[Federal Register: June 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 126)]
[Notices]
[Page 36862-36863]
[DOCID:fr30jn08-65]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0445; A-1-FRL-8686-5]

Adequacy Status of the Rhode Island 8-Hour Ozone Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity Purposes; Rhode Island

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of adequacy.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is notifying the public that EPA has found that the 2008
and 2009 motor vehicle emissions budgets in the April 30, 2008 Rhode
Island 8-hour ozone State Implementation Plan revision are adequate for
transportation conformity purposes. The submittal includes 2008 and
2009 motor vehicle emission budgets for the Providence (All of RI), RI
8-hour ozone nonattainment area. As a result of our finding, Rhode
Island must use these motor vehicle emission budgets for future
conformity determinations.

DATES: This finding is effective July 15, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ariel Garcia, Environmental Engineer,
Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ),
Boston, MA 02114-2023,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Today's action is simply an announcement of a finding that we have
already made. EPA New England sent a letter to the Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management on June 16, 2008, stating that
the 2008 and 2009 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) in the
Providence (All of RI), RI 8-hour ozone nonattainment area are
adequate. Rhode Island submitted the budgets on April 30, 2008, as part
of the 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration and reasonable further
progress plan for Rhode Island. This submittal was announced on EPA's
conformity Web site, and received no comments. (See http://www.epa.gov/
otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm. Once there, click on ''What
SIP submissions are currently under EPA adequacy review?'')
    The 2008 and 2009 MVEBs, in tons per summer day (tpsd), for
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) for Providence (All of RI), RI, are as follows:

                Adequate Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Providence (All of RI),
                                                         RI area
                                               -------------------------
                                                 VOC (tpsd)   NOX (tpsd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2008.....................................        24.64        28.26
Year 2009.....................................        22.75        25.29
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act. EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation
plans, programs, and projects conform to state air quality
implementation plans and establishes the criteria and procedures for
determining whether or not they do. Conformity to a SIP means that
transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national
ambient air quality standards.
    The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's motor vehicle
emissions budgets are adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in
40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). We have described our process for determining the
adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in our July 1, 2004, preamble
starting at 69 FR 40038, and we used the information in these resources
while making our adequacy determination. Please note that an adequacy
review is separate from EPA's completeness review, and it also should
not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval of the SIP. Even if we
find a budget adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671 q.

    Dated: June 21, 2008.
 Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. E8-14798 Filed 6-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 174 (Monday, September 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 47281]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19432]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER19-2717-000]

Madison ESS, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Madison ESS, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is September 23, 2019.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 3, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-19432 Filed 9-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                                                      OMB Control No: 2050-0179
                                                    Expiration Date xx/xx/xxxx

              What Do You Think About the U.S. EPA's Community
                  Involvement Efforts at the ________   Site?

      The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is cleaning up the contamination at the __________ Superfund site in your community.  The U.S. EPA believes the active, meaningful involvement of community members is critical to the success of a cleanup effort.  This survey is an opportunity for you to tell us how well we are doing at listening to your concerns about the cleanup and making it possible for you to participate in the planning and decision making process.  Please take a few minutes to answer the questions.  Your views are important and will help us to be more responsive to your needs and interests.

      This survey is being conducted in accordance with the Federal Paperwork Reduction Act Information Collection Request # 1487.11.  You will need about 15 minutes to answer the questions.

*Note to surveyors: It is intended that each survey given will include the introductory paragraph, above, and Section G with the closing disclosure.  Sections A-F are optional sections with questions that may be used as a specific situation dictates.  This survey is NOT intended to be given in its entirety. The surveyor may also choose, in addition to paper copies, to provide the survey to participants online via commercially available software.

Section A:	Assessing Overall U.S. EPA Community Involvement Efforts

A-1.	How do you rate the U.S. EPA at each of the following?   (Circle one choice for each question)

   a. Providing the information you need.
                                   Very Poor
                                     Poor
                                    Average
                                     Good
                                   Very Good
   b. Making the information easy to understand.
                                   Very Poor
                                     Poor
                                    Average
                                     Good
                                   Very Good
   c. Making it easy to get involved.
                                   Very Poor
                                     Poor
                                    Average
                                     Good
                                   Very Good
   d. Listening to your concerns.
                                   Very Poor
                                     Poor
                                    Average
                                     Good
                                   Very Good
   e. Responding to your concerns.
                                   Very Poor
                                     Poor
                                    Average
                                     Good
                                   Very Good
   f. Treating you courteously.
                                   Very Poor
                                     Poor
                                    Average
                                     Good
                                   Very Good
   g. Using your input.
                                   Very Poor
                                     Poor
                                    Average
                                     Good
                                   Very Good
   h. Explaining decisions.
                                   Very Poor
                                     Poor
                                    Average
                                     Good
                                   Very Good

Section B:	Assessing U.S. EPA Efforts at Keeping Communities Informed

B-1.  	How do you learn about the U.S. EPA's work at the site? (Check all that apply)

_____
U.S. EPA mailings
_____
Newspaper articles
_____
Radio or TV news
_____
U.S. EPA's web page
_____
Community members/family/friends
_____
Public meeting or information session held by the U.S. EPA
_____
Direct conversation with someone from the U.S. EPA
_____
Information about the site is "common knowledge"
_____
Know someone who worked at the site
_____
Through one or more community organizations, business associations, or advisory groups (CAG)
_____
Social Media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.)
_____
Other (Please specify): ____________________________________________________________

B-2.	How would you prefer to receive information from the U.S. EPA about the site?
      (Check up to 3 choices)

_____
Mailings -- short (1-2 pages) very focused (issue-specific) sent frequently
_____
Mailings -- longer, general information, sent periodically
_____
Emails -- brief, very focused (issue-specific) sent frequently
_____
Emails -- longer, general information, sent periodically
_____
Meetings -- short, very focused, held frequently
_____
Meetings -- longer, general informational meetings, held periodically
_____
Social media (Facebook, Twitter)
_____
Direct communication with an U.S. EPA representative
_____
The U.S. EPA website
_____
Presentations at local clubs and organizations
_____
Other (Please specify): ____________________________________________________________
B-3.  	How interested are you in obtaining information about the following topics?  (Circle one answer for each question)

   a. U.S. EPA's Superfund Program.
                                Not Interested
                              Somewhat Interested
                                  Interested
                                Very Interested
   b. Contamination at the site.
                                Not Interested
                              Somewhat Interested
                                  Interested
                                Very Interested
   c. How the site might affect human health.
                                Not Interested
                              Somewhat Interested
                                  Interested
                                Very Interested
   d. How the site might affect the environment.
                                Not Interested
                              Somewhat Interested
                                  Interested
                                Very Interested
   e. Site cleanup decisions.
                                Not Interested
                              Somewhat Interested
                                  Interested
                                Very Interested
   f. Site reuse or redevelopment.
                                Not Interested
                              Somewhat Interested
                                  Interested
                                Very Interested
   g. Other (Please specify):_____________
                                Not Interested
                              Somewhat Interested
                                  Interested
                                Very Interested

B-4. 	In what ways do you prefer to participate at this site? (Check all that apply)

_____
Through opportunities to provide written comments on U.S. EPA documents.
_____
Through public meetings.
_____
Through opportunities to meet and talk informally with U.S. EPA staff.
_____
By attending community club/organization meetings that U.S. EPA staff have been invited to.
_____
By calling a toll-free telephone number.
_____
Through a community group.
_____
Through opportunities to talk with independent experts.
_____
Through a web site or social media.
_____
Other (Please specify): ___________________________________________________________
_____
Not interested in being involved.

B-5.	Please tell us whether you have ever:
   a. Provided information to the U.S. EPA about the site and its history.
Yes
No
   b. Expressed your concerns about the site to the U.S. EPA.
Yes
No
   c. Offered suggestions or advice about the site to the U.S. EPA.
Yes
No
   d. Given comments to the U.S. EPA on materials available for public review.
Yes
No
   e. Requested information from the U.S. EPA about the site.
Yes
No
   f. Attended a U.S. EPA-sponsored meeting or event about the site.
Yes
No
   g. Visited the site's information repository.
Yes
No

B-6. 	In a few words, what is your understanding of the cleanup work U.S. EPA plans to do at the site?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
B-7.	How concerned are you that the site may be harmful to each of the following: (Circle one answer for each question.)

   a.  My or my family's health.
                                      Not
                                   Concerned
                                   Somewhat
                                   Concerned
                                   Concerned
                                     Very
                                   Concerned
                                Not Applicable
   b.  The environment.
                                      Not
                                   Concerned
                                   Somewhat
                                   Concerned
                                   Concerned
                                     Very
                                   Concerned
                                Not Applicable
   c.  Property values.
                                      Not
                                   Concerned
                                   Somewhat
                                   Concerned
                                   Concerned
                                     Very
                                   Concerned
                                Not Applicable
   d.  Jobs in the community.
                                      Not
                                   Concerned
                                   Somewhat
                                   Concerned
                                   Concerned
                                     Very
                                   Concerned
                                Not Applicable
   e.  Business in the community.
                                      Not
                                   Concerned
                                   Somewhat
                                   Concerned
                                   Concerned
                                     Very
                                   Concerned
                                Not Applicable
   f.  Community historical or cultural integrity.
                                      Not
                                   Concerned
                                   Somewhat
                                   Concerned
                                   Concerned
                                     Very
                                   Concerned
                                Not Applicable
   g.  Site redevelopment or reuse.
                                      Not
                                   Concerned
                                   Somewhat
                                   Concerned
                                   Concerned
                                     Very
                                   Concerned
                                Not Applicable

Section C:	Public Meeting Feedback Questions

These questions will help the U.S. EPA better understand what worked well and what improvements to consider making before holding future public meetings.

C-1.	How did you learn about this public meeting? (Check all that apply)

_____
U.S. EPA mailings (other than this survey)
_____
Newspaper articles
_____
Radio or TV news
_____
Community organization
_____
Family or friends
_____
Email from U.S. EPA
_____
U.S. EPA's website
_____
Social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.)
_____
Flyers in store windows/bulletin boards
_____
Direct conversation with someone from the U.S. EPA
_____
Other (Please specify): ___________________________________________________________

C-2.	Please give us your feedback on the following:  (Circle one choice for each question)

a. 	Information about the meeting was available early enough to make plans to attend.
                               Strongly Disagree
                                   Disagree
                                     Agree
                                Strongly Agree
b.	Meeting location was convenient.
                               Strongly Disagree
                                   Disagree
                                     Agree
                                Strongly Agree
c.	Meeting facility was comfortable.
                               Strongly Disagree
                                   Disagree
                                     Agree
                                Strongly Agree
d.	Meeting time was convenient.
                               Strongly Disagree
                                   Disagree
                                     Agree
                                Strongly Agree
e.	The length of the meeting was appropriate.
                               Strongly Disagree
                                   Disagree
                                     Agree
                                Strongly Agree
f.	Language interpreters were available
    (if needed).
                               Strongly Disagree
                                   Disagree
                                     Agree
                                Strongly Agree
g.  Provisions were made to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities
                               Strongly Disagree
                                   Disagree
                                     Agree
                                Strongly Agree
   h. Meeting facility was well-equipped for all planned activities (enough seats, work space, supplies, etc.).
                               Strongly Disagree
                                   Disagree
                                     Agree
                                Strongly Agree

C-3.   What topics were of most interest to you at the meeting?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

C-4.   How was the meeting useful to you? ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

C-5.   How can U.S. EPA improve the next public meeting?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

Section D:	Questions for Use During Site Cleanup-Removal/Relocation

These questions will help the U.S. EPA better understand what worked well and what improvements to consider when implementing future removals requiring temporary relocation of residents.
Introduction: You were recently relocated while removal and restoration activities were completed at your property.  These activities were designed to remove significant potential sources of _[contaminant]_ from your property, thereby reducing any potential _[contaminant]_-related health exposures.  We would appreciate it if you could take a few moments to provide feedback on your relocation experience and the removal/restoration work that was completed on your property.

D-1.   Relocation  (Circle one choice for each question)

a. 	U.S. EPA staff were friendly and helpful.
                               Strongly Disagree
                                   Disagree
                                     Agree
                                   Strongly
                                     Agree
                                Not Applicable
b.	The relocation handouts I was given were useful and understandable.
                               Strongly Disagree
                                   Disagree
                                     Agree
                                   Strongly
                                     Agree
                                Not Applicable
c.	U.S. EPA staff responded to my questions in a timely manner.
                               Strongly Disagree
                                   Disagree
                                     Agree
                                   Strongly
                                     Agree
                                Not Applicable
d.	I was treated with courtesy and respect by U.S. EPA staff.
                               Strongly Disagree
                                   Disagree
                                     Agree
                                   Strongly
                                     Agree
                                Not Applicable
e.	U.S. EPA staff contacted me as often as I would have liked:

    *   Before my relocation.
                               Strongly Disagree
                                   Disagree
                                     Agree
                                   Strongly
                                     Agree
                                Not Applicable
    *   While I was relocated.
                               Strongly Disagree
                                   Disagree
                                     Agree
                                   Strongly
                                     Agree
                                Not Applicable
   *   After my property was cleaned up and I was back in my home.
                               Strongly Disagree
                                   Disagree
                                     Agree
                                   Strongly
                                     Agree
                                Not Applicable
f.	I was well-informed of my choices for relocation (hotel, friend's home, etc.).
                               Strongly Disagree
                                   Disagree
                                     Agree
                                   Strongly
                                     Agree
                                Not Applicable
g.	I was well-informed about the expected length of my relocation and was kept informed of any changes.
                               Strongly Disagree
                                   Disagree
                                     Agree
                                   Strongly
                                     Agree
                                Not Applicable
h.	I was told when I needed to relocate with enough time to plan my move.
                               Strongly Disagree
                                   Disagree
                                     Agree
                                   Strongly
                                     Agree
                                Not Applicable
i.	The reimbursement paperwork was understandable.
                               Strongly Disagree
                                   Disagree
                                     Agree
                                   Strongly
                                     Agree
                                Not Applicable
j.	I received my reimbursement within 30 days.
                               Strongly Disagree
                                   Disagree
                                     Agree
                                   Strongly
                                     Agree
                                Not Applicable

D-2.	U.S. EPA's Work on My Property: Removal and Restoration (Circle one choice for each question)

a.	I was well-informed about the extent of the work U.S. EPA would do on my property.
                               Strongly Disagree
                                   Disagree
                                     Agree
                                   Strongly
                                     Agree
                                Not Applicable
b.	The specifics of the property restoration were explained in writing and provided to me.
                               Strongly Disagree
                                   Disagree
                                     Agree
                                   Strongly
                                     Agree
                                Not Applicable
c.	I was informed of the landscape options for my property.
                               Strongly Disagree
                                   Disagree
                                     Agree
                                   Strongly
                                     Agree
                                Not Applicable
d.	I understood what I had to do following the removal at my property in order for the landscaping to be successful.
                               Strongly Disagree
                                   Disagree
                                     Agree
                                   Strongly
                                     Agree
                                Not Applicable
e.	The on-site workers were courteous and respectful.
                               Strongly Disagree
                                   Disagree
                                     Agree
                                   Strongly
                                     Agree
                                Not Applicable
f.	I was kept informed about any changes in the schedule for the work on my property.
                               Strongly Disagree
                                   Disagree
                                     Agree
                                   Strongly
                                     Agree
                                Not Applicable
g.	I was informed if any of my possessions could NOT be decontaminated.
                               Strongly Disagree
                                   Disagree
                                     Agree
                                   Strongly
                                     Agree
                                Not Applicable
h. 	My property was restored to a condition at least equal to its previous condition (recognizing that it may take time and water/aerating on my part for the seed to take or plants to grow).
                               Strongly Disagree
                                   Disagree
                                     Agree
                                   Strongly
                                     Agree
                                Not Applicable
i.	The work done on my property met my expectations.
                               Strongly Disagree
                                   Disagree
                                     Agree
                                   Strongly
                                     Agree
                                Not Applicable

D-3.	Do you have any additional comments/feedback regarding your relocation or the removal/restoration work on your property? (Use the space below)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

Section E:	 Questions for Use at Sites with Institutional Controls

These questions will help the U.S. EPA better understand whether community members are aware of, or interested in, information about any institutional controls (ICs) at the site - , which are administrative and legal controls, including limitations on land use or resource use, deed restrictions, or building codes. An example of an IC might be building code restrictions to prevent vapor intrusion, or preventing development on a landfill cap to avoid damage to the integrity of the cap surface. Community input can be essential to selecting, using, and monitoring ICs that are the best fit for the community and the protectiveness of the remedy.

E-1.	Are you aware of any restrictions (institutional controls) in place at the site including limitations on land and/or resource use, building code requirements or deed restrictions?
       ___Yes 	 ___ No

E-2.	Would you like more information about restrictions (institutional controls) on the use of land or resources or any deed restrictions in place at the site?
      ___Yes	 ___ No

If yes, please contact  (Name and phone number) to request the information.

Section F:	Questions about Technical Assistance Resources Provided to the Community

These questions will help the U.S. EPA better understand how to provide the most effective technical assistance resources at sites.

F-1.	Do you know of any assistance U.S. EPA has provided to help you and other community members/groups better understand technical and scientific information regarding the site cleanup?

       ____Yes     	 _____No   (Please skip to question F-3)

F-2.  How was technical assistance provided to your community? (check all that apply)
____
Through a Technical Assistance Grant (TAG)
____
Through Technical Assistance Services for Communities (TASC)
____
Through U.S. EPA site staff
____
Through assistance from a local, regional or national organization/entity/university
____
Through a Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit (PEHSU)
____
Through a Technical Assistance Plan (TAP)
____
Through Technical Assistance for Public Participation (TAPP)
____
I do not know how the assistance was provided
____
Other (Please specify):__________________________________________________________

Please rate how useful each of the following has been in helping community members better understand information about the site and take a more active role in the process:

 a.	Community informational newsletters and/or factsheets.
                                  Not Helpful
                               Somewhat Helpful
                                    Helpful
                                 Very Helpful
                                Not Applicable
 b. 	Presentations by experts to explain technical site information to the community.
                                  Not Helpful
                               Somewhat Helpful
                                    Helpful
                                 Very Helpful
                                Not Applicable
 c.	Community informational workshops/trainings.
                                  Not Helpful
                               Somewhat Helpful
                                    Helpful
                                 Very Helpful
                                Not Applicable
 d.	Redevelopment planning.
                                  Not Helpful
                               Somewhat Helpful
                                    Helpful
                                 Very Helpful
                                Not Applicable
 e.	U.S. EPA provides facilitator or mediator to help the community.
                                  Not Helpful
                               Somewhat Helpful
                                    Helpful
                                 Very Helpful
                                Not Applicable
 f.	U.S. EPA assists community groups that want to help the community understand or participate in the site cleanup process.
                                  Not Helpful
                               Somewhat Helpful
                                    Helpful
                                 Very Helpful
                                Not Applicable
 g.	Other (Please specify):  ___________________________
                                  Not Helpful
                               Somewhat Helpful
                                    Helpful
                                 Very Helpful
                                Not Applicable

F-3. 	If technical assistance has not been provided to your community, which of the following activities could help you and other community members/groups better understand technical and scientific information regarding the site cleanup? (Check all that apply)

____
Community informational newsletters and/or factsheets.
____
Presentations by experts to explain technical site information to the community.
____
Community informational workshops/trainings.
____
Redevelopment planning.
____
U.S. EPA provided facilitator or mediator to help the community.
____
U.S. EPA gave assistance to one or more community groups that wanted to help the community understand or participate more actively in the site cleanup process.
____
Other (Please specify):__________________________________________________________
____
I don't feel that any technical assistance is needed.

Section G: 	General Information [REQUIRED Section]

This section must be included at the end of all surveys.

G-1.	Is there anything else you would like to tell us about the U. S. EPA's community involvement efforts or about the cleanup activities at this site?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for taking the time to share your views with us. If you would like to be on the U.S. EPA's mailing list, please contact (Name, Telephone Number).

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed survey to this address.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 5287]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02392]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 8, 2018.

PLACE: Closed Commission Hearing Room 10800.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 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)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Peirce, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed;
please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at
(202) 551-5400.

    Dated: February 1, 2018.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-02392 Filed 2-2-18; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 225)]
[Notices]
[Page 67667]
[DOCID:fr22no06-134]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54682A; File No. SR-FICC-2006-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Modify Its Rules To
Diversify and Standardize Clearing Fund Collateral Requirements Across
the Divisions To Improve Liquidity and Minimize Risk for Its Members;
Correction and Extension of Comment Period

November 17, 2006.

Correction

    In FR Doc. E6-18948, beginning on page 65855 for Thursday, November
9, 2006, revise the number ``500,000'' to read ``5,000,000'' on page
65856, second column, sixth line.

Extension

    On October 4, 2006, the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation
(``FICC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder \2\ that would modify the rules of both of the Government
Securities Division (``GSD'') and the Mortgage-Backed Securities
Division (``MBSD'') (collectively, the ``Divisions'') of FICC to
diversify and standardize Clearing Fund collateral requirements across
the Divisions. A complete description of the proposed rule change is
found in the notice of filing, which was published in the Federal
Register on November 9, 2006.\3\ The comment period expires on November
30, 2006.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Exchange Act Release No. 54682 (November 1, 2006) 71 FR
65855 (November 9, 2006) (SR-FICC-2006-15).
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To give the public additional time to comment on the correction
above, the Commission has decided to extend the comment period pursuant
to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act.\5\ Accordingly, the comment period
shall be extended until December 12, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-FICC-2006-15 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-FICC-2006-15. 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 Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filings also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of FICC
and on FICC's Web site at http://www.ficc.com/gov/notices/GOV115.06.htm?NS-query.
 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-FICC-2006-15 and should be submitted on or before December 12, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-19727 Filed 11-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 199)]
[Notices]
[Page 58661]
[DOCID:fr16oc07-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD07-15-000]

State of the Natural Gas Industry Conference; Notice of
Commission Conference

October 5, 2007.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will hold a conference on
November 6, 2007, from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (EST), in the Commission
Meeting Room on the second floor of the offices of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC.
    All interested persons may attend; there is no registration and no
fee.
    The conference will provide the Commission the opportunity to hear
from knowledgeable industry experts and discuss the challenges facing
the natural gas industry and its customers. A future notice will
provide greater detail.
    Transcripts of the conference will be immediately available from
Ace Reporting Company<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-336-6646) for a fee.
Additionally, Capitol Connection offers the opportunity for remote
listening and viewing of the conference. It is available for a fee,
live over the Internet, by phone, or via satellite. Persons interested
in receiving the broadcast, or who need information on making
arrangements should contact David Reininger or Julia Morelli at the
Capitol Connection<PHONE_NUMBER>) as soon as possible or visit the
Capitol Connection Web site at http://www.capitolconnection.gmu.edu and

click on ``FERC.''
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free<PHONE_NUMBER>
(voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER> with the
required accommodations. Additional details and the agenda for this
conference will be included in a subsequent notice. For more
information about the conference, please contact John Schnagl at (202)
502-8756 (john.schnagl@ferc.gov).

Kimberly Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-20299 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


P-18-0197 Sanitized Support Documents Index:
 P-18-0197 Sanitized Support Documents (linked)
 P-18-0197 Sanitized CHEM Report (attached)
 P-18-0197 Sanitized ECO Report (attached)
 P-18-0197 Sanitized ENG Report (attached)
 P-18-0197 Sanitized EXP Report (attached)
 P-18-0197 Sanitized Fate Report (attached)
 P-18-0197 Sanitized HLTH Report_POST-FOCUS FINAL (attached)


[Federal Register: April 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 82)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22508-22510]
[DOCID:fr29ap10-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0356; Directorate Identifier 2009-SW-72-AD;
Amendment 39-16266; AD 2010-09-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Model AS350B, BA, B1,
B2, B3, C, D, and D1; AS 355E, F, F1, F2, N, and NP Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
specified Eurocopter France (Eurocopter) model helicopters. This AD
results from a mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) AD
issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community. The
MCAI AD was issued following the discovery of a potential risk of an
untimely squib firing that would cut the hoist cable. A short circuit
in the hoist motor brush power supply wiring resulting in an
uncommanded squib firing, which cuts the hoist cable, constitutes an
unsafe condition.

DATES: This AD becomes effective on May 14, 2010.
    The incorporation by reference of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin
No. 25.00.85 and No. 25.00.95, both dated November 16, 2005, is
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 14, 2010.
    We must receive comments on this AD by June 28, 2010.

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 W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    You may get the service information identified in this AD from
American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, Texas
75053-4005, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<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 AD, the economic
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: George Schwab, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Safety Management Group, Fort
Worth, Texas 76193-0112, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Community, has issued EASA AD No. 2006-0164, dated June 9,
2006, to correct an unsafe condition for these French certificated
products. The MCAI AD states: ``This AD is issued following the
discovery of a potential risk of

untimely squib firing, resulting in the cable being cut.'' A short
circuit in the hoist motor brush power supply wiring resulting in an
uncommanded squib firing, which cuts the hoist cable, constitutes an
unsafe condition. You may obtain further information by examining the
MCAI AD and service information in the AD docket.

Related Service Information

    Eurocopter has issued Alert Service Bulletin Nos. 25.00.85 and
25.00.95, both dated November 16, 2005. The actions described in the
MCAI AD are intended to correct the same unsafe condition as that
identified in the service information.

FAA's Evaluation and Unsafe Condition Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, their Technical Agent, has
notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI AD. We are
issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and
determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or
develop on other products of these same type designs.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI AD

    This AD differs from the MCAI AD in that it:
     Does not include the Model BB helicopters but does include
Model AS350C, D1 and AS 355 NP helicopters;
     Does not require the actions specified in the Compliance
section, paragraph 1 of the MCAI AD;
     Does not address spares; and
     Requires compliance before the next hoist operation
instead of within 30 days.
    These differences are highlighted in the ``Differences Between This
AD and MCAI AD'' section of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 27 helicopters of U.S.
registry and that it will take about 2 work hours to modify the hoist
squib wiring. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on
these figures, we estimate the cost to the fleet of helicopters to be
$4,590.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because of
the potential of the untimely firing of a cable cutter squib on
Goodrich electric hoists resulting in the unintended cutting of a cable
and dropping the hoist seat and occupant. Therefore, we determined that
notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are
impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment
effective in fewer than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0356; Directorate
Identifier 2009-SW-72-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of
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 AD.

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 AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 AD:
    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 an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this 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.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
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]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2010-09-01 Eurocopter France: Amendment 39-16266. Docket No. FAA-
2010-0356; Directorate Identifier 2009-SW-72-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective on May
14, 2010.

Other Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model AS350B, BA, B1, B2, B3, C, D and
D1; and AS 355E, F, F1, F2, N, and NP helicopters with a Goodrich
Electric hoist, part number (P/N) 76370-XXX, which has not been
modified per Modification (MOD) 073318 and with a hoist motor other
than an AUXILEC, installed, certificated in any category.

Reason

    (d) The mandatory continued airworthiness (MCAI) AD was issued
following the discovery of a potential risk of an untimely squib
firing that would cut the hoist cable. A short circuit in the hoist
motor brush power supply wiring resulting in an uncommanded squib
firing, which cuts the hoist cable, constitutes an unsafe condition.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Before the next hoist operation, unless already
accomplished, disconnect the ground wire for the hoist squib wiring
and test the hoist system to assure that the squib can be
electrically fired (MOD 073318) by following the Accomplishment
Instructions, Paragraph 2.B.1. through 2.B.4., of Eurocopter Alert
Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 25.00.95, for the AS350 model helicopters
or ASB No. 25.00.85, for the AS355 model helicopters, both dated
November 16, 2005, as appropriate for your model helicopter.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI AD

    (f) This AD differs from the MCAI AD in that it:
    (1) Does not include the Model BB helicopters but does include
the Model AS350C and D1 and Model AS355NP helicopters;
    (2) Does not require the actions specified in the Compliance
section, paragraph 1 of the MCAI AD;
    (3) Does not address spares; and
    (4) Requires compliance before the next hoist operation instead
of within 30 days.

Other Information

    (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Safety Management Group, FAA, ATTN: George Schwab, Aerospace
Engineer, Rotorcraft Directorate, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0112,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested, using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (h) Special Flight Permits: Special flight permits may be issued
under 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199 to operate the helicopter to a
location where the requirements of this AD can be done provided that
the hoist is not used.

Related Information

    (i) Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (EASA)
Airworthiness Directive No. 2006-0164, dated June 9, 2006, contains
related information.

Joint Aircraft System/Component (JASC) Code

    (j) The JASC Code is 25: Equipment/Furnishings.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (k) You must use the specified portions of Eurocopter Alert
Service Bulletin No. 25.00.95 or No. 25.00.85, both dated November
16, 2005, to do the actions required.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For the service information identified in this AD, contact
American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie,
Texas 75053-4005, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas, or at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 15, 2010.
Mark R. Schilling,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-9006 Filed 4-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 31, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 62)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 17808]
[DOCID:fr31mr11-17]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0108]

Final Vehicle Safety Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan 2011-
2013

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Plan availability.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the availability of the Final NHTSA
Vehicle Safety and Fuel Economy Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan
2011-2013 (Priority Plan) in Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0108. This Priority
Plan is an update to the Final Vehicle Safety Rulemaking and Research
Priority Plan 2009-2011 (October 2009 Plan) that was announced in the
November 9, 2009, edition of the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Carra, Director of Strategic
Planning and Integration, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Room W45-336, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 9, 2009, NHTSA published a Final
Notice in the Federal Register (74 FR 57623) announcing the
availability of the October 2009 Plan. Today's document announces the
availability of the Final NHTSA Vehicle Safety and Fuel Economy
Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan 2011-2013.
    This plan is an internal management tool as well as a means to
communicate to the public NHTSA's highest priorities to meet the
Nation's motor vehicle safety challenges. Among them are programs and
projects involving rollover crashes, children (both inside as well as
just near vehicles), motorcoaches and fuel economy that must meet
Congressional mandates or Secretarial commitments. Since these are
expected to consume a significant portion of the agency's rulemaking
resources, they affect the schedules of the agency's other priorities
listed in this plan. This plan lists the programs and projects the
agency anticipates working on even though there may not be a rulemaking
planned to be issued by 2013, and in several cases, the agency doesn't
anticipate that the research will be done by the end of 2013. Thus, in
some cases the next step would be an agency decision in 2013 or 2014.
    For purposes of apprising the public on the status of progress
relative to the efforts delineated in the October 2009 Plan, NHTSA has
included in the current Priority Plan a section (Section V) that
compares the October 2009 Plan to the current Priority Plan.
    Interested persons may obtain a copy of the plan, ``Final Vehicle
Safety Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan 2011-2013,'' by
downloading a copy of the document. To download a copy of the document,
go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions, or
visit Docket Management Facility at U.S. Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590-0001 and reference Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0108.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30111, 30117, 30168; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

Ronald L. Medford,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-7433 Filed 3-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 174 (Thursday, September 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62216-62218]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21494]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78751; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-82]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change Amending the NYSE MKT
Equities Price List and the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule To Amend the
Date That Two Wireless Connections to Third Party Data Feeds Are
Expected To Be Available

September 1, 2016.
    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 August 24, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE MKT Equities Price List
(``Price List'') and the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule (``Fee
Schedule'') to amend the date that two wireless connections to third
party data feeds are expected to be available. The proposed 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 proposes to amend the Price List and Fee Schedule to
amend the date that two wireless connections to third party data feeds
are expected to be available.
    The Exchange's co-location \4\ services include the means for Users
\5\ to receive

market data feeds from third party markets (``Third Party Data'')
through a wireless connection.\6\ The Exchange recently amended the
Price List and Fee Schedule to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange initially filed rule changes relating to its
co-location services with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') in 2010. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
62961 (September 21, 2010), 75 FR 59299 (September 27, 2010) (SR-
NYSEAmex-2010-80). The Exchange operates a data center in Mahwah,
New Jersey (the ``data center'') from which it provides co-location
services to Users.
    \5\ For purposes of the Exchange's co-location services, a
``User'' means any market participant that requests to receive co-
location services directly from the Exchange. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 76009 (September 29, 2015), 80 FR 60213
(October 5, 2015) (SR-NYSEMKT-2015-67). As specified in the Price
List and Fee Schedule, a User that incurs co-location fees for a
particular co-location service pursuant thereto would not be subject
to co-location fees for the same co-location service charged by the
Exchange's affiliates New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE LLC'') and
NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''). See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 70176 (August 13, 2013), 78 FR 50471 (August 19, 2013) (SR-
NYSEMKT-2013-67).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76750 (December 23,
2015), 80 FR 81648 (December 30, 2015) (SR-NYSEMKT-2015-85).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Expand the existing wireless connection to Bats Pitch BZX
Gig shaped data (``BZX'') to include Bats Pitch BYX Gig shaped data
(``BYX''); and
     expand the existing wireless connection to Bats EDGX Gig
shaped data (``EDGX'') to include Bats EDGA Gig shaped data
(``EDGA'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78376 (July 21,
2016), 81 FR 49311 (July 27, 2016) (SR-NYSEMKT-2016-70). The
Commission designated the proposed rule change as operative upon
filing with the Commission. Id. at 49315.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') making such amendment, the Exchange stated that the
proposed connectivity was expected to be available no later than
September 1, 2016, and amended the Price List and Fee Schedule to note
that connectivity to the BYX and EDGA data feeds was expected to be
available no later than such date.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id. at 49312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to amend the Price List and Fee Schedule
to update the expected availability date to December 31, 2016. As
previously stated, the Exchange will announce the date that such
wireless connections will be made available through a customer notice.
    No other aspect of the wireless connection to BZX and BYX or EDGX
and EDGA (together, the ``Additional Third Party Data'') is being
amended.
    By way of background, as with all wireless connections to Third
Party Data, the Exchange would utilize a network vendor to provide a
wireless connection to the Additional Third Party Data through wireless
connections from an Exchange access center to its data center in
Mahwah, New Jersey, through a series of towers equipped with wireless
equipment. A User that wished to receive Additional Third Party Data
would enter into a contract with the relevant third party provider,
which would charge the User the applicable market data fees. The
Exchange would charge the User fees for the wireless connection.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A User only receives the Third Party Data for which it
enters into a contract with the third party provider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to offer the wireless connections to provide
Users with an alternative means of connectivity to Additional Third
Party Data. Currently, Users can receive such Third Party Data from
wireless networks offered by third party vendors.\10\ Users may also
receive connections to Additional Third Party Data through other
methods, including, for example, from another User, through a
telecommunications provider, or over the internet protocol (``IP'')
network.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Currently, at least six third party vendors offer Users
wireless network connections using wireless equipment installed on
towers and buildings near the data center.
    \11\ The IP network is a local area network available in the
data center. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74220 (February
6, 2015), 80 FR 7894 (February 12, 2015) (SR-NYSEMKT-2015-08)
(notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule
change to include IP network connections).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As is the case with all Exchange co-location arrangements, (i)
neither a User nor any of the User's customers would be permitted to
submit orders directly to the Exchange unless such User or customer is
a member organization, a Sponsored Participant or an agent thereof
(e.g., a service bureau providing order entry services); (ii) use of
the co-location services proposed herein would be completely voluntary
and available to all Users on a non-discriminatory basis; \12\ and
(iii) a User would only incur one charge for the particular co-location
service described herein, regardless of whether the User connects only
to the Exchange or to the Exchange and one or both of its
affiliates.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As is currently the case, Users that receive co-location
services from the Exchange will not receive any means of access to
the Exchange's trading and execution systems that is separate from,
or superior to, that of other Users. In this regard, all orders sent
to the Exchange enter the Exchange's trading and execution systems
through the same order gateway, regardless of whether the sender is
co-located in the data center or not. In addition, co-located Users
do not receive any market data or data service product that is not
available to all Users, although Users that receive co-location
services normally would expect reduced latencies in sending orders
to, and receiving market data from, the Exchange.
    \13\ See SR-NYSEMKT-2013-67, supra note 5, at 50471. The
Exchange's affiliates have also submitted substantially the same
proposed rule change to propose the changes described herein. See
SR-NYSE-2016-61 and SR-NYSEArca-2016-122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other
issues relating to co-location services and/or related fees, and the
Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users 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,\14\ in general, and section 6(b)(4) of
the Act,\15\ 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.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change furthers the
objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\16\ in particular, because it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest
and because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because amending the Price
List and Fee Schedule to update the expected availability date for
connectivity to the BYX and EDGA data feeds to December 31, 2016, would
add greater clarity to the Price List and Fee Schedule regarding when
such connectivity will be available and allow the Exchange more time to
establish and test connectivity to the BYX and EDGA data feeds.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because connectivity to the BYX and EDGA data
feeds would be available to all Users on an equal basis (i.e., the
connectivity to such feeds will be made available to all Users at the
same time). Such connectivity is completely voluntary. Users that do
not opt to utilize the Exchange's proposed wireless connections would
still be able to obtain the Additional Third Party Data through other
methods, including, for example, from wireless networks offered by
third party vendors, another User, through a telecommunications
provider, or over the IP network.
    For the reasons above, the proposed changes do not unfairly
discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise
capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements,
terms and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the

Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are
reasonable, 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,\17\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because, in addition to the proposed services being
completely voluntary, they are available to all Users on an equal basis
(i.e. the same products and services are available to all Users).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that amending the Price List and Fee Schedule
to update the expected availability date for connectivity to the BYX
and EDGA data feeds to December 31, 2016, will not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because connectivity to the BYX and EDGA data feeds
would be available to all Users on an equal basis (i.e., the
connectivity to such feeds will be made available to all Users at the
same time). The proposed change would add greater clarity to the Price
List and Fee Schedule regarding when such connectivity will be
available and allow the Exchange more time to establish and test
connectivity to the BYX and EDGA data feeds. In addition, Users that do
not opt to utilize the Exchange's proposed wireless connections would
still be able to obtain the Additional Third Party Data through other
methods, including, for example, from wireless networks offered by
third party vendors, another User, through a telecommunications
provider, or over the IP network.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
exchanges offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the
trading and other market activities of those market participants who
believe that co-location enhances the efficiency of their operations.
Accordingly, fees charged for co-location services are constrained by
the active competition for the order flow of, and other business from,
such market participants. If a particular exchange charges excessive
fees for co-location services, affected market participants will opt to
terminate their co-location arrangements with that exchange, and adopt
a possible range of alternative strategies, including placing their
servers in a physically proximate location outside the exchange's data
center (which could be a competing exchange), or pursuing strategies
less dependent upon the lower exchange-to-participant latency
associated with co-location. Accordingly, the exchange charging
excessive fees would stand to lose not only co-location revenues but
also the liquidity of the formerly co-located trading firms, which
could have additional follow-on effects on the market share and revenue
of the affected exchange.

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) \18\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \19\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 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) \20\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 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 No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-82 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 No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-82. 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 No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-82, and should be
submitted on or before September 29, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-21494 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 147 (Monday, August 1, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45741-45742]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19275]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0471; FRL-9446-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Diesel-Powered Motor Vehicle Idling Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the purpose
of incorporating the Commonwealth's Diesel-Powered Motor Vehicle Idling
Act (Act 124 of 2008, or simply Act 124) into the Pennsylvania SIP. Act
124, passed by the Pennsylvania General Assembly and signed into state
law by Governor Rendell in October 2008 (and effective at the state
level in February 2009), reduces the allowable time that heavy-duty,
commercial highway diesel vehicles of over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle
weight can idle their main propulsion engines. The law restricts idling
of these commercial diesel vehicles (mostly heavy trucks and buses) to
a period of 5 minutes per continuous 60 minute period (with certain
allowable exemptions and exclusions). Act 124 applies statewide in the
Commonwealth, and is estimated by Pennsylvania to significantly reduce
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and fine particulate matter (PM). While idle time
emissions limits are not mandatory under the Clean Air Act (CAA),
incorporation of Act 124 into the SIP does strengthen the SIP, makes
the state

law federally enforceable by EPA, and allows the Commonwealth to take
credit for emissions benefits from the rule as part of future
Pennsylvania SIP revisions to demonstrate compliance with CAA National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This action is being taken under
the CAA.
    In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is
approving the Commonwealth's SIP submittal as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for
the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse
comments are received in response to this action, no further activity
is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final
rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA
will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by August 31, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2011-0471 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0471, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2011-0471. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form.
    Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during
normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are
available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection,
Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Rehn,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the
information provided in the direct final action, with the same title,
that is located in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this
Federal Register publication.

    Dated: July 18, 2011.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2011-19275 Filed 7-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P