Market
Maker submits a new quote, that Market Maker is implicitly instructing
the Exchange to cancel any resting quote in that same series. Thus,
even if the new quote is rejected because it is priced a specified
dollar amount or percentage through the contra-side NBBO, in violation
of proposed Rule 6.61(a)(1), the Market Maker's implicit instruction to
cancel the resting quote remains valid nonetheless.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See proposed Rule 6.61(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples, which are based on the below market
scenario,

illustrate how the proposed Rule 6.61(a) would operate:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Option Series                        NBBO                Option Series                 NBBO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December $30 Calls...................  $9.90 x $11.00.........  December $30 Puts......  $0.06 x $0.10.
December $35 Calls...................  $6.00 x $6.20..........  December $35 Puts......  $0.60 x $0.65.
December $40 Calls...................  $2.82 x $2.85..........  December $40 Puts......  $2.30 x $2.40.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example 1--Proposed Rule 6.61(a)(1)(A): $1.00 for Market Maker bids
if the contra-side NBO is priced at or below $1.00. A Market Maker
submits a $1.50 bid for the December $30 puts where the NBO is $0.10.
As this is $1.00 or more above the NBO ($0.10 plus $1.00 = $1.10), the
Exchange would reject the Market Maker bid.
    Example 2--Proposed Rule 6.61 (a)(1)(A): Market Maker offers that
arrive when the NBB is priced at or below $1.00 are not subject to this
filter. From the options chain above, the options that have a NBB at or
below $1.00 are the December $30 and $35 puts. As these options have a
NBB below $1.00 (and the offer is bound by $0.00--less than $1.00 away
from the NBB), there are no price protection filters and Market Maker
offers in these options would be subject to standard quote processing
without delay.
    Example 3--Proposed Rule 6.61(a)(1)(B): 50% for Market Maker bids
when the contra-side NBO is priced above $1.00. A Market Maker submits
a bid of $9.30 for the December $35 calls where the NBO is $6.20. As
this is 50% greater than the NBO ($6.20 plus 50% = $9.30), the Exchange
would reject the Market Maker bid.
    Example 4--Proposed Rule 6.61(a)(1)(B): 50% for Market Maker offers
when the contra-side NBB is priced above $1.00. A Market Maker submits
a $0.60 offer for the December $40 calls when the NBB is $2.82. As this
is 50% or more below the NBB ($2.82 minus 50% = $1.41), the Exchange
would reject the Market Maker offer as erroneous.
Underlying Stock Price/Strike Price Check
    Proposed Rule 6.61(a)(2) and (3) would set forth the Exchange's
proposed second layer of price protection filters for Market Maker
quotes. These price protection mechanisms would be applicable when
either there is no NBBO available, for example, during pre-opening or
prior to conducting a re-opening after a trading halt, or if the NBBO
is so wide as to not to reflect an appropriate price for the respective
options series.
    Proposed Rule 6.61(a)(2) would provide price protection for Market
Maker bids in call options. As proposed, if such bids equal or exceed
the price of the underlying security, the Market Maker bid would be
rejected.\11\ With a call bid, a Market Maker is bidding to buy an
option that would be exercised into the right to acquire the underlying
security. The Exchange does not believe that a derivative product,
which conveys the right to purchase a security underlying the
derivative, should ever be priced higher than the prevailing price of
the underlying security itself. Accordingly, the Exchange believes it
is appropriate to reject Market Maker bids for call options that are
equal to or in excess of the price of the underlying security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See proposed Rule 6.61(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed in new Rule 6.61(a)(2)(A), before the underlying
security is open, the Exchange would use the previous day's closing
price to determine the price of the underlying security. The Exchange
proposes to use the prior day's closing price because, although the
underlying securities may trade in the equities markets outside of 9:30
a.m. ET to 4:00 p.m. ET, the equities market is generally not as liquid
during this time and equity market makers generally do not have quoting
obligations in after-hours trading. Therefore, the Exchange believes
that using the previous day's closing price--based on trading during
Core Trading Hours, when the market is most liquid--provides a more
accurate benchmark and thus a more precise price protection filter for
underlying securities that have not yet opened. Per proposed Rule
6.61(a)(2)(B), once the underlying security has opened, the Exchange
would use the consolidated last sale price to determine the price of
the underlying security. Per proposed Rule 6.61(a)(2)(C), during a
trading halt of the underlying security, the Exchange would use the
consolidated last sale reported immediately prior to the trading halt
to determine the price of the underlying security. The Exchange
believes that the consolidated last sale price for an underlying
security that has already opened would provide the most accurate
benchmark because the market is most liquid during Core Trading Hours.
    Proposed Rule 6.61(a)(3) would provide for price protection for
Market Maker bids in put options. The value of a put can never exceed
the strike price of the option, even if the stock goes to zero. For
example, a put with a strike price of $50 gives the holder the right to
sell the underlying security for $50 (no more, or no less), therefore
it would be illogical to pay more than $50 for the right to sell that
underlying security, no matter what the price of the underlying
security. As proposed, the Exchange would deem any put bid that equals
or exceeds the strike price of the option series to be erroneous and
the Exchange believes it would be appropriate to reject such bids.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See proposed Rule 6.61(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an additional safeguard and risk control feature, when a Market
Maker quote is rejected pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this
Rule, the Exchange would also cancel all resting quote(s) in the
affected class(es) from that Market Maker and shall not accept new
quote(s) in the affected class(es) until the Market Maker submits a
message (which may be automated) to the Exchange to enable the entry of
new quotes.\13\ The Exchange believes that this temporary suspension
from quoting in the affected option class(es) would operate as a safety
valve that forces Market Makers to re-evaluate their positions before
requesting to re-enter the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See proposed Rule 6.61(b).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider the following examples which are based on the following:

Underlying Security Price = $50
December $50 Calls, December $50 Puts
December $70 Calls, December $70 Puts

    Example 1--Proposed Rule 6.61(a)(2)(B): MM bid for Call rejected if
the price of bid is equal to or greater than the price of the
underlying security. A Market Maker submits a quote that contains a $53
bid for the December $50 calls. With the underlying security having a
last sale price of $50, the Exchange would deem any bid for $50 or more
(for the right to buy stock at $50) as erroneous and would therefore
reject the bid(s).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchange would also cancel any resting quote(s) in the
affected class(es) from that Market Maker and will not accept new
quote(s) in the affected class(es) until the Market Maker submits a
message (which may be automated) to the Exchange to enable the entry
of new quotes. See proposed Rule 6.61(b).

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

    Example 2--Proposed Rule 6.61(a)(3): MM bid for Put rejected if the
price of bid is equal to or greater than the strike price of the
option. A Market Maker submits a quote that contains a $70 bid for the
December $70 puts. The most the December $70 puts could ever be worth
is $70 even if the underlying security goes to zero. The Exchange would
deem any bid to pay $70 or more for the December $70 puts to be an
erroneous quote and would therefore reject the put bid.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed extension of the Exchange's
price protection functionality to Market Maker quotes would assist with
the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by averting the risk of
Market Maker quotes sweeping through multiple price points resulting in
executions at prices that are through the last sale price or NBBO and
potentially erroneous. The Exchange notes that it retains the ability
to disable these price protection features in response to market
events.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange may disable the Underlying Stock Price/Strike
Price Check by security without affecting the status of the NBBO
Price Reasonability Checks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed
rule change via Trader Update. The Trader Update will be issued at
least 30 days prior to implementation to help ensure participants, in
particular Market Makers, have sufficient notice prior to introducing
the new functionality.
 2. Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\17\ which
requires the rules of an exchange to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this proposal meets these requirements
because it would assist with the maintenance of a fair and orderly
market by introducing new price protections that would help to mitigate
the risks associated with the entry of quotes that are priced a
specified dollar amount or percentage through the last sale or
prevailing contra-side market, which the Exchange believes is evidence
of error. By rejecting such quotes, the Exchange believes it is
promoting just and equitable principles of trade by preventing
potential price dislocation that could result from erroneous Market
Maker quotes sweeping through multiple price points resulting in
executions at prices that are through the last sale price or NBBO.
Specifically, when an NBBO is available, the Exchange believes
rejecting Market Maker quotes priced a specified dollar amount or
percentage through the contra-side NBBO would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and protect investors
and the public interest because it would enable the Exchange to avoid
the submission of erroneous quotes that otherwise may cause price
dislocation before such quotes could cause harm to the market.
    The Exchange believes that proposed percentages are reasonable as
they are based on the percentages already approved for the Limit Order
Filter. In addition, the Exchange believes that the addition of
specified dollar thresholds when the NBO is equal to or below $1.00 is
consistent with the Act because it would assist with the maintenance of
a fair and orderly market by offering Market Maker quotes more precise
price protection. Moreover, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to
place no limit on Market Maker offers that arrive when the NBB is
priced at or below $1.00 because when the NBB is priced at or below
$1.00, the price of an offer would be bound by $0.00, and therefore an
offer would always be less than $1.00 away from the NBB--and therefore,
not likely to be erroneous and not requiring price protection.
    Similarly, the Exchange also believes that when no NBBO is
available, the Exchange's proposed use of benchmarks to check the
reasonability of Market Maker bids for call and put options would
assist with the maintenance of a fair and orderly market by affording a
second layer of price protection to Market Maker quotes. The Exchange
believes these additional price reasonability checks on Market Maker
bids would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market and protect investors and the public interest because
the proposed check would reject Market Maker bids that are priced
higher than the corresponding benchmark, which would be the price of
the underlying security for call options and the strike price for put
options.
    The Exchange also believes the additional risk controls that result
in the cancellation of a Market Maker's resting quote and/or the
temporary suspension a Market Maker's quoting activity in the affected
option class(es) would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and protect investors and the public interest
because it provides the Market Maker with an opportunity to re-evaluate
their positions before requesting to re-enter the market. The Exchange
believes that this additional safeguard would benefit investors and the
public because it would provide market participants with additional
protection from anomalous executions.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the
proposal would not unduly burden any particular group of market
participants trading on the Exchange vis-[agrave]-vis another group
(i.e., Market Markers versus non-Market Makers) as the proposal is
designed to address the unique role of Market Makers to enter two-sided
quotations in their appointments and would apply equally to all Market
Makers. Moreover, the Exchange believes the proposal would provide
market participants with additional protection from anomalous
executions. Thus, the Exchange does not believe the proposal creates
any significant impact on competition. The Exchange believes this
proposal is pro-competitive as it may encourage Market Makers to quote
tighter deeper markets, which will increase liquidity and enhance
competition, given the safeties afforded by the proposed price
protection filters.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or

    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2014-150 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-NYSEArca-2014-150. 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 the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; 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-NYSEArca-2014-150 and should
be submitted on or before February 4, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00376 Filed 1-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 163 (Thursday, August 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52171-52172]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20467]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4338-002.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: NYISO Compliance re: Order No. 745--Demand Response to
be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 8/14/13.
    Accession Number: 20130814-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1988-002.
    Applicants: Eligo Energy NY, LLC.
    Description: Amendment to Application for Market Based Rate to be
effective 7/18/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/14/13.
    Accession Number: 20130814-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2157-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 08-14-2013 SA 2289 Ameren-HoopestonWind GIA H094 to be
effective 8/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/14/13.
    Accession Number: 20130814-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2158-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of PJM Service Agreement No.
3441 to be effective 3/14/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/14/13.
    Accession Number: 20130814-5133.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2159-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Amendment to Tie-Line Agreement with Brea Power II LLC
to be effective 8/16/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20130815-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2160-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of SGIA & DSA with Aikyum Inc.
to be effective 4/29/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20130815-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2161-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Attachment A-1 to be effective 6/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20130815-5014.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2162-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 08-15-13 ORCA RS 35 to be effective 8/16/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20130815-5057.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2163-000.
    Applicants: BP West Coast Products LLC.
    Description: BP West Coast Products LLC submits tariff filing per
35.15: Notice of Cancellation to be effective 8/16/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20130815-5106.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/5/13.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following PURPA
210(m)(3) filings:

    Docket Numbers: QM13-4-000.
    Applicants: City of Burlington, Vermont.
    Description: Application for Relief from Obligation to Purchase
Output of the Chace Mill Hydroelectric Project of the City of
Burlington, Vermont.
    Filed Date: 8/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20130815-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/12/13.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For

other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call (202)
502-8659.

    Dated: August 15, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-20467 Filed 8-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 32 (Friday, February 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11261-11263]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03572]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68898; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2013-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE
Arca Options Fee Schedule To Introduce a New Electronic Customer Rate
for Certain Executions That Take Liquidity

February 11, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)\1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'')\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on January 29, 2013, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-

regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule
(the ``Fee Schedule'') to introduce a new electronic Customer rate for
certain executions that take liquidity. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend the Exchange's Fee Schedule
to introduce a new electronic Customer rate of $0.67 per contract for
executions that take liquidity in a non-Penny Pilot class from the
trading interest of a Lead Market Maker (``LMM''), if the OTP Holder or
OTP Firm entering the Customer's order satisfies certain volume
thresholds. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes on
February 1, 2013.
    An electronic Customer execution in a non-Penny Pilot class is
currently subject to a take fee of $0.79 per contract. Unlike an
execution in a Penny Pilot class, the rate for an electronic execution
in a non-Penny Pilot class is not currently dependent on the account
type of the counterparty. The Exchange proposes to introduce a new
electronic Customer take rate of $0.67 per contract for executions that
take liquidity in a non-Penny Pilot class from the trading interest of
an LMM (including orders and quotes) if the OTP Holder or OTP Firm
entering the Customer's order, during the month, (i) transacts an
average daily volume (``ADV'') on the Exchange of at least 15,000
contracts from electronic Customer orders that take liquidity in non-
Penny Pilot classes or (ii) transacts a combined ADV on the Exchange of
at least 30,000 contracts in non-Penny Pilot classes from electronic
Customer orders that take liquidity and affiliated electronic Market
Maker orders and quotes that post liquidity in non-Penny Pilot
classes.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For purposes of calculating ADV for the qualification, the
Take Liquidity threshold does not include orders that are routed to
other exchanges for execution at the National Best Bid and Offer
(``NBBO''); Post or Take Liquidity calculations do not include
volume from Electronic Complex Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rate, which would only
apply to the Customer side of an execution that takes liquidity against
trading interest of an LMM, will incent additional posted liquidity at
the NBBO by LMMs as well as additional Customer orders being sent to
the Exchange for execution.
    The Exchange notes that the proposed change is not otherwise
intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of
any problems that Customers, LMMs, OTP Holders or OTP Firms would have
in complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable
because the proposed rate, which would only apply to the Customer side
of an execution that takes liquidity against trading interest of an
LMM, will incent additional posted liquidity at the NBBO by LMMs as
well as additional Customer orders being sent to the Exchange for
execution. First, the proposed lower Customer rate would incent an OTP
Holder or OTP Firm to send additional Customer orders to the Exchange
because its customers' transaction costs could be decreased. Second, an
OTP Holder or OTP Firm that is affiliated with an LMM on the Exchange
would be incented to send additional Customer order flow to the
Exchange for execution in order to increase the likelihood that its LMM
will interact with those orders. Third, and building on the two points
above, an LMM would be incented to post additional liquidity at the
NBBO, thereby rendering a Customer order that executes against the
LMM's trading interest a taker of liquidity and eligible for the lower
Customer take rate.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed new rate and related
thresholds are reasonable because they are set at levels that will
encourage OTP Holders and OTP Firms to send additional Customer orders
to the Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed
thresholds are reasonable because, despite being set at levels that OTP
Holders and OTP Firms do not currently satisfy, the Exchange believes
they are achievable for OTP Holders and OTP Firms that send Customer
orders to the Exchange, whether they are OTP Holders and OTP Firms that
predominantly send Customer orders to the Exchange or OTP Holders and
OTP Firms that are affiliated with a Market Maker on the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed new rate is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because it will be available to all OTP
Holders and OTP Firms that transact electronic Customer orders on the
Exchange, on an equal and non-discriminatory basis.
    The Exchange further believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to generally charge a lower fee to Customers, as
compared to non-Customers, because Customers are less sophisticated
than non-Customers and the proposed change is intended to attract a
higher level of Customer order flow to the Exchange, which benefits
both Customers and non-Customers. In this regard, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the lower Customer take rate would incent OTP Holders and OTP
Firms to send additional Customer order flow to the Exchange for
execution, which would benefit the quality of the Exchange's market
and, in turn, be beneficial to all market participants. Accordingly,
the proposed new Customer take rate would be reasonably related to the
value to the Exchange's market quality associated with higher volumes
in Customer order flow.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose

any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange
notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an
environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other
exchanges. In this regard, and for the reasons described above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment and would permit the Exchange's pricing for
electronic Customer executions in non-Penny Pilot classes that take
liquidity while executing against LMMs to remain competitive with
pricing applicable on other option exchanges.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \7\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \8\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by NYSE Arca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \9\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2013-11 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2013-11. 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 NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2013-11, and should be submitted on or before
March 8, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-03572 Filed 2-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 67536]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26871]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2014-123]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before December 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2014-
0842 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jake Troutman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20951.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 6, 2014.
James M. Crotty,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2014-0842.
    Petitioner: Unmanned Systems, Inc.
    Section of 14 CFR: Part 21 Subpart H, 91.119, and 91.151(a).
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner is seeking an
exemption to commercially operate their Sandstorm unmanned aerial
system (``Sandstorm'') for operations such as: Commercial film
production; agriculture; aerial surveying; and patrolling in, remote
areas (i.e. non-congested or non-populated areas, private or
controlled-access property), in the continental United States.

[FR Doc. 2014-26871 Filed 11-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 224 (Monday, November 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 71967]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29933]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13351-000]

Marseilles Land & Water Company, IL; Notice of Availability of
Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) regulations,
18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the Office of Energy
Projects has reviewed the application for an original license for the
Marseilles Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 13351-
000), to be located on the Illinois River, in the city of Marseilles,
in LaSalle County, Illinois, and prepared an environmental assessment
(EA).
    In the EA, we analyzed the potential environmental effects of
licensing the project and conclude that issuing a license for the
project, with appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute
a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment.
    A copy of the EA is on file with the Commission and is available
for public inspection. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-(866) 208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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, contact FERC
Online Support.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the issuance date
of this notice, and should be addressed to the Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1-A,
Washington, DC 20426. Please affix ``Marseilles Lock and Dam Project
No. 13351-000'' to all comments. Comments may be filed electronically
via Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions
on the Commission's Web site under the ``eFiling'' link. For further
information, contact Janet Hutzel at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: November 10, 2011.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-29933 Filed 11-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


H. Other Issues Two commenters disagreed with our statement that used CRTs sent for disassembly and recycling are solid wastes unless managed in accordance with the conditions in today s rule. These commenters believed that CRTs should not be considered wastes until they were actually disposed, abandoned, or thrown away. On the other hand, another commenter believed that users of CRTs who send the materials to resellers should be regulated because they may have a good idea which computers are reusable and which are not. This commenter was concerned that our interpretation might be applied to large groups of secondary materials that would be considered exempt from regulation until they are sent to handlers who make the decision to reuse, recycle, or dispose of them. Another commenter disagreed with the Agency s long standing interpretation of the regulatory status of materials that are transported across more than one state. In response to these commenters, we note that the point of generation for used CRTs and other secondary materials was not part of our proposal, and is outside the scope of this rulemaking. In addition, today s rule is intended to be applicable only to CRTs, not to other secondary materials.

One commenter said that the term   disposal  as defined in 40 CFR § 260.10 is limited to discharge or placement in land or water. The commenter suggested that the proposed language at 40 CFR § 261.4( a)( 23)( i) ( which would exclude used intact CRTs from the definition of solid waste unless disposed) would therefore allow such CRTs to be abandoned or incinerated. Another commenter said that the proposed rule would allow CRTs to be burned for energy recovery or used in a manner constituting disposal, thus promoting sham recycling. In response, the Agency notes that 40 CFR § § 261.2( b)( 1) and ( 2) provide that materials are solid wastes if they are abandoned by being disposed of, burned or incinerated. In addition, today s rule subjects used, intact CRTs to the speculative accumulation provisions of 40 CFR § 261.1( c)( 8). Finally, recycling CRTs through use constituting disposal is prohibited under 40 CFR § 261.39( a)( 4) unless the conditions of Part 266, Subpart C are met, and CRTs burned for energy recovery would be considered solid wastes pursuant to 40 CFR 261.2( c)( 2); hence they would not be excluded from RCRA regulation under today s rule.

One commenter also pointed out that proposed sections 40 CFR § § 261.39( c),( d), and ( e) ( provisions for processed CRT glass) all contained requirements for imported glass. Proposed 40 CFR § § 261.39( a) and ( b), on the other hand, which govern requirements for 39 CRTs prior to and during processing, lack a specific reference to imports. In response, we note that other regulatory exclusions from the definition of solid waste do not refer specifically to imports, even though imported materials must comply with the conditions of the exclusion in question if they are not to be considered solid wastes. To avoid confusion and to make today s rule consistent with other regulatory exclusions, we have deleted the reference to imports.

Finally, this commenter suggested changing the wording of proposed 40 CFR § 261.39( e) from   processed glass  .. must comply with the requirements of     to   processed glass must be managed in compliance with the requirements of ..  since people, rather than inanimate objects, comply with requirements. The Agency agrees with this suggestion and has modified this provision accordingly ( see 40 CFR § 261.39( d)) in today s rule.

Two commenters said that EPA s preamble discussion of CRTs sent for reuse could be misleading because we implied that only CRTs destined for   minor  repairs would be outside the definition of solid waste. These commenters said that the extent of CRT repairs does not have any effect on whether the units are intended for continued use and subsequently continue to be used. The Agency agrees with these statements and has modified the relevant preamble discussion accordingly ( see Section II. B of the preamble to the final rule). Another commenter asked us to clarify that transporters of CRTs to resellers are not subject to the requirements of 40 CFR Part 263. We have stated in the preamble that CRTs sent to resellers are considered products, not wastes. As such, they are not regulated at all under the Subtitle C regulations.

One commenter suggested that EPA explore options that would require computer and television manufacturers to take back their equipment as a means of establishing a recycling infrastructure. As discussed in the preamble to this rule, EPA has been involved in a multistakeholder dialogue to identify ways to increase funding for recycling used electronics. However, mandatory take back plans were not discussed in our proposal and are outside the scope of this rulemaking.

Other commenters were concerned about the regulatory status of used circuit boards sent for recycling, as well as CRTs from households and conditionally exempt small quantity generators. These commenters generally believed that EPA should change its regulations to exert more control over these materials, mainly to prevent disposal. These suggestions are also outside the scope of this rulemaking.

Another commenter expressed concerns about interstate transport of CRTs. This commenter noted that some states might require waste CRTs shipped through their state to be accompanied by a hazardous waste manifest even though use of such a manifest was not required under federal law. This commenter advanced legal arguments by which she believed that EPA could justify preempting certain state transportation requirements ( intrastate as well as interstate), thereby leading to uniform transportation requirements for CRTs. Preemption of state transportation requirements in the case of federal exclusions from the definition of solid waste is outside the scope of this rulemaking.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69184-69185]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24177]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0275]

60-Day Notice of New Information Collection: Commercial Driver's
License (CDL) Skills Testing Delays

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review and approval and invites public comment. This ICR is to collect
data on the delays, by State, that applicants face when scheduling a
CDL skills test. This information collection and subsequent data
analysis is required by section 5506 of the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act, 2015 (FAST Act).

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before December 5, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2016-0275 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the exemption process, see the Public
Participation heading below. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the
online instructions for accessing the dockets, or go to the street
address listed above.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Public Participation: The Federal eRulemaking Portal is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can obtain electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the ``help'' section
of the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site. If you want us to notify
you that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed,
stamped envelope or postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that
appears after submitting comments online. Comments received after the
comment closing date will be included in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Michel, Office of Analysis,
Research, and Technology/Research Division, Department of
Transportation, FMCSA, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: Section 5506 of the FAST Act requires FMCSA to produce
a study on CDL skills test delays on an annual basis. The requirements
of the study are to submit a report describing:
    ``(A) the average wait time from the date an applicant requests to
take a skills test to the date the applicant has the opportunity to
complete such test;
    (B) the average wait time from the date an applicant, upon failure
of a skills test, requests a retest to the date the applicant has the
opportunity to complete such retest;
    (C) the actual number of qualified commercial driver's license
examiners available to test applicants; and
    (D) the number of testing sites available through the State
department of motor vehicles and whether this number has increased or
decreased from the previous year.''
    The report is also required to describe ``specific steps the
Administrator is taking to address skills testing delays in States that
have average skills test or retest wait times of more than 7 days.'' If
this information collection does not occur, FMCSA will not be able to
conduct a study on CDL skills test delays, as there is currently no
repository of information on skills tests and the required data is not
available for all States at this time. If information collection occurs
on a less-than-annual basis, FMCSA will not be able to make
observations on yearly trends or analyze differences in each State on a
year-to-year basis.
    FMCSA has met with several stakeholders, including the American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the Commercial Vehicle
Training Association, and State Driver Licensing Agencies to ensure
that the information being collected in this survey has not already
been collected, is not currently available to FMCSA, and

is not in the process of being collected. Extensive background research
was conducted to ensure the study was not duplicative. A previous
study, done by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2015,
asked for similar information but did not produce specific enough data
to be used in this study.
    The survey will be sent out via email, with the option for online
completion using SurveyMonkey[supreg]. Each State can respond via email
or the online survey depending on which method is more convenient for
the respondent. The welcome letter will indicate that FMCSA prefers
responses via the online survey tool.
    The information collected will be published annually in a report to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate
and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives. The first report is due to Congress no later than June
1, 2017. Subsequent reports will be published on an annual basis
thereafter.
    Title: Survey on CDL Skills Testing Delays.
    OMB Control Number: To be determined.
    Type of Request: New collection.
    Respondents: State CDL Coordinators (one from each of the 50
States, and one from Washington, DC).
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 51.
    Estimated Time per Response: 2.2 hours (132 minutes).
    Expiration Date: N/A. This is a new ICR.
    Frequency of Response: Annually.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: The annual burden is estimated to be
no more than 2.2 hours (132 minutes) per respondent, which equates to
112.2 hours over the universe of 51 respondents. This estimate contains
a maximum of 2 hours to gather information from State information
systems, and an estimated maximum of 12 minutes to respond to the
survey. While States that already track and report similar information
may need much less than 2 hours to gather information, discussions with
subject matter experts led to an agreement that 2 hours was a
reasonable maximum time limit to use to estimate the maximum annual
burden expected.
    The estimate time for survey completion was calculated using Versta
Research's methodology for calculating an estimate of survey length,
where each question is given a number of points based on the estimated
burden required to respond to the question (for example, simple
multiple choice questions are 1 point, whereas short answer questions
are 3 points per expected short phrase). The total number of points for
all questions is then divided by eight (the number of simple questions
a user can respond to online in 1 minute) to determine the estimate
required length for finishing the survey.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions; (2)
the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The Agency will summarize or include your
comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87 on:

    Dated: September 29, 2016.
Kelly Regal,
Associate Administrator for Office of Research and Information
Technology.
[FR Doc. 2016-24177 Filed 10-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


TABLE 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost NESHAP for Portland Cement ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart LLL)

REPORTING/ RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT Hours/ Occ urence ( A) Occurences / Year ( B) Hours/ Year ( C= A* B)

( C) Respondents / Year ( D) Technical Person Hours ( E= CxD) Managerial Person Hours ( Ex0.05) Clerical Person Hours ( Ex0.10) Total Costs/ Year ( F)

1. APPLICATIONS N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 2. SURVEY AND STUDIES N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 3. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS a. Read Instructions 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 b. Required Activities Initial Performance Tests 57 1 57 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Repeat of Performance Tests 57 0.1 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 Periodic Performance Tests 40 1 40 64.2 2,568.0 128.4 256.8 $ 238,407.98 Repeat of Performance Tests 40 0.1 4 6.4 25.7 1.3 2.6 $ 2,384.08 Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan 40 1 40 107 4,280 214 428 $ 397,346.64 Operations and Maintenance Plan 40 1 40 107 4,280 214 428 $ 397,346.64 Visual Emissions and Opacity Monitoring 0.1 12 1.2 107 128.4 6.4 12.8 $ 11,920.40 c. Create Information  Included in 3b

d. Gather Existing Information  Included in 3b

e. Write Report Notification of Applicability 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Notification of Construction/ Reconstruction 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Notification of Actual Startup 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Request for Extension of Compliance 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Notification of Special Compliance Requirements 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Notification of Performance Test 2 1.1 2.2 64.2 141.2 7.1 14.1 $ 13,112.44 Notification of Opacity and Visible Emission Observation 2 1 2 64.2 128.4 6.4 12.8 $ 11,920.40 Notification of the Continuous Emission Monitor Performance Evaluation 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Notification of Compliance Status 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Notification of Adjustment to Time Periods or Postmark Deadlines for Submittal and Review of Required Communications 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Notification of Change in Information Already Provided 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Report of Initial Performance Tests 8 1.1 8.8 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Report of Periodic Performance Tests 8 1.1 8.8 64.2 564.96 28.248 56.496 $ 52,449.76 REPORTING/ RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT Hours/ Occ urence ( A) Occurences / Year ( B) Hours/ Year ( C= A* B)

( C) Respondents / Year ( D) Technical Person Hours ( E= CxD) Managerial Person Hours ( Ex0.05) Clerical Person Hours ( Ex0.10) Total Costs/ Year ( F)

Opacity and Visual Emissions Observations  Included in 3b

Reporting Results of Continuous Monitoring System Performance Report and Summary Report  Included in 3b

Progress Reports 8 2 16 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Excess Emissions and Continuous Monitoring System Performance Report and 8 2 16 107 1,712 85.6 171.2 $ 158,938.66 Periodic Startup, Shutdown,

Malfunction Report  Included in Excess Emissions Report

Immediate Startup, Shutdown,

Malfunction Reports 4 1 4 5 20 1 2 $ 1,856.76 Request for Waiver of Reporting and Recordkeeping 4 1 4 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 4. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS a. Read Instructions  Included in 3a

b. Plan Activities  Included in 3b

c. Implement Activities  Included in 3b

d. Develop Record System N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A e. Time to Enter Information Records of All Information Required by Standards 0.25 52 13 107 1,391 69.6 139.1 $ 127,788.39 f. Train Personnel N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A g. Audits N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A SUBTOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN 15,239.7 762.0 1,524.0 $ 1,413,472 GRAND TOTAL 17,526 Assumptions Number of affected facilities 107 Time required to read instructions ( hours) 1 Time required to complete performance test ( hours) 57 Periodic performance test ( hours) 40 Performance test reports ( hours) 8 Rate of failed performance tests ( repeat) 10%

Periodic performance tests ( every five years and every 30 minutes)

= 60% 64.2 Estimated hours to prepare the Startup/ Shutdown/ Malfunction 40 Time required to conduct visual and opacity monitoring 0.1 Estimated number of sources at an affected facility that require visual emissions and opacity 12 Time required to prepare notifications ( hours) 2 Number of new facilities ( per year) 2 Time required to prepare progress reports ( hours) 8 Time required to prepare excess emissions reports ( hours) 8 Time required to prepare immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports ( hours) 4 Time required to file information required by standard ( hours) 0.25 Technical labor rate $ 83.71 Managerial labor rate $ 97.46 Clerical labor rate $ 42.55


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7238-7239]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2837]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2011-0028]

Pipeline Safety: Dangers of Abnormal Snow and Ice Build-Up on Gas
Distribution Systems

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

ACTION: Notice; issuance of advisory bulletin.

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

SUMMARY: This advisory bulletin advises owners and operators of
petroleum gas and natural gas facilities of the need to take the
appropriate steps to prevent damage to pipeline facilities from
accumulated snow or ice. Past events on natural gas distribution system
facilities appear to have been related to either the stress of snow and
ice or the malfunction of pressure control equipment due to ice
blockage of pressure control equipment vents. This advisory reminds
owners and operators of the need to take precautionary actions to
prevent adverse events.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Daugherty, Deputy Associate
Administrator for Policy and Programs at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The accumulation of snow and ice increases the potential for damage
to meters and regulators and other aboveground pipeline facilities and
components. Incidents have occurred in past winters on natural gas
distribution system facilities that appear to have been related to
either the stress of snow and ice or malfunction of pressure control
equipment due to ice blockage of pressure control equipment vents.
Exposed piping at metering and pressure regulating stations, at service
regulators, and at propane tanks, are at greatest risk. Damage may
result from the stresses imposed by the additional loading of the snow
or ice. Damage to facilities may also result from the impact of snow or
ice falling from roofs, ice forming in or on regulators preventing
their proper operation, or shoveling snow from roofs to protect
dwellings from abnormal snow accumulation.

II. Advisory Bulletin (ADB-11-02)

    To: Owners and Operators of Petroleum Gas and Natural Gas
Facilities in Areas Subject to Heavy Snowfall or Abnormally Icy
Weather.
    Subject: Dangers of Abnormal Snow and Ice Build-up on Gas
Distribution Systems.
    Purpose: To remind owners and operators of the need to (1) monitor
the potential impact of excessive snow and ice on these facilities; and
(2) inform the public about possible hazards from snow and ice
accumulation on regulators and other pipeline facilities.
    Advisory: PHMSA is advising operators of petroleum gas and natural
gas pipeline facilities, regardless of whether those facilities are
regulated by PHMSA or state agencies, to consider the following steps
to address the safety risks from accumulated snow and ice on pipeline
facilities:
    1. Notify customers and other entities of the need for caution
associated with excessive accumulation and removal of snow and ice.
Notice should include the need to clear snow and ice from exhaust and
combustion air vents for gas appliances to:
    (a) Prevent accumulation of carbon monoxide in buildings; or
    (b) Prevent operational problems for the combustion equipment.
    2. Pay attention to snow and ice related situations that may cause
operational problems for pressure control and other equipment.
    3. Monitor the accumulation of moisture in equipment and snow or
ice blocking regulator or relief valve vents which could prevent
regulators and relief valves from functioning properly.
    4. The piping on service regulator sets is susceptible to damage
that could result in failure if caution is not exercised in cleaning
snow from around the equipment. Where possible, use a broom instead of
a shovel to clear snow off regulators, meters, associated piping,
propane tanks, tubing, gauges or other propane system appurtenances.
    5. Remind the public to contact the gas company or designated
emergency response officials if there is an odor of gas present or if
gas appliances are not functioning properly. Also, remind the public
that they should leave their residence immediately if they detect a gas
or propane odor and report the odor

to their gas company, propane operator or designated emergency response
officials.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. chapter 601; 49 CFR 1.53.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 3, 2011.
Linda Daugherty,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Policy and Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011-2837 Filed 2-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P