[Federal Register: June 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 116)]
[Notices]
[Page 34013]
[DOCID:fr16jn08-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2242-078]

Eugene Water and Electric Board; Notice of Meeting To Discuss
Additional Information Responses

June 6, 2008.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 2242-078.
    c. Date Filed: November 24, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Eugene Water and Electric Board.
    e. Name of Project: Carmen-Smith Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the McKenzie River in Lane and Linn Counties, near
McKenzie Bridge, Oregon. The project occupies approximately 560 acres
of the Willamette National Forest.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Randy L. Berggren, General Manager, Eugene
Water and Electric Board, 500 East 4th Avenue, P.O. Box 10148, Eugene,
OR 97440,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. Date and Time of Meeting: June 26, 2008, at 1 p.m. EST.
    j. Place: This meeting will primarily occur via conference call;
however, it is possible to participate in person at the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) located in Washington, D.C. See item n.
below for obtaining instructions on how to participate in the meeting.
    k. FERC Contact: Bob Easton,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    l. Background and Purpose of Meeting: On November 24, 2006, Eugene
Water and Electric Board filed a license application for the Carmen-
Smith Project (FERC No. 2242). On October 30, 2007, FERC staff issued a
request for additional information. Eugene Water and Electric Board
filed its response to the additional information request on April 29,
2008. The purpose of this meeting is to clarify several issues
associated with the filing of this information.
    m. Proposed Agenda:
    1. Introduction of Participants;
    2. Response to AIR 1--sources of the fishway operational costs;
    3. Response to AIR 15 and 24--the location of roads relative to
project boundary and their nexus to the project;
    4. Response to AIR 16--effects of the proposed new road on spotted
owl habitat;
    5. Response to AIR 19--the location of Ice Creek, Trail Bridge, and
Lakes End campgrounds and their nexus to the project;
    6. Response to AIR 24--acreage of federal lands within the project
boundary
    7. Other items;
    8. Follow-up Actions.
    n. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other
interested parties are invited to participate by phone (or in person).
Please contact Bob Easton (see item k. for contact information) or
Patti Leppert ((202) 502-6034<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by June 24,
2008, to RSVP and to receive specific instructions on how to
participate in the meeting.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-13417 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 227)]
[Notices]
[Page 70990-70991]
[DOCID:fr24no08-89]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13300-000]

Marmc Enterprises, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

November 18, 2008.
    On October 14, 2008 and supplemented on November 17, 2008, MARMC
Enterprises, LLC filed an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Third
District Reach Project, located on the Mississippi River in Orleans and
St. Bernard Parishes, Louisiana. The project uses no dam or
impoundment.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) 40 bi-directional
Underwater Electric Kite (UEK) turbine generating units, with a total
installed capacity of 16-megawatts, (2) an underwater cable
approximately 300 foot in length, and (3) appurtenant facilities. The
project is estimated to have an annual generation of 137.357-gigawatt-
hours, which would be sold to a local utility, industrial or commercial
customer, or into the wholesale energy markets.
    Applicant Contact: Ms. Nicoline Marinovich, MARMC Enterprises, LLC,
816 Pacific Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70114-2438, phone 986-705-
2940.
    FERC Contact: Kelly Houff<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.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For

more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project 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-
13300) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-27817 Filed 11-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2677-2679]
[FR Doc No: 2012-957]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0476; FRL-9619-4]

EPA Responses to State and Tribal 2008 Ozone Designation
Recommendations; Extension of Public Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing the extension of the public comment
period for the EPA's responses to state and tribal ozone designation
recommendations for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. The EPA sent the responses directly to the states and tribes
on or about December 9, 2011. On December 20, 2011 (76 FR 78872, FRL-
9608-6), the EPA published a notice in the Federal Register that the
EPA had posted the responses on its Internet Web site and the EPA
invited public comment. In the notice, the EPA stated that public
comments must be received on or before January 19, 2012. The EPA has
received several requests from stakeholders for additional time to
prepare their comments. Some of the requesters noted that the original
30-day comment period fell across two federal holidays. Taking that
into consideration, the EPA is extending the comment period until
February 3, 2012. The EPA intends to make final designation
determinations for the 2008 ozone standards in spring 2012.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 3, 2012. Please
refer to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information on the
comment period.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-OAR-
HQ-2008-0476, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0476.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0476.
     Mail: Air Docket, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0476, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 6102T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Avenue
NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0476. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
confidential business information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider
to be confidential business information or otherwise protected through
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA is unable to read your
comment and cannot contact you for clarification due to technical
difficulties, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business
information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions concerning this
action, please contact Carla Oldham, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Air Quality Planning Division, C539-04,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions regarding the EPA Region 1, please
contact Richard Burkhart, U.S. EPA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions regarding the EPA Region 2,
please contact Bob Kelly, U.S. EPA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions regarding the EPA Region 3, please
contact Maria Pino, U.S. EPA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions regarding the EPA Region 4, please
contact Jane Spann, U.S. EPA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions regarding the EPA Region 5, please
contact Edward Doty, U.S. EPA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions regarding the EPA Region 6, please
contact Guy Donaldson, U.S. EPA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions regarding the EPA Region 7, please
contact Lachala Kemp, U.S. EPA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions regarding the EPA Region 8, please
contact Scott Jackson, U.S. EPA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions regarding the EPA Region 9, please
contact John J. Kelly, U.S. EPA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions regarding EPA Region 10, please
contact Claudia Vaupel, U.S. EPA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    1. Submitting Confidential Business Information. Do not submit this
information to the EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be
confidential business information. For confidential business
information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD ROM as confidential business information and
then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is claimed as confidential business information. In
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as confidential business information, a copy of the
comment that does not contain the information

claimed as confidential business information must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2. Send or deliver information identified as confidential business
information only to the following address: Roberto Morales, U.S. EPA,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Mail Code C404-02,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0476.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?

    The EPA has established a docket for the ozone designations
rulemaking for the 2008 ozone standards at EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0476. In
addition, the EPA has established a Web site for the ozone designations
rulemaking at www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations. The Web site includes the
state and tribal designation recommendations, information supporting
the EPA's preliminary designation decisions, as well as the rulemaking
actions and other related information that the public may find useful.

    Dated: January 12, 2012.
Mary E. Henigin,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2012-957 Filed 1-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 96)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 23679]
[DOCID:fr20my09-29]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R06-RCRA-2008-0757; FRL-8905-5]

Louisiana: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The State of Louisiana has applied to EPA for Final
authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant
Final authorization to the State of Louisiana. In the ``Rules and
Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, EPA is authorizing the
changes by an immediate final rule. EPA did not make a proposal prior
to the immediate final rule because we believe this action is not
controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. We have
explained the reasons for this authorization in the preamble to the
immediate final rule. Unless we get written comments which oppose this
authorization during the comment period, the immediate final rule will
become effective on the date it establishes, and we will not take
further action on this proposal. If we receive comments that oppose
this action, we will withdraw the immediate final rule and it will not
take effect. We will then respond to public comments in a later final
rule based on this proposal. You may not have another opportunity for
comment. If you want to comment on this action, you must do so at this
time.

DATE: Send your written comments by June 19, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional
Authorization Coordinator, (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting
Division, at the address shown below. You can examine copies of the
materials submitted by the State of Louisiana during normal business
hours at the following locations: EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality, 602 N. Fifth Street, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana 70884-2178, phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments may also be
submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier; please
follow the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the
immediate final rule which is located in the Rules section of this
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alima Patterson,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, please see the
immediate final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section
of this Federal Register.

    Dated: April 30, 2009.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. E9-11746 Filed 5-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


COMMON PROVISIONS REGULATION I. G. Definitions . . .

CONDENSATE Hydrocarbon liquids that remain liquid at standard conditions ( 68 degrees Fahrenheit and 29.92 inches Mercury) and are formed by condensation from, or produced with, natural gas, and which have an American Petroleum Institute gravity (" API gravity") of 40 degrees or greater.

. . .

V. STATEMENTS OF BASIS, SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE . . .

V. J. March 10, 2004  Definition of condensate.

The definition of the term condensate was adopted in conjunction with the Ozone Action Plan and contemporaneous revisions to Regulation No. 7 to control emissions of volatile organic compounds from condensate operations, as described in the statement of basis, specific statutory authority, and purpose for the March 10, 2004 revisions to Regulation No. 7.

The statutory authority for the definition is set out in sections 25 7 105( 1)( a) and ( 1)( b); 25 7 106( 1)( c) and ( 5); and 25 7 109( 1)( a) and ( 2), C. R. S.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 204 (Thursday, October 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64033-64037]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26805]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76172; File No. SR-ISE Gemini-2015-20]

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

October 16, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 1, 2015, ISE Gemini, LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``ISE
Gemini'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission the
proposed rule change, as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    ISE Gemini proposes to amend the Schedule of Fees as described in
more detail below. The text of the proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://www.ise.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to increase the
fees charged to subscribers of the ISE Gemini Order Feed. The Order
Feed provides real-time updates to subscribers every time a new limit
order that is not immediately executable at the BBO is placed on the
ISE Gemini order book. The Order Feed also announces the commencement
of auctions including Flash, Facilitation, Solicitation, Block Order
and Price Improvement Mechanisms, as well as Directed Orders, but does
not include Immediate or Cancel (``IOC'') or Fill or Kill (``FOK'')
orders, quotes, or any non-displayed interest. The information included
on the Order Feed includes auction type, order side (i.e., buy/sell),
order price, order size, and a market participant (e.g., priority
customer) indicator, as well as details for each instrument series,
including the symbols (series and underlying security), put or call
indicator, the expiration date, and the strike price of the series. The
Order Feed provides each individual limit order, not including quote
traffic, resulting in lower bandwidth usage and less data for
subscribers to process.
    Currently, the Exchange charges distributors $500 per month for
subscriptions to the Order Feed and will not charge distributors a
monthly fee

per controlled device as long the feed is for internal use only.\3\ For
subscribers that redistribute the Order Feed externally, or
redistribute the Order Feed internally and externally, the Exchange
charges each distributor an additional fee of $5 per month per
controlled device with a combined maximum fee capped at $625 per month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A distributor is any firm that receives one of the market
data feeds directly from ISE Gemini or indirectly through a
redistributor and then distributes it either internally or
externally. A redistributor includes market data vendors and
connectivity providers such as extranets and private network
providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now propose to increase the fee charged to
distributors to $750 per month. The Exchange will not charge
distributors a monthly fee per controlled device as long the feed is
for internal use only. For subscribers that redistribute the Order Feed
externally, or redistribute the Order Feed internally and externally,
the Exchange is not changing distributor fee per controlled device,\4\
however the Exchange proposes to increase the combined maximum fee cap
to $1,000 per month. For example, a firm that subscribes to the Order
Feed and then redistributes it via a controlled device to 50 clients
pays $1,000 per month ($750 for the feed and $250 for the controlled
devices ($5 x 50)). If that same firm redistributes the data via a
controlled device to 150 clients, the fee for that firm is capped at
$1,000 per month, resulting in a savings of $500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The controlled device fee is currently $5 per device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it provides for an
equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges among
Exchange members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is also
consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\7\ in that it does not
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed fees are the same
for all similarly-situated market participants, and therefore do not
unreasonably discriminate among market participants. Moreover, the
Exchange notes that the proposed fees are lower than fees currently
charged by ISE Gemini's sister exchange, the International Securities
Exchange, LLC (``ISE''), which offers its own market data feeds that
provide comparable information to that provided by the ISE Gemini order
feeds.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \8\ See ISE Schedule of Fees, Section VIII, Market Data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory
organizations and broker-dealers 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.
    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:

    [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.\9\

    \9\ See 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 to
broker-dealers at all, it follows that the price at which such data is
sold should be set by the market as well.
    On July 21, 2010, President Barak Obama signed into law H.R. 4173,
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010
(``Dodd-Frank Act''), which amended Section 19 of the Act. Among other
things, Section 916 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended paragraph (A) of
Section 19(b)(3) of the Act by inserting the phrase ``on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization'' after ``due, fee or other charge imposed by the self-
regulatory organization.'' As a result, all SRO rule proposals
establishing or changing dues, fees, or other charges are immediately
effective upon filing regardless of whether such dues, fees, or other
charges are imposed on members of the SRO, non-members, or both.
Section 916 further amended paragraph (C) of Section 19(b)(3) of the
Act to read, in pertinent part, ``At any time within the 60-day period
beginning on the date of filing of such a proposed rule change in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) [of Section 19(b)], the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the change in the rules of
the self-regulatory organization made thereby, 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 this title. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings under paragraph (2)(B) [of
Section 19(b)] to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.''
    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), although reviewing a Commission decision made prior to the
effective date of the Dodd-Frank Act, 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.' '' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NetCoalition, 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's conclusions about Congressional intent are therefore
reinforced by the Dodd-Frank Act amendments, which create a presumption
that exchange fees, including market data fees, may take effect
immediately, without prior Commission approval, and that the Commission
should take action to suspend a fee change and institute a proceeding
to determine whether the fee change should be approved or disapproved
only where the Commission has concerns that the change may not be
consistent with the Act.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees for the ISE Gemini
market data offering is consistent with the requirements of the Act
because competition provides an effective constraint on the market data
fees that the Exchange has the ability and the incentive to charge. ISE
Gemini has a compelling need to attract order flow from market
participants in order to

maintain its share of trading volume. This compelling need to attract
order flow imposes significant pressure on the Exchange to act
reasonably in setting the fees for its market data offerings,
particularly given that the market participants that will pay such fees
often will be the same market participants from whom the Exchange must
attract order flow. These market participants include broker-dealers
that control the handling of a large volume of customer and proprietary
order flow. Given the portability of order flow from one exchange to
another, any exchange that sought to charge unreasonably high market
data fees would risk alienating many of the same customers on whose
orders it depends for competitive survival. ISE Gemini currently
competes with 11 other options exchanges for order flow.
    The Exchange is constrained in pricing its market data offerings by
the availability to market participants of alternatives to purchasing
these products. The Exchange must consider the extent to which market
participants would choose one or more alternatives instead of
purchasing the Exchange's data.
    For the reasons cited above, the Exchange believes that the
proposed fees for the ISE Gemini data feed are equitable, fair,
reasonable and not unreasonably discriminatory. The Exchange further
believes that the continued availability of each of the ISE Gemini data
feeds enhances transparency, fosters competition among orders and
markets, and enables buyers and sellers to obtain better prices. In
addition, the Exchange believes that no substantial countervailing
basis exists to support a finding that the proposed terms and fees for
these products fail to meet the requirements of the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\11\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Notwithstanding
its determination that the Commission may rely upon competition to
establish fair and equitably allocated fees for market data, the
NetCoaltion court found that the Commission had not, in that case,
compiled a record that adequately supported its conclusion that the
market for the data at issue in the case was competitive. The Exchange
believes that a record may readily be established to demonstrate the
competitive nature of the market in question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed above, the Exchange believes that the
Dodd-Frank Act amendments to Section 19 materially alter the scope of
the Commission's review of future market data filings, by creating a
presumption that all fees may take effect immediately, without prior
analysis by the Commission of the competitive environment. Even in the
absence of this important statutory change, however, the Exchange
believes that a record may readily be established to demonstrate the
competitive nature of the market in question.
    There is intense competition between trading platforms that provide
transaction execution and routing services and proprietary data
products. Transaction execution 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. 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 the prospect of a taking order seeing and reacting to
a posted order on a particular platform, the posting of the order would
accomplish little. Without trade executions, exchange data products
cannot exist. 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.
    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, an exchange's
customers view the costs of transaction executions and of data as a
unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer 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 broker-dealer 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 broker-dealer will choose not to buy it.
    Moreover, as a broker-dealer chooses to direct fewer orders to a
particular exchange, the value of the product to that broker-dealer
decrease, for two reasons. First, the product will contain less
information, because executions of the broker-dealer's orders will not
be reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more important, the product
will be less valuable to that broker-dealer because it does not provide
information about the venue to which it is directing its orders. Data
from the competing venue to which the broker-dealer is directing orders
will become correspondingly more valuable. Thus, 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'.'' \12\ However, the existence
of fierce competition for order flow implies a high degree of price
sensitivity on the part of broker-dealers with order flow, since they
may readily reduce costs by directing orders toward the lowest-cost
trading venues. A broker-dealer 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. Similarly,
if a platform increases its market data fees, the change will affect
the overall cost of doing business with the platform, and affected
broker-dealers will assess whether they can lower their trading costs
by directing orders elsewhere and thereby lessening the need for the
more expensive data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ NetCoalition, at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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.
    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. For example, some platform may choose to pay rebates to
attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market information (or
provide information free of charge) and charge relatively high prices
for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy
of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, setting
relatively high prices for market information, and setting relatively
low prices for accessing posted liquidity. 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.
    The market for market data products is 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.
    Broker-dealers currently have numerous alternative venues for their
order flow, including numerous self-regulatory organization (``SRO'')
markets, as well as internalizing broker-dealers (``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 Trade Reporting Facilities (``TRFs'') compete to
attract internalized transaction reports. 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.
    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
broker-dealers' production of proprietary data products. The potential
sources of proprietary products are virtually limitless.
    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 an SRO proprietary
product, a non-SRO proprietary product, or both, the data available in
proprietary products is exponentially greater than the actual number of
orders and transaction reports that exist in the marketplace. Market
data vendors provide another form of price discipline for proprietary
data products because they control the primary means of access to end
users. Vendors impose price restraints based upon their business
models. For example, vendors such as Bloomberg and 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 broker-dealers, such as 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. The Exchange 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.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\13\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\14\ because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by ISE Gemini.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-ISE Gemini-2015-20 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-ISE Gemini-2015-20. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.) Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the

Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-ISE Gemini-2015-20 and should be submitted by November
12, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-26805 Filed 10-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 59)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15900-15901]
[DOCID:fr26mr08-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[USCG-2008-0177]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Harlem River, New York City, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
TBTA Bridge across the Harlem River, mile 1.3, at New York City, New
York. Under this temporary deviation the TBTA Bridge may remain in the
closed position from May 1, 2008 through August 31, 2008. This
deviation is necessary to facilitate scheduled bridge maintenance.

DATES: This deviation is effective from May 1, 2008 through August 31,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0177 and are available online
at http:// www.regulations.gov. They are also available for inspection
or copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of

Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and the First Coast
Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston,
Massachusetts 02110, between 7 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Arca, Project Officer, First Coast
Guard District, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The TBTA Bridge, across the Harlem River at
mile 1.3, at New York City, New York, has a vertical clearance in the
closed position of 54 feet at mean high water and 59 feet at mean low
water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33
CFR 117.789(d).
    The owner of the bridge, Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority
(TBTA), requested a temporary deviation to facilitate scheduled bridge
maintenance, cleaning and painting. The mariners that normally transit
this bridge do not require bridge openings.
    Under this temporary deviation the TBTA Bridge may remain in the
closed position from May 1, 2008 through August 31, 2008. Vessels that
can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening may do so at all
times.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
    Should the bridge maintenance authorized by this temporary
deviation be completed before the end of the effective period published
in this notice, the Coast Guard will rescind the remainder of this
temporary deviation, and the bridge shall be returned to its normal
operating schedule. Notice of the above action shall be provided to the
public in the Local Notice to Mariners and the Federal Register, where
practicable.

    Dated: March 17, 2008.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
 [FR Doc. E8-6151 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: November 10, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 217)]
[Notices]
[Page 68505]
[DOCID:fr10no05-166]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52732; File No. SR-PCX-2005-98]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Pacific Exchange, Inc.; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto to Amend the
Minor Rule Plan and Recommended Fine Schedule in Connection with Rules
Regarding Principal Orders, Principal Acting as Agent Orders, and
Limitations on Principal Order Access

November 3, 2005.
    On August 16, 2005, the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (``PCX'' 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 amend its Minor Rule Plan (``MRP'') and
Recommended Fine Schedule under PCX Rule 10.12 with respect to
provisions of the PCX Options Linkage program (``Linkage'') that relate
to Principal Orders (``P Orders''), Principal Acting as Agent Orders
(``P/A Orders''), and Limitations on Principal Order Access
(collectively, ``Linkage Rules''). On September 27, 2005, PCX filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change,
as amended, was published for comment in the Federal Register on
October 4, 2005.\3\ The Commission received no comments regarding the
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52523 (September 28,
2005), 70 FR 57918.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\4\ In
particular, the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent
with section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ because a rule that is reasonably
designed to require Exchange members to comply with its Linkage Rules
should help protect investors and the public interest. The Commission
also believes that handling violations of Linkage Rules pursuant to the
MRP is consistent with sections 6(b)(1) and 6(b)(6) of the Act,\6\
which require that the rules of an exchange enforce compliance with,
and provide appropriate discipline for, violations of Commission and
Exchange rules. In addition, because existing PCX Rule 10.12 provides
procedural rights to a person fined under the MRP to contest the fine
and permits a hearing on the matter, the Commission believes the MRP,
as amended by this proposal, provides a fair procedure for the
disciplining of members and persons associated with members, consistent
with sections 6(b)(7) and 6(d)(1) of the Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and 78f(b)(6).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7) and 78f(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with
the public interest, the protection of investors, or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as required by Rule 19d-1(c)(2)
under the Act \8\ which governs minor rule violation plans. The
Commission believes that the proposed change to the MRP will strengthen
the Exchange's ability to carry out its oversight and enforcement
responsibilities as a self-regulatory organization in cases where full
disciplinary proceedings are unsuitable in view of the minor nature of
the particular violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission in no way
minimizes the importance of compliance with PCX rules and all other
rules subject to the imposition of fines under the MRP. The Commission
believes that the violation of any self-regulatory organization's
rules, as well as Commission rules, is a serious matter. However, the
MRP provides a reasonable means of addressing rule violations that do
not rise to the level of requiring formal disciplinary proceedings,
while providing greater flexibility in handling certain violations. The
Commission expects that PCX will continue to conduct surveillance with
due diligence and make a determination based on its findings, on a
case-by-case basis, whether a fine of more or less than the recommended
amount is appropriate for a violation under the MRP or whether a
violation requires formal disciplinary action under PCX Rules 10.4 and
10.12(f).
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\9\ and Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under the Act,\10\ that the proposed rule
change (SR-PCX-2005-98), as amended, be, and hereby is, approved and
declared effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12); 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(44).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-22452 Filed 11-9-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 183 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 58369]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23227]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Project No. 1888-030]

York Haven Power Company, LLC; Notice of Application Tendered for
Filing With the Commission and Establishing Deadline for Submission of
Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 1888-030.
    c. Date Filed: August 30, 2012.
    d. Applicant: York Haven Power Company, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: York Haven Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Susquehanna River, in Dauphin, Lancaster, and
York Counties, Pennsylvania. The project does not occupy any federal
lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: David R. David, York Haven Power Company,
York Haven Hydro Station, P.O. Box 67, York Haven, PA 17370, at (717)
266-9470 or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and Dennis T. O'Donnell,
Olympus Power, LLC, 67 Park Place East, Morristown, NJ 07960.
    i. FERC Contact: Emily Carter,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    k. The Project Description: The York Haven Project consists of a
headrace wall, main dam, east channel dam, powerhouse, and forebay
bulkhead. The stone masonry headrace wall extends 3,000 feet upstream
from the north end of the powerhouse and, with an average height of 20
feet, directs flow to the powerhouse. The main dam is attached to the
north end of the headrace where it runs diagonally across the main
channel of the river approximately 4,970 feet to the west shore of
Three Mile Island. The main dam is constructed of concrete fill, and
has a maximum height at the crest of 17 feet and an average height of
10 feet. The east channel dam consists of a concrete gravity dam that
extends approximately 950 feet east from the east shore of Three Mile
Island to the east bank of the river. The east channel dam has an
average height of 10 feet. The stone masonry forebay bulkhead wall, 155
feet long, extends west from the south end of the powerhouse to the
transformer building, perpendicular to the shoreline. From the
transformer building, the forebay bulkhead wall extends 475 feet north
along the property line to the west bank of the river. A 14-foot-wide
by 10.5-foot-tall trash sluice gate and associated spillway are located
adjacent to the southern end of the powerhouse at the eastern end of
the forebay wall.
    York Haven's main dam and east channel dam impound the Susquehanna
River, forming Lake Frederic that extends 3.5 miles upstream from the
dam. Total storage in the 1,849-acre reservoir is approximately 8,000
acre-feet, and total useable storage is approximately 1,980 acre-feet.
The current FERC license allows a 1.1-foot fluctuation in the project
impoundment, but is not used under normal run-of-river operation. The
normal water surface elevation of the project impoundment is 276.5
feet. The elevation of the normal river surface below the dam is
approximately 251.40 feet. The impoundment provides approximately 22.5
feet of net head for power generation purposes.
    The brick and stone masonry powerhouse has approximate dimensions
of 470 feet by 48 feet and is located at the southern end of the
headrace wall and at the eastern end of the forebay bulkhead wall. The
powerhouse includes 20 turbine-generator units and appurtenant
equipment. The hydraulic equipment for units 1-3 are vertical-shaft,
fixed-blade, Kaplan turbines; unit 4 is a vertical-shaft, manually
adjustable blade, Kaplan turbine; units 5 and 6 are vertical-shaft,
fixed-blade, propeller-type turbines; units 7, 8, 10-13, and 15-20 each
consist of two vertical-shaft, Francis turbines connected through bevel
gears to a single horizontal shaft; unit 9 is a two vertical-shaft,
Francis turbine connected through a gearbox to a single horizontal
shaft; and unit 14 is a vertical-shaft, Francis turbine. Units 1-5 have
1.6-MW generators; unit 6 has a 1.32-MW generator; unit 14 has a 1.2-MW
generator; and units 7-13 and 15-20 have 0.7-MW generators. Water
flowing through the turbines is discharged into the tailrace
immediately downstream of the dam.
    Electricity generated at the project is transmitted by 115-kilovolt
(kV) transmission lines extending from the project substation to the
grid.
    The York Haven Project has an authorized nameplate generating
capacity of 19.65 MW and generates an average of 130,812 MWh annually.
York Haven Power is currently studying the feasibility of providing a
nature-like fishway to enhance fish passage facilities at the project.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Procedural Schedule: A preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule will
be provided in a subsequent notice.
    o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: September 13, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-23227 Filed 9-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P