[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29299-29300]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13482]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002]

Final Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final notice.

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

SUMMARY: Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or
modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where
applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have
been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's)
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those
buildings.

DATES: The effective date of September 29, 2017 which has been
established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS
report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each
community.

ADDRESSES: The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the
final flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov by the effective date indicated
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or
modified flood hazard information for each community listed.
Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local
circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy
Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any
appeals resulting from this notification.
    This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address
cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at www.msc.fema.gov.
    The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds
and/or communities listed in the table below.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: May 24, 2017.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

    I. Non-watershed-based studies:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Santa Cruz County, California and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1557
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Capitola.......................  City Hall, 420 Capitola Avenue,
                                          Capitola, CA 95010.
City of Santa Cruz.....................  City Hall, Planning Department:
                                          Permits, Building, Zoning, 809
                                          Center Street, Room 206, Santa
                                          Cruz, CA 95060.
Unincorporated Areas of Santa Cruz       County of Santa Cruz, Planning
 County.                                  Department, 701 Ocean Street,
                                          4th Floor, Santa Cruz, CA
                                          95060.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Hawaii County, Hawaii
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1553
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii County..........................  Department of Public Works,
                                          Engineering Division, Aupuni
                                          Center, 101 Pauahi Street,
                                          Suite 7, Hilo, HI 96720; and
                                         Department of Public Works,
                                          Engineering Division, 74-5044
                                          Ane Keohokalole Highway,
                                          Building D, 1st Floor, Kailua-
                                          Kona, HI 96740.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Kittson County, Minnesota and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1281
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Hallock........................  City Hall, 163 South 3rd
                                          Street, Hallock, MN 56728.
City of Humboldt.......................  City Hall, 204 Ramsey Street,
                                          Humboldt, MN 56731.
City of Kennedy........................  City Office, 414 North Atlantic
                                          Avenue, Kennedy, MN 56733.
City of Lake Bronson...................  City Hall, 112 Main Street,
                                          Lake Bronson, MN 56734.
City of Lancaster......................  City Clerk Office, 100 2nd
                                          Street West, Lancaster, MN
                                          56735.
City of St. Vincent....................  City Clerk, 421 Pacific Avenue,
                                          St. Vincent, MN 56755.
Unincorporated Areas of Kittson County.  Kittson County Courthouse, 410
                                          5th Street South, Suite 104,
                                          Hallock, MN 56728.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-13482 Filed 6-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 45596]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18677]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP12-881-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: EOG 34687-9 Superseding Amendment to Neg Rate Agmt to
be effective 7/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/24/12.
    Accession Number: 20120724-5047.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-882-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Clean Up--LLC and Definitions JUL 2012 to be effective
11/10/2011.
    Filed Date: 7/24/12.
    Accession Number: 20120724-5107.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-883-000.
    Applicants: Trailblazer Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: 2012-07-24 NC Mieco, CIMA to be effective 7/25/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/24/12.
    Accession Number: 20120724-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/12.

    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.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service 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: July 25, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.
Deputy Secretary
[FR Doc. 2012-18677 Filed 7-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8763-8769]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03121]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71507; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2014-011]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify Fees for NASDAQ Basic

February 7, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 27, 2014, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASDAQ is proposing modify fees for the NASDAQ Basic data product.
The proposal, which modifies monthly fees, is effective for the month
of January 2014 and subsequent months. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.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
    NASDAQ Basic is a proprietary data product that provides best bid
and offer information from the NASDAQ Market Center and last sale
transaction reports from the NASDAQ Market Center and from the FINRA/
NASDAQ Trade Reporting Facility (``FINRA/NASDAQ TRF''). As such, NASDAQ
Basic provides a subset of the ``core'' quotation and last sale data
provided by securities information processors (``SIPs'') under the CQ/
CT Plan and the NASDAQ UTP Plan. In this filing, NASDAQ is proposing to
(i) increase the Subscriber fees charged with respect to
``Professional'' Subscribers to the product, for the first time since
the introduction of the product in 2009, (ii) introduce a new
enterprise license for Professional Subscribers; and (iii) add rules to
allow ``netting,'' in certain instances, by Subscribers with multiple
means of access to NASDAQ Basic, in order to reduce the total number of
Subscribers for which a fee will be charged.
    NASDAQ Basic contains three separate components, which may be
purchased individually or in combination: (i) NASDAQ Basic for NASDAQ,
which contains the best bid and offer on the NASDAQ Market Center and
last sale transaction reports for NASDAQ and the FINRA/NASDAQ TRF for
NASDAQ-listed stocks, (ii) NASDAQ Basic for NYSE, which covers NYSE-
listed stocks, and (iii) NASDAQ Basic for NYSE MKT, which covers stocks
listed on NYSE MKT and other listing venues whose quotes and trade
reports are disseminated on Tape B.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NASDAQ is modifying the text of Rule 7047 to make it clear
that NASDAQ Basic for NYSE MKT includes information for all Tape B
listing venues and to use consistent terminology to describe the
three data elements of NASDAQ Basic throughout the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fee structure for NASDAQ Basic features a fee for Professional
Subscribers and a reduced fee for Non-Professional Subscribers.\4\ The
current

monthly fees for Non-Professional Subscribers, which are not being
modified, are $0.50 per Subscriber for NASDAQ Basic for NASDAQ, $0.25
per Subscriber for NASDAQ Basic for NYSE, and $0.25 per Subscriber for
NASDAQ Basic for NYSE MKT. The current monthly fees for Professional
Subscribers are $10 per Subscriber for NASDAQ Basic for NASDAQ, $5 per
Subscriber for NASDAQ Basic for NYSE, and $5 per Subscriber for NASDAQ
Basic for NYSE MKT. As discussed in more detail below, NASDAQ is
proposing to increase the Professional Subscriber fees to $13, $6.50,
and $6.50, respectively. For use cases that do not require a monthly
subscription for unlimited usage, there is a Per Query option, with a
fee of $0.0025 for NASDAQ Basic for NASDAQ, $0.0015 for NASDAQ Basic
for NYSE, and $0.0015 for NASDAQ Basic for NYSE MKT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A ``Non-Professional Subscriber'' is ``a natural person who
is not (i) registered or qualified in any capacity with the
Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, any state
securities agency, any securities exchange or association, or any
commodities or futures contract market or association; (ii) engaged
as an ``investment adviser'' as that term is defined in Section
201(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (whether or not
registered or qualified under that Act); or (iii) employed by a bank
or other organization exempt from registration under federal or
state securities laws to perform functions that would require
registration or qualification if such functions were performed for
an organization not so exempt.'' A ``Professional Subscriber'' is
``any Subscriber other than a Non-Professional Subscriber.''
Although these definitions are currently applicable to Rule 7047
through incorporation by reference, NASDAQ is adding them directly
to the rule to enhance its clarity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Distributors \5\ of NASDAQ Basic may also be assessed a monthly
Distributor Fee. The fee is $1,500 per month for either internal or
external distribution; however, a credit for Subscriber or Per Query
fees may be applied against the Distributor Fee at the Distributor's
request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The definition of the term ``Distributor'' is being added
directly to Rule 7047 to enhance the rule's clarity. The term
``refers to any entity that receives NASDAQ Basic data directly from
NASDAQ or indirectly through another entity and then distributes it
to one or more Subscribers.'' Distributors may either be ``Internal
Distributors'', which are ``Distributors that receive NASDAQ Basic
data and then distribute that data to one or more Subscribers within
the Distributor's own entity,'' or ``External Distributors'', which
are ``Distributors that receive NASDAQ Basic data and then
distribute that data to one or more Subscribers outside the
Distributor's own entity.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an alternative to monthly Subscriber fees for Non-Professional
Subscribers, NASDAQ also offers an enterprise license under which a
broker-dealer may distribute NASDAQ Basic to an unlimited number of
Non-Professional Subscribers with whom the broker-dealer has a
brokerage relationship at a rate of $100,000 per month (as well as the
applicable monthly Distributor fee). In addition, a Distributor of data
derived from NASDAQ Basic (but not NASDAQ Basic itself) may pay a fee
of $1,500 per month (plus the applicable monthly Distributor fee) to
distribute the derived data to an unlimited number of Non-Professional
Subscribers. This type of Distributor will typically distribute data to
a large number of downstream customers through web-based applications.
    The proposed increase in Professional Subscriber fees would
constitute the first such increase since NASDAQ Basic was introduced in
2009. Since that time, NASDAQ has continually enhanced the product
through capacity upgrades, in keeping with increases in demand for the
product; during this period, the network capacity for NASDAQ Basic has
increased from a 15 Mb feed to the current 84 Mb feed. Additionally,
NASDAQ has enhanced the product in numerous respects. These have
included the addition of messages to indicate the start and end time of
the NASDAQ Market Center's system day and the end of regular trading
hours; a new IPO message for NASDAQ-listed securities to relay the
quotation release time as well as the IPO price to be used for intraday
net change calculations; an enhanced symbol directory with limit up/
limit down reference price tiers; dissemination of retail liquidity
identifiers under NASDAQ Rule 4780; market-wide circuit breaker decline
levels and status information; enhanced sale condition modifiers in
accordance with changes made to data disseminated by the SIPs; support
for a 4 a.m. start to NASDAQ's trading day; support for single stock
trading pauses; latency monitoring; and clearer differentiation between
NYSE and NYSE MKT trades in the data stream.
    NASDAQ further notes that the professional fees for ``core'' quote
and last-sale data provided under the NASDAQ UTP Plan were increased,
effective January 2014, from $20 to $23 per Subscriber per month.\6\
Similar fees under the CQ/CT Plans are $24 per subscriber per month for
securities listed on NYSE MKT and other Tape B securities, and range
from $20 to $50 per month for NYSE-listed securities. Accordingly,
NASDAQ believes that the change in NASDAQ Basic fees is also warranted
as a means of ensuring that the fees for NASDAQ Basic accurately
reflect the value of NASDAQ Basic data as a subset of ``core'' data
available from the SIPs, thereby avoiding distortions in demand for
core data that might result from fees that do not accurately reflect
NASDAQ Basic's value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70953 (November 27,
2013), 78 FR 72932 (December 4, 2013) (File No. S7-24-89).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, to mitigate the effect of the fee increase on Distributors
and Subscribers, NASDAQ is proposing two additional changes. First,
NASDAQ is proposing to introduce a net reporting option for
Distributors to reduce the overall number of internal Professional
Subscribers deemed to be fee liable with respect to ``Display Usage''
of NASDAQ Basic.\7\ This option is similar to a net reporting option
recently introduced under the NASDAQ UTP Plan.\8\ Under the proposed
netting rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As reflected in a new definition being added to Rule 7047,
``Display Usage'' means ``any method of accessing NASDAQ Basic data
that involves the display of such data on a screen or other
visualization mechanism for access or use by a natural person or
persons.'' Netting does not apply to uses other than Display Usage
(i.e., use by an automated device without visual access by natural
persons).
    \8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70953 (November 27,
2013), 78 FR 72932 (December 4, 2013) (File No. S7-24-89).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A Subscriber that receives access to NASDAQ Basic through
multiple products controlled by an Internal Distributor will be
considered one Subscriber. Thus, if a broker-dealer acts as a
Distributor of NASDAQ Basic in multiple forms to its employees, each
employee would be considered one Subscriber.
     A Subscriber that receives access to NASDAQ Basic through
multiple products controlled by one External Distributor will be
considered one Subscriber. Thus, if a broker-dealer arranges for its
employees to receive access to multiple NASDAQ Basic products provided
by a single vendor, each employee would be considered one Subscriber.
     A Subscriber that receives access to NASDAQ Basic through
one or more products controlled by an Internal Distributor and also one
or more products controlled by one External Distributor will be
considered one Subscriber. Thus, if the broker-dealer provides
employees with access through its own product(s) and through products
from a single vendor, each employee would still be considered one
Subscriber.
     A Subscriber that receives access to NASDAQ Basic through
one or more products controlled by an Internal Distributor and also
products controlled by multiple External Distributors will be treated
as one Subscriber with respect to the products controlled by the
Internal Distributor and one of the External Distributors, and will be
treated as an additional Subscriber for each additional External
Distributor. Thus, a Subscriber receiving products through

an Internal Distributor and two External Distributors will be treated
as two Subscribers. Put another way, access through an Internal
Distributor may be netted against access through one External
Distributor, but two External Distributors may not be netted.

Distributors benefitting from net reporting must demonstrate adequate
internal controls for identifying, monitoring, and reporting all usage.
The burden will be on the Distributor to demonstrate that particular
instances of netting are justified.

    Second, NASDAQ is proposing to offer a new enterprise license for
Professional Subscribers. Under the enterprise license, a broker-dealer
may distribute NASDAQ Basic for NASDAQ, NASDAQ Basic for NYSE, and
NASDAQ Basic for NYSE MKT for a flat fee of $365,000 per month;
provided, however, that if the broker-dealer obtains the license with
respect to usage of NASDAQ Basic provided by an External Distributor
that controls display of the product, the fee will be $365,000 per
month for up to 16,000 internal Professional Subscribers, plus $2 for
each additional internal Professional Subscriber over 16,000.\9\ Thus,
given the total proposed modified fee of $26 per Subscriber per month
for receiving all three components of NASDAQ Basic, the option will
reduce costs for broker-dealers with more than 14,038 Internal
Subscribers ($365,000 / $26). A broker-dealer that purchases an
enterprise license will also be entitled to receive, at no additional
charge, access to NASDAQ Last Sale (``NLS'') data for its own stock
price and the stock price of up to ten of its competitors or peers, for
display use on the broker-dealer's internal Web site. NLS provides, in
real time, last sale information for stocks listed on NASDAQ, NYSE, and
other listing venues, as reported by the NASDAQ Market Center or
reported to the FINRA/NASDAQ TRF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The $2 fee is necessary to defray additional costs incurred
by NASDAQ when distributing NASDAQ Basic through an External
Distributor that controls display of the product, costs which NASDAQ
would not otherwise be able to recoup under an enterprise license
arrangement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act \10\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act \11\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among recipients of NASDAQ data and is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between them. In adopting Regulation NMS,
the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations (``SROs'') and
broker-dealers (``BDs'') increased authority and flexibility to offer
new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that this
authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers, and
also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data.
NASDAQ believes that its NASDAQ Basic market data product is precisely
the sort of market data product that the Commission envisioned when it
adopted Regulation NMS. The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS--
by deregulating the market in proprietary data--would itself further
the Act's goals of facilitating efficiency and competition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the
NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that
efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive
(and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal
analysis of the need for such data.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).

    By removing unnecessary regulatory restrictions on the ability of
exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals of
the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If the
free market should determine whether proprietary data is sold at all,
it follows that the price at which such data is sold should be set by
the market as well. NASDAQ Basic exemplifies the optional nature of
proprietary data, since, depending on a customer's specific goals, it
may opt to purchase core SIP data or only the subset provided through
NASDAQ Basic. Moreover, as discussed in more detail below, the price
that NASDAQ is able to charge is constrained by the existence of
substitutes in the form of SIP data and competitive products offered by
other SROs.
    The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir.
2010) (``NetCoalition I''), upheld the Commission's reliance upon
competitive markets to set reasonable and equitably allocated fees for
market data. ``In fact, the legislative history indicates that the
Congress intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay
of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those
situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the
creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.'
NetCoalition I, at 535 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at 92 (1975), as
reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 321, 323). The court agreed with the
Commission's conclusion that ``Congress intended that `competitive
forces should dictate the services and practices that constitute the
U.S. national market system for trading equity securities.' '' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ NetCoalition I, at 535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Court in NetCoalition I, while upholding the Commission's
conclusion that competitive forces may be relied upon to establish the
fairness of prices, nevertheless concluded that the record in that case
did not adequately support the Commission's conclusions as to the
competitive nature of the market for NYSE Arca's data product at issue
in that case. As explained below in NASDAQ's Statement on Burden on
Competition, however, NASDAQ believes that there is substantial
evidence of competition in the marketplace for data that was not in the
record in the NetCoalition I case, and that the Commission is entitled
to rely upon such evidence in concluding fees are the product of
competition, and therefore in accordance with the relevant statutory
standards.\14\ Moreover, NASDAQ further notes that the product at issue
in this filing--a NASDAQ quotation and last sale data product that
replicates a subset of the information available through ``core'' data
products whose fees have been reviewed and approved by the SEC--is
quite different from the NYSE Arca depth-of-book data product at issue
in NetCoalition I. Accordingly, any findings of the court with respect
to that product may not be relevant to the product at issue in this
filing. As the Commission noted in approving the initial pilot for
NASDAQ Basic, all of the information available in NASDAQ Basic is
included in the core data feeds made available pursuant to the joint-
SRO plans.\15\ As the Commission further

determined, ``the availability of alternatives to NASDAQ Basic
significantly affect the terms on which NASDAQ can distribute this
market data. In setting the fees for its NASDAQ Basic service, NASDAQ
must consider the extent to which market participants would choose one
or more alternatives instead of purchasing the exchange's data.'' \16\
Thus, to the extent that the fees for core data have been established
as reasonable under the Act, it follows that the fees for NASDAQ Basic
are also reasonable, since charging unreasonably high fees would cause
market participants to rely solely on core data or purchase proprietary
products offered by other exchanges rather than purchasing NASDAQ
Basic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ It should also be noted that Section 916 of the Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (``Dodd-Frank
Act'') has amended paragraph (A) of Section 19(b)(3) of the Act, 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(3), to make it clear that all exchange fees, including
fees for market data, may be filed by exchanges on an immediately
effective basis. See also NetCoalition v. SEC, 715 F.3d 342 (D.C.
Cir. 2013) (``NetCoalition II'') (finding no jurisdiction to review
Commission's non-suspension of immediately effective fee changes).
    \15\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12425 (March 16, 2009),
74 FR 12423, 12425 (March 24, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-102).
    \16\ Id. at 12425.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, as discussed in the order approving the initial pilot,
and as further discussed below in NASDAQ's Statement on Burden on
Competition, data products such as NASDAQ Basic are a means by which
exchanges compete to attract order flow. To the extent that exchanges
are successful in such competition, they earn trading revenues and also
enhance the value of their data products by increasing the amount of
data they are able to provide. Conversely, to the extent that exchanges
are unsuccessful, the inputs needed to add value to data products are
diminished. Accordingly, the need to compete for order flow places
substantial pressure upon exchanges to keep their fees for both
executions and data reasonable.
    The proposed changes do not alter the reasonableness of the fees
for NASDAQ Basic. Although the per subscriber fees for professional
users of NASDAQ Basic are increasing, such fees continue to reflect the
value of NASDAQ Basic as a subset of the data provided through core
data products.\17\ Moreover, the fees in question have not changed
since NASDAQ Basic's introduction in 2009, and since that time,
numerous enhancements have been made to the product, as described above
in the section of the proposed rule change discussing its purpose. In
addition, the proposed enterprise license for Professional Subscribers
and the proposed netting rules will provide means to mitigate the
effect of the fee increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Professional Subscriber fees for core data under all of the
SIP plans range from $67 to $97 per month, while Professional
Subscriber fees for all three components of NASDAQ Basic would be
$26 per month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The changed fees for NASDAQ Basic also continue to reflect an
equitable allocation and continue not to be unfairly discriminatory,
because NASDAQ Basic is a voluntary product for which market
participants can readily substitute core data feeds that provide
additional quotation and last sale information not available through
NASDAQ Basic. Accordingly, NASDAQ is constrained from pricing the
product in a manner that would be inequitable or unfairly
discriminatory. The distinction between fees for Professional and Non-
Professional Subscribers is consistent with the distinction made under
fees for core data, and the applicable fees are lower than applicable
fees for core data to reflect the lesser quantum of data made
available. Moreover, the proposed enterprise license will help to
ensure that fees for professional users are not inequitable or unfairly
discriminatory, because they will be subject to limitations that will
enable broker-dealers with large numbers of subscribers to moderate the
fees that they would otherwise be required to pay. The proposed netting
feature will also moderate fees by limiting the extent to which a
Subscriber is charged for multiple uses of the data.

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. NASDAQ's ability to
price NASDAQ Basic is constrained by (1) competition among exchanges,
other trading platforms, and TRFs that compete with each other in a
variety of dimensions; (2) the existence of inexpensive real-time
consolidated data and market-specific data and free delayed
consolidated data; and (3) the inherent contestability of the market
for proprietary data.
    The market for proprietary data products is currently competitive
and inherently contestable because there is fierce competition for the
inputs necessary to the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing
discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges
compete with each other for listings, trades, and market data itself,
providing virtually limitless opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish
to produce and distribute their own market data. This proprietary data
is produced by each individual exchange, as well as other entities, in
a vigorously competitive market. Similarly, with respect to the TRF
data component of NASDAQ Basic, allowing exchanges to operate TRFs has
permitted them to earn revenues by providing technology and data in
support of the non-exchange segment of the market. This revenue
opportunity has also resulted in fierce competition between the two
current TRF operators, with both TRFs charging extremely low trade
reporting fees and rebating the majority of the revenues they receive
from core market data to the parties reporting trades.
    Transaction executions and proprietary data products are
complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of
the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a
paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs.\18\ The
decision whether and on which platform to post an order will depend on
the attributes of the platform where the order can be posted, including
the execution fees, data quality and price, and distribution of its
data products. Without trade executions, exchange data products cannot
exist. Moreover, data products are valuable to many end users only
insofar as they provide information that end users expect will assist
them or their customers in making trading decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ A complete explanation of the pricing dynamics associated
with joint products is presented in a study that NASDAQ originally
submitted to the Commission in SR-NASDAQ-2011-010, and which is also
submitted as Exhibit 3 to this filing. See Statement of Janusz
Ordover and Gustavo Bamberger at 2-17 (December 29, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a
trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both
products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, the operation of the
exchange is characterized by high fixed costs and low marginal costs.
This cost structure is common in content and content distribution
industries such as software, where developing new software typically
requires a large initial investment (and continuing large investments
to upgrade the software), but once the software is developed, the
incremental cost of providing that software to an additional user is
typically small, or even zero (e.g., if the software can be downloaded
over the internet after being purchased).\19\ In NASDAQ's case, it is
costly to build and

maintain a trading platform, but the incremental cost of trading each
additional share on an existing platform, or distributing an additional
instance of data, is very low. Market information and executions are
each produced jointly (in the sense that the activities of trading and
placing orders are the source of the information that is distributed)
and are each subject to significant scale economies. In such cases,
marginal cost pricing is not feasible because if all sales were priced
at the margin, NASDAQ would be unable to defray its platform costs of
providing the joint products. Similarly, data products cannot make use
of TRF trade reports without the raw material of the trade reports
themselves, and therefore necessitate the costs of operating,
regulating,\20\ and maintaining a trade reporting system, costs that
must be covered through the fees charged for use of the facility and
sales of associated data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See William J. Baumol and Daniel G. Swanson, ``The New
Economy and Ubiquitous Competitive Price Discrimination: Identifying
Defensible Criteria of Market Power,'' Antitrust Law Journal, Vol.
70, No. 3 (2003).
    \20\ It should be noted that the costs of operating the FINRA/
NASDAQ TRF borne by NASDAQ include regulatory charges paid by NASDAQ
to FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An exchange's BD customers view the costs of transaction executions
and of data as a unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A BD
will direct orders to a particular exchange only if the expected
revenues from executing trades on the exchange exceed net transaction
execution costs and the cost of data that the BD chooses to buy to
support its trading decisions (or those of its customers). The choice
of data products is, in turn, a product of the value of the products in
making profitable trading decisions. If the cost of the product exceeds
its expected value, the BD will choose not to buy it. Moreover, as a BD
chooses to direct fewer orders to a particular exchange, the value of
the product to that BD decreases, for two reasons. First, the product
will contain less information, because executions of the BD's trading
activity will not be reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more
important, the product will be less valuable to that BD because it does
not provide information about the venue to which it is directing its
orders. Data from the competing venue to which the BD is directing
orders will become correspondingly more valuable.
    Similarly, in the case of products such as NASDAQ Basic that may be
distributed through market data vendors, the vendors provide price
discipline for proprietary data products because they control a means
of access to end users. Vendors impose price restraints based upon
their business models. For example, vendors such as Bloomberg and
Thomson Reuters that assess a surcharge on data they sell may refuse to
offer proprietary products that end users will not purchase in
sufficient numbers. Internet portals, such as Google, impose a
discipline by providing only data that will enable them to attract
``eyeballs'' that contribute to their advertising revenue. Retail BDs,
such as Charles Schwab and Fidelity, offer their customers proprietary
data only if it promotes trading and generates sufficient commission
revenue. Although the business models may differ, these vendors'
pricing discipline is the same: they can simply refuse to purchase any
proprietary data product that fails to provide sufficient value.
Exchanges, TRFs, and other producers of proprietary data products must
understand and respond to these varying business models and pricing
disciplines in order to market proprietary data products successfully.
Moreover, NASDAQ believes that products such as NASDAQ Basic can
enhance order flow to NASDAQ by providing more widespread distribution
of information about transactions in real time, thereby encouraging
wider participation in the market by investors with access to the data
through their brokerage firm or other distribution sources. Conversely,
the value of such products to distributors and investors decreases if
order flow falls, because the products contain less content.
    Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from
the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data
will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is
impossible to create exchange data without a fast, technologically
robust, and well-regulated execution system, system costs and
regulatory costs affect the price of market data. It would be equally
misleading, however, to attribute all of the exchange's costs to the
market data portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of the
exchange's costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting
order flow, executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling
data about market activity. The total return that an exchange earns
reflects the revenues it receives from the joint products and the total
costs of the joint products. Similarly, the inclusion of trade
reporting data in a product such as NASDAQ Basic may assist in
attracting customers to the product, thereby assisting in covering the
additional costs associated with operating and regulating a TRF.
    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint
products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible,
and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering
total costs. NASDAQ pays rebates to attract orders, charges relatively
low prices for market information and charges relatively high prices
for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy
of paying lower liquidity rebates to attract orders, setting relatively
low prices for accessing posted liquidity, and setting relatively high
prices for market information. Still others may provide most data free
of charge and rely exclusively on transaction fees to recover their
costs. Finally, some platforms may incentivize use by providing
opportunities for equity ownership, which may allow them to charge
lower direct fees for executions and data.
    In this environment, there is no economic basis for regulating
maximum prices for one of the joint products in an industry in which
suppliers face competitive constraints with regard to the joint
offering. Such regulation is unnecessary because an ``excessive'' price
for one of the joint products will ultimately have to be reflected in
lower prices for other products sold by the firm, or otherwise the firm
will experience a loss in the volume of its sales that will be adverse
to its overall profitability. In other words, an unreasonable increase
in the price of data will ultimately have to be accompanied by a
decrease in the cost of executions, or the volume of both data and
executions will fall.
    The level of competition and contestability in the market is
evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow,
including thirteen SRO markets, as well as internalizing BDs and
various forms of alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), including dark
pools and electronic communication networks (``ECNs''). Each SRO market
competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two
FINRA-regulated TRFs compete to attract internalized transaction
reports. It is common for BDs to further and exploit this competition
by sending their order flow and transaction reports to multiple
markets, rather than providing them all to a single market. Competitive
markets for order flow, executions, and transaction reports provide
pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data products.
    The large number of SROs, TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently
produce

proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it provides
further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each SRO,
TRF, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary data
products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so,
including NASDAQ, NYSE, NYSE MKT, NYSE Arca, BATS, and Direct Edge.
    Any ATS or BD can combine with any other ATS, BD, or multiple ATSs
or BDs to produce joint proprietary data products. Additionally, order
routers and market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple BDs'
production of proprietary data products. The potential sources of
proprietary products are virtually limitless. Notably, the potential
sources of data include the BDs that submit trade reports to TRFs and
that have the ability to consolidate and distribute their data without
the involvement of FINRA or an exchange-operated TRF.
    The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can by-
pass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete
directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data
products, as BATS and Arca did before registering as exchanges by
publishing proprietary book data on the internet. Second, because a
single order or transaction report can appear in a core data product,
an SRO proprietary product, and/or a non-SRO proprietary product, the
data available in proprietary products is exponentially greater than
the actual number of orders and transaction reports that exist in the
marketplace. Indeed, in the case of NASDAQ Basic, the data provided
through that product appears both in (i) real-time core data products
offered by the SIPs for a fee, and (ii) free SIP data products with a
15-minute time delay, and finds a close substitute in similar products
of competing venues.
    In addition to the competition and price discipline described
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly
contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable.
The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants
that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms
and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook,
Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN, BATS Trading and Direct Edge. A
proliferation of dark pools and other ATSs operate profitably with
fragmentary shares of consolidated market volume.
    Regulation NMS, by deregulating the market for proprietary data,
has increased the contestability of that market. While BDs have
previously published their proprietary data individually, Regulation
NMS encourages market data vendors and BDs to produce proprietary
products cooperatively in a manner never before possible. Multiple
market data vendors already have the capability to aggregate data and
disseminate it on a profitable scale, including Bloomberg and Thomson
Reuters. In Europe, Markit aggregates and disseminates data from over
50 brokers and multilateral trading facilities.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ http://www.markit.com/en/products/data/boat/boat-boat-data.page.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case of TRFs, the rapid entry of several exchanges into this
space in 2006-2007 following the development and Commission approval of
the TRF structure demonstrates the contestability of this aspect of the
market.\22\ Given the demand for trade reporting services that is
itself a by-product of the fierce competition for transaction
executions--characterized notably by a proliferation of ATSs and BDs
offering internalization--any supra-competitive increase in the fees
associated with trade reporting or TRF data would shift trade report
volumes from one of the existing TRFs to the other \23\ and create
incentives for other TRF operators to enter the space. Alternatively,
because BDs reporting to TRFs are themselves free to consolidate the
market data that they report, the market for over-the-counter data
itself, separate and apart from the markets for execution and trade
reporting services--is fully contestable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The low cost exit of two TRFs from the market is also
evidence of a contestible market, because new entrants are reluctant
to enter a market where exit may involve substantial shut-down
costs.
    \23\ It should be noted that the FINRA/NYSE TRF has, in recent
weeks, received reports for over 10% of all over-the-counter volume
in NMS stocks. In addition, FINRA has announced plans to update its
Alternative Display Facility, which is also able to receive over-
the-counter trade reports. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
70048 (July 26, 2013), 78 FR 46652 (August 1, 2013) (SR-FINRA-2013-
031).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, consolidated data provides substantial pricing discipline
for proprietary data products that are a subset of the consolidated
data stream. Because consolidated data contains marketwide information,
it effectively places a cap on the fees assessed for proprietary data
(such as quotation and last sale data) that is simply a subset of the
consolidated data. The availability provides a powerful form of pricing
discipline for proprietary data products that contain data elements
that are a subset of the consolidated data, by highlighting the
optional nature of proprietary products.
    The competitive nature of the market for non-core ``sub-set''
products such as NASDAQ Basic is borne out by the performance of the
market. In May 2008, the internet portal Yahoo! began offering its Web
site viewers real-time last sale data (as well as best quote data)
provided by BATS. In June 2008, NASDAQ launched NLS, which was
initially subject to an ``enterprise cap'' of $100,000 for customers
receiving only one of the NLS products, and $150,000 for customers
receiving both products. The majority of NASDAQ's sales were at the
capped level. In early 2009, BATS expanded its offering of free data to
include depth-of-book data. Also in early 2009, NYSE Arca announced the
launch of a competitive last sale product with an enterprise price of
$30,000 per month. In response, NASDAQ combined the enterprise cap for
the NLS products and reduced the cap to $50,000 (i.e., a reduction of
$100,000 per month). Similarly, the enterprise license and netting
option being offered for NASDAQ Basic through this proposed rule change
reflects a means by which the overall cost of the product is limited in
accordance with the existence of competitive alternatives, including
both core and proprietary data.
    In this environment, a super-competitive increase in the fees
charged for either transactions or data has the potential to impair
revenues from both products. ``No one disputes that competition for
order flow is `fierce'.'' NetCoalition I at 539. The existence of
fierce competition for order flow implies a high degree of price
sensitivity on the part of BDs with order flow, since they may readily
reduce costs by directing orders toward the lowest-cost trading venues.
A BD that shifted its order flow from one platform to another in
response to order execution price differentials would both reduce the
value of that platform's market data and reduce its own need to consume
data from the disfavored platform. If a platform increases its market
data fees, the change will affect the overall cost of doing business
with the platform, and affected BDs will assess whether they can lower
their trading costs by directing orders elsewhere and thereby lessening
the need for the more expensive data. Similarly, increases in the cost
of NASDAQ Basic would impair the willingness of distributors to take a
product for which there are numerous alternatives, impacting NASDAQ
Basic data revenues, the value of NASDAQ Basic as a tool for attracting
order flow, and ultimately, the volume of orders routed to NASDAQ and

reported to the FINRA/NASDAQ TRF and the value of its other data
products.
    Competition has also driven NASDAQ continually to improve its data
offerings and to cater to customers' data needs. The NASDAQ Basic
product itself is a product of this competition, offering a subset of
core data to users that may not wish to receive or pay for all
consolidated data. Moreover, as detailed in the section of this
proposed rule change discussing its purpose, NASDAQ has made continual
enhancements to the NASDAQ Basic product to ensure that it remains an
attractive offering to its customers. Despite these enhancements and a
dramatic increase in message traffic, NASDAQ's fees for professional
usage of NASDAQ Basic have hitherto remained flat.
    The existence of numerous alternatives to NASDAQ Basic, including
real-time consolidated data, free delayed consolidated data, and
proprietary data from other sources ensures that NASDAQ cannot set
unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory,
without losing business to these alternatives. Accordingly, NASDAQ
believes that the acceptance of the NASDAQ Basic product in the
marketplace demonstrates the consistency of these fees with applicable
statutory standards. Likewise, the fee changes proposed herein will be
subject to these same competitive forces. If the proposed fee increase
is excessive, or if the proposals for an enterprise license and netting
are unattractive to market participants, only NASDAQ will suffer, since
its customers will merely migrate to competitive alternatives.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\24\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NASDAQ-2014-011 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-NASDAQ-2014-011. 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-NASDAQ-2014-011 and should
be submitted on or before March 6, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-03121 Filed 2-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59676-59677]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24740]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC11-119-000.
    Applicants: Mario J. Gabelli, GGCP, Inc., GGCP Holdings, LLC, GAMCO
Investors, Inc.
    Description: Request for Blanket Authorizations to Acquire
Securities under Section 203(a) of the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 09/19/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110919-5043.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG11-127-000.
    Applicants: Invenergy Illinois Solar I LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Invenergy Illinois Solar I LLC.
    Filed Date: 09/16/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110916-5077.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 07, 2011.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2547-004.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35: NYISO Compliance Filing to Correct EITC Fomula to
be effective 5/18/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/16/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110916-5094.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 07, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4013-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Commonwealth Edison
Company.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): PJM and ComEd submit responses to FERC's August 31, 2011
Letter, to be effective 6/15/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/16/2011.

    Accession Number: 20110916-5162.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 07, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4501-001.
    Applicants: Caney River Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Caney River Wind Project, LLC submits tariff filing
per 35.17(b): Caney River Wind Project, LLC Amended MBR Tariff to be
effective 10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/16/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110916-5146.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 07, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4552-000.
    Applicants: ONEOK Energy Services Company, L.P.
    Description: ONEOK Energy Services Company, L.P. submits tariff
filing per 35.1: ONEOK Energy Services Company Baseline MBR Filing to
be effective 9/16/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/16/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110916-5082.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 07, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4553-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii:
OATT Revised Sections 13 and 14 to be effective 8/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/16/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110916-5105.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 07, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4554-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: El Paso Electric Company submits tariff filing per 35:
Compliance Filing of El Paso-Tucson Settlement, EL06-45-000, EL06-46-
000 to be effective 9/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/16/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110916-5107
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 07, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4555-000.
    Applicants: ONEOK Energy Services Company, L.P.
    Description: ONEOK Energy Services Company, L.P. submits tariff
filing per 35: ONEOK Energy Services Order No. 697 Compliance Filing of
MBR Tariff to be effective 9/16/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/16/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110916-5108.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 07, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4556-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Company.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of FERC Service Agreement No.
IA-NEP-14 with Dominion Energy Salem Harbor, LLC, by New England Power
Company.
    Filed Date: 09/16/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110916-5129.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 07, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4557-000.
    Applicants: GS Electric Generating Cooperative Inc.
    Description: Notice of Non-Jurisdictional Status and Withdrawal of
Rate Schedule of GS Electric Generating Cooperative, Inc.
    Filed Date: 09/16/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110916-5180.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 07, 2011.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES11-46-000.
    Applicants: PECO Energy Company.
    Description: Application of PECO Energy Company under Section 204
of the Federal Power Act for Authorization of the Issuance of
Securities.
    Filed Date: 09/16/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110916-5095.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 07, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ES11-47-000.
    Applicants: Commonwealth Edison Company.
    Description: Application of Commonwealth Edison Company under
Section 204 of the Federal Power Act for Authorization of the Issuance
of Securities.
    Filed Date: 09/16/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110916-5097.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 07, 2011.

    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
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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 19, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-24740 Filed 9-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 109 (Friday, June 6, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32640-32641]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13244]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0301; Special Conditions No. 25-550-SC]

Special Conditions: The Boeing Company, Models 737-700, -700C, -
800, -900ER, -7, -8, and -9 Series Airplanes; Airplane Electronic
Systems Security Protection From Unauthorized External Access

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final Special Condition; Request for Comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Boeing Company
Models 737-700, -700C, -800, -900ER, -7, -8, and -9 series airplanes.
These airplanes will have novel or unusual design features associated
with the architecture and connectivity capabilities of the airplanes'
computer systems and networks, which may allow access to or by external
computer systems and networks and may result in security
vulnerabilities to the airplanes' systems. The applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for
this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional
safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to
establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is June 6, 2014.
We must receive your comments by July 21, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-0301
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations 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.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/ gov/.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations 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: Varun Khanna, FAA, Airplane and Flight
Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice of, and
opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is
impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay
issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected
aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has
been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances
with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that
good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon
publication in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments
we receive.

Background

    On January 27, 2012, the Boeing Company applied for an amendment to
Type Certificate No. A16WE to include new minor models, 737-7, -8, and
-9. The Models 737-7, -8, and -9, which are derivatives of the 737-700,
-800, -900ER currently approved under Type Certificate No. A16WE, are
passenger series airplanes designed to substantially reduce fuel burn
and community noise. In addition, the design will include a new CFM
LEAP-1B engine with a 68.4-inch diameter fan, 8-inch longer nose gear
to accommodate the larger engine, a relofted tailcone (which requires
the elevator to be trimmed and the elevator tab to be relocated
outboard to accommodate the new contours), new horizontal stabilizer
strakelets, a retractable auxiliary power unit inlet door, fly-by-wire
spoilers, strengthened flight deck bulkhead, and a new winglet design.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, The Boeing Company must show that the Models 737-700, -
700C, -800, -900ER, -7, -8, and -9 series airplanes meet the applicable
provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type
Certificate No. A16WE or the applicable regulations in effect on the
date of application for the change to the type certificate. The
regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are
commonly referred to as the ``original type certification basis.'' In
addition, the certification basis includes certain special conditions,
exemptions, or later amended sections of the applicable part that are
not relevant to these special conditions.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain

adequate or appropriate safety standards for the 737-700, -700C, -800,
-900ER, -7, -8, and -9 because of a novel or unusual design feature,
special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar
novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already
included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the
same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also
apply to the other model.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the 737-700, -700C, -800, -900ER, -7, -8, and -9 must
comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR
part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Boeing Models 737-700, -700C, -800, -900ER, -7, -8, and -9
series airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design
features: Digital systems architecture composed of several connected
networks. This network architecture and network configuration may be
used for or interfaced with a diverse set of functions, including:
     Flight safety related control, communication, and
navigation systems (aircraft control domain);
     Operator business and administrative support (operator
information domain); and
     Passenger information and entertainment systems (passenger
entertainment domain), and the capability to allow access to or by
external network sources.

Discussion

    The proposed architecture and network configuration of the Models
737-700, -700C, -800, -900ER, -7, -8, and -9 series airplanes may allow
increased connectivity to and access from external network sources and
operations and maintenance networks to the aircraft control domain and
operator information domain. The airplane control domain and operator
information domain perform functions required for the safe operation
and maintenance of the airplane. Previously these domains had very
limited connectivity with external network sources.
    The architecture and network configuration may allow the
exploitation of network security vulnerabilities resulting in
intentional or unintentional destruction, disruption, degradation, or
exploitation of data, systems, and networks critical to the safety and
maintenance of the airplane.
    The existing regulations and guidance material did not anticipate
these types of airplane system architectures. Furthermore, 14 CFR
regulations and current system safety assessment policy and techniques
do not address potential security vulnerabilities, which could be
exploited by unauthorized access to airplane networks, data buses, and
servers. Therefore, these special conditions and a means of compliance
are proposed to ensure that the security (i.e., confidentiality,
integrity, and availability) of airplane systems is not compromised by
unauthorized wired or wireless electronic connections.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Models 737-700, -700C, -800, -900ER, -7, -8, and -9 series airplanes.
Should The Boeing Company apply at a later date for a change to the
type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel
or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that
model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on certain model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general
applicability.
    The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the
notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been
derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is
unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change
from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would
significantly affect the certification of the airplane, the FAA has
determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and
impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special
conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow
interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in
response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for The Boeing Company Models 737-700, -
700C, -800, -900ER, -7, -8, and -9 series airplanes.

Airplane Electronic Systems Security Protection From Unauthorized
External Access

    1. The applicant must ensure that the airplanes' electronic systems
are protected from access by unauthorized sources external to the
airplane, including those possibly caused by maintenance activity.
    2. The applicant must ensure that electronic system security
threats are identified and assessed, and that effective electronic
system security protection strategies are implemented to protect the
airplane from all adverse impacts on safety, functionality, and
continued airworthiness.
    3. The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to allow the
operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the airplane is
maintained, including all post type certification modifications that
may have an impact on the approved electronic system security
safeguards.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 5, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-13244 Filed 6-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 32 (Thursday, February 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6853-6854]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03174]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-N-0408]

Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting;
Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming
public advisory committee meeting of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory
Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice
and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. The meeting will be
open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on
this document.

DATES: The meeting will be held on March 7, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 12:30
p.m.

ADDRESSES: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31
Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information
regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking,
and transportation may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.
    FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting.
The docket number is FDA-2018-N-0408. The docket will close on March 6,
2018. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public
meeting by March 6, 2018. Please note that late, untimely filed
comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted
on or before March 6, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic
filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the
end of March 6, 2018. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier
(for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are
postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before
that date.
    Comments received on or before February 26, 2018, will be provided
to the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into
consideration by FDA.
    You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2018-N-0408 for ``Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of
Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments.''
Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSSES),
will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as
``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' FDA will review
this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its
consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed
confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for
public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both
copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name
and contact information be made publicly available, you can provide
this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your
comments and you must identify the information as ``confidential.'' Any
information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in
accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For
more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see
80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren D. Tesh, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-9001, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email: [email protected], or FDA Advisory
Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the
Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last
minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory
committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide
timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the FDA's website at
https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to
the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory
committee information line to learn about possible modifications before
coming to the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Agenda: The committee will discuss supplemental biologic license
application (sBLA) 125557/S-013, for BLINCYTO (blinatumomab) injection
for intravenous use, application submitted by Amgen, Inc. The proposed
indication (use) for this product is for the treatment of minimal
residual disease-positive B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic
leukemia.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is
available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
All electronic and written submissions submitted to the Docket (see
ADDRESSES) on or before February 26, 2018. Oral presentations from the
public will be scheduled between approximately 10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should
notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general
nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and
addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before
February 21, 2018. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited.
If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the
scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify
interested persons regarding their request to speak by February 22,
2018.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that FDA is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
    For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Lauren D. Tesh at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: February 9, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-03174 Filed 2-14-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 209 (Monday, October 29, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65461-65462]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26332]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 209 / Monday, October 29, 2012 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

Docket No. FAA-2012-1049; Airspace Docket No. 12-ANM-12
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Area Navigation Route Q-1; CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the legal description of area navigation
(RNAV) route Q-1 by adding two waypoints along the route. In addition,
the route description is amended to match a standardized format by
adding the appropriate state name to the waypoints, the name and the
state of the Point Reyes, CA, navigation aid, and listing of the points
in the proper order.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, January 10, 2013. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy and ATC
Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    RNAV route Q-1 extends along the U.S. west coast between the Point
Reyes, CA, VHF omnidirectional range/tactical air navigation (VORTAC)
aid and the ELMAA, WA, waypoint. The FAA is adding two waypoints along
to route for air traffic control purposes. In addition, the route
description is reformatted for standardization.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by amending the legal description of RNAV route Q-1 to add two
waypoints along the route and to standardize the description format.
The ELENN, CA, waypoint is inserted between the existing ENVIE, CA, and
EBINY, OR, waypoints for traffic flow metering with the Oakland Air
Route Traffic Control Center. The TACOS, CA, waypoint is added between
the existing ETCHY, CA, and ENVIE, CA, waypoints to provide
connectivity with an RNAV arrival to Travis Air Force Base.
    In addition, the order of the points as listed in the description
of FAA Order 7400.9 is reversed to comply with the standard format that
the points be listed from south-to-north. Also, the state names are
added to the waypoint and the navigation aid names to comply with the
standard format.
    Since this action involves only editorial changes to the legal
description of RNAV route Q-1, and does not change the dimensions or
operating requirements of the affected route, notice and public
procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it revises the legal description of an RNAV route to maintain
currency.
    United States Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph
2006 of FAA Order 7400.9W, dated August 8, 2012, and effective
September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The RNAV route listed in this document will be published subsequently
in the Order.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,
paragraph 311a. This airspace action consists of editorial changes only
and is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental
impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant
preparation of an environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, and

effective September 15, 2012, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 2006 United States area navigation routes

* * * * *

Q-1 Point Reyes, CA to ELMAA, WA [Amended]

Point Reyes, CA (PYE)   VORTAC                 (Lat. 38[deg]04'47'' N., long. 122[deg]52'04'' W.)
ETCHY, CA               WP                     (Lat. 39[deg]05'28'' N., long. 123[deg]08'05'' W.)
TACOS, CA               WP                     (Lat. 39[deg]57'32'' N., long. 123[deg]10'28'' W.)
ENVIE, CA               WP                     (Lat. 41[deg]20'09'' N., long. 123[deg]12'32'' W.)
ELENN, CA               WP                     (Lat. 41[deg]37'10'' N., long. 123[deg]13'07'' W.)
EBINY, OR               WP                     (Lat. 42[deg]28'50'' N., long. 123[deg]15'01'' W.)
EASON, OR               WP                     (Lat. 44[deg]30'00'' N., long. 123[deg]19'44'' W.)
ERAVE, WA                WP                    (Lat. 46[deg]54'35'' N., long. 123[deg]24'06'' W.)
ELMAA, WA               Fix                    (Lat. 47[deg]08'53'' N., long. 123[deg]24'35'' W.)

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 16, 2012.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2012-26332 Filed 10-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 3, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 85)]
[Notices]
[Page 24637]
[DOCID:fr03my07-107]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold the following meetings during the
week of May 7, 2007:

    An Open Meeting will be held on Monday, May, 7, 2007 at 9 a.m.
in the Auditorium, Room L-002, and a Closed Meeting will be held
Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 2 p.m.

    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also 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), (7), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Open Meeting scheduled for Monday, May 7,
2007 will be:

    The Commission will hold a roundtable discussion regarding
shareholder rights and the federal proxy rules. The discussion will
address the federal role in upholding shareholders' state law
rights, the purpose and effect of the federal proxy rules, non-
binding proposals under the proxy rules, and binding proposals under
the proxy rules.

    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May
8, 2007 will be:
    Formal orders of investigations;
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an
enforcement nature; an adjudicatory matter; and
    Other matters related to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 30, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-8430 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P