September 22, 2006

Mr. James B. Gulliford

Assistant Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.  (7101M)

Washington, DC 20460

Dear Mr. Gulliford:

The U.S. Apple Association (USApple) is the national trade association
representing all segments of the apple industry.  Members include 36
state apple associations representing 7,500 apple growers throughout the
country, as well as over 300 individual firms involved in the apple
business.

USApple collaborates with apple growers, university scientists and its
member organizations to provide information to government agencies on
regulatory and agricultural policies.  The Northwest Horticultural
Council (NHC) is a USApple member, and collaborated in development of
this letter.  We appreciate this opportunity to respond to your request
for new data that will help you and your staff make a fair decision
regarding the future use of azinphos methyl.

Apple Growers Need Azinphos Methyl

There are over 40 insects that plague apple growers across the United
States.  This wide variety of pests makes apple pest management one of
the most challenging and complex of all agricultural crops.  Broad
spectrum insecticides, such as azinphos methyl, have helped apple
growers manage a range of harmful insects, while allowing growers the
opportunity to enter their orchards to perform important horticultural
activities such as pruning, thinning and tree training.

Azinphos methyl is one of the most valuable insecticides to apple
growers, because it is economical and dependable.  It is also compatible
with Integrated Pest Management programs that foster growth of
populations of beneficial insects that prey on harmful insects.  Growers
use azinphos methyl to control pests, such as codling moth, oriental
fruit moth and plum curculio, that can destroy an entire apple crop in a
matter of hours.  Since the risk of crop loss is so great, apple growers
prefer to use azinphos methyl, because they know it will control harmful
insects.

If apple growers lose azinphos methyl they will be forced to adopt other
alternatives that are more difficult to use, and may not be as effective
under high pest populations.  The current alternatives are not effective
on all insect life stages, they must be applied in more specific time
windows and they require more precise application.  When weather events
have such a great potential to dictate application timing, growers lose
flexibility in timing their applications.  As a result, the potential
for missing critical windows is much greater, and the risk of crop loss
is greater.  Apple growers prefer to use azinphos methyl because it is
dependable and economical.  However, they also use other tactics to
control import pests.

In the Pacific Northwest and California, growers use mating disruption
in combination with a range of insecticides to control codling moth.
However, mating disruption is not economically feasible in most Eastern
and Midwestern orchards, because multiple pest species must be
controlled simultaneously.  Pesticide applications would be necessary to
control the full range of pests even if mating disruption effectively
controlled one harmful insect species.

Azinphos methyl is also an important tool that helps growers avoid
dependence on any particular class of chemistry.  USApple is concerned
that the removal of azinphos methyl will result in a growing dependence
on available alternatives in the neonicotinoid class of chemicals that
could lead to insect resistance to those alternatives.  If resistance
develops, growers will be forced to use more pesticides to control pests
than if azinphos methyl were still available.

Apple Impact Assessment

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) azinphos methyl
impact assessment estimates that apple growers would sustain losses
totaling as much as $81 million if azinphos methyl were cancelled.
USApple has submitted comments to EPA explaining that the impact is
underestimated, because the agency’s chemical cost estimates were low,
miticide applications were not included in the estimate, and the agency
did not factor in anticipated damage from the use of alternatives and
the expected increases in orchard monitoring costs.  However, even if
EPA’s estimate were not underestimated, an $81 million cost to apple
growers would be an enormous financial burden.

Apple pest management is extremely complex and diverse across all
production regions.  It is difficult to capture the impact of EPA’s
underestimate of the impact from the loss of azinphos methyl.  However,
a specific example is explained below to represent the value of azinphos
methyl to apple growers.

Washington State Impact Assessment Example

In a recent visit to Washington state, EPA officials visited Olsen
Orchards located in the town of Buena, Washington in the heart of Yakima
County, the largest apple-producing county in the United States.  There
are approximately 55,000 acres of apples in Yakima County which makes it
larger than any other apple producing state in the nation with the
exception of Washington state in aggregate.  The Olsen orchard is
located in an area of Yakima County with steadily increasing codling
moth pressure.

Below is a treatment-by-treatment breakdown of the spray program in
Olsen orchards  The program illustrates that apple growers are already
using other alternative insecticides besides azinphos methyl.  In this
particular situation, mating disruption is being used in combination
with acetamiprid and novaluron, which are two of the alternatives EPA
suggest could be used in place of azinphos methyl.  This program clearly
shows that azinphos methyl is needed in combination with other
alternatives to attain effective control.  Removing azinphos methyl from
this program would be more expensive and it could lead to greater insect
resistance if several more applications of acetamiprid and novaluron are
used.  Washington growers continue to state that phosmet is not
considered a one for one replacement for azinphos methyl and it costs
more than azinphos methyl.

Mr. Olsen is also suffering increased codling moth damage that is highly
visible in the orchard.  He has also used had to use an additional
insecticide treatment to control mites, because use of acetamiprid
disrupted his biological mite control.  More applications of acetamiprid
would likely further exacerbate mite problems.  If this pressure
continues without respite, current alternatives, given that they are
less effective for codling moth control, would not provide adequate
codling moth control if azinphos methyl were phased-out.  While the
highest codling moth pressure is now limited to the south-central region
of Washington state, broader areas of the state are likely to experience
greater codling moth pressure as the economic conditions that have lead
to poorly managed orchards persist.

Table 1.  2006 Codling Moth Control Program in Olsen Orchards

Date	Insecticide	rate/acre	units	$ per unit	$ per acre	$ per application
Total Cost ($)/Acre

15-Apr	Isomate C+	200	ties	0.28	56	20	76

4-May	Pyriproxyfen	5	Oz.	9.25	46.25	17.35	63.6

25-May	Acetamiprid	3.4	Oz.	14.95	50.83	17.35	68.18

16-Jun	Azm	2	lbs.	12.4	24.8	17.35	42.15

29-Jun	Pyridaben	6.6	Oz.	6.95	45.87	17.35	63.22

6-Jul	Azm	2	lbs.	12.4	24.8	17.35	42.15

26-Jul	Novaluron	16	Oz.	1.59	25.44	17.35	42.79

9-Aug	Azm	2	lbs.	12.4	24.8	17.35	42.15

30-Aug	Methoxyfenozide	16	Oz.	2.34	37.44	17.35	54.79

 	 	 	 	 	 	Total	495.03

1 application	Phosmet	5	lbs.	9.6	48	17.35	65.35

Ecological Risk is Overestimated

USApple has commented on several occasions that the ecological risk
assessment overestimates the potential risk from the use of azinphos
methyl, because overly conservative scenarios are used to model
potential risk.  In the Western scenario, the agency uses a site with an
average annual rainfall of 36 inches, when the primary apple production
region receives annual rainfall of 6 inches.  The modelers go beyond
that to use an annual value of 39.7 inches to capture the 90th
percentile of the maximum annual peak concentration in 30 years to
calculate the risk.

In the Eastern Scenario, the agency’s model estimates the 90th
percentile of annual erosion to be 121 tons/ha. (49 tons/acre).  The
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) estimates average annual erosion from
Pennsylvania orchards from 2.1 tons/acre in average soils to 5.9
tons/acre in highly erosive soil in Adams County, Pennsylvania using its
widely accepted universal soil erosion model.,  Additionally, the 2003
NRCS National Resources Inventory Survey estimates New England/Mid
Atlantic average soil erosion to be 3.2 tons/acre.  If average erosion
in Pennsylvania is 4 tons/acre, EPA’s estimate would be 12 times
greater than the NRCS estimate.  Using the national inventory estimate
of 3.2 tons/acre, EPA’s estimate would be 15 times greater.

These are two examples that demonstrate how unrealistic assumptions
exaggerate the potential ecological risk from azinphos methyl use.  The
orchards visited by EPA staff during the week of Sept. 11, 2006 clearly
demonstrate that virtually continuous sod cover crops in these orchards
are playing a major role in reducing run-off.  We would argue that a
continuous cover crop in orchards and between orchards and the water
body offer significant protection when compared to the agency’s model
which greatly underestimates this protection.

Monitoring Data Conflict with EPA’s Ecological Model Results

USApple has also commented to EPA that its predictions of azinphos
methyl concentrations in water conflict with actual measurements from
water monitoring data.

EPA’s STORET (STOrage and RETrieval Database) and U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) monitoring data indicate azinphos methyl concentrations
are mostly 1 ppb or less, with two peak values of less than 4 ppb
between 1990 and 2005.  After 2001, the highest concentrations from
actual monitoring data were 0.75 ppb in Oregon and less than 0.05 ppb in
Pennsylvania.  However, EPA’s predictive model estimates the
concentrations to be 9.9 ppb in Oregon and 15.1 ppb in Pennsylvania.

USApple maintains EPA’s modeled predictions are significantly
overestimated, because of the use of overly conservative assumptions
that do not represent real environmental or orchard conditions.
Additionally, USApple believes the real concentrations are likely to
diminish over time because of the industry’s voluntary mitigation,
which proposes to reduce total annual applications from 8 lbs. to 6 lbs.
of formulated product.  USApple understands EPA used water monitoring
databases in its modeling process, but only up to 2001.  However,
monitoring data through 2001 would not capture the impact of significant
azinphos methyl mitigation that was implemented in 2002 and 2003.
USApple has documented the impact of apple specific azinphos methyl
mitigation in previous comments.

U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics demonstrate that azinphos
methyl use decreased 31 percent from 2003 to 2005.  The average number
of applications decreased from 2.8 applications per acre in 2003 to 2.4
applications per acre in 2005 and the percent of apple acreage treated
declined from 73 percent in 2003 to 63 percent in 2005.  The apple
industry’s voluntary mitigation is expected to result in even less use
of azinphos methyl in the future.

Studies Targeting Azinphos Methyl Use Support Monitoring Data Results

Attached for your consideration is a study titled “Pesticide Use and
Toxicity Assay in Mission, Bender and Yaksum Creeks” prepared in 2003
by the Chelan County Conservation District.  This report examines
pesticide concentrations in small flowing streams before and after
applications of azinphos methyl and other orchard chemicals.  The
concentration detected appears to be well below the 0.4 ug. a.i./L level
that was shown to cause negative effects in a 21-day chronic toxicity
study.  Additionally, this study demonstrates that even in streams near
orchards where azinphos methyl was used, no daphnia, which represents
the most sensitive aquatic group, were found to be harmed by the
applications.

Since the concentrations in the Chelan County study were measured in
flowing streams, any small azinphos methyl concentrations quickly
disappeared after the spraying event, which virtually eliminates the
likelihood of chronic toxicity at the levels predicted by EPA’s model.

The results of other field studies recently presented to the agency have
also documented very low levels of azinphos methyl in Northwest rivers
and creeks.  Monitoring of the Sulphur Creek Wasteway indicate that
maximum concentrations of azinphos methyl ranged from 0.023 ppb in 2003
to 0.14 ppb in 2005.  The highest of these values is still 70 times less
than the agency’s calculated value of 9.9 ug. a.i./L.  Additionally,
there is no evidence there is any significant persistence of the active
ingredient in Northwest waterways.

An analysis of the Lower Neel Creek in Oregon during the period of
summer azinphos methyl use indicates that average concentrations of
azinphos methyl were reduced from approximately 0.33 ppb to 0.02 ppb in
2005.  The 2005 average, based on actual monitoring data, would be 495
times less than the 9.9 ug. A.i./L predicted by EPA’s model.

While we understand the agency’s rationale for using an ecological
risk model to predict pesticide concentrations in water, we believe the
agency should utilize more realistic orchard practices and validate its
model predictions using monitoring data.

New aquatic concentration information, collected by diverse public
agencies in the west, suggests EPA’s model is not adequately refined
and should not be used as the solitary indicator of ecological risk.
Additionally, there is no evidence that fish or wildlife are being
harmed by legal azinphos methyl applications based on routine monitoring
practices.

Farm Worker Risk

Recently the Washington Department of Labor and Industries released the
results of their 2006 workplace investigations which are conducted when
cholinesterase depressions are reported in the Washington Cholinesterase
Monitoring Program.  Review of these investigation summaries indicates
that only three cases involved cholinesterase (ChE) inhibition when
azinphos methyl alone was used in the previous 30 days.  We emphasize
that these reports include depressions from potential exposure to a
variety of chemicals.  However, only three cases involve ChE inhibition
where azinphos could be the only possible exposure.  The ChE depression
noted in these cases were 20.35 percent, 22.66 percent and 25.72
percent, respectively.  Additionally, no illness was reported in any of
these cases.

These reports demonstrate that Washington state pesticide applicators
are applying azinphos methyl with relative safety.  In every case, even
beyond the three cases involving azinphos methyl, worker and workplace
safety practices have been implicated as the probable cause of the
possible exposure.  The tree fruit industry of the Pacific Northwest
plans to continue to work with its members and their employees to
improve safe use of crop protection tools.

A summary of the 2005 Washington Cholinesterase Monitoring Program
conducted by the USDA’s Office of Pesticide Policy indicates that in
2005 only one agricultural handler of 611 workers tested had
significantly depressed ChE levels resulting from potential azinphos
methyl exposure.  Only two workers out of 580 workers tested in 2004 had
significantly depressed ChE levels resulting from potential azinphos
methyl exposure.  Additionally the summary states that a California
Department of Pesticide Regulation report noted there were no illnesses
reported by California physicians associated with the use of azinphos
methyl from 1999 to 2002 and none in 2004, but there was one possible
illness in 2003. These facts respute the assertion that farm workers are
being exposed to unreasonable risks from azinphos methyl applications.

Summary

USApple, including NHC, believes they have raised substantive and
credible issues regarding the ability of the agency to rely solely on
its ecological risk model to accurately estimate the potential risk of
azinphos methyl to the environment.  While significant monitoring data
and several independent studies indicate azinphos methyl concentrations
in water are not adversely impacting the environment, it would be
inappropriate for EPA to make a final decision to cancel azinphos
methyl, especially when such an action would be so harmful to apple
growers.

Additionally, cholinesterase monitoring data in Washington and
California indicate farm workers are not being exposed to unreasonable
risks.

EPA indicated in its azinphos methyl decision document that it would be
willing to reassess the proposed phase out if it determined in 2010 that
more time would be needed to establish maximum residue levels (MRL) in
international markets for certain azinphos methyl alternatives.  While
the MRL issue is certainly a future uncertainty, there are other
significant uncertainties that merit reassessment in 2010.

It is respectfully proposed that the agency remove the proposed phase
out, and make a commitment to reassess azinphos methyl in 2010.  Such an
approach would provide an opportunity for the registrants to generate
additional data that could clarify issues regarding ecological risk and
farm worker risk.  A collaborative process with stakeholders over the
next four years could help refine the ecological risk model and provide
adequate time to revisit many of the unanswered questions regarding
human studies and the current review process.

While these issues are being addressed, the apple industry is willing to
reduce total annual per acre applications from 8 lbs. to 6 lbs. of
formulated product, observe the proposed 100 foot buffer from permanent
bodies of water and discuss labeling options to ensure azinphos methyl
use is only used when absolutely necessary.

We appreciate this opportunity to provide the agency new data that may
inform its final decision.

Please contact Jim Cranney by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via e-mail
at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
Mike Willett by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via email at   HYPERLINK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>if you have questions
or need additional information.

Sincerely yours,

James R. Cranney, Jr.					Dr. Michael J. Willett

Vice President 					Vice President for Scientific Affairs

U.S. Apple Association				Northwest Horticultural Council

							105 So. 18th Street, Suite 105

							Yakima, Washington 98901

							Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

							  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

 U.S. Apple Association Strategic Pest Management Plan, April, 16, 2001.

 Washington State University, Guide to Codling Moth Damage
Identification, W.E. Jones, J.F. Brunner and D. Fabion, 2006.

 U.S. Apple Association Comments, Azinphos Methyl Ecological Risk
Assessment, Grower Impact Assessments;    Notice of Availability; Docket
Identification Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0061, Feb. 6, 2006.

 Grower Pesticide Application Report, Olsen Orchard Visit, Sept. 13,
2006.

 U.S. Apple Association Comments, EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0061 Azinphos Methyl
Proposed Reevaluation Decision, Aug. 8, 2006.

 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
RUSLE2 Erosion Calculation Record, Ardentsville Soil Scenario, Sept. 21,
2006.

 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
RUSLE2 Erosion Calculation Record, Catoctin Soil Scenario, Sept. 21,
2006.

 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
National Resources Inventory 2003 Annual NRI, May 2006.

 U.S. Apple Association, Azinphos Methyl Ecological Risk Assessment
Letter to Ms. Deborah Edwards, March 31, 2006.

 Makhteshim Agan, Reductions in AZM Use Since 1997, Sept. 2006.

 Pesticide Use and Toxicity Assay in Mission, Brender and Yaksum Creeks,
WRIA 45 Watershed Planning – Supplemental Water Quality Planning 2003;
Burgoon, Peter S., Rickel, Michael; July 15, 2003.

Sulphur Creek Wasteway Pesticide Detections, Cowles Jim, Washington
Department of Agriculture, Pesticide Management Division, Sept. 13,
2006.

 Pesticide Stewardship Partnerships, Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality, Foster, Gene, Grand, Fenix, Sievers et al., Sept. 13, 2006.

 Washington Department of Labor and Industries, 2006 Cholinesterase
Monitoring Season Consultation Activity Summaries, Sept. 2006.

 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Pesticide Policy, Summary of
Ag Handler Exposure Monitoring in the State of Washington and reported
Pesticide related Illnesses in California, Sept. 2006.

703 442-8850

800 781-4443

fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

Web site www.usapple.org

8233 Old Courthouse Road, Suite 200  (  Vienna, VA 22182-3816 USA


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REGION 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1595 Wynkoop Street
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denver, CO   80202-1129
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.epa.gov/region8
Ref: 8ARD-PM

Mr. Mike Natchees
Director, Air Quality Program
Energy & Minerals Division
Ute Indian Tribe
P.O. Box 70
Fort Duchesne, Utah  84026

Re:	Monarch Natural Gas, LLC, Riverbend Compressor Station
            Permit # SMNSR-UO-000021-2020.001, Proposed Synthetic Minor New Source Review Permit

Dear Mr. Natchees:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 is proposing to issue a synthetic minor New Source Review (synthetic MNSR) permit for the existing Monarch Natural Gas, LLC. (Monarch), Riverbend Compressor Station on the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation. As requested by Monarch, this synthetic MNSR permit would authorize the construction, installation and operation of new emissions sources, specifically two Joule Thompson (JT) Skids, three 500 barrel methanol storage tanks, two 18,000 gallon bullet tanks, four natural gas driven piston methanol pneumatic pumps and eight natural gas driven pneumatic controllers associated with the JT skids. This synthetic MNSR permit proposes to establish enforceable restrictions for fugitive emissions from each of the two JT Skids and associated storage tanks and equipment, as well as associated operational, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Monarch is also requesting to incorporate enforceable requirements to control nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds and benzene emissions existing equipment, including four field gas fired, 4-stroke, lean-burn compressor engines using catalytic emissions control systems and two existing glycol dehydration units using a thermal oxidizer.

A public comment period for the proposed permit will begin on June 12, 2020, and end on
July 13, 2020.

We have enclosed a CD and paper copy containing the proposed permit and supporting documentation, and we ask that you please make this material available for public review until the end of the public comment period. Comments may be submitted via mail, via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or through https://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID #EPA-R08-OAR-2020-0089). In addition, we have provided copies of the bulletin board public notice announcement and would appreciate it if you could post this announcement in prominent locations in your area. All of these documents will also be available for review in electronic format on our website at: https://www.epa.gov/caa-permitting/caa-permit public-comment-opportunities-region-8.

If you have any questions concerning the enclosed proposed permit or technical support documents, please contact Colin Schwartz, of my staff, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

                                       Sincerely,

                                      Carl Daly
                                    Acting Director
                                      Air and Radiation Division

Enclosures


[Federal Register: October 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 205)]
[Notices]
[Page 61670-61671]
[DOCID:fr25oc05-94]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52630; File No. SR-Amex-2005-097]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Amex Listing
Agreement

October 18, 2005.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 29, 2005, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been 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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt a modified Amex Listing Agreement
for the purpose of (i) combining the two forms of Amex Listing
Agreements presently available into one form of Amex Listing Agreement
to be submitted to the Exchange by all issuers in connection with a
listing application; (ii) eliminating a representation by issuers of
structured products, exchange-traded funds, trust issued receipts and
other novel securities products regarding third party claims; and (iii)
making certain minor, non-substantive changes to the Amex Listing
Agreement.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Amex's Web
site, http://www.amex.com, at the Amex's principal office, 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 Amex included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposal. The text of these
statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below.
The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C
below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    To list on the Exchange, an issuer must execute an Amex Listing
Agreement in connection with its listing application. The Exchange
currently has two forms of Amex Listing Agreements: (i) A listing
agreement for securities listed pursuant to sections 106 (Currency and
Index Warrants) and 107 (Other Securities) of the Amex Company Guide
and pursuant to Amex Rules 1000 (Portfolio Depositary Receipts), 1000A
(Index Fund Shares) and 1200 (Trust Issued Receipts) (the ``Other
Securities Listing Agreement'') and (ii) a listing agreement for all
other securities (the ``Basic Securities Listing Agreement''). The
Exchange proposes to consolidate the two forms of Amex Listing
Agreements into one form for issuers of all types of securities.
    The Other Securities Listing Agreement and Basic Securities Listing
Agreement differ in only one respect: In paragraph (4) of the Other
Securities Listing Agreement (``Paragraph (4)''), issuers represent
that they will not implead, cross-claim against or sue the Exchange or
its affiliates as a result of third party claims against the issuer.
The Exchange created the Other Securities Listing Agreement in 2002 \3\
to address concerns about the Exchange's potential legal exposure,
particularly in the area of intellectual property rights associated
with exchange-traded funds, HOLDRs and other structured products. The
adoption of Paragraph (4) reflected the position that, even though the
Exchange's sole involvement with any particular product is that it
approved the product for listing and that the securities trade on the
Exchange, it was foreseeable that litigation relating to the products
could include the Exchange as a defendant and that the inclusion of
Paragraph (4) in the listing agreement might reduce the Exchange's
legal exposure and litigation in some circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46451 (September 10,
2002), 67 FR 57468 (September 3, 2002) (SR-Amex-2002-46).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to delete Paragraph (4) from the Amex
Listing Agreement. The Exchange believes that none of the listing
agreement forms provided by other exchanges contain a provision similar
to Paragraph (4). The Exchange believes that modification of the Amex
Listing Agreement to more closely resemble the listing agreements
provided by other exchanges will promote fair competition between
exchange markets and benefit issuers of exchange-traded funds and other
structured products by simplifying their responsibilities and
obligations in connection with the listing process.
    The Exchange is also proposing other minor changes to the Amex
Listing Agreement, to clarify existing provisions about which issuers
have raised questions.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Amex believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
section 6(b) of the Act \4\ in general and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) \5\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest; and is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers, or to regulate by virtue of any authority conferred by the Act
matters not related to the purpose of the Act or the administration of
the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Amex believes that the proposed rule change would impose no
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange did not solicit or receive any written comments with
respect to the proposal.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or

(ii) as to which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Amex-2005-097 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2005-097. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-Amex-2005-097 and should be submitted on or before
November 15, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5892 Filed 10-24-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: January 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 12)]
[Notices]
[Page 3137-3138]
[DOCID:fr19ja06-129]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53102; File No. SR-BSE-2005-48]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order
Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto
Requiring Exchange Members To Provide Electronic Mail Addresses to the
Exchange

 January 11, 2006.
    On October 28, 2005, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (``BSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to require its members to provide

electronic mail addresses to the Exchange. On November 23, 2005, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\ The
proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the
Federal Register on December 12, 2005.\4\ The Commission received no
comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change,
as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, BSE made clarifying changes to its
statement of purpose for the proposed rule change.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52895 (December 5,
2005), 70 FR 73490 (December 12, 2005) (SR-BSE-2005-48).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Section 1(o) of Chapter XXV of BSE's rules provides that
every member and member organization shall designate one or more
electronic mail addresses for the purpose of receiving Exchange notices
and communications and shall promptly update those electronic mail
addresses when those addresses change or are no longer valid. In
addition, proposed Section 1(o) of Chapter XXV provides that an
authorized representative of the Exchange may elect to transmit notices
or other communications to members and member organizations
electronically, but that nothing in Section 1(o) of Chapter XXV shall
be construed to supersede or modify either the method for service of
process or other materials in any disciplinary proceeding or any other
provisions of the Exchange rules setting out a specific method for the
receipt of information from the Exchange.
    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\5\ The
Commission believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that
it promotes just and equitable principles of trade, serves to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and protects investors and the public
interest by allowing the Exchange to take advantage of available
technology to communicate with its members in an efficient and cost-
effective manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\8\ that the proposed rule change (SR-BSE-2005-48), as amended, is
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-516 Filed 1-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: September 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 188)]
[Notices]
[Page 55259-55260]
[DOCID:fr28se07-136]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 56512]

Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Order Granting Registration of
Rating and Investment Information, Inc., as a Nationally Recognized
Statistical Rating Organization

September 24, 2007.
    Rating and Investment Information, Inc., a credit rating agency,
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') an
application for registration as a nationally recognized statistical
rating organization (``NRSRO'') under Section 15E of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') for the classes of credit
ratings described in clauses (i) through (v) of Section 3(a)(62)(B) of
the Exchange Act. The Commission finds that the application furnished
by Rating and Investment Information, Inc. is in the form required by
Exchange Act Section 15E, Exchange Act Rule 17g-1 (17 CFR 240.17g-1),
and Form NRSRO (17 CFR 249b.300) and contains the information described
in subparagraph (B) of Section 15E(a)(1) of the Exchange Act.

    Based on the application, the Commission finds that the
requirements of Section 15E of the Exchange Act are satisfied.
    Accordingly, It is ordered, under paragraph (a)(2)(A) of Section
15E of the Exchange Act, that the registration of Rating and Investment
Information, Inc., with the Commission as an NRSRO under Section 15E of
the Exchange Act for the classes of credit ratings described in clauses
(i) through (v) of Section 3(a)(62)(B) of the Exchange Act is granted.

    By the Commission.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-19173 Filed 9-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 4843]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01283]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[LLC Project No. 14360-000]

Hydro Development; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On February 3, 2012, Hydro Development, LLC filed an application
for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power
Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Cascade Creek
Hydroelectric Project (Cascade Creek Project or project) to be located
on Swan Lake and Cascade Creek, near Petersburg, Alaska. The sole
purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit
holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) The
existing Swan Lake with surface area of 574 acres and useable storage
capacity of 22,500 acre-feet; (2) an outlet control structure
consisting of a low-head weir and a 3-foot-high, 50-foot-wide crest
gate; (3) a submerged siphon inlet with screens; (4) a tunnel and
penstock system conveying flows from the lake siphon to the powerhouse
including: (i) A 26-foot-long, 26-foot-wide, 98-foot-deep concrete
lined vertical shaft containing 10-foot-diameter siphon piping and a
siphon shutoff valve; (ii) a 12-foot-diameter, 12,700-foot-long unlined
low pressure tunnel; (iii) a 14-foot-diameter, 1,320-foot-long unlined
vertical shaft/vent; (iv) a 14-foot-diameter, 1,980-foot-long tunnel
containing a 9-foot-diameter, 1,980-foot-long steel penstock; and (v) a
9-foot-diameter, 780-foot-long buried steel penstock; (5) a 140-foot-
long, 80-foot-wide concrete and metal powerhouse with three 23.3-
megawatt (MW), vertical-shaft Pelton turbine units having a total
installed capacity of 70 MW; (6) a 450-foot-long, 40-foot-wide riprap-
armored trapezoidal open-channel tailrace; (7) a new marine access
facility, including a dock and barge landing ramp; (8) a 18.7-mile-
long, 138-kilovolt transmission line consisting of buried, submarine,
and overhead segments, with interconnection to the existing Scow Bay
substation; and (9) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual
generation of the Cascade Creek Project would be 200 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Corky Smith, Hydro Development, LLC, 928
Thomas Road, Bellingham, Washington 98226; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Kim Nguyen; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR Sec.  4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of
intent, and competing applications may be filed electronically via the
Internet. See 18 CFR Sec.  385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on
the Commission's Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-
filed. To paper-file, mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE. Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at  http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14360) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: January 16, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-01283 Filed 1-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 14 (Monday, January 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 3323]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1201]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Applications of Universal Jet Aviation, Inc. for Certificate
Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2012-1-11); Dockets DOT-
OST-2011-0150 and DOT-OST-2011-0151.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested
persons to show cause why it should not issue orders finding Universal
Jet Aviation, Inc., fit, willing, and able, and to provide interstate
and foreign charter air transportation of persons, property and mail,
using one large aircraft.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than
January 31, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in
Dockets DOT-OST-2011-0150 and DOT-OST-2011-0151 and addressed to U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, (M-30, Room W12-140),
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC
20590, and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to
the order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine J. O'Toole, Air Carrier
Fitness Division (X-56, Room W86-489), U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202)
366-9721.

    Dated: January 13, 2012.
Robert A. Letteney,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2012-1201 Filed 1-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 147 (Friday, July 31, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45635-45636]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18757]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0413; FRL-9931-64-Region 4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia:
Revisions to Definitions and Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the State of Georgia, through the Georgia Department of
Natural Resources' Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD) on August
30, 2010, December 15, 2011, and November 12, 2014. The SIP submittals
include changes to GA EPD's air quality rules that, among other things,
modify definitions and modify the ambient air standards for fine
particulate matter. The portions of the SIP revisions that EPA is
approving are consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA). In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is
approving these portions of the SIP revisions as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the Agency views these as a
noncontroversial submittals and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 31, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2015-0413, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0413,'' Air Regulatory Management
Section (formerly Regulatory Development Section), Air Planning and
Implementation Branch (formerly Air Planning Branch), Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Air
Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch,
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional
Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. Brad Akers, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Akers can be reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via
electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct
final rule which is published in the Rules Section of this Federal
Register. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the
direct final rule. If no

adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further
activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct
final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA
will not institute a second comment period on this document. Any
parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at this
time.

    Dated: July 22, 2015.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2015-18757 Filed 7-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44270-44271]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17803]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0987; Airspace Docket No. 13-AWP-19]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Needles, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at the Needles VHF
Omni-Directional Radio Range Tactical Air Navigation Aid (VORTAC),
Needles, CA, to facilitate vectoring of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
aircraft under control of Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control Center
(ARTCC). This improves the safety and management of IFR operations
within the National Airspace System.

DATES: Effective date, 0901 UTC, November 13, 2014. 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.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. The Order is also available for
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15. For further
information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Procedures
Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Nugent, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On December 26, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish controlled airspace
at Needles, CA (78 FR 78296). Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. One comment was received from National
Business Aviation Association in support of the proposal.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6006, of
FAA Order 7400.9X dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15,
2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by establishing Class E en route domestic airspace extending
upward from 1,200 feet above the surface, the Needles VHF Omni-
Directional Radio Range Tactical Air Navigation Aid (VORTAC), Needles,
CA, to accommodate IFR aircraft under control of Los Angeles Air Route
Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) by vectoring aircraft from en route
airspace to terminal areas. This action is necessary for the safety and
management of IFR operations.
    The FAA has determined 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
only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified
this rule, when promulgated, does 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 U.S. Code.
Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses 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 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 establishes
controlled airspace the Needles VHF Omni-Directional Radio Range
Tactical Air Navigation Aid (VORTAC), Needles, CA.

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 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 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15,
2013 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6006 En route domestic airspace areas.

* * * * *

AWP CA E6 Needles, CA [New]

Needles VORTAC, CA
    (Lat. 34[deg]45'58'' N., long. 114[deg]28'27'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface
within an area bounded by lat. 35[deg]01'00'' N., long.
114[deg]07'00'' W.; to lat. 34[deg]56'00'' N., long. 113[deg]38'00''
W.; to lat. 35[deg]05'00'' N., long. 113[deg]20'00'' W.; to lat.
35[deg]04'30'' N., long. 113[deg]18'00'' W.; to lat. 34[deg]54'00''
N., long. 113[deg]39'00'' W.; to lat. 34[deg]40'00'' N., long.
114[deg]00'00'' W.; to lat. 33[deg]37'00'' N., long. 114[deg]00'00''
W.; to lat. 33[deg]36'00'' N., long. 114[deg]10'00'' W.; to lat.
33[deg]51'00'' N., long. 114[deg]32'00'' W.; to lat. 34[deg]05'00''
N., long. 114[deg]32'00'' W.; to lat. 34[deg]10'00'' N., long.
114[deg]13'00'' W.; to lat. 34[deg]24'00'' N., long. 114[deg]18'00''
W.; to lat. 34[deg]58'00'' N., long. 114[deg]13'00'' W., thence to
the point of beginning.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on July 21, 2014.
Clark Desing,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2014-17803 Filed 7-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 177 (Thursday, September 16, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 51645]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20007]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0540]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulations; Choptank River, Cambridge, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is withdrawing its proposed rule to establish
temporary special local regulations for certain waters of the Choptank
River. The rulemaking was initiated to establish a special local
regulation during the ``Cambridge Classic Power Boat Regatta,'' a
marine event to be held on certain waters of the Choptank River at
Cambridge, MD. The proposed rule is being withdrawn because it is no
longer necessary, as the event sponsor has cancelled the power boat
racing event.

DATES: The Coast Guard is withdrawing the proposed rule for the event
scheduled from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on October 9, 2021, and those same
hours on October 10, 2021 published on August 3, 2021 (86 FR 41798) as
of September 16, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To view the docket for this withdrawn rulemaking, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2021-0540 in the ``SEARCH'' box
and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice, call or email Mr. Ron Houck, Waterways Management Division,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region; telephone
410-576- 2674, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background Information and Regulatory History

    On August 3, 2021, we published an NPRM entitled ``Special Local
Regulations; Choptank River, Cambridge, MD'' in the Federal Register
(86 FR 41798). The proposed rulemaking concerned the Coast Guard's
establishment of a temporary special local regulation for certain
navigable waters of the Choptank River, effective from 9 a.m. on
October 9, 2021 through 6 p.m. on October 10, 2021. This action was
necessary to provide for the safety of life on these waters during a
power boat racing event. This rulemaking would have prohibited persons
and vessels from entering the regulated area unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or the Coast Guard
Event Patrol Commander.

Withdrawal

    The proposed rule is being withdrawn due to the regulated area no
longer being necessary following a cancellation of the power boat
racing event by the event sponsor.

Authority

    We issue this notice of withdrawal under the authority of 46 U.S.C.
70041.

    Dated: September 13, 2021.
David E. O'Connell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2021-20007 Filed 9-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73353-73354]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28876]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73738; File No. SR-MIAX-2014-61]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 510 To Extend the Penny
Pilot Program

December 4, 2014.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 November 25, 2014, Miami International
Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been 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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Rule 510,
Interpretations and Policies .01 to extend the pilot program for the
quoting and trading of certain options in pennies (the ``Penny Pilot
Program'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is a participant in an industry-wide pilot program
that provides for the quoting and trading of certain option classes in
penny increments (the ``Penny Pilot Program'' or ``Program'').
Specifically, the Penny Pilot Program allows the quoting and trading of
certain option classes in minimum increments of $0.01 for all series in
such option classes with a price of less than $3.00; and in minimum
increments of $0.05 for all series in such option classes with a price
of $3.00 or higher. Options overlying the PowerShares QQQ Trust
(``QQQQ'')[supreg], SPDR S&P 500 Exchange Traded Funds (``SPY''), and
iShares Russell 2000 Index Funds (``IWM''), however, are quoted and
traded in minimum increments of $0.01 for all series regardless of the
price. The Penny Pilot Program was initiated at the then existing
option exchanges in January 2007 and currently includes more than 300
of the most active option classes. The Penny Pilot Program is currently
scheduled to expire on December 31, 2014. The purpose of the proposed
rule change is to extend the Penny Pilot Program in its current format
through June 30, 2015.
    In addition to the extension of the Penny Pilot Program through
June 30, 2015, the Exchange will replace any Penny Pilot issues that
have been delisted with the next most actively traded multiply listed
option classes that are not yet included in the Penny Pilot Program.
The replacement issues will be selected based on trading activity in
the previous six months and will be added to the Penny Pilot Program on
the second trading day following January 1, 2015. Please note, the
month immediately preceding a replacement class's addition to the Pilot
program (i.e., June) will not be used for purposes of the six-month
analysis. Thus, a replacement added on the second trading day following
January 1, 2015 will be identified based on trading activity from June
1, 2014 through November 30, 2014. Rule 510 has been updated to reflect
the new date replacement issues will be added to the Penny Pilot
Program.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) \3\ of the Act in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \4\ of the Act in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. In
particular, the proposed rule change, which extends the Penny Pilot
Program for six months, allows the Exchange to continue to participate
in a program that has been viewed as beneficial to traders, investors
and public customers and viewed as successful by the other options
exchanges participating in it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that, by extending the expiration of the Pilot Program, the
proposed rule change will allow for further analysis of the Penny Pilot
Program and a determination of how the Program should be structured in
the future. In doing so, the proposed rule change will also serve to
promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on
the marketplace and facilitating investor protection. In addition,
consistent with previous practices, the Exchange believes the other
options exchanges will be filing similar extensions of the Penny Pilot
Program.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \5\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \6\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this pre-filing requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2014-61 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2014-61. 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 20549-1090, 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-MIAX-2014-61 and should be
submitted on or before December 31, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-28876 Filed 12-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 58)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 15685-15687]
[DOCID:fr25mr08-15]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0092; Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-18]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Establishment of Colored and VOR Federal Airways; Alaska

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish four Federal airways in the
National Airspace System (NAS) to replace four non-part 95 routes in
Alaska. The conversion of these non-part 95 routes would change
uncharted nonregulatory airways requiring special

aircrew authorization to Federal Airways, thus adding to the instrument
flight rules (IFR) airway and route infrastructure in Alaska. This
proposal would establish three Very High Frequency Omnidirectional
Range (VOR) Federal airways, and one Low/Medium Frequency (L/MF)
Colored Federal airway.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 9, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal to the Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590-0001; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify
FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-0092 and Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-18, at the
beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments on the
Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken McElroy, Airspace and Rules Group,
Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2007-0092 and Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-18) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket No. FAA-2007-0092 and Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-18.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at: http://
www.faa.gov or the Federal Register's Web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Regional Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation
Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish three VOR Federal airways,
and one colored Federal airway, in Alaska. Presently there are
uncharted nonregulatory routes that use the same routing as the
proposed Federal airways. These uncharted nonregulatory routes are used
daily by commercial and general aviation aircraft. The FAA is proposing
to convert these uncharted nonregulatory routes to the Federal airways
to add to the IFR route structure in Alaska. The Colored Federal airway
would be designated as Amber 6, and would connect the St. Marys NDB
with the North River NDB. The first VOR Federal airway would be
designated as V-351, and would connect the Port Heiden NDB/DME with the
Dillingham VOR/DME. The second Federal airway would be designated as V-
619, and would connect the Port Heiden NDB/DME with the Saldo NDB, then
to the Dillingham VOR/DME. The third Federal airway would be designated
as V-414, and would connect the Gambell NDB/DME with the Kukuliak VOR/
DME. Additionally, adoption of these Federal airways would: (1) Provide
pilots with minimum en route altitudes and minimum obstruction
clearance altitudes information; (2) establish controlled airspace thus
eliminating some of the commercial IFR operations in uncontrolled
airspace; and (3) improve the management of air traffic operations and
thereby enhance safety.
    The area would be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot
reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. The Airways designated as Colored Federal Airways
are published in paragraph 6009 in FAA Order 7400.9R, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, and
effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Airways designated as VOR Federal Airways are published
in paragraph 6010 in FAA Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15,
2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The airspace
designations listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under Department of Transportation (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 proposed 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 1, 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 1, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to ensure the safe and
efficient use of the navigable airspace. This regulation is within the
scope of that authority as it

proposes to create Class E airspace sufficient in size to contain
aircraft using the described Federal Airways within the State of Alaska
and represents the FAA's continuing effort to safely and efficiently
use the navigable airspace.

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 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).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 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

    1. The authority citation for 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]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15,
2007, and effective September 15, 2007, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6009(c) Amber Federal Airways.

* * * * *

A-6 [New]

St. Marys, AK, NDB; to North River, AK, NDB.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6010(b) Alaskan VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-351 [New]

From Port Heiden, AK, NDB/DME; to Dillingham, AK, VOR/DME.
* * * * *

V-619 [New]

From Port Heiden, AK, NDB/DME; Saldo, AK, NDB; to Dillingham, AK,
VOR/DME.
* * * * *

V-414 [New]

Gambell, AK, NDB/DME; to Kukuliak, AK, VOR/DME.

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, March 17, 2008.
Stephen L. Rohring,
Acting Manager, Airspace and Rules Group.
 [FR Doc. E8-5922 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P