[Federal Register: August 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 166)]
[Notices]
[Page 44430-44433]
[DOCID:fr28au09-97]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60550; File No. SR-Phlx-2009-61]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.; Order
Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rules
Implementing the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market
Plan

August 20, 2009.

I. Introduction

    On July 20, 2009, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' 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 and adopt rules to implement the Options Order Protection and
Locked/Crossed Market Plan. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on July 28, 2009.\3\ The Commission
received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed
rule change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60363 (July 22,
2009), 74 FR 37270 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to amend and adopt new Phlx rules to
implement the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan
(``Plan'').\4\ Specifically, the Exchange proposes to replace the
Exchange's current Intermarket Linkage rules (Phlx Rules 1081 and 1083-
1087) with new rules implementing the Plan, amend other Exchange rules
to reflect the Plan, and delete or modify provisions rendered
unnecessary by the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Plan is a national market system plan proposed by the
seven existing options exchanges and approved by the Commission. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59647 (March 30, 2009), 74 FR
15010 (April 2, 2009) (File No. 4-546) (``Plan Notice'') and 60405
(July 30, 2009), 74 FR 39362 (August 6, 2009) (File No. 4-546)
(``Plan Approval''). The seven options exchanges are: Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''); International Securities
Exchange LLC (``ISE''); NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BOX''); The NASDAQ
Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''); NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex''); NYSE
Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''); and Phlx (each exchange individually a
``Participant'' and, together, the ``Participating Options
Exchanges'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Old Plan

    Each of the Participating Options Exchanges are signatories to the
Plan for the Purpose of Creating and Operating an Intermarket Option
Linkage (``Old Plan'').\5\ In pertinent part, the Old Plan generally
requires its participants to avoid trading at a price inferior to the
national best bid or offer (``trade-through''), although it provides
for a number of exceptions to trade-through liability.\6\ The
Participating Options Exchanges comply with this requirement of the Old
Plan by utilizing a stand alone system (``Linkage Hub'') to send and
receive specific order types,\7\ namely Principal Acting as Agent
Orders (``P/A Orders''), Principal Orders, and Satisfaction Orders.\8\
The Old Plan also provided that dissemination of ``locked'' or
``crossed'' markets should be avoided, and remedial actions that should
be taken to unlock or uncross such market.\9\ Each of the Participating
Options Exchanges, including the Exchange, has submitted an amendment
to the Old Plan to withdraw from such Plan.\10\ The withdrawals will be
effective upon approval by the Commission of such amendments pursuant
to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under the Act (``Regulation NMS'').\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ On July 28, 2000, the Commission approved the Old Plan as a
national market system plan for the purpose of creating and
operating an intermarket options market linkage proposed by the
American Stock Exchange LLC (n/k/a NYSE Amex), CBOE, and ISE. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43086 (July 28, 2000), 65 FR
48023 (August 4, 2000). Subsequently, Philadelphia Stock Exchange,
Inc. (n/k/a Phlx), Pacific Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a NYSE Arca), Boston
Stock Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a BOX), and Nasdaq joined the Linkage
Plan. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 43573 (November 16,
2000), 65 FR 70851 (November 28, 2000); 43574 (November 16, 2000),
65 FR 70850 (November 28, 2000); 49198 (February 5, 2004), 69 FR
7029 (February 12, 2004); and 57545 (March 21, 2008), 73 FR 16394
(March 27, 2008).
    \6\ Section 8(c) of the Old Plan.
    \7\ The Linkage Hub is a centralized data communications network
that electronically links the Participating Options Exchanges to one
another. The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') operates the
Linkage Hub.
    \8\ Section 2(16) of the Old Plan.
    \9\ Section 7(a)(i)(C) of the Old Plan.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60360 (July 21,
2009) 74 FR 37265 (July 28, 2009) (File No. 4-429).
    \11\ 17 CFR 242.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Plan

    The Plan does not require a central linkage mechanism akin to the
Old Plan's Linkage Hub. Instead, the Plan includes the framework for
routing orders via private linkages that exist for NMS stocks under
Regulation NMS.\12\ The Plan requires the Participating Options
Exchanges to adopt rules

``reasonably designed to prevent Trade-Throughs.'' \13\ Participating
Options Exchanges are also required to conduct surveillance of their
respective markets on a regular basis to ascertain the effectiveness of
the policies and procedures to prevent Trade-Throughs and to take
prompt action to remedy deficiencies in such policies and
procedures.\14\ As further described below, the Plan incorporates a
number of exceptions to trade-through liability.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005) (File No. S7-10-04); 17 CFR
242.600 et seq. For discussions of the similarities between the
provisions of Regulation NMS and the provisions in the Plan, see
Plan Notice and Plan Approval, supra note 4.
    \13\ Under the Plan, a ``Trade-Through'' is generally defined as
a transaction in an option series, either as principal or agent, at
a price that is lower than a Protected Bid or higher than a
Protected Offer.'' See Section 2(21) of the Plan. A ``Protected
Bid'' and ``Protected Offer'' generally means a bid or offer in an
option series, respectively, that is displayed by a Participant, is
disseminated pursuant to the Options Price Reporting Authority
(``OPRA'') Plan, and is the Best Bid or Best Offer. See Section
2(17) of the Plan. A ``Best Bid'' or ``Best Offer'' means the
highest bid price and the lowest offer price. Section (2)(1) of the
Plan. ``Protected Bid'' and ``Protected Offer,'' together are
referred to herein as ``Protected Quotation.'' See Section 2(18) of
the Plan.
    \14\ Section 5(a)(ii) of the Plan.
    \15\ Section 5(b) of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some of these exceptions are carried over from the Old Plan,
including exceptions for trading rotations, non-firm quotes, and
complex trades.\16\ Others are substantially similar to exceptions
available for NMS stocks under Regulation NMS, such as exceptions for
systems issues, crossed markets, quote flickering, customer stopped
orders, benchmark trades and, notably, intermarket sweep orders
(``ISOs'').\17\ In addition, the Plan contains a new exception for
stopped orders and price improvement.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Subparagraphs (ii), (vii), and (viii), respectively, of
Section 5(b) of the Plan.
    \17\ Subparagraphs (i), (iii), (vi), (ix), (xi), and (iv)-(v),
respectively, of Section 5(b) of the Plan.
    \18\ Subparagraph (x) of Section 5(b) of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan also requires each Participant to establish, maintain, and
enforce written rules that: require its members reasonably to avoid
displaying locked and crossed markets; assure the reconciliation of
locked and crossed markets; and prohibit its members from engaging in a
pattern or practice of displaying locked and crossed markets; subject
to exceptions as may be contained in the rules of the Participant, as
approved by the Commission.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Section 6 of the Plan. The Plan also contains provisions
relating to the operation of the Plan including, for example,
provisions relating to the entry of new parties to the Plan;
withdrawal from the Plan; and amendments to the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Exchange's Proposal

    To implement the Plan, the Exchange proposes to replace its current
rules relating to the Old Plan with new rules relating to the Plan, and
make additional changes to other rules, including changes to conform
the Exchange's rules to the requirements of the Plan.\20\ As such, the
Exchange proposes to adopt all applicable definitions from the Plan
into the Exchange's rules.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ A more detailed description of the Exchange's proposed rule
change may be found in the Notice, supra, note 3.
    \21\ Proposed Phlx Rule 1083.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to prohibit its members from
effecting Trade-Throughs, unless an exception applies.\22\ Consistent
with the Plan, the Exchange also proposes exceptions to the prohibition
on trade throughs relating to: System issues; trading rotations;
crossed markets; intermarket sweep orders; quote flickering; non-firm
quotes; complex trades; customer stopped orders; stopped orders and
price improvement; and benchmark trades.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Proposed Phlx Rule 1084(a).
    \23\ Proposed Phlx Rule 1084(b)(i)-(xi). In addition, the
Exchange proposes to add ISOs as a new type of order under proposed
Phlx Rule 1066(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes a rule to address locked and crossed
markets, as required by the Plan.\24\ Specifically, the Exchange
proposes that, except for quotations that fall within a stated
exception, members shall reasonably avoid displaying, and shall not
engage in a pattern or practice of displaying, any quotations that lock
or cross a Protected Quote.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ A ``locked market'' is defined as a quoted market in which
a Protected Bid is equal to a Protected Offer. Proposed Phlx Rule
1083(i). A ``crossed market'' is defined as a quoted market in which
a Protected Bid is higher than a Protected Offer. Proposed Phlx Rule
1083(e).
    \25\ Proposed Phlx Rule 1086(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes three exceptions to the prohibition against
locked and crossed markets: When the Exchange is experiencing a
failure, material delay, or malfunction of its systems or equipment;
when the locking or crossing quotation was displayed at a time where
there is a crossed market; and when an Exchange member simultaneously
routes an ISO to execute against the full displayed size of any locked
or crossed Protected Bid or Protected Offer.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Proposed Phlx Rule 1086(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes rules to permit the Exchange to continue
to accept P/A Orders and Principal Orders from Participating Options
Exchanges that are not able to send ISOs in order to avoid Trade-
Throughs.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Proposed Phlx Temporary Rule 1088.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to rely upon the order routing arrangements
already in place on its market, except that the Exchange proposes
amendments to Rules 1080(m)(iv)(B) and (C) concerning FIND \28\ and
SRCH \29\ Orders to ensure that these order types comply with
requirements of the Plan.\30\ The Exchange also proposes to amend its
rules concerning orders that have been subject to its Quote Exhaust and
Market Exhaust processes to conform their use to the terms of the
Plan.\31\ Finally, the Exchange proposes to delete various other
provisions of the Phlx rules to reflect the Exchange's withdrawal from
the Old Plan, and to amend other provisions of Phlx rules to, among
other things, reflect the Plan.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ A FIND order is an order that is routable upon receipt, or
any time the option goes through an opening process. See Phlx Rule
1080(m)(iv)(B).
    \29\ A SRCH order is an order that is routable at any time. See
Phlx Rule 1080(m)(iv)(C).
    \30\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 37272 for a complete
description of these changes.
    \31\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 37272-37273 for a complete
description of these changes.
    \32\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 37273-37274 discussing proposed
changes to Phlx By-Law Article XII, Section 12-11; Phlx Rule
1017(k); Phlx Rule 1033(a)(ii) and Options Floor Procedure Advice F-
32; Phlx Rule 1034(a)(i)(C); Phlx Rule 1080(b)(i)(A), (B) and (C);
Phlx Rule 1080(c)(iv)(F); and Phlx Rule 1080(c)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to implement this proposed rule change upon
withdrawal from the current Linkage Plan and effectiveness of the new
Plan.

III. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Change

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\33\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \34\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The Commission also finds that the
proposal is consistent with Rule 608(c) of Regulation NMS under the
Act, which requires that each exchange comply with the terms of any
effective national market system plan of which it is a participant.\35\
Finally, the

Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Plan.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \35\ 17 CFR 242.608(c). Section 1 of the Plan provides in
pertinent part that, ``The Participants will submit to the
[Commission] for approval their respective rules that will implement
the framework of the Plan.''
    \36\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Phlx Rule 1083 would define applicable terms in a manner
that are substantively identical to the defined terms of the Plan. As
such, the Commission finds that proposed Phlx Rule 1083 is consistent
with the Act and the Plan.
    Proposed Phlx Rule 1084(a) would prohibit members from effecting
Trade-Throughs unless an exception applies. Proposed Phlx Rule 1084(b)
would provide for eleven exceptions to the general Trade-Through
prohibition, relating to systems issues, trading rotations, crossed
markets, ISOs, quote flickering, non-firm quotes, complex trades,
customer stopped orders, stopped orders and price improvement, and
benchmark trades.\37\ Aside from the proposed exception relating to
systems issues, each proposed exception would be substantively
identical to the parallel exception under Section 5(b) of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Proposed Phlx Rule 1084(b)(i)-(xi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The systems issues exception under proposed Phlx Rule 1084(b)(i)
would implement the parallel exception available under Section 5(b)(i)
of the Plan and would permit the Exchange to bypass the Protected
Quotation of another Participant if such other Participant repeatedly
fails to respond within one second to incoming orders attempting to
access its Protected Quotations. The Exchange's rule would require the
Exchange to notify such non-responding Participant immediately after
(or at the same time as) electing self-help, and assess whether the
cause of the problem lies with the Exchange's own systems and, if so,
take immediate steps to resolve the problem. Finally, the Exchange
would be required to promptly document its reasons supporting any such
determination to bypass a Protected Quotation. The Commission believes
that this exception should provide the Exchange with the necessary
flexibility for dealing with problems that occur on an away market
during the trading day. At the same time, the exception's requirements
to immediately notify such away market of its determination and also
assess its own system should help prevent the use of this exception
when there in fact is a problem with the Exchange's own systems, rather
than those of an away market.
    The Commission notes that included among the exceptions in proposed
Phlx Rule 1084(b) would be exceptions for certain transactions
involving ISOs.\38\ An order identified as an ISO would be immediately
executable by the Exchange (or any other Plan Participant that received
such an order) based on the premise that the market participant sending
the ISO has already attempted to access all better-priced Protected
Quotations up to their displayed size. The Commission believes that
this exception should help ensure more efficient and faster executions
in the options markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Proposed Phlx Rule 1084(b)(iv) and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, in addition to these rules regarding
Trade-Throughs, the Plan requires that each Participant establish,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed to prevent Trade-Throughs in that Participant's
market that do not fall within an applicable exception and, if relying
on such exception, that are reasonably designed to assure compliance
with the terms of the exception. In addition, the Commission notes that
the Plan requires each Participant to conduct surveillance of its
market on a regular basis to ascertain the effectiveness of such
policies and procedures and to take prompt action to remedy any
deficiencies in such policies and procedures.
    Accordingly, the Commission finds that proposed Phlx Rule 1084 is
consistent with Section 5 of the Plan and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
\39\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Phlx Rule 1086(a) would require Exchange members to
reasonably avoid displaying, and not engage in a pattern or practice of
displaying, any quotation that locks or crosses a Protected Quotation,
subject to certain exceptions delineated in proposed Phlx Rule 1086(b).
The Commission recognizes that locked and crossed markets may occur
accidentally and cannot always be avoided. However, the Commission
believes that giving priority to the first-displayed Protected Bid or
Protected Offer, particularly when it includes a public customer's
order, will encourage price discovery and contribute to fair and
orderly markets. Therefore, the Commission believes that the proposed
rule, which corresponds to the Plan's language, to require members to
reasonably avoid displaying, and not engaging in a pattern or practice
of, locks and crosses is appropriate.
    Proposed Phlx Rule 1085(b) would permit three exceptions to the
Exchange's general rule relating to locked and crossed markets.\40\
These exceptions would be similar to analogous certain trade-through
exceptions under proposed Phlx Rule 1084(b), and relate to when the
Exchange is experiencing systems issues, when there is exists a crossed
market, and when a member simultaneously routes ISOs against the full
displayed size of any locked or crossed Protected Bid or Protected
Offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Section 6 of the Plan permits exceptions to the Plan's
locked and crossed market rules as may be contained in the rules of
a Participant approved by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposed rules relating
to locked and crossed markets are consistent with the Plan and the Act
and should help ensure that the display of locked or crossed markets
will be limited and that any such display will be promptly reconciled.
The Commission also believes that each of the proposed exceptions to
locked and crossed markets relate to circumstances when it is
appropriate to permit a limited, narrow exception to the general locked
and crossed market rule.
    Therefore, the Commission finds that Exchange's rule regarding
locked and crossed markets appropriately implements Section 6 of the
Plan, and is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \41\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also finds that proposed Phlx Temporary Rule 1088,
which facilitates the participation of certain Participating Options
Exchanges who may require the use of P/A Orders and Principal Orders
after implementation of the Plan, is consistent with the Act. Although
the Commission has already approved the Plan,\42\ the Commission also
recognizes that there may be one or more Participating Options
Exchanges that may require a temporary transition period during which
they may want to continue to utilize these order types that

exist currently under the Old Plan.\43\ The Exchange and each of the
other Participating Options Exchanges have proposed substantially
identical temporary provisions to accommodate this possibility.\44\
Thus, the Commission finds that the proposed rule relating to the
Exchange's receipt and handling of P/A Orders and Principal Orders, and
imposing certain obligations on the Exchange with respect to such
orders that are similar to those that exist under the Old Plan, is
appropriate and consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \45\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Plan Approval, supra, note 5.
    \43\ The Commission notes that any Participating Options
Exchange that wishes to utilize such order types in a manner that
would result in a Trade-Through would need to separately request an
exemption from the Plan for such use.
    \44\ The Commission notes that the rules contained in Proposed
Phlx Temporary Rule 1088 are not required by the Plan, but rather
are rules proposed by the Exchange in order to facilitate the
participation in the Plan of certain exchanges during an initial
transition period.
    \45\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that Phlx's proposed amendments to its rules
concerning FIND and SRCH orders, as well as the changes proposed to the
Quote Exhaust and Market Exhaust processes, are consistent with the Act
and the Plan. These changes should help ensure that the order types and
order handling processes will operate in accordance with the principles
and provisions of the Plan. The Commission also finds that that Phlx's
proposals to amend provisions of other Phlx rules to, among other
things, reflect the termination of the Old Plan and implement the Plan
are appropriate and consistent with the Act.
    In addition, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act \46\ for approving the proposed rule change prior
to the thirtieth day after the date of publication in the Federal
Register. The Commission believes that granting accelerated approval to
the proposed rule change will give Phlx members certainty with regard
to the rules under which they will be expected to operate under prior
to the date of implementation of these rules and the Plan, which the
Exchange anticipates for August 31, 2009. The Commission notes that the
proposed rule change has been subject to a full comment period and no
comments have been received. Accordingly, the Commission finds there is
good cause, consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \47\ to approve
the Exchange's proposed rule change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \47\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\48\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2009-61), be, and it
hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-20786 Filed 8-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: May 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 91)]
[Notices]
[Page 27493]
[DOCID:fr11my06-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 9185-009-WI]

Flambeau Hydro, LLC; Notice of Availability of Environmental
Assessment

May 5, 2006.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part
380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for a subsequent license for the Clam River
Hydroelectric Project, located on the Clam River, 9.5 miles northwest
of Webster, Wisconsin in Burnett County, and has prepared an
Environmental Assessment (EA). In the EA, Commission staff analyze the
potential environmental effects of relicensing the project and conclude
that issuing a subsequent license for the project, with appropriate
environmental measures, would not constitute a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the EA is on file with the Commission and is available
for public inspection. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the issuance date
of this notice, and should be addressed to the Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1-A,
Washington, DC 20426. Please affix ``Clam River Project No. 9185-009''
to all comments. Comments may be filed electronically via Internet in
lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site under the ``eFiling'' link. For further information, contact
Patrick Murphy at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-7191 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 169 (Friday, August 30, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53675-53677]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21176]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0546]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Lake Erie Heritage Foundation, Battle of Lake Erie
Reenactment; Lake Erie, Put-in-Bay, OH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the
waters of Lake Erie in the vicinity of Put-In-Bay, OH. This safety zone
is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Erie during
Battle of Lake Erie Reenactment near Put-In-Bay. This temporary safety
zone is necessary to protect people and vessels from the hazards
associated with this event.

DATES: This rule will be effective and enforced from 8 a.m. until 6
p.m. on September 2, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2013-0546 and are available online
by going to www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2013-0546 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary final rule, contact or email MST1 Ian M. Fallon, U.S. Coast
Guard Marine Safety Unit Toledo, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
TFR Temporary Final Rule

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. The details of this emergent event
were not received in sufficient time for the Coast Guard to solicit
public comments before the start of the maritime event. Thus, waiting
for a notice and comment period to run

would inhibit the Coast Guard from protecting the public and vessels
from the hazards associated with this marine event.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run
would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

B. Basis and Purpose

    To mitigate the dangers presented by this event, the Captain of the
Port Detroit has determined that a safety zone is necessary. This
safety zone will be effective and enforced in Lake Erie on Monday,
September 2, 2013 from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. while participants sail tall
ships to the site of the Battle of Lake Erie Reenactment at position
41[deg]45'24.0'' N; 082[deg] 57'45.0'' W. These coordinates are North
American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). Black powder charges will be fired
from cannons as the ships reenact the original battle fought in 1813.
This reenactment is intended for public viewing, and as such poses a
significant risk to public safety and property due to the proximity of
spectator vessels. Thus, the Captain of the Port Detroit has determined
it necessary to establish a safety zone centered on the battle
reenactment support vessels to ensure the safety of persons and
property and help minimize the associated risks.

C. Discussion of Rule

    Because of the aforementioned safety concerns, the Captain of the
Port Detroit has determined a temporary safety zone is necessary to
ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the maritime battle
reenactment. The Battle of Lake Erie Reenactment safety zone will
encompass all U.S. navigable waters of Lake Erie within a 500-yard
radius of the reenactment support vessels located near position 41[deg]
45'24.0'' N; 082[deg]57'45.0'' W (NAD 83).
    This temporary rule creates a safety zone for each Battle of Lake
Erie Reenactment support vessel. In a separate temporary rule (78 FR
44014, July 23, 2013), the Coast Guard created a safety zone around
each Tall Ship during the Battle of Lake Erie Reenactment.
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his
designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his on-
scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. All persons
and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard
Captain of the Port or the on-scene representative.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under
section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget
has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not ``significant'' under
the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant
regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal
impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not
adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will
not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by
this rule will be relatively small and enforced for relatively short
time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize their impact on
navigable waters. Furthermore, restrictions on vessel movement within
the area of the safety zone expected to be minimal. Under certain
conditions, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when
permitted by the Captain of the Port.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in designated portions of Lake Erie, OH from 8 a.m.
through 6 p.m. on September 2, 2013.
    The safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: the
safety zone will be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for
only a short period of time. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the
zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the
Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the activation of the
zone, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the establishment of a temporary safety
zone that is less than one week in duration. Therefore, it is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of
Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. Nonetheless, we have prepared
an environmnental analysis checklist supporting this determination and
Categorical Exclusion Determination which are both available in the
docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record
keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0546 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0546  Safety Zone; Lake Erie Heritage Foundation, Battle
of Lake Erie Reenactment; Lake Erie, Put-in-Bay, OH.

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: All
U.S. navigable waters of Lake Erie within a 500-yard radius of each
Battle of Lake Erie Reenactment support vessel located near position
41[deg]45'24'' N, 082[deg]57'45'' W. All coordinates are North American
Datum 1983 (NAD83).
    (b) Effective and enforcement period. This section will be
effective and enforced from 8 a.m. through 6 p.m. on September 2, 2013.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
section 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring
within these safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port, Sector Detroit or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit or his
designated on-scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port,
Sector Detroit is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty
officer or a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer
designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit to
act on his behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit or his on-
scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the
Port, Sector Detroit or his on-scene representative may be contacted
via VHF Channel 16 or at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Vessel operators given
permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all
directions given to them by the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit, or
his on-scene representative.

    Dated: August 15, 2013.
J.E. Ogden,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2013-21176 Filed 8-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 219 (Monday, November 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70517-70519]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29253]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

    Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy,
Washington, DC 20549-0213.

    Extension:
Rule 22c-2, SEC File No. 270-541, OMB Control No. 3235-0620.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 22c-2 (17 CFR 270.22c-2 ``Mutual Fund Redemption Fees'') under
the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a) (the ``Investment
Company Act'' or ``Act'') requires the board of directors (including a
majority of independent directors) of most registered investment
companies (``funds'') to either approve a redemption fee of up to two
percent or determine that imposition of a redemption fee is not
necessary or appropriate for the fund. Rule 22c-2 also requires a fund
to enter into written agreements with their financial intermediaries
(such as broker-dealers and retirement plan administrators) under which
the fund, upon request, can obtain certain shareholder identity and
trading information from the intermediaries. The written agreement must
also allow the fund to direct the intermediary to prohibit further
purchases or exchanges by specific shareholders that the fund has
identified as being engaged in transactions that violate the fund's
market timing policies. These requirements enable funds to obtain the
information that they need to monitor the frequency of short-term
trading in omnibus accounts and enforce their market timing policies.
    The rule includes three ``collections of information'' within the
meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA'').\1\ First, the
rule requires boards to either approve a redemption fee of up to two
percent or determine that imposition of a redemption fee is not
necessary or appropriate for the fund. Second, funds must enter into
information sharing agreements with all of their ``financial
intermediaries'' \2\ and maintain a copy of the written information
sharing agreement with each intermediary in an easily accessible place
for six years. Third, pursuant to the information sharing agreements,
funds must have systems that enable them to request frequent trading
information upon demand from their intermediaries, and to enforce any
restrictions on trading required by funds under the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
    \2\ The rule defines a Financial Intermediary as: (i) Any
broker, dealer, bank, or other person that holds securities issued
by the fund in nominee name; (ii) a unit investment trust or fund
that invests in the fund in reliance on section 12(d)(i)(E) of the
Act; and (iii) in the case of a participant directed employee
benefit plan that owns the securities issued by the fund, a
retirement plan's administrator under section 316(A) of the Employee
Retirement Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002(16)(A) or any person
that maintains the plans' participant records. Financial
Intermediary does not include any person that the fund treats as an
individual investor with respect to the fund's policies established
for the purpose of eliminating or reducing any dilution of the value
of the outstanding securities issued by the fund. Rule 22c-2(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The collections of information created by Rule 22c-2 are necessary
for funds to effectively assess redemption fees, enforce their policies
in frequent trading, and monitor short-term trading, including market
timing, in omnibus accounts. These collections of information are
mandatory for funds that redeem shares within seven days of purchase.
The collections of information also are necessary to allow Commission
staff to fulfill its examination and oversight responsibilities.
    Rule 22c-2(a)(1) requires the board of directors of all registered
investment

companies and series thereof (except for money market funds, ETFs, or
funds that affirmatively permit short-term trading of its securities)
to approve a redemption fee for the fund, or instead make a
determination that a redemption fee is either not necessary or
appropriate for the fund. Commission staff understands that the boards
of all funds currently in operation have undertaken this process for
the funds they currently oversee, and the rule does not require boards
to review this determination periodically once it has been made.
Accordingly, we expect that only boards of newly registered funds or
newly created series thereof would undertake this determination.
Commission staff estimates that approximately 117 funds or series
thereof (excluding money market funds and ETFs) are newly formed each
year and would need to make this determination.
    Based on conversations with fund representatives,\3\ Commission
staff estimates that it takes approximately 2 hours of the boards'
time, as a whole, to approve a redemption fee or make the required
determination. In addition, Commission staff estimates that it takes
compliance personnel of the fund approximately 8 hours to prepare
trading, compliance, and other information regarding the fund's
operations to enable the board to make its determination, and takes
internal counsel of the fund approximately 3 hours to review this
information and present its recommendations to the board. Therefore,
for each fund board that undertakes this determination process,
Commission staff estimates it expends approximately 13 hours.\4\ As a
result, Commission staff estimates that the total time spent for all
funds on this process is 1521 hours.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Unless otherwise stated, estimates throughout this analysis
are derived from a survey of funds and conversations with fund
representatives.
    \4\ This calculation is based on the following estimate: (2
hours of board time + 3 hours of internal counsel time + 8 hours of
compliance time = 13 hours).
    \5\ This calculation is based on the following estimate: (13
hours x 117 funds = 1521 hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 22c-2(a)(2) requires a fund to enter into information sharing
agreements with each of its financial intermediaries. Commission staff
understands that all currently registered funds have already entered
into such agreements with their intermediaries. Funds enter into new
relationships with intermediaries from time to time, however, which
requires them to enter into new information sharing agreements.
Commission staff understands that, in general, funds enter into
information-sharing agreement when they initially establish a
relationship with an intermediary, which is typically executed as an
addendum to the distribution agreement. Commission staff estimates that
there are approximately 6911 open-end fund series currently in
operation (excluding money market funds and ETFs). However, the
Commission staff understands that most shareholder information
agreements are entered into by the fund group (a group of funds with a
common investment adviser), and estimates that there are currently 669
currently active fund groups.\6\ Commission staff estimates that, on
average, each active fund group enters into relationships with
approximately 3 new intermediaries each year. Commission staff
understands that funds generally use a standard information sharing
agreement, drafted by the fund or an outside entity, and modifies that
agreement according to the requirements of each intermediary.
Commission staff estimates that negotiating the terms and entering into
an information sharing agreement takes a total of approximately 4 hours
of attorney time per intermediary (representing 2.5 hours of fund
attorney time and 1.5 hours of intermediary attorney time).
Accordingly, Commission staff estimates that each existing fund group
expends 12 hours each year \7\ to enter into new information sharing
agreements, and all existing fund groups incur a total of 8028
hours.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ICI, 2011 Investment Company Fact Book at Fig 1.7 (2011)
(http://www.ici.org/stats/latest/2011_factbook.pdf).
    \7\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (4
hours x 3 new intermediaries = 12 hours).
    \8\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (12
hours x 669 fund groups = 8028 hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, newly created funds advised by new entrants
(effectively new fund groups) must enter into information sharing
agreements with all of their financial intermediaries. Commission staff
estimates that there are approximately 40 new funds or fund groups that
form each year that will have to enter into information sharing
agreements with each of their intermediaries.\9\ Commission staff
estimates that funds and fund groups formed by new advisers typically
have relationships with significantly fewer intermediaries than
existing fund groups, and estimates that new fund groups will typically
enter into approximately 100 information sharing agreements with their
intermediaries when they begin operations.\10\ As discussed previously,
Commission staff estimates that it takes approximately 4 hours of
attorney time per intermediary to enter into information sharing
agreements. Therefore, Commission staff estimates that each newly
formed fund group will incur 400 hours of attorney time,\11\ and all
newly formed fund groups will incur a total of 16,000 hours to enter
into information sharing agreements with their intermediaries.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ICI, 2011 Investment Company Fact Book at Fig 1.7 (2011)
(http://www.ici.org/stats/latest/2011_factbook.pdf).
    \10\ Commission staff understands that funds generally use a
standard information sharing agreement, drafted by the fund or an
outside entity, and then modifies that agreement to according the
requirements of each intermediary.
    \11\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (4
hours x 100 intermediaries = 400 hours).
    \12\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (40
fund groups x 400 hours = 16,000 hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 22c-2(a)(3) requires funds to maintain records of all
information sharing agreements for 6 years in an easily accessible
place. Commission staff estimates that there are approximately 6911
open-end fund series currently in operation (excluding money market
funds and ETFs). However, the Commission staff anticipates that most
shareholder information agreements will be stored at the fund group
level and estimates that there are currently approximately 669 fund
groups. Commission staff understands that information-sharing
agreements are generally included as addendums to distribution
agreements between funds and their intermediaries, and that these
agreements would be stored as required by the rule as a matter of
ordinary business practice. Therefore, Commission staff estimates that
maintaining records of information sharing agreements requires
approximately 10 minutes of time spent by a general clerk per fund,
each year. Accordingly, Commission staff estimates that all funds will
incur approximately 112 hours \13\ in complying with the recordkeeping
requirement of rule 22c-2(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (10
minutes x 669 fund groups = 6690 minutes); (6690 minutes/60 = 112
hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, Commission staff estimates that to comply with the
information sharing agreement requirements of rule 22c-2(a)(1) and (3),
it requires a total of 24,140 hours.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (8028
hours + 16,000 hours + 112 hours = 24,140 hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission staff estimates that on average, each fund group
requests shareholder information once a week, and gives instructions
regarding the restriction of shareholder trades every day, for a total
of 417 responses related

to information sharing systems per fund group each year, and a total
278,973 responses for all fund groups annually.\15\ In addition, the
staff estimates that funds make 117 responses related to board
determinations, 2007 responses related to new intermediaries of
existing fund groups, 4000 responses related to new fund group
information sharing agreements, and 669 responses related to
recordkeeping, for a total of 6793 responses related to the other
requirements of rule 22c-2. Therefore, the Commission staff estimates
that the total number of responses is 285,766 (278,973 + 6793 =
285,766). The Commission staff estimates that the total hour burden for
rule 22c-2 is 25,661 hours.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (52 +
365 = 417); (417 x 669 fund groups = 278,973).
    \16\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (1521
hours (board determination) + 24,140 hours (information sharing
agreements) = 25,661 total hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 22c-2 requires funds to enter into information sharing
agreements with their intermediaries that enable funds to, upon request
(i) be provided certain information regarding shareholders and their
trades that are held through a financial intermediary or an indirect
intermediary, and (ii) require the intermediary to execute instructions
from the fund restricting or prohibiting further purchases or exchanges
by shareholders that violate the fund's frequent trading policies. As a
result of this requirement, some funds and intermediaries have had to
develop and maintain information sharing, monitoring, and order
execution systems (collectively ``information sharing systems''). In
general, costs related to these information-sharing systems are borne
at the fund group level.
    The Commission understands that all currently operating funds and
intermediaries have either developed information systems themselves or
purchased them from third parties. However, these funds and
intermediaries also incur certain ongoing costs related to these
systems' maintenance and operation. The Commission staff understands
that various organizations have developed, enhancements to their
systems that allow funds and intermediaries to share the information
required by the rule without developing or maintaining systems of their
own. Other organizations have developed ``22c-2 solution'' systems that
funds may lease. The Commission staff understands that most funds and
intermediaries use these outside systems. In general, the staff
estimates that the typical charges involved in operating and
maintaining information sharing systems average 25 cents for every 100
account transactions requested. These systems generally also provide
analytics, spreadsheets, and other tools designed to enable funds to
analyze the data presented, as well as communication tools to process
fund instructions regarding the restrictions and prohibitions they may
request. Commission staff estimates that the costs of developing,
maintaining and operating information systems for funds and
intermediaries that do not use outside provider's systems is comparable
to the costs charged by outside providers.\17\ The Commission staff
estimates that, on average, each fund group requests information for
100,000 transactions each week, incurring costs of $250 weekly, or
$13,000 a year.\18\ In addition, the Commission staff estimates that
funds pay access fees to use these information sharing systems (or
comparable internal costs) of approximately $30,000 each year. The
Commission staff therefore estimates that a fund group would typically
incur approximately $43,000 in costs each year related to the operation
and maintenance of information sharing systems required by rule 22c-2.
The Commission staff has previously estimated that there are
approximately 669 fund groups currently active, and therefore estimates
that all fund groups incur a total of $28,767,000 in ongoing costs each
year related to maintaining and operating information sharing
systems.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ We include the burden for funds that develop and operate
these information sharing systems internally rather than purchasing
them from third parties as a cost rather than as an hourly burden
because Commission staff understands that, even when developing
these systems themselves, funds generally either use independent
contractors or hire new personnel, and thereby incur this burden as
a cost, not an hourly expenditure.
    \18\ This estimate is based on the following calculations:
(100,000 transaction requests x 0.0025[cent] = $250); ($250 x 52
weeks = $13,000).
    \19\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (669
fund groups x $43,000 = $28,767,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, newly formed funds and fund groups advised by advisers
who are new entrants would also need to incur certain additional costs
related to the initial development or purchase of these information-
sharing systems. Commission staff estimates that it requires
approximately $100,000 to purchase or develop and implement such an
information sharing system for the first time. Commission staff has
previously estimated that approximately 40 funds or fund groups are
formed each year managed by new advisers, and therefore estimates that
all these funds would incur total costs of approximately
$4,000,000.\20\ Therefore the staff estimates that the total costs
related to rule 22c-2 would be approximately $32,767,000 ($28,767,000 +
$4,000,000 = $32,767,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ This estimate is based on the following estimate: ($100,000
x 40 new fund groups = $4,000,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Responses provided to the Commission will be accorded the same
level of confidentiality accorded to other responses provided to the
Commission in the context of its examination and oversight program.
Responses provided in the context of the Commission's examination and
oversight program are generally kept confidential. Complying with the
information collections of rule 22c-2 is mandatory for funds that
redeem their shares within 7 days of purchase. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control
number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: November 7, 2011.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-29253 Filed 11-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 185 (Wednesday, September 24, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56988-56989]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22706]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 173

[Docket No. PHMSA-2013-0205; Notice No. 14-5]

Clarification on Fireworks Policy Regarding Display Aerial Shells
With Attachments

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

ACTION: Clarification.

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

SUMMARY: This document clarifies PHMSA's policy regarding applications
for classification approval of Display Aerial Shells with Attachments,
provided they conform to the acceptable criteria described in this
guidance, and otherwise comply with APA Standard 87-1 requirements.
Although the APA Standard 87-1 provides requirements for Display Aerial
Shells, it does not specifically address Display Aerial Shells with
Attachments.

DATES: September 24, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ryan Paquet, Director, Approvals
and Permits Division, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, (202) 366-
4512,

PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    In this document, PHMSA's Office of Hazardous Materials Safety
(OHMS) is issuing this policy regarding its classification approval of
Display Aerial Shells with Attachments, which describes acceptable
criteria for these types of fireworks. PHMSA previously evaluated and
approved these devices; however, PHMSA has not previously published
guidance regarding the approval of these types of fireworks. This
clarification will help fireworks manufacturers and their U.S.
designated agents who file applications on their behalf to provide
accurate applications to PHMSA for approval, which will minimize the
delay in processing these applications while sustaining the current
level of safety.

II. Background

    PHMSA's OHMS, Approvals and Permits Division, receives approval
applications for various types of fireworks, including Division 1.3G
Display Aerial Shells with Attachments. Division 1.3G fireworks
applications may be approved in accordance with subpart C of part 173
of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR, 49 CFR parts 171-180).
Division 1.3G fireworks applicants have the option for obtaining an EX
classification approval without prior testing by a DOT-approved
explosive test laboratory, provided that the firework device is
manufactured in accordance with the APA Standard 87-1 and passes a
thermal stability test as required by Sec.  173.64(a)(1) and (2). The
APA Standard 87-1 currently does not specifically address Display
Aerial Shells with Attachments; however, it does provide the
requirements for display shells.
    Display Aerial Shells with Attachments that conform to the
acceptable criteria described in this guidance and all applicable
requirements in the APA Standard 87-1 (i.e., chemical compositions and
shell diameter sizes), may be submitted to PHMSA for approval.

III. Guidelines for Display Aerial Shells With Attachments

    PHMSA considers Display Aerial Shells with Attachments to be
cylindrical or spherical cartridges containing pyrotechnic compositions
with attached external components. An attachment is a component that
contains pyrotechnic composition that is attached to the outside of a
Display Aerial Shell, and may be ignited by its own independent fuse.
Display Aerial Shells with Attachments range from 2 inches (50mm) to 10
inches (250mm) in exterior diameter and are classed as UN0335,
Fireworks, Division 1.3G.
    To be accepted for review and consideration, PHMSA expects Display
Aerial Shells with Attachments to be designed so that they (1) remain
attached to the display aerial shell, (2) do not leak pyrotechnic
composition during transportation, and (3) are constructed of sturdy
materials, such as (but not limited to) plastic, Kraft paper, or
cardboard (this does not apply to tails). Designs must meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 173.56(b) or 173.64, the requirements in the APA
Standard 87-1, and must pass a thermal stability test as required by
Sec.  173.64(a)(2).

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.97.
William S. Schoonover,
Deputy Associate Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-22706 Filed 9-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register: March 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 51)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 13809-13811]
[DOCID:fr14mr08-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0006; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANM-1]

Proposed Establishment of Class D Airspace and Amendment of Class
E Airspace; North Bend, OR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class D airspace and amend
Class E airspace at Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, North Bend, OR.
The establishment of an air traffic control tower has made this action
necessary for the safety and management of aircraft within this
airspace. This action will also update the name of the airport from
North Bend Municipal Airport, North Bend, OR.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 28, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, 20590.
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2008-
0006; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANM-1, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at  http://
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, System Support Group, Western Service Area, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; 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 2008-0006 and Airspace Docket No. 08-ANM-1) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (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 FAA
Docket No. FAA-2008-0006 and Airspace Docket No. 08-ANM-1''. 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 NPRM's

    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 the ADDRESSES section for the 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 Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Area, System Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class D and amending Class
E airspace at Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, North Bend, OR.
Controlled airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,500 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of Southwest Oregon Regional
Airport, North Bend, OR, is required for IFR flight operations at
Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, North Bend, OR. The establishment of
an air traffic control tower has made this action necessary. This rule
also will change the name of the airport from North Bend Municipal
Airport, to Southwest Oregon Regional Airport. Class D and Class E
airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 and 6002,
respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007, and
effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this
document will be published subsequently in this 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 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, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAAs authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace at Southwest Oregon Regional
Airport, North Bend, OR.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 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 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]

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

Paragraph 5000 Class D airspace.

* * * * *

ANM OR D North Bend, OR [New]

Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, OR
    (Lat. 43[deg]25'02'' N., long. 124[deg]14'46'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,500 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of the Southwest Oregon
Regional Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

ANM OR E2 North Bend, OR [Amended]

Southwest Oregon Regional, OR
    (Lat. 43[deg]25'02'' N., long. 124[deg]14'46'' W.)
North Bend VORTAC
    (Lat. 43[deg]24'56'' N., long. 124[deg]10'06'' W.)
Emire LOM/NDB
    (Lat. 43[deg]23'41'' N., long. 124[deg]18'37'' W.)

    Within a 4.2-mile radius of the Southwest Oregon Regional
Airport, and within 1.8 miles each side of the North Bend VORTAC
044[deg] radial extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 5.7 miles
northeast of the VORTAC; and within 3.7 miles each side of the North
Bend VORTAC 092[deg] radial extending from the 4.2-mile radius to
7.5 miles east of the VORTAC; and within 2.7 miles each side of the
241[deg] bearing from the Emire LOM/NDB extending from the 4.2-mile
radius to 6.1 miles southwest of the LOM/NDB. This Class

E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times
established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and
time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/
Facility Directory.
* * * * *

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on March 7, 2008.
Kevin Nolan,
Acting Manager, System Support Group, Western Service Area.
 [FR Doc. E8-5180 Filed 3-13-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 197 (Thursday, October 10, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54601-54602]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22176]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-516-000]

Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on September 30, 2019, Columbia Gulf Transmission,
LLC (Columbia Gulf), 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas
77002, filed in the above referenced docket a prior notice request
pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's
regulations under the Natural Gas Act and its blanket certificates
issued in Docket No. CP83-496-000 and Docket No. CP82-406-000 for
authorization to abandon approximately 6.8 miles of its 16-inch
mainline, East Cameron 23 Field Line, in Cameron Parish, Louisiana.
Columbia Gulf estimates the cost of the project to be $6.9 million, all
as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection.
    The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website web 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 at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Brooke McCallum, Analyst, Project Determinations & Regulatory
Administration, Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street,
Suite 700, Houston, Texas 77002 at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed

activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the
time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not
withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest,
the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's
public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and
state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list and will be
notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental
review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve
copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party
commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other
parties or issued by the Commission and will not have the right to seek
court review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 3 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426.

    Dated: October 4, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-22176 Filed 10-9-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12947-12948]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5318]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Docket No. DI11-3-000]

Bear Creek Hydro Associates, LLC; Notice of Declaration of
Intention and Soliciting Comments, Protests, and/or Motions To
Intervene

    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Declaration of Intention.
    b. Docket No: DI11-3-000.
    c. Date Filed: February 14, 2011.

    d. Applicant: Bear Creek Hydro Associates, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Bear Creek Hydro Project.
    f. Location: The Bear Creek Hydro Project will be located on Bear
Creek, near the town of Concrete, Skagit County, Washington, affecting
T. 35 N., R. 8 E., sec. 11, SE \1/4\, and T. 36 N., R. 8 E., Sec. 14,
NE \1/4\.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. 817(b).
    h. Applicant Contact: Thomas M. McMaster, 358 Shallow Shore Road,
Bellingham, WA 98229; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail: http://
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Henry Ecton,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions: April 13,
2011.
    All documents should be filed electronically via the Internet. See
18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. If unable to be
filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an
original and seven copies should be filed with: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    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. Please include the docket number
(DI11-3-000) on any comments, protests, and/or motions filed.
    k. Description of Project: The run-of-river Bear Creek Hydro
Project will consist of: (1) An existing pond with a surface area of
1.7 acres; (2) an existing 235-foot-long, 24-foot-high concrete
diversion structure, with an ungated 82-foot-long overflow spillway;
(3) a proposed 2,800-foot-long, 36-inch-diameter above-ground steel
penstock, routed along the existing penstock alignment to the
powerhouse; (4) an existing 28-foot-long, 82-foot wide powerhouse,
containing two new 1,400-kW Pelton turbines, switchgear, and auxiliary
equipment, with a computerized supervisory control system to control
plant operations; (5) two existing tailraces, returning flows to Bear
Creek; (6) a proposed 3.5-mile-long, 12.5 kV, 3-phase transmission
line, interconnecting to the Puget Sound Energy transmission lines at
Lake Tyee; and (7) appurtenant facilities.
    When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to
investigate and determine if the interests of interstate or foreign
commerce would be affected by the proposed project. The Commission also
determines whether or not the project: (1) Would be located on a
navigable waterway; (2) would occupy or affect public lands or
reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or
water power from a government dam; or (4) if applicable, has involved
or would involve any construction subsequent to 1935 that may have
increased or would increase the project's head or generating capacity,
or have otherwise significantly modified the project's pre-1935 design
or operation.
    l. Locations of the Application: Copies of this filing are on file
with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This
filing may be viewed on the web 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. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for inspection
and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, and/or Motions To Intervene--Anyone may
submit comments, a protest, and a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, and/or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTESTS'', AND/
OR ``MOTIONS TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Docket Number of
the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any
motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the
Applicant specified in the particular application.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

    Dated: March 2, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-5318 Filed 3-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 151 (Friday, August 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47638-47639]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19827]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) has received a request for a waiver of compliance from certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

Denton County Transportation Authority (Waiver Petition Docket Number
FRA-2010-0180)

    The Denton County Transportation Authority (DCTA) seeks a temporary
waiver from some of the regulatory requirements of the CFR to operate
new Stadler 2/6 GTW Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs) for use on its new
``A-train'' commuter rail service. This temporary relief is necessary
so that DCTA can conduct vehicle acceptance, employee training, and
equipment familiarization until such time that a second waiver request,
relating to Alternate Vehicle Technology (AVT), is submitted.
    DCTA has ordered 11 Stadler Bussnang AG, GTW 2/6 DMUs (the first of
which will arrive in July 2011) for use on its new ``A-train'' commuter
rail service between Dallas and Denton, TX. These vehicles are
constructed by a European manufacturer and meet European safety
standards for crashworthiness and related safety measures. DCTA
submitted the first petition for relief (the ``Base Waiver'') in which
it sought relief from certain requirements of 49 CFR Part 238,
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards (Sections 238.115, 238.121,
238.223, 238.229, 238.230, 238.305, 238.309, and Appendix D--
Requirements for External Fuel Tanks on Tier I Locomotives); part 229,
Railroad Locomotive Safety Standards (Sec. Sec.  229.31, 229.47,
229.51, 229.71, 229.135, and Appendix D--Criteria for Certification of
Crashworthy Event Recorder Memory Module); part 231, Railroad Safety
Appliance Standards (Sec.  231.14); and part 239, Passenger Train
Emergency Preparedness (Sec.  239.101). FRA rendered its decision in a
July 13, 2011, letter.
    DCTA is currently in the process of developing the technical
justification documentation to petition FRA for an AVT compliance
waiver for use of this equipment on main tracks.
    Until such documentation is submitted, DCTA would like to operate
this equipment so it can conduct vehicle acceptance, employee training,
and equipment familiarization. DCTA will implement temporal separation,
and seeks temporary relief from certain requirements of 49 CFR,
particularly Sec.  238.203--Static end strength; Sec.  238.205--Anti-
climbing mechanism; Sec.  238.207--Link between coupling mechanism and
car body; Sec.  238.209--Forward end structure of locomotives,
including cab cars and MU locomotives; Sec.  238.211--Collision posts;
Sec.  238.213--Corner posts; Sec.  238.215--Rollover strength; Sec.
238.217--Side structure; Sec.  238.219--Truck-to-car-body attachment;
and Sec.  238.233--Interior fittings and surfaces.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2010-0180) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will
be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received
after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written
communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the U.S. Department of Transportation's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000
(Volume

65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or online at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 1, 2011.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011-19827 Filed 8-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 136 (Monday, July 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 32852]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15127]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP17-495-000; CP17-494-000]

Notice of Meeting; Jordan Cove Energy Project, LP; Pacific
Connector Gas Pipeline, LP

    The environmental staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) along with representatives of the U.S. Forest Service,
Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will
meet with representatives of the Karuk Tribe to discuss the proposed
Jordan Cove LNG and Pacific Connector Pipeline Projects. The meeting
will be held at the location and time listed below:

Karuk Tribe--Headway Building, 64236 Second Avenue, Happy Camp, CA
96039, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Wednesday, July 18, 2018, 3:30 p.m.
PDT

    Members of the public and intervenors in the referenced proceeding
may attend and observe this meeting; however, participation will be
limited to tribal representatives and agency personnel. If tribal
representatives decide to disclose information about a specific
location which could create a risk or harm to an archeological site or
Native American cultural resource, the public will be excused for that
portion of the meeting. A summary of the meeting will be entered into
the Commission's administrative record.
    If you plan to attend this meeting, please contact Mr. John
Peconom, Environmental Project Manager at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].

    Dated: July 10, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15127 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P