1 PM NAAQS RIA:

Status of Controls Database and Control Selection Strategies Discussion with OMB June 7, 2006 2 Overview

Controls Database Structure

Strategy for Selecting Controls

Control Strategy Selection for the 15/ 65 " Current Standards" Scenario 3 Structure of Controls Database

Control are divided into three categories:

" Known" controls

Database of well demonstrated controls that can be applied to emissions sources today ( AirControlNET)

Applicable for analysis of point and area sources

" Developmental" controls

Includes controls not already contained in the ACN, as well as newer innovative controls that could be applied in future years

" Unidentified" controls

Determination of a reasonable control efficiency and cost estimate for remaining tons contributing to non attainment that are not captured with Known or Developmental controls

Mobile sources and Regional EGU SO2 controls are developed by OTAQ and CAMD

Used as input to Known and Developmental controls in the attainment strategy 4 Control Measures Added Since the Proposal RIA

Direct PM from EGU sources: upgrade in control efficiency on existing ESPs ( electrostatic precipitators), only applicable to coalfired EGUs

Agricultural ammonia:

California: San Joaquin Valley Dairy Manure Technologies ( 6 technologies)

Ohio Valley: Environmentally superior waste management technologies for hog operations based on NC Smithfield agreement analysis

Area Sources:

Substitution of chipping for burning ( household and open burning)

Fireplace inserts

Fuel switching ( high sulfur to low sulfur)

NonEGU point sources

Fuel switching ( high sulfur to low sulfur)

Diesel particulate filters 5 Control Measures Added Since the Proposal RIA ( continued)

Mobile Sources:

National rules

Diesel Locomotives

Diesel Marine Vessels

Ocean Going Vessels

Residual Fuel in Ocean Going Vessels

Small Nonroad Gasoline Engines

Voluntary/ local measures

Diesel Retrofits and Retirement

Eliminate Long Duration Idling

Intermodal  Shift from Trucks to Rail

Best Workplaces for Commuters ( BWC)

State programs

California ports control initiative ( ships and harborcraft) 6 Strategy for Selecting Controls

Strive to attain the 15/ 65 standards using local control measures

" Local" is defined as the MSA that contains the nonattainment county ( multiple counties)

If cannot attain via local controls, we considered control available in neighboring counties to the MSA

Least cost controls were applied

If we did not reach attainment within the MSA, we considered further controls in 3 subregions:

Ohio Valley/ Great Lakes subregion,

California subregion, and

Northeast subregion ( not needed for 15/ 65 scenario) 7 Subregions for 15/ 65 Analysis 8 Strategy for Selecting Controls ( Cont.)

Apply the least cost and most efficient controls first

We calculated $ cost/ ug reduced for each pollutant/ source combination for each county analyzed

Pollutants: Direct PM ( carbon), NOx, SO2, NH3

Sources: Point ( EGU and Non EGU), Area, Mobile

Select controls until the pollutant/ source category reaches cost/ ton = benefits/ ton for the county analyzed

$ ben/ ton is calculated for each pollutant/ source category in each of the areas assessed in detail with the Response Surface Model at proposal.

Once the pollutant/ source category reaches a $ cost/ ton that equals the $ ben/ ton, then we switched to the next pollutant/ source category with the next most efficient pollutant/ source to achieve ug reductions ( i. e., the next lowest $ cost/ ug reduced). 9 Strategy for Selecting Controls ( cont.)

Mobile sources

The National Rules are applied first to all nonattainment areas ( local MSA counties only), then apply local control measures where we do not attain ( and using the $/ ug data to determine cost effectiveness)

EGU's

No EGU controls for SO2 considered for sources located in the CAIR region for 15/ 65

EGU controls for direct PM were considered when the $/ ug was lower in cost than other " Known" controls for point sources 10 Results of Control Strategy Selection for 15/ 65

Total cost of the 15/ 65 scenario in 2020 is less than $ 1 billion ( annualized costs are presented throughout the following discussion)

Attainment achieved with local controls for the following areas:

Atlanta

Birmingham

St. Louis

Lincoln, MT

Chicago ( plus neighboring counties to the MSA)

The following areas require both local controls and controls obtained from a set of counties defined for an Ohio Valley/ Great Lakes subregion

Cleveland

Detroit

Pittsburgh

Subregional controls were required for California   note that most nonattainment counties in CA did not reach attainment with available controls. 11 Results for Eastern U. S.

Applied controls on point sources, area sources, mobile sources,

and coal fired EGUs ( for direct PM only)

Controls mostly directed at direct PM emissions ( which reduces elemental and organic carbon)

Indicated as the most effective pollutant to control in most cases based on the level of ug reduced per ton of emissions.

NOx and VOC were less effective in the East

SOx and NH3 reductions effective in some areas

Applied NH3 controls as an innovative control measure only where it was more difficult to achieve

Total Cost for the Eastern U. S. is approximately $ 180 million  On average, the cost/ ton ranged from $ 1,800 to $ 6,000  In one NA area, cost/ ton reached $ 25,000, but benefits per ton were $ 200,000 12 Results for Western U. S.

Lincoln, MT reaches attainment with local controls  Applied area source controls for direct PM ( carbon) and NOx for a cost of $ 21,000.

California consists of a subregion designed to include most of Southern CA  Controls applied to mobile sources, gas fired EGUs, and point and area sources

Mobile and EGU emissions are most effective to achieve reductions towards attainment  NOx, VOC, and NH3 emissions are most effective in reducing PM  Also applied direct PM controls

Total Cost for the California subregion is approximately $ 800 million  On average, the cost/ ton ranged from $ 1,400 to $ 13,000  In one sector, the cost/ ton reached $ 60,000, but benefits per ton were $ 400,000 for this sector

Determination of attainment is more uncertain due to difficulties in modeling CA air quality 13 14 15 16 17 Appendix Findings by Non Attainment Area 18 Findings by Non Attainment Area

Atlanta

Cost of $ 18.1 million

Used local controls on direct PM applied to mobile sources, woodstoves, commercial cooking, utility and industrial boilers

Birmingham

Cost of $ 12 million

Used local controls on direct PM applied to mobile sources, Iron & Steel, and Mineral Products 19 Findings by Non Attainment Area  St. Louis

Cost of $ 1 million

Used local controls on direct PM applied to mobile sources, Iron & Steel, and coal fired EGU ( direct PM only)

 Lincoln, MT

Cost of $ 21,000

Used local controls on direct PM applied to mobile sources, Industrial Boiler, and woodstoves 20 Findings by Non Attainment Area

Chicago

Cost of $ 25 million

Used local controls on direct PM applied to mobile sources, woodstoves, commercial cooking, home heating oil, Iron & Steel, mineral products,

chemical manufacturing, and coal fired EGU ( direct PM only) 21 Findings by Non Attainment Area

Ohio subregion

Includes the Cleveland, Detroit, and Pittsburgh nonattainment areas

Used local controls on direct PM applied to mobile sources, coal fired industrial boilers, Iron & Steel,

asphalt and chemical manufacturing, and coalfired EGU ( direct PM only)

Total cost for the subregion is $ 129 million.


[Federal Register: July 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 136)]
[Notices]
[Page 40512-40513]
[DOCID:fr17jy06-65]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2005-0064; FRL-8197-5]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Electric Utility Steam
Generating Units (Renewal), ICR Number 1053.08, OMB Number 2060-0023

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that the following Information
Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval: NSPS for Electric Utility
Steam Generating Units (40 CFR part 60, subpart Da), OMB Control Number
2060-0023, EPA ICR Number 1053.08. The ICR, which is abstracted below,
describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated
burden and cost.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on, or before August 16, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Fried, Compliance Assessment
and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2223A,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number (202)
564-0050; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On September 21, 2005 (70 FR 55368), EPA sought comments on
this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2005-0064, which is available for public viewing at
the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and
Information Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic version of the
public docket is available through the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov. Use FDMS to submit or view public

comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public
docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are
available electronically. When in the system, select ``search,'' then
key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send
comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503,
Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID
Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2005-0064 and OMB Control Number 2060-0023 in any
correspondence.
    Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed
instructions: (1) Submit your comments to EPA online using FDMS (our
preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code: 2201T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) Mail your
comments to OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA,
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.
    EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted
electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing
in FDMS as EPA receives them without change, unless the comment
contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI),
or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute.
When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will
provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that
is placed in FDMS. The entire printed comment, including the
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although
identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as
CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not
included in the official public docket, see EPA's Federal Register
notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002),
or go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Title: NSPS for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (Renewal).

    EPA ICR Number: 1053.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0023.
    This is a request to renew an existing approved collection that is
scheduled to expire on July 31, 2006. Under the OMB regulations, the
Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information
while this submission is pending at OMB.
    Abstract: Owners or operators of electric utility steam generating
units subject to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) subpart Da
must make one-time notification of construction/reconstruction,
anticipated and actual startup, initial performance test, physical or
operational changes, and demonstration of a continuous monitoring
system. They also must submit a report on initial performance test
results, monitoring results, and excess emissions. Records must be
maintained of startups, shutdowns, malfunctions, periods when the
continuous monitoring system is inoperative, and of various fuel
combustion and pollutant emission parameters.
    The required notifications are used to inform the Agency or
delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the standard.
Performance test reports are needed, as these are the Agency's records
of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard,
and serve as a record of the operating conditions under which
compliance was achieved. The monitoring and excess emissions reports
are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and
maintenance, and for compliance determination. The information
collected from recordkeeping and reporting requirements are used for
targeting inspections and for other uses in compliance and enforcement
programs.
    Responses to these information collections are deemed mandatory by
section 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The required information consists
of emissions data and other information that have been determined not
to be private. However, any information submitted to the Agency for
which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according
to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2,
Subpart B--Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR
36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 4000, September 8, 1978; 43
FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).
    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 OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are
identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 85
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to respond to a
collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the
collection of information; and transmit, or otherwise disclose the
information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners or operators of electric
utility steam generating units subject to subpart Da.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 655.
    Frequency of Response: Semiannually, quarterly.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 133,553.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $19,490,000, includes $2,200,000
annualized capital and $9,660,000 O&M costs.

    Dated: July 8, 2006.
 Oscar Morales,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E6-11256 Filed 7-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 125 (Thursday, June 30, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 38987]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14042]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0541]

Safety Zones; Fireworks Displays in the Fifth Coast Guard
District

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the Delaware River, Philadelphia,
PA; Safety Zone from 8:45 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 3, 2022, to
provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the Rivers
Casino fireworks event. Our regulation for marine events within the
Fifth Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this event
in Philadelphia, PA. During the enforcement period, the operator of any
vessel in the regulated area must comply with directions from the
Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard
ensign.

DATES: The regulation 33 CFR 165.506 will be enforced for the location
identified in entry 10 of table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) from 8:45 p.m.
through 10 p.m. on July 3, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, you may call or email Petty Officer Jennifer
Padilla, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Waterways Management
Division, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
in table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506, entry (a)10 for the
Rivers Casino Fireworks display 8:45 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 3,
2022. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on the
navigable waters of the United States immediately prior to, during, and
immediately after the fireworks displays. Our regulation for safety
zones of fireworks displays within the Fifth Coast Guard District,
table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506, entry 10 specifies the
location of the regulated area as all waters of Delaware River,
adjacent to Penn's Landing, Philadelphia, PA, within a 500-yard radius
of the fireworks barge position. The approximate position for the
display is latitude 39[deg]57'39'' N, longitude 075[deg]07'45'' W.
During the enforcement period, as reflected in Sec.  165.506(d),
vessels may not enter, remain in, or transit through the safety zone
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or designated Coast Guard
patrol personnel on-scene.
    In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register,
the Coast Guard will provide notification of this enforcement period
via broadcast notice to mariners.

    Dated: June 27, 2022.
Jonathan D. Theel,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2022-14042 Filed 6-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: May 14, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 92)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 22717-22720]
[DOCID:fr14my09-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 93

[Docket No. FAA-2006-25709; Notice No. 09-04]
RIN 2120-AJ49

Congestion Management Rule for LaGuardia Airport

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rescission.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rescind the final rule Congestion
Management Rule for LaGuardia Airport. The final rule established
procedures to address congestion in the New York City area by assigning
slots at LaGuardia Airport (LaGuardia), assigning to existing operators
the majority of slots at the airports, and creating a market by
annually auctioning off a limited number of slots in each of the first
five years of the rule. The final rule also contained provisions for
minimum usage, capping unscheduled operations, and withdrawal for
operational need. The rule was scheduled to sunset in ten years.

DATES: Send your comments on or before June 15, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2006-
25709 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-
140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Bring comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For more information on the rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket web site, anyone can
find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any of
our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment
(or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union,
etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time and follow the online
instructions for accessing the docket. Or, go to the Docket Operations
in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions concerning this
rulemaking, contact: Molly W. Smith, Office of Aviation Policy and
Plans, APO-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal questions concerning this rulemaking,
contact: Rebecca MacPherson, FAA Office of the Chief Counsel, 800
Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in this preamble under the Additional
Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this proposal
and how we will handle your comments. Included in this discussion is
related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of
proprietary or confidential business information. We also discuss how
you can get a copy of this proposal and related rulemaking documents.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA has broad authority under 49 U.S.C. 40103 to regulate the
use of the navigable airspace of the United States. This section
authorizes the FAA to develop plans and policy for the use of navigable
airspace and to assign the use that the FAA deems necessary for its
safe and efficient utilization. It further directs the FAA to prescribe
air traffic rules and regulations governing the efficient utilization
of the navigable airspace.

I. Background

    The final rule Congestion Management Rule for LaGuardia Airport was
published in the Federal Register on October 10, 2008 (73 FR 60574).
The final rule established procedures to address congestion in the New
York City area by assigning slots at LaGuardia Airport (LaGuardia),
assigning to existing operators the majority of slots at the airports,
and creating a market by annually auctioning off a limited number of
slots in each of the first five years of the rule. The final rule also
contained provisions for minimum usage, capping unscheduled operations,
and withdrawal for operational need. The rule was scheduled to sunset
in ten years and was to become effective December 9, 2008.
    The rulemaking was highly controversial. On August 29, 2006, the
FAA had published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing
continuation of the cap on hourly operations at the airport as well as
a new method of allocating capacity (71 FR 51360). The industry
response to the new allocation method proposed in the NPRM was
universally negative, although very few commenters argued that a cap on
operations at the airport was unnecessary. The FAA received comments
from 61 different commenters, with some commenters making multiple
submissions. The FAA then published a supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (SNPRM) on April 17, 2008 (73 FR 20846). Twenty-six
interested parties filed comments to the docket addressing the SNPRM.
The majority of comments were consistent in

rejecting the proposal. Many commenters said that the FAA had failed to
demonstrate how the proposal would achieve any significant relief from
congestion. Rather, according to the commenters, the SNPRM would impose
an untested and unproven auction process on airlines that would not
address the fundamental airspace congestion issues in the New York
metro area. While other commenters did not completely object to an
auction mechanism, they did note that the timing was not right or that
the auction procedures needed to be fully developed prior to finalizing
any rule.
    The final rule was challenged by several parties before it could
take effect. Petitioners included the Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey, the Air Transport Association of America, Inc. (ATA), the
International Air Transport Association (IATA), Continental, and US
Airways. The petitioners sought a stay of the final rule pending
judicial review, arguing that they would likely succeed on the merits
of the underlying litigation, they would suffer irreparable harm, a
stay would not harm other parties, and a stay was in the public
interest. On December 8, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit determined that the petitioners had
satisfied the standards for a stay and issued an order staying the
rule. Accordingly, the rule has never been implemented. On January 22,
2009, the ATA requested that the Secretary of Transportation, Ray
LaHood, withdraw the final rule in light of the court's stay.
    At present, operations at LaGuardia remain capped by order at 75
scheduled operations and three unscheduled operations per hour until
October 2009.\1\ The FAA is in the process of considering its options
with regard to managing congestion at the airport, while providing a
means for carriers to either commence or expand operations at the
airport, thereby introducing more competition and service options to
benefit the traveling public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Operating Limitations at New York LaGuardia Airport
(LaGuardia Order), December 27, 2006 (71 FR 77854), as amended
November 8, 2007 (72 FR 63224), August 19, 2008 (73 FR 48248),
January 8, 2009 (74 FR 845), and January 15, 2009 (74 FR 2646).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 11, 2009, the President signed Public Law 111-8, Omnibus
Appropriations Act, 2009. That legislation provides several departments
within the executive branch, including the Department of
Transportation, with the funds to operate until the end of this fiscal
year. That legislation also contains a provision in Division I, section
115 that states in pertinent part:

    No funds provided in this Act may be used by the Secretary of
Transportation to promulgate regulations or take any action
regarding the scheduling of airline operations at any commercial
airport in the United States if such regulation or action involves:
    (1) The auctioning by the Secretary or the FAA Administrator of
rights or permission to conduct airline operations at such an
airport, * * *
    (3) either:
    (A) withdrawal by the Secretary or Administrator of a right or
permission to conduct operations at such an airport (except when the
withdrawal is for operational reasons or pursuant to the terms or
conditions of such operating right or permission), * * *

    At the same time, the nation's economy has continued to suffer
under the current recession, which is both deeper and longer than was
first assumed. President Obama recently signed the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 \2\ (ARRA), which provides an
extraordinary amount of emergency funds to address the unprecedented
global recession and to promote economic recovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (Feb. 17, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Omnibus Appropriations Act prevents the FAA from implementing
the slot auction rule or conducting slot auctions. However, we
recognize that the restriction in section 115 of the Act applies only
until the end of this fiscal year, or September 30, 2009. The
restriction in section 115 means the rule adopted last year can no
longer operate in the way that the agency had planned. The halt in
funding for this fiscal year makes it impossible for the rule to have
the 10-year life originally contemplated, even without considering the
challenging and widespread change in current economic conditions that
led to the adoption of ARRA.
    Because of the complexity of the issues, the uncertainty caused by
the Omnibus Appropriations Act, and the possible impact of the
significantly changed economic circumstances on the slot auction
program, the FAA believes it would be better to rescind the rule rather
than propose to extend it. Rescission would also eliminate the
potential for wasting resources of all parties in the pending
litigation. We specifically request comments and data from affected
interests on whether and how the changed circumstances bear on this
proposed rescission.
    The current order for LaGuardia presently addresses congestion and
delay associated with scheduled operations. However, the order does not
address all issues associated with market access at a capped airport.
Accordingly, the FAA believes it may need further work to address these
concerns and limit operations at LaGuardia.
    The FAA seeks comment on this proposal. DOT's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures contemplate at least a 60-day comment period for a
significant rulemaking, unless otherwise justified. The final rule was
subject to notice and comment less than 12 months ago, and those
comments were fully considered by the agency in issuing that rule.
Since comments should be limited to any change in circumstances,
including the statutory restriction discussed above, the FAA believes
that a 30-day comments period is sufficient in this instance.

II. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the
economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the
Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 4 2531-2533) prohibits agencies from
setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade
Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where
appropriate, to be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded
Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare
a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of
proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result
in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually
(adjusted for inflation). The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted
value of $136.1 million in lieu of $100 million.
    The FAA conducted all of these analyses when it originally issued
the final rule. This proposed rescission is not economically
significant under Executive Order 12866.
    The paperwork burden anticipated under the rule would not be
imposed on any parties. The FAA has already determined that the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Rescission of the
rule would likewise impose no such burden. As the rescission of the
rule would not impose any standard on any party, the FAA has

assessed the potential effect of this proposal and determined that it
would impose no costs on international entities and thus have a no
trade impact. Nor would the rescission impose a Federal mandate that
may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted annually
for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, and the requirements of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 do not apply.
    The proposed rescission of the final rule is not economically
``significant'' under Executive Order 12866, however it is
``significant'' under DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
Accordingly, it has been reviewed by DOT and OMB.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rescission under the principles
and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We have determined
that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the national Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have federalism
implications.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures'' identifies FAA actions that are normally categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA
previously determined that the final rule qualified for the categorical
exclusions identified in paragraph 312d ``Issuance of regulatory
documents (e.g., Notices of Proposed Rulemaking and issuance of Final
Rules) covering administration or procedural requirements (does not
include Air Traffic procedures; specific Air traffic procedures that
are categorically excluded are identified under paragraph 311 of this
Order)'' and paragraph 312f, ``Regulations, standards, and exemptions
(excluding those which if implemented may cause a significant impact on
the human environment.'' It has further been determined that no
extraordinary circumstances exist that may cause a significant impact
and therefore no further environmental review is required. The FAA
documented this categorical exclusion determination. A copy of the
determination and underlying documents has been included in the Docket
for the rule. The FAA has determined that the rescission of the final
rule would also qualify for a categorical exclusion since it would have
no impact on the environment.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this notice under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
is not a ``significant energy action'' under executive order 12866 and
it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

Additional Information

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or
if you are filing comments electronically, please submit your comments
only one time.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal,
the agency will consider all comments received on or before the closing
date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the
comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring
expense or delay.

Proprietary or Confidential Business Information

    Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be
proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this
information directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the
information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send
the information on a disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or
CD-ROM and also identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is proprietary or confidential.
    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when the FAA is aware of proprietary
information filed with a comment, it does not place it in the docket.
The agency holds it in a separate file to which the public does not
have access, and places a note in the docket that it has received it.
If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information, it
is treated as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5
U.S.C. 552) and such requests are processed under the DOT procedures
found in 49 CFR part 7.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://
www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make
sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number
of this rulemaking.
    You may access all documents the FAA considered in developing this
proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, from
the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in
paragraph (1).

 List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 93

    Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (air), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:

PART 93--SPECIAL AIR TRAFFIC RULES

    1. The authority citation for part 93 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40109, 40113, 44502,
44514, 44701, 44719, 46301.

Subpart C--[Removed and Reserved]

    2. Remove and reserve Subpart C.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 7, 2009.
Nan Shellabarger,
Director of Aviation Policy and Plans.
 [FR Doc. E9-11291 Filed 5-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 20, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 43149]
[FR Doc No: C1-2011-14479]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0131, FRL-9317-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of California; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan and
Interstate Transport Plan; Interference With Visibility Requirement

Correction

    In rule document 2011-14479, appearing on pages 34608-34611, in the
issue of June 14, 2011, make the following correction:
    On page 34608, in the second column, in the Environmental
Protection Agency document, the subject is corrected to appear as
above.

[FR Doc. C1-2011-14479 Filed 7-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


Annex F Questionnaire (one per chemical)

Chemical name

(as used by the POPs Review Committee (POPRC))

Explanatory note:

1.	This chemical is undergoing a risk management evaluation. It has already satisfied the screening criteria set out in paragraph 4 (a) of Article 8 of the Convention.  A risk profile has also been completed for this chemical in accordance with paragraph 6 of Article 8 and with Annex E to the Convention.

Introductory information

Name of the submitting Party/observer

Contact details (name, telephone, e-mail) of the submitting Party/observer

Date of submission

Additional Annex E information

(i) Production data, including quantity and location

(ii) Uses

(iii) Releases, such as discharges, losses and emissions

Explanatory note:

2.	This information was requested for preparation of the risk profile in accordance with Annex E of the Convention. The POPRC would like to collect more information on these items. If you have additional or updated information, kindly provide it.

A. Efficacy and efficiency of possible control measures in meeting risk reduction goals (provide summary information and relevant references):

(i) Describe possible control measures

(ii) Technical feasibility

(iii) Costs, including environmental and health costs

Explanatory notes:

3.	If relevant, provide information on uses for which there may be no suitable alternative or for which the analysis of socio-economic factors justify the inclusion of an exemption when considering listing decisions under the Convention. Detail the negative impacts on society that could result if no exemption were permitted.

4.	 “Risk reduction goals” could refer to targets or goals to reduce or eliminate releases from intentional production and use, unintentional production, stockpiles, wastes, and to reduce or avoid risks associated with long-range environment transport.

5.	Provide the costs and benefits of implementing the control measure, including environmental and health costs and benefits.

6.	Where relevant and possible “costs” should be expressed in US dollars per year.

B. Alternatives (products and processes) (provide summary information and relevant references):

(i) Describe alternatives

(ii) Technical feasibility

(iii) Costs, including environmental and health costs

(iv) Efficacy

(v) Risk

(vi) Availability

(vii) Accessibility

Explanatory notes:

7.	Provide a brief description of the alternative product or process and, if appropriate, the sector(s), use(s) or user(s) for which it would be relevant.

8.	If several alternatives could be envisaged for the chemical under consideration, including non-chemical alternatives, provide information under this section for each alternative.

9.	Specify for each proposed alternative whether it has actually been implemented (and give details), whether it has only reached the trial stage (again, with details) or whether it is just a proposal.

10.	The evaluation of the efficacy should include any information on the performance, benefits, costs, and limitations of potential alternatives.

11.	Specify if the information provided is connected to the specific needs and circumstances of developing countries.

12.	The evaluation of the risk of the alternative should include any information on whether the proposed alternative has been thoroughly tested or evaluated in order to avoid inadvertently increasing risks to human health and the environment. The evaluation should include any information on potential risks associated with untested alternatives and any increased risk over the life-cycle of the alternative, including manufacture, distribution, use, maintenance and disposal.

13.	If the alternative has not been tried or tested, information on projected impacts may also be useful.

14.	Information or comments on improving the availability and accessibility of alternatives may also be useful.

C. Positive and/or negative impacts on society of implementing possible control measures  (provide summary information and relevant references):

(i) Health, including public, environmental and occupational health

(ii) Agriculture, including aquaculture and forestry

(iii) Biota (biodiversity)

(iv) Economic aspects

(v) Movement towards sustainable development

(vi) Social costs

Explanatory notes:

15.	Socio-economic considerations could include:

Any information on the impact (if any), costs and benefits to the local, national and regional economy, including the manufacturing sector and industrial and other users (e.g., capital costs and benefits associated with the transition to the alternatives); and impacts on agriculture and forestry;

Any information on the impact (if any) on the wider society, associated with the transition to alternatives, including the negative and positive impacts on public, environmental, and occupational health. Consideration should also be given to the positive and negative impacts on the natural environment and biodiversity.

Information should be provided on how control measures fit within national sustainable development strategies and plans.

D. Waste and disposal implications (in particular, obsolete stocks of pesticides and clean-up of contaminated sites) (provide summary information and relevant references):

(i) Technical feasibility

(ii) Costs

Explanatory note:

16.	Specify if the information provided is connected to the specific needs and circumstances of developing countries.

E. Access to information and public education  (provide summary information and relevant references):

Explanatory note:

17.	Please provide details here of access to information and public education with respect to both control measures and alternatives.

F. Status of control and monitoring capacity (provide summary information and relevant references):

Explanatory note:

18.	With regard to control capacity, the information required is on legislative and institutional frameworks for the chemical under consideration and their enforcement. With regard to monitoring capacity, the information required is on the technical and institutional infrastructure for the environmental monitoring and biomonitoring of the chemical under consideration, not monitoring capacity for alternatives.

G. Any national or regional control actions already taken, including information on alternatives, and other relevant risk management information:

Explanatory notes:

19.	Actions or measures taken could include prohibitions, phase-outs, restrictions, cleanup of contaminated sites, waste disposal, economic incentives, and other non-legally binding initiatives.

20.	Information could include details on whether these control actions have been cost-effective in providing the desired benefits and have had a measurable impact on reducing levels in the environment and contributed to risk reduction.

H. Other relevant information for the risk management evaluation:

Explanatory notes:

21.	The above list of items is only indicative. Any other relevant information for the risk management evaluation should also be provided.

I. Other information requested by the POPRC:

[Note to the Secretariat]

___________________


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17471-17472]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07400]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1475]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice lists communities where the addition or
modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard
determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and
where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS)
reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for
each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical
data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have
been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through
issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Title
44, Part 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR part 65). The
LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate
appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the
contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently
effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used
for all new policies and renewals.

DATES: These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the
dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS
report in effect prior to this determination for the listed
communities.
    From the date of the second publication of notification of these
changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in
which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate
Administrator for Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard
determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.

ADDRESSES: The affected communities are listed in the table below.
Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of
the community as listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The specific flood hazard determinations are
not described for each community in this notice. However, the online
location and local community map repository address where the flood
hazard determination information is available for inspection is
provided.
    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must
be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed
in the table below.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR

60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed
to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are
more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The
community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or
pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional
entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR
65.4.
    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood
hazard determination information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

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

    Dated: February 23, 2015.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Online location of
        State and county          Location and case  Chief executive officer    Community map        letter of map       Effective date of    Community
                                         No.               of community           repository           revision            modification          No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas: Ellis...................  City of Grand       The Honorable Ron        Engineering        http://               Apr. 16, 2015.......       485472
                                  Prairie (14-06-     Jensen, Mayor, City of   Department, 206    www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  4417P).             Grand Prairie, P.O.      West Church        lomc.
                                                      Box 534045, Grand        Street, Grand
                                                      Prairie, TX 75053.       Prairie, TX
                                                                               75050.
    Ellis......................  City of Midlothian  The Honorable Bill       City Hall, 104     http://               Apr. 16, 2015.......       480801
                                  (14-06-2291P).      Houston, Mayor, City     West Avenue E,     www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      of Midlothian, 104       Midlothian, TX     lomc.
                                                      West Avenue E,           76065.
                                                      Midlothian, TX 76065.
    Ellis......................  City of Midlothian  The Honorable Bill       City Hall, 104     http://               Apr. 16, 2015.......       480801
                                  (14-06-4417P).      Houston, Mayor, City     West Avenue E,     www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      of Midlothian, 104       Midlothian, TX     lomc.
                                                      West Avenue E,           76065.
                                                      Midlothian, TX 76065.
    Ellis......................  Unincorporated      The Honorable Carol      Ellis County       http://               Apr. 16, 2015.......       480798
                                  areas of Ellis      Bush, Ellis County       Courthouse, 101    www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (14-06-      Judge, 101 West Main     West Main          lomc.
                                  4417P).             Street, Waxahachie, TX   Street,
                                                      75165.                   Waxahachie, TX
                                                                               75165.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-07400 Filed 3-31-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 155 (Thursday, August 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53139-53140]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19080]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-7972-000]

Cushnie, Colin E.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on July 29, 2016, Colin E. Cushnie submitted for
filing, an application for authority to hold interlocking positions,
pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d(b)
and part 45 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR part 45.2(c).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of 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 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables subscribers to
receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 19, 2016.

    Dated: August 1, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-19080 Filed 8-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 26545]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10258]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-1398-001]

Provision Power & Gas, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Provision Power & Gas, LLC`s application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is May 16, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 26, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-10258 Filed 5-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 41132]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16538]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, July
10, 2013 at 10:00 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002.
    The subject matters of the Open Meeting will be:
     The Commission will consider whether to adopt amendments
to eliminate the prohibition against general solicitation and general
advertising in certain securities offerings conducted pursuant to Rule
506 of Regulation D under the Securities Act and Rule 144A under the
Securities Act, as mandated by Section 201(a) of the Jumpstart Our
Business Startups Act.
     The Commission will consider whether to propose amendments
to Regulation D, Form D and Rule 156 under the Securities Act. The
proposed amendments are intended to enhance the Commission's ability to
evaluate changes in the market and to address the development of
practices in Rule 506 offerings.
     The Commission will consider whether to adopt amendments
to disqualify securities offerings involving certain ``felons and other
`bad actors''' from reliance on the exemption from Securities Act
registration pursuant to Rule 506 as mandated by Section 926 of the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 3, 2013.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-16538 Filed 7-5-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 174)]
[Notices]
[Page 54942-54943]
[DOCID:fr09se10-134]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a New Approval of Information Collection: NOTAM
Realignment User Survey

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval for a new information collection.
In accordance with FAA Order JO 1030.4, ATO SysOps Services SMS
Oversight, the FAA ATO System Operations Management, Safety Assurance
Group (SAG) is conducting a comprehensive assessment of the Notice to
Airmen (NOTAM) Realignment Phase 1 (NRP-1) process to determine if
unacceptable hazards exist within the National Airspace System (NAS).
Essential to the assessment is a survey of airline and corporate pilots
and dispatchers as well as airport operators and general aviation
pilots. The SAG survey will be compared with results of a similar
survey conducted in 2008 by the FAA Office of Safety (AJS).

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by November 8, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Scott on<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB Control Number: 2120-XXXX .
    Title: NOTAM Realignment User Survey.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Clearance of a new information collection.
    Background: Results of the SOSM SAG NOTAM Realignment Phase 1 (NRP-
1) Assessment will be used to establish the status of identified
hazards and ensure no new hazards have been introduced into the NAS. In
addition to on-site visits, the SOSM SAG audit team has prepared three
surveys mirroring those sent by the Safety Support and Independent
Assessment (SSIA) as part of an investigation conducted in 2008. One
survey is directed externally to general aviation pilots, airport
operations staff and airline pilots and dispatchers. This Paperwork
Reduction Act submission only concerns the external survey directed to
users of the National Airspace System (NAS).

    Respondents: 150,607 users of the National Airspace System.
    Frequency: This information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 7 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 881 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla
Scott, Room 712, Federal Aviation Administration, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200, 800 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20591.
    Public comments invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC on September 2, 2010.
Carla Scott,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2010-22554 Filed 9-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 58395]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23853]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3424-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2019-0001]

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; Emergency and
Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an
emergency for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (FEMA-
3424-EM), dated October 7, 2019, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued October 7, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated October 7, 2019, the President issued an emergency declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as
follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands resulting from Typhoon
Hagibis beginning on October 7, 2019, and continuing, are of
sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (``the Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such an emergency exists in the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
    You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for
required emergency measures, authorized under title V of the
Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public
health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a
catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are
authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures
(Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are
hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these
purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency
assistance and administrative expenses.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department
of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Teresa
Serata, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this declared emergency.
    The following areas of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands have been designated as adversely affected by this declared
emergency:

    The municipalities of Rota, Saipan, Tinian, and the Northern
Islands for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to
direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-23853 Filed 10-30-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: October 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 200)]
[Notices]
[Page 63878-63880]
[DOCID:fr18oc10-116]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63082; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-130]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Self-Regulatory Organizations;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by
NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Relating to PIXL Fees

October 13, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 29, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to add pricing
applicable to members utilizing the Exchange's

price improvement mechanism known as Price Improvement XL or
(PIXL\SM\).
    While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative upon the approval and effectiveness of SR-Phlx-2010-108.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ SR-Phlx-2010-108 is a proposal to adopt Rule 1080(n) to
establish a price-improvement mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to assess fees for
orders known as PIXL Orders \4\ and Initiating Orders \5\ according to
the following categories: Customers, Directed Participants,\6\
Specialists,\7\ Streaming Quote Traders (``SQT''),\8\ Remote Streaming
Quote Traders (``RSQT''),\9\ Firms and Broker-Dealers. All options
traded on the Exchange are eligible for PIXL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``A member may electronically submit for execution an order
it represents as agent on behalf of a public customer, broker-
dealer, or any other entity (``PIXL Order'') against principal
interest or against any other order (except as provided in sub-
paragraph (n)(i)(E) below) it represents as agent (``Initiating
Order'') provided it submits the PIXL order for electronic execution
into the PIXL Auction (``Auction'') pursuant to Rule 1080. See
Exchange Rule 1080(n) as proposed in SR-Phlx-2010-108.
    \5\ See footnote 4.
    \6\ See Exchange Rule 1080(l), ``* * * The term `Directed
Specialist, RSQT, or SQT' means a specialist, RSQT, or SQT that
receives a Directed Order.'' A Directed Participant has a higher
quoting requirement as compared with a specialist, SQT or RSQT who
is not acting as a Directed Participant. See Exchange Rule 1014.
    \7\ A Specialist is an Exchange member who is registered as an
options specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a).
    \8\ A Streaming Quote Trader is defined in Exchange Rule
1014(b)(ii)(A) as an ROT who has received permission from the
Exchange to generate and submit option quotations electronically
through AUTOM in eligible options to which such SQT is assigned.
    \9\ A Remote Streaming Quote Trader is defined Exchange Rule in
1014(b)(ii)(B) as an ROT that is a member or member organization
with no physical trading floor presence who has received permission
from the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations
electronically through AUTOM in eligible options to which such RSQT
has been assigned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiating Order Trades Against the PIXL Order

    The Exchange proposes to assess a fee of $0.05 per contract when an
Initiating Order executes against a PIXL Order in the symbols listed in
Section I, the Fees and Rebates for Adding and Removing Liquidity in
Select Symbols \10\ (known as ``Select Symbols''), and the symbols
defined in Section II \11\ (``Section II Symbols''). The Exchange
proposes to only assess the fees listed in Section II of the Fee
Schedule for the PIXL Order when the PIXL Order trades against the
Initiating Order in Section II Symbols and the Select Symbols. For
example, a member or member organization would be assessed $0.00 for
Customer transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Fees and Rebates for Adding and Removing Liquidity in
Select Symbols are listed in Section I of the Fee Schedule.
    \11\ An equity option includes exchange-traded fund share
(``ETF''), Holding Company Depositary Receipt (``HOLDR''), Russell
2000(R) Index (the ``Full Value Russell Index'' or ``RUT''), options
on the one-tenth value Russell 2000[supreg] Index (the ``Reduced
Value Russell Index'' or ``RMN''), options on the Nasdaq 100 Index
traded under the symbol NDX (``NDX'') and options on the one-tenth
value of the Nasdaq 100 Index traded under the symbol MNX (``MNX'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the symbols assessed according to Section III \12\ of the Fee
Schedule, titled Sector Index Options Fees and U.S Dollar-Settled
Foreign Currency (``WCO'') Options Fees, the transaction fees described
in Section III would apply to both the Initiating Order and the PIXL
Order for all executions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The symbols assessed fees according to Section III are BKX,
FPX, HGX, OSX, SOX, UTY, and XAU (``Sector Index Options'') and U.S.
Dollar-Settled Foreign Currency Options (``WCOs'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PIXL Order Fees When the PIXL Order Does Not Trade Against the
Initiating Order Select Symbols

Select Symbols: Section I

    With respect to executions in Select Symbols, where the PIXL Order
is not trading against the Initiating Order, the PIXL Order would be
assessed the Fee for Removing Liquidity when that order is executed
against a resting contra-side order or quote that was present upon
initial receipt of the PIXL Order. The resting contra-side order or
quote would receive the Rebate for Adding Liquidity. Additionally, the
PIXL Order would receive the Rebate for Adding Liquidity when that
order is executed against contra-side order(s) that respond to the PIXL
auction broadcast message, as well as when executed against contra-side
quotes and unrelated orders on the PHLX book that arrived after the
PIXL auction was initiated. The PIXL auction responders, contra-side
order(s) and quote(s) would be assessed the Fee for Removing Liquidity.
    For the symbols assessed according to Section III of the Fee
Schedule, titled Sector Index Options Fees and U.S Dollar-Settled
Foreign Currency (``WCO'') Options Fees, the transaction fees described
in Section III would apply to both the Initiating Order and the PIXL
Order for all executions.

Equity Options: Section II

    With respect to executions in Section II Equity Options,\13\ the
PIXL Order would be assessed the appropriate Equity Option Fee in
Section II of the Fee Schedule. The contra-side order or quote would be
assessed the appropriate Equity Option Fee listed on the Fee Schedule
as well. All other Equity Options Fees in Section II would apply as
appropriate, including but not limited to Payment for Order Flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This includes all Symbols that are not specifically Select
Symbols as listed in Section I of the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange is proposing to relocate the Flex Equity
Option Fees from Section IV, FLEX Equity Options, of the Fee Schedule
to Section II, Equity Options, and consolidate those fee with other
Equity Option Fees for the sake of clarity. Section IV will now contain
the proposed PIXL fees and is proposed to be titled ``PIXL Pricing.''
    While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative upon the approval and effectiveness of SR-Phlx-2010-108.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ SR-Phlx-2010-108 is a proposal to adopt Rule 1080(n) to
establish a price-improvement mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \15\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \16\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members. The Exchange believes that
the fee proposal

is both equitable and reasonable for the reasons listed hereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed fees are consistent with the equitable price
differentials that exist today at all option exchanges. For example,
the fees and rebates assessed by the Exchange are similar, and in some
cases less than, the fees and rebates assessed by the Boston Options
Exchange Group, LLC (``BOX'') \17\ and the International Securities
Exchange (``ISE'') \18\ for orders executed in a price improvement
mechanism. For example a BOX participant could be assessed total fees
of $0.35 per contract as the price improvement period (``PIP'')
initiator and receive a rebate for their customer PIP order of $0.25
per contract (in this example the net fee charged the BOX participant
would be $0.10), whereas the PIP responder could be assessed a fee of
$0.50 per contract. This is a differential of $0.40 per contract
between two BOX participants for participating in the PIP auction,
which is equal to or less than the differentials that exist in the
Exchange's proposal. With respect to ISE, the Exchange pays a rebate
for certain PIXL executions, which is similar to the $0.15 rebate ISE
pays for its price improvement mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 62632 (August
3, 2010), 75 FR 47869 (August 3, 2010) (SR-BX-2010-049).
    \18\ See the ISE schedule of fee as of August 2, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates in a fiercely competitive market place in
which Exchange members and member organizations are highly
sophisticated and highly knowledgeable. As is the case, members and
member organizations readily and swiftly direct order flow or post
liquidity to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular
options exchange to be excessive, unfair or unreasonable. The Exchange
believes the proposal is an equitable allocation of fees and not
unfairly discriminatory for the reasons stated above.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\19\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2010-130 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-130. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission,\20\ all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on
official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies
of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-Phlx-2010-130 and should be submitted on or before
November 8, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-26175 Filed 10-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P