[Federal Register: September 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 183)]
[Notices]
[Page 48556-48558]
[DOCID:fr23se09-65]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0538; FRL-8434-7]

Notice of Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for Residues of
Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the Agency's receipt of an initial
filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 23, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0538 and the pesticide petition number
(PP), by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal:  http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2009-0538 and the pesticide petition number (PP). EPA's policy is that
all comments

received will be included in the docket without change and may be made
available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit
an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk
or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anna Gross, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

     1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
     2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is announcing receipt of a pesticide petition filed under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or modification of regulations
in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various
food commodities. EPA has determined that the pesticide petition
described in this notice contains data or information prescribed in
FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the
sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
supports granting of the pesticide petition. Additional data may be
needed before EPA can make a final determination on this pesticide
petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition that is the
subject of this notice, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a
docket EPA has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this
petition is available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), (21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3)),
EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of

regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities.
Further information on the petition may be obtained through the
petition summary referenced in this unit.
     PP 9E7552. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers
University, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540, on
behalf of OmniLytics, 5450 W. Wiley Post Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84116,
proposes to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
for residues of the microbial pesticide, Bacteriophage of Clavibacter
michiganensis subsp. michiganensis, in or on tomato. The petitioner
believes no analytical method is needed because there is a long history
of mammalian consumption of phages in food without causing any known
deleterious human health effects or any evidence of toxicity. Phage-
infected plants are part of the human diet and there have been no
findings which indicate that phages are able to replicate in mammals or
other verebrates, thereby eliminating the possibility of human
infection.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: September 9, 2009.
Keith Matthews,
Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E9-22807 Filed 9-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33531-33535]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13652]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67090; File Nos. SR-BATS-2011-038; SR-BYX-2011-025; SR-
BX-2011-068; SR-CBOE-2011-087; SR-C2-2011-024; SR-CHX-2011-30; SR-EDGA-
2011-31; SR-EDGX-2011-30; SR-FINRA-2011-054; SR-ISE-2011-61; SR-NASDAQ-
2011-131; SR-NSX-2011-11; SR-NYSE-2011-48; SR-NYSEAmex-2011-73; SR-
NYSEArca-2011-68; SR-Phlx-2011-129]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; BATS Y-
Exchange, Inc.; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Chicago Stock
Exchange, Inc.; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; International Securities Exchange
LLC; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE
Amex LLC; NYSE Arca, Inc.; National Stock Exchange, Inc.; NASDAQ OMX
PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendments No. 1 and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Changes as Modified by Amendments
No. 1, Relating to Trading Halts Due to Extraordinary Market Volatility

May 31, 2012.
    On September 27, 2011, each of BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS''), BATS
Y-Exchange, Inc. (``BYX''), NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX''), Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''), C2 Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``C2''), Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX''), EDGA
Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA''), EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX''),
International Securities Exchange LLC (``ISE''), The NASDAQ Stock
Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), National Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NSX''), New
York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex''), NYSE
Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'')
(collectively, the ``Exchanges'') and the Financial Regulatory Industry
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') (together, with the Exchanges, the
``SROs'') 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\
proposed rule changes (the ``SRO Proposals'') to amend certain of their
respective rules relating to trading halts due to extraordinary market
volatility. The SRO Proposals were published for comment in the Federal
Register on October 4, 2011.\3\ The Commission received seven comment
letters on the SRO Proposals.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 65437 (September
28, 2011), 76 FR 61466 (October 4, 2011); 65428 (September 28,
2011), 76 FR 61453 (October 4, 2011); 65429 (September 28, 2011), 76
FR 61432 (October 4, 2011); 65433 (September 28, 2011), 76 FR 61453
(October 4, 2011); 65438 (September 28, 2011), 76 FR 61447 (October
4, 2011); 65426 (September 28, 2011), 76 FR 61460 (October 4, 2011);
65431 (September 28, 2011), 76 FR 61425 (May 12, 2011); 65440
(September 28, 2011), 76 FR 61444 (October 4, 2011); 65430
(September 28, 2011), 76 FR 61429 (October 4, 2011); 65425
(September 28, 2011), 76 FR 61438 (October 4, 2011); 65435 (May 6,
2011), 76 FR 61416 (October 4, 2011); 65436 (September 28, 2011), 76
FR 61450 (October 4, 2011); 65427 (September 28, 2011), 76 FR 61457
(October 4, 2011); 65432 (September 28, 2011), 76 FR 61422 (October
4, 2011); 65439 (September 28, 2011), 76 FR 61463 (October 4, 2011);
65434 (September 28, 2011), 76 FR 61419 (October 4, 2011)
(collectively, the ``Notices'').
    \4\ See letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Ann L. Vlcek, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel,
the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, dated
October 27, 2011 (``SIFMA Letter I''); letter to Commission, from
James J. Angel, Ph.D., CFA, Associate Professor of Finance,
Georgetown University, McDonough School of Business, dated October
25, 2011 (``Angel Letter''); letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Commission, from Craig S. Donohue, CME Group, Inc., dated
October 25, 2011 (``CME Group Letter I''); letter to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, from Commissioner Bart Chilton,
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, dated October 25, 2011
(``Commissioner Chilton Letter''); letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Commission, from Richard H. Baker, President and CEO,
Managed Funds Association, dated October 25, 2011 (``MFA Letter'');
letter to Commission from Suzanne H. Shatto, dated October 20, 2011
(``Shatto Letter''); letter to Commission from Mark Roszak, dated
October 4, 2011 (``Roszak Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 17, 2011, the Commission extended the time period in
which to approve the SRO Proposals, disapprove the SRO Proposals, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the SRO
Proposals, to December 30, 2011.\5\ On December 28, 2011, the
Commission instituted proceedings to determine whether to disapprove
the SRO Proposals.\6\ The Commission thereafter received an additional
three comment letters on the SRO Proposals.\7\ On May 10, 2012, NYSE
Euronext, on behalf of the three U.S. exchanges it operates, NYSE, NYSE
Amex, and NYSE Arca, filed a response to comments (the
``Response'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65770 (November 17,
2011), 76 FR 72492 (November 23, 2011).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66065 (December 28,
2011), 77 FR 316 (January 4, 2012).
    \7\ See letters to Elizabeth Murphy, Secretary, Commission, from
Timothy Quast, Managing Director, ModernIR, dated January 20, 2012
(``ModernIR Letter''); Craig S. Donohue, Chief Executive Officer,
CME Group, Inc., dated January 25, 2012 (``CME Group Letter II''),
and Ann L. Vlcek, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel,
the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, dated
February 7, 2012 (``SIFMA Letter II'').
    \8\ See letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Janet McGinness, EVP & Corporate Secretary, General Counsel,
NYSE Markets, dated May 10, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 23, 2012 and May 24, 2012, the SROs each submitted Amendment
No. 1 to their respective proposed rule change (the ``Amendments''). In
the Amendments, the SROs propose to make the SRO Proposals operative on
a pilot basis scheduled to end on the same date that the pilot period
for the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan (as defined below) ends.\9\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the SRO
Proposals, as modified by the Amendments, from interested persons and
is approving the SRO Proposals, as modified by the Amendments, on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., SR-NYSE-2011-48, Amendment No. 1. The text of
proposed Amendment No. 1 is available on the NYSE's Web site at
http://www.nyse.com, at the principal office of NYSE and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposals

    In the SRO Proposals, the Exchanges and FINRA propose to revise the
existing market-wide circuit breakers, which halt trading in all NMS
securities (as defined in Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS under the
Act \10\) in the event of extraordinary market volatility, in order to
make them more meaningful in today's high-speed electronic

markets. In so doing, the exchanges took into account the events of May
6, 2010, where the markets experienced excessive volatility in a short
period of time, as well as the recommendations of the Joint CFTC-SEC
Advisory Committee on Emerging Regulatory Issues (the ``Joint CFTC-SEC
Advisory Committee'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 242.600(b)(47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The existing market-wide circuit breakers provide for specified
trading halts following certain ``Level 1,'' ``Level 2,'' and ``Level
3'' market declines.\11\ The values of Levels 1, 2, and 3 are
calculated at the beginning of each calendar quarter, using 10%, 20%,
and 30%, respectively, of the average closing value of the Dow Jones
Industrial Average (``DJIA'') for the month prior to the beginning of
the quarter.\12\ The existing Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 circuit
breakers operate as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., NYSE Rule 80B.
    \12\ Each percentage calculation is rounded to the nearest 50
points and remains in effect until the next quarterly calculation.

Level 1 Halt
    Before 2:00 p.m.--one hour;
    At or after 2:00 p.m. but before 2:30 p.m.--30 minutes;
    At or after 2:30 p.m.--trading shall continue, unless there is a
Level 2 Halt.
Level 2 Halt
    Before 1:00 p.m.--two hours;
    At or after 1:00 p.m. but before 2:00 p.m.--one hour;
    At or after 2:00 p.m.--trading shall halt and not resume for the
rest of the day.
Level 3 Halt
    At any time--trading shall halt and not resume for the rest of
the day.

    As described in detail in the Notices, the SRO Proposals, among
other things, would: (i) Replace the DJIA with the S&P 500[supreg]
Index (``S&P 500'') as the reference index; (ii) recalculate the
values of the triggers daily instead of each calendar quarter; (iii)
reduce the 10%, 20%, and 30% market decline trigger percentages to
7%, 13%, and 20%; (iv) shorten the length of the trading halts
associated with each market decline level; and (v) modify the times
when a trading halt may be triggered. The proposed Level 1, Level 2,
and Level 3 circuit breakers would operate as follows:

Level 1 Halt
    Before 3:25 p.m.--15 minutes;
    At or after 3:25 p.m.--trading shall continue, unless there is a
Level 3 halt.
Level 2 Halt
    Before 3:25 p.m.--15 minutes;
    At or after 3:25 p.m.--trading shall continue, unless there is a
Level 3 halt.
Level 3 Halt
    At any time--trading shall halt and not resume for the rest of
the day.

II. Limit Up-Limit Down Plan

    Separately, certain equities exchanges \13\ and FINRA have proposed
to establish a new mechanism to address extraordinary market volatility
in individual securities, pursuant to a national market system plan
filed under Rule 608 of Regulation NMS (the National Market System Plan
to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility, or, the ``Limit Up-Limit
Down Plan'').\14\ The new Limit Up-Limit Down Plan, which would replace
the existing single-stock circuit breaker mechanism,\15\ would prevent
trades in individual securities from occurring outside of a specified
price band, and would be coupled with a trading pause mechanism to
accommodate more fundamental price moves. In essence, a security would
enter a ``limit state'' if its price moves a certain percentage--
generally 5%, 10% or 20%, depending on the stock and the time of day--
over a five-minute period. If the market does not naturally exit the
limit state within 15 seconds, there would be a five-minute trading
pause. The Commission also is approving today the Limit Up-Limit Down
Plan on a pilot basis.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ These exchanges are BATS, BX, BYX, CBOE, CHX, EDGA, EDGX,
Nasdaq, NSX, NYSE, NYSE MKT LLC (f/k/a NYSE Amex LLC), NYSE Arca,
and Phlx.
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64547 (May 25,
2011), 76 FR 31647 (June 1, 2011).
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64735 (June 23,
2011), 76 FR 38243 (June 29, 2011) (order approving the current
single-stock circuit breaker mechanism). The single-stock circuit
breaker mechanism, which was approved as a pilot program, is
currently scheduled to expire on July 31, 2012. See e.g., Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 66136 (January 11, 2012), 77 FR 2589
(January 18, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2011-69).
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012) (File No. 4-631).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed below, the Commission, in the Notices for the SRO
Proposals, specifically requested comment on how the proposed changes
to the market-wide circuit breakers would interact with the Limit Up-
Limit Down Plan for individual securities, if approved, and several
commenters expressed views on this issue.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Commissioner Chilton Letter, CME Group Letters I and
II, and SIFMA Letters I and II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments

    The Commission received ten comment letters from eight commenters
on the SRO Proposals.\18\ The commenters generally supported the
proposals and their goals, but several expressed concern with
particular provisions or offered alternative suggestions.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra notes 4 and 7.
    \19\ See SIFMA Letters I and II, MFA Letter, CME Group Letter I,
Angel Letter, and Shatto Letter. Some commenters suggested the
Commission instead focus on other market structure changes; those
changes are outside the scope of the SRO Proposals. See Modern IR
Letter (suggesting the Commission suspend core trading rules in the
event of extraordinary volatility) and Roszak Letter (suggesting the
Commission more vigorously regulate high-frequency traders such as
by limiting connection speeds).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters expressed concern that the Level 2 circuit breaker
would not apply after 3:25 p.m.\20\ As explained in the Notices, the
SROs adopted this approach to avoid disrupting the normal 4:00 p.m.
market close. The Commission, however, specifically solicited comment
on whether some provision should be made to end the regular trading
session if a market decline suddenly occurs after 3:25 p.m., even if
the decline is less than 20%. Some commenters believed that the
proposal could leave the market vulnerable to a severe decline that
occurs late in the trading day, and instead suggested that a Level 2
circuit breaker triggered at or after 3:25 p.m. halt trading for the
remainder of the trading session.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See CME Group Letters I and II, Commissioner Chilton
Letter, MFA Letter, and SIFMA Letter II.
    \21\ See CME Group Letters I and II, MFA Letter, and SIFMA
Letter II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also specifically requested comment on how the
proposed changes would interact with the single-stock circuit breaker
pilot program or, if approved, the proposed Limit Up-Limit Down Plan
for individual securities. The Commission further asked whether the
market-wide circuit breaker should be triggered if a sufficient number
of single-stock circuit breakers or price limits were triggered. One
commenter believed that the market-wide circuit breaker should be
triggered if a sufficient number of single-stock circuit breakers or
price limits were triggered, given the potential difficulties of
accurately calculating the value of the S&P 500 Index in such
circumstances.\22\ This commenter made some suggestions for this
additional trigger, and encouraged Commission staff to assess empirical
data to develop appropriate parameters in this area.\23\ Two other
commenters also expressed

concern about the interaction of market-wide circuit breakers and
single-stock circuit breakers, and the effect that might have on index
calculations, particularly in macro-market events.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See SIFMA Letters I and II. SIFMA also believed it was
critical to coordinate the market-wide circuit breakers with the
options and futures markets. The Commission notes that the SRO
Proposals have been developed in consultation with the options and
futures markets. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No.
65427, 76 FR at 61458.
    \23\ See SIFMA Letter II. For example, SIFMA suggested that
there be an additional market-wide circuit breaker trigger when both
(1) 5% (or 25) of the securities in the S&P 500 are in a limit down
state or halted and (2) 10% of the market weighting of the SPX is in
a limit down state or halted. As a simpler alternative, SIFMA also
suggested there be an additional trigger if 10% of the securities in
the S&P 100 are in a limit state or halted.
    \24\ See CME Group Letters I and II and Commissioner Chilton
Letter. CME Group noted, among other things, that in a macro-market
event, multiple constituent stocks in the S&P 500 index could be
limited, halted, and reopened on staggered timelines, creating
complexity and confusion in understanding the index calculation and
in ascertaining the true value of the index. CME Group Letter I at
3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters also expressed views on how market centers should
treat pending orders in the event a market-wide circuit breaker is
triggered. One commenter believed that orders pending with a market
center at the time of a Level 1 or Level 2 circuit breaker should
remain queued by the market center during the halt and be eligible for
execution after the halt.\25\ However, in the event of a Level 3
circuit breaker, that commenter was of the view that all pending orders
should be cancelled, since trading will cease for the remainder of the
day. The commenter reiterated these views in its subsequent comment
letter.\26\ Another commenter generally took the position that the SROs
should not cancel pending orders during a trading halt, in order to
preserve the queue priority of market participants.\27\ These views
were restated by the same commenter in its subsequent comment
letter.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See SIFMA Letter I.
    \26\ See SIFMA Letter II.
    \27\ See CME Group Letter I.
    \28\ See CME Group Letter II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also sought comment on whether a provision should be
made for a closing auction in the event of a Level 3 circuit breaker
decline. One commenter responded that allowing a closing auction under
these extreme circumstances would risk greater market dislocations, and
therefore was unadvisable,\29\ but others believed there should be a
closing process so that, among other things, options market
participants can unwind hedges and mutual fund prices can be properly
determined.\30\ Another commenter recommended that the markets hold an
end-of-day closing auction if the triggering of a Level 2 or Level 3
circuit breaker precluded a normal 4:00 p.m. close.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See CME Group Letter I.
    \30\ See SIFMA Letter II and Angel Letter.
    \31\ See SIMFA Letter II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also sought comment on whether the primary market
should have a longer period (e.g. 30 minutes) to re-open trading
following a Level 2 circuit breaker decline. One commenter responded
that trading halts should be as short as operationally practicable, and
was of the view that the 15-minute trading halt remained appropriate in
this circumstance.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See CME Group Letter I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, commenters offered several other specific suggestions with
respect to the SRO Proposals. Two commenters suggested that the market-
wide circuit breakers apply after hours.\33\ One believed the trigger
thresholds should be recalculated weekly rather than daily as
proposed.\34\ Another commenter offered a variety of additional
recommendations, including triggering the circuit breakers in the event
of material issues with market data integrity or disruptions,
triggering the circuit breakers based on opening prices rather than the
previous day's close and using a velocity-based mechanism similar to
the single-stock circuit breakers, maintaining the Level 1 circuit
breaker at 10%, and not having a Level 3 circuit breaker close the
markets for the remainder of the day.\35\ Two commenters stressed the
need to coordinate the market-wide circuit breakers with the futures
markets.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See CME Group Letter I and Chilton Letter.
    \34\ See CME Group I Letter.
    \35\ See Angel Letter.
    \36\ See SIFMA Letters I and II and CME Group Letter I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Response addressed the main issues the commenters raised. With
respect to the relationship between the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan and
the market-wide circuit breakers, and specifically the suggestion that
a market-wide trading halt be declared if a sufficient number of
single-stock trading pauses or price limits were triggered, the
Response argued that attempting to identify the appropriate correlation
between individual securities in a trading pause or limit state and a
related trigger for a market-wide circuit breaker at this stage is
premature. Instead, the Response urged that the Commission use the
pilot periods for both the SRO Proposals and Limit Up-Limit Down Plan
to examine data and develop a better understanding of how the Limit Up-
Limit Down Plan will operate in practice before determining whether any
further revisions to the SRO Proposals should be made.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Response at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Response also addressed the suggestions by certain commenters
that provision be made for a trading halt other than a Level 3 halt
after 3:25 p.m. The Response recommended that the types of declines
that should trigger a halt after 3:25 p.m. should continue to be
explored during the pilot period, but that the SRO Proposals should be
approved in their current form.\38\ The Response expressed particular
concern that a 15-minute market-wide halt after 3:25 p.m. would be
disruptive to the fair and orderly closing of the markets at 4:00 p.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the SRO Proposals, as modified by the
Amendments, and consideration of the comment letters and the Response,
the Commission finds that the SRO Proposals relating to trading halts
due to extraordinary market volatility are consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange and national securities
association and, in particular, the requirements of Sections 6 \39\ and
15A \40\ of the Act. Specifically, the Commission finds that the SRO
Proposals are consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) \41\ and 15A(b)(6) \42\
of the Act, which, among other things, require that rules of a national
securities exchange and national securities association 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 to protect investors and the public interest.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3.
    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \43\ Further, in approving the SRO Proposals, the Commission
considered the SRO Proposals' impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the SRO Proposals are reasonably
designed to update the existing market-wide circuit breakers to make
them more meaningful and effective in today's high-speed electronic
securities markets. The Exchanges and FINRA are amending, in a uniform
manner, their rules that halt trading in all NMS securities in the
event of extraordinary market volatility so that these circuit breakers
would, among other things, be triggered by a smaller market-wide
decline but last for a shorter period of time. In developing their
proposals, the SROs took into account the events of May 6, 2010--where
the markets experienced substantial volatility in a short period of
time but at a level insufficient to trigger the existing market-wide
circuit breakers--as well as the recommendations of the Joint CFTC-SEC
Advisory Committee.

    As discussed above, the SRO Proposals would reduce the market
decline percentage thresholds necessary to trigger a Level 1, 2, or 3
market-wide circuit breaker from 10%, 20% and 30% to 7%, 13% and 20%,
respectively. In light of the fact that the market-wide circuit
breakers were not triggered on May 6, 2010 when the markets experienced
extraordinary market volatility, the SROs are of the view that somewhat
lower percentage thresholds are appropriate so that the market-wide
circuit breakers are more meaningful. However, given the highly-
automated nature of today's markets and improvements in communication
and connectivity, the SROs believe that a trading halt of shorter
duration--15 minutes--would be sufficient to allow market participants
an opportunity to assess a serious market decline and express their
trading interest, with less disruption to the markets than the existing
market-wide circuit breakers. The SROs also believe the broader-based
S&P 500 is a more meaningful benchmark against which to assess a
serious market-wide decline than the 30 listings that comprise the
DJIA, and seek to improve the calibration and sensitivity of the
circuit breaker mechanism by calculating the trigger values daily
rather than quarterly.
    Commenters generally supported these core elements of the SRO
Proposals, but several expressed concern about the interaction of the
updated market-wide circuit breakers with the mechanisms to moderate
excessive volatility in individual securities set forth in the proposed
Limit Up-Limit Down Plan. Concerns were expressed about the impact on
index calculations of a significant number of individual securities
being in a limit state or halted, and the effectiveness of the market-
wide circuit breakers. Some interest was expressed in establishing an
additional trigger for the market-wide circuit breakers if trading were
limited or halted in a sufficient number of individual securities, and
one commenter offered specific suggestions on how such a trigger might
be established. The Commission notes that, in the Amendments, the SROs
propose to establish the updated market-wide circuit breakers on a
pilot basis, so that further thought could be given to this issue--as
well as certain other issues raised by commenters--in light of the
markets' experience with the new Limit Up-Limit Down mechanism for
individual securities that is being approved today, and the further
comment the Commission is seeking from market participants in this
Order.
    Several commenters also expressed concern with the fact that the
SRO proposals only provide for a Level 3 circuit breaker after 3:25
p.m., so that the markets could experience up to a 20% decline during
this period, and suggested instead that the Level 2 circuit breaker
apply so as to leave the markets less vulnerable to a severe decline
late in the trading day. Although a 13% decline after 3:25 p.m. would
not halt trading under the SRO Proposals, the revised market-wide
circuit breaker rules do maintain the 20% threshold that is currently
in place as the minimum trigger level that would halt trading after
3:25 p.m. The Commission notes that it will continue to consider this
issue during the pilot period, and is specifically seeking further
comment from market participants on this issue.
    Suggestions also were made with respect to certain other technical
aspects of the SRO Proposals, such as providing for a closing auction
in the event of a Level 3 circuit breaker,\44\ applying the circuit
breakers after hours, creating an additional trigger if there are
material market data issues, and clarifying the treatment of pending
orders during a market-wide circuit breaker halt.\45\ The Response
recommended that the Commission use the pilot periods contemplated in
the SRO Proposals and Limit Up-Limit Down Plan to further consider all
the concerns raised by the commenters.\46\ The Commission will continue
to consider these issues during the pilot period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Certain commenters believed there should be a closing
process so that, among other things, options market participants can
unwind hedges and mutual fund prices can be properly determined.
    \45\ Commenters also provided input on the duration of the
trading halts, the application of market-wide circuit breakers in
after hours trading, the frequency in which the trigger thresholds
should be recalculated, the consideration of material issues with
market data integrity or disruptions, and the use of opening prices
rather than the previous day's close in calculating trigger
thresholds. See supra, pp. 9-10.
    \46\ See Response at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On balance, the Commission believes that the SRO Proposals are
reasonably designed to improve the operation of the market-wide circuit
breakers, in light of the changes to the trading markets since those
rules were last amended and the lessons learned from the extraordinary
volatility experienced on May 6, 2010. While the circuit breakers are
likely to be triggered more frequently than before, the Commission
believes this will continue to be a relatively rare event that is
designed to address severe market declines.\47\ In addition, the
updated market-wide circuit breakers should be less disruptive to the
markets, given their shorter duration, yet should still be able to
accomplish their goals given the significant advances in communication
and connectivity in recent years. The Commission, the SROs and market
participants will have an opportunity to further consider issues raised
by commenters with respect to certain aspects of the operation of the
updated circuit breakers during the pilot period, and will further
benefit from observing the operation of the Limit Up-Limit Down
mechanism for individual securities, which is being approved separately
by the Commission today, during that period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Data show that, since 1962, there would have been 13
instances where at least a Level 1 circuit breaker decline would
have been reached under the revised market-wide circuit breaker
thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the SRO
Proposals, as modified by the Amendments, are consistent with the Act.

V. Solicitation of Comments

    During the pilot period, the Commission encourages commenters to
provide additional comments on the issues raised by commenters
regarding certain aspects of the SRO Proposals or otherwise.
    The Commission specifically requests further comment on the
following:
     Should a Level 1 or Level 2 trigger result in a trading
halt after 3:25 p.m., or do the SRO Proposals' provisions that only a
Level 3 trigger will halt trading after 3:25 p.m. adequately balance
the need for an orderly close against the potential market disruptions
associated with absence of a Level 1 or Level 2 halt after 3:25 p.m.?
     Should the market-wide circuit breakers be triggered if
trading is limited or halted in a sufficient number of individual
securities and, if so, how should such additional trigger be designed?
What are the tradeoffs associated with such a trigger regarding
simplicity and the risk of unnecessary triggers?
     Should any other aspects of the market-wide circuit
breakers be modified in light of the experience with the new Limit Up-
Limit Down mechanism for individual securities?
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing. Commenters are encouraged to submit
empirical evidence to support their arguments. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Numbers SR-BATS-2011-038; SR-BYX-2011-025; SR-BX-2011-068; SR-
CBOE-2011-087; SR-C2-2011-024; SR-CHX-2011-30; SR-EDGA-2011-31; SR-
EDGX-2011-30; SR-FINRA-2011-054; SR-ISE-2011-61; SR-NASDAQ-2011-131;
SR-NSX-2011-11; SR-NYSE-2011-48; SR-NYSEAmex-2011-73; SR-NYSEArca-2011-
68; SR-Phlx-2011-129 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 Numbers SR-BATS-2011-038; SR-BYX-
2011-025; SR-BX-2011-068; SR-CBOE-2011-087; SR-C2-2011-024; SR-CHX-
2011-30; SR-EDGA-2011-31; SR-EDGX-2011-30; SR-FINRA-2011-054; SR-ISE-
2011-61; SR-NASDAQ-2011-131; SR-NSX-2011-11; SR-NYSE-2011-48; SR-
NYSEAmex-2011-73; SR-NYSEArca-2011-68; SR-Phlx-2011-129. These file
numbers should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filings also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the exchanges
and FINRA, respectively. 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 publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Numbers
SR-BATS-2011-038; SR-BYX-2011-025; SR-BX-2011-068; SR-CBOE-2011-087;
SR-C2-2011-024; SR-CHX-2011-30; SR-EDGA-2011-31; SR-EDGX-2011-30; SR-
FINRA-2011-054; SR-ISE-2011-61; SR-NASDAQ-2011-131; SR-NSX-2011-11; SR-
NYSE-2011-48; SR-NYSEAmex-2011-73; SR-NYSEArca-2011-68; SR-Phlx-2011-
129 and should be submitted on or before June 27, 2012.

VI. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by the
Amendments

    The Amendments revised the SRO Proposals to, among other things,
specify that the proposed rule change will be operative on a pilot
basis, beginning February 4, 2013, and continuing until February 4,
2014. The Amendments will allow the Commission, the SROs and market
participants to further consider, during the pilot period, issues
raised by commenters with respect to certain aspects of the SRO
Proposals, and to benefit from the experience with the Limit Up-Limit
Down mechanism for individual securities that also is being approved
today on a pilot basis. Such further consideration will allow the
Commission to consider whether modifications to the market-wide circuit
breakers are warranted prior to any decision as to whether to approve
them on a permanent basis. Accordingly, the Commission also finds good
cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\48\ for approving the
SRO Proposals, as modified by the Amendments, prior to the 30th day
after the date of publication of notice in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

VII. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\49\ that the proposed rule changes (SR-BATS-2011-038; SR-BYX-2011-
025; SR-BX-2011-068; SR-CBOE-2011-087; SR-C2-2011-024; SR-CHX-2011-30;
SR-EDGA-2011-31; SR-EDGX-2011-30; SR-FINRA-2011-054; SR-ISE-2011-61;
SR-NASDAQ-2011-131; SR-NSX-2011-11; SR-NYSE-2011-48; SR-NYSEAmex-2011-
73; SR-NYSEArca-2011-68; SR-Phlx-2011-129), as modified by the
Amendments, be, and hereby are, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-13652 Filed 6-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49318-49319]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19478]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No FAA-2013-0485]

Availability of Draft Advisory Circular (AC) 90-106A and AC 20-
167A

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Availability for Comment

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of draft Advisory
Circular (AC) 90-106A, Enhanced Flight Vision Systems and draft AC 20-
167A, Airworthiness Approval of Enhanced Vision System, Synthetic
Vision System, Combined Vision System, and Enhanced Flight Vision
System Equipment documents that were developed by the FAA. These
documents are available for public review, download, and comment.

DATES: Send comments on or before October 15, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2013-0485
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 (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA dockets, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
draft AC 90-106A, contact Terry King, Flight Technologies and
Procedures Division, AFS-400, Flight Standards Service, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
technical questions concerning draft AC 20-167A, contact Trent Prange,
Aircraft Engineering Division, AIR-100, Aircraft Certification Service,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal questions concerning this action
contact Paul G. Greer, Office of the Chief Counsel, Regulations
Division, AGC-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 11, 2013, the FAA published a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register titled Revisions
to Operational Requirements for the Use of Enhanced Flight Vision
Systems (EFVS)

and to Pilot Compartment View Requirements for Vision Systems (78 FR
34935-34958) (Docket No.: FAA-2013-0485; Notice No. 1209). AC 90-106A,
Enhanced Flight Vision Systems, and AC 20-167A, Airworthiness Approval
of Enhanced Vision System, Synthetic Vision System, Combined Vision
System, and Enhanced Flight Vision System Equipment, have been revised
to incorporate the operational and airworthiness proposals contained in
the NPRM.
    AC 90-106A provides information about the operating rules
pertaining to EFVS operations and explains how to obtain authorization
to conduct EFVS operations. AC 20-167A provides guidance on
airworthiness approvals of EFVS, Enhanced Vision System (EVS),
Synthetic Vision System (SVS), and Combined Vision System (CVS)
equipment installation.
    AC 90-106A is for persons operating aircraft under Title 14 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 91, 121, 125, 129, or 135 who
seek approval to use an EFVS in lieu of natural vision to either
descend below decision altitude/decision height (DA/DH) or minimum
descent altitude (MDA) to 100 feet height above touchdown zone
elevation (HAT) from a straight-in Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP),
or descend below DA/DH to touchdown and rollout from a straight-in
precision IAP or a straight-in IAP with approved (published) vertical
guidance.
    AC 90-106A applies to all EFVS operations that are conducted to 100
feet HAT and all EFVS operations that would be conducted to touchdown
and rollout under proposed Sec. Sec.  91.176, 121.651, 125.381, 129,
and 135.225. AC 90-106A also applies to the proposed EFVS provisions of
Sec. Sec.  121.613, 121.615, 125.361, 125.363, and 135.219 for
dispatch, flight release, and takeoff under IFR when the reported or
forecast visibility at the destination airport is below authorized
minimums. In addition, AC 90-106A applies to the proposed EFVS
provisions of Sec. Sec.  121.651, 125.325, 125.381, and 135.225 for
initiating or continuing an approach when the destination airport
weather is below authorized visibility minimums for the runway of
intended landing. This AC also contains information about the proposed
requirements for pilot training under Sec.  61.31 and the proposed
recent flight experience and proficiency requirements under Sec.
61.57.
    AC 90-106A provides information on the regulatory background of
EFVS operations, the levels of EFVS operations which can be currently
approved, the concept of operation associated with each level of EFVS
operation, and how to obtain operational approval to conduct EFVS
operations. AC 90-106A also provides information on the regulatory
requirements for conducting EFVS operations, including operating,
equipment, training, recent flight experience, proficiency, dispatch
and flight release, and maintenance requirements.
    Public comments on draft AC 90-106A should be submitted on the
comment form titled Comment Form for Advisory Circular (AC) 90-106A,
Enhanced Flight Vision Systems. An electronic copy of this form can be
downloaded from the docket.
    AC 20-167A is for airplane and rotorcraft manufacturers, modifiers,
and type certification engineers seeking certification or installation
guidance for their visual display system. Sections 23.773, 25.773
27.773 and 29.773 address vision systems using a transparent display
surface located in the pilot's outside view, such as a head-up-display,
head-mounted display, or other equivalent display. Such ``vision
systems'' include any EVS, EFVS, SVS, or CVS.
    AC 20-167A applies to all applicants for a new type certificate
(TC), an amended type certificate (ATC), or a supplemental type
certificate (STC) who install vision systems and equipment. The method
of compliance described in AC 20-167A can be used to obtain a TC, STC,
or ATC for an airplane or rotorcraft equipped with EVS, EFVS, SVS, or
CVS equipment.
    AC 20-167A describes system performance, provides methods,
procedures, and practices acceptable to the FAA for complying with
regulations, and addresses specific installation guidance for vision
systems on an airplane or on rotorcraft. This AC also provides EFVS
safety standards and sample flight test considerations for EFVS
operations conducted to 100 feet HAT and for EFVS operations conducted
to touchdown and rollout.
    Public comments on the available drafts should be submitted on the
forms provided. Electronic copies of these forms can be downloaded from
the docket: FAA-2013-0485.
    Both ACs provide methods, procedures, and practices acceptable to
the FAA for complying with regulations. They are a means, but not the
only means, of obtaining approval to conduct EFVS operations and to
install and obtain airworthiness approval for vision systems. These ACs
do not alter regulatory requirements.

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 7, 2013.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2013-19478 Filed 8-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 162 (Friday, August 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 50849]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20724]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL 9932-99-Region 3]

Notice of Administrative Settlement Agreement Pursuant to Section
122(H) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980, as Amended

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (``CERCLA''), notice is hereby given
that a proposed administrative settlement agreement for recovery of
response costs (``Proposed Agreement'') associated with the Lin
Electric Superfund Site, Bluefield, Mercer County, West Virginia
(``Site'') was executed by the Environmental Protection Agency
(``EPA'') and is now subject to public comment, after which EPA may
modify or withdraw its consent if comments received disclose facts or
considerations that indicate that the Proposed Agreement is
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Proposed Agreement would
resolve potential EPA claims under Section 107(a) of CERCLA, against
Danny E. Lusk and Gordon M. Lusk, (``Settling Parties''). The Proposed
Agreement would require Settling Parties to reimburse EPA $21,358.00
for response costs incurred by EPA for the Site.
    For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this
notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the Proposed
Agreement. EPA's response to any comments received will be available
for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before thirty (30) days after
the date of publication of this notice.

ADDRESSES: The Proposed Agreement and additional background information
relating to the Proposed Agreement are available for public inspection
at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. A copy of the Proposed Agreement may be
obtained from Robin E. Eiseman (3RC41), Senior Assistant Regional
Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103. Comments should reference the ``Lin Electric
Superfund Site, Proposed Settlement Agreement'' and ``EPA Docket No.
CERC-03-2015-0182CR,'' and should be forwarded to Robin E. Eiseman at
the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin E. Eiseman (3RC41), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 17, 2015.
Karen Melvin,
Acting Director, Hazardous Site Cleanup Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2015-20724 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 13, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 197)]
[Notices]
[Page 59746]
[DOCID:fr13oc05-91]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP05-687-000]

Trunkline Gas Company, LLC; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC
Gas Tariff

October 5, 2005.

    Take notice that on September 30, 2005, Trunkline Gas Company, LLC
(Trunkline) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective
November 1, 2005:

Eighth Revised Sheet No. 10
Eighth Revised Sheet No. 11
Eighth Revised Sheet No. 12
Eighth Revised Sheet No. 13
Eighth Revised Sheet No. 14
Eighth Revised Sheet No. 15
Eighth Revised Sheet No. 16
Eighth Revised Sheet No. 17

    Trunkline states that the purpose of this filing, made in
accordance with section 22 (Fuel Reimbursement Adjustment) of
Trunkline's FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, is to update
the fuel reimbursement percentages proposed to be effective November 1,
2005.
    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 and 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 in accordance with the provisions of
Sec.  154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone
filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on
the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before
the intervention or protest date need not 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 14 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 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 e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-5626 Filed 10-12-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 37 (Friday, February 24, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10960-10962]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4270]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0092]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone, East River and Bronx Kill; Randalls and Wards
Islands, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone on
the waters of the East River and Bronx Kill, in the vicinity of
Randalls and Wards Islands, New York. This security zone is necessary
to ensure the safety of the President of the United States, members of
his official party, and other senior government officials. The zone is
intended to restrict vessels from a portion of the East River and Bronx
Kill when public officials are scheduled to arrive and depart the area.
Persons or vessels may not enter this security zone without permission
of the Captain of the Port New York (COTP) or the COTP's designated on-
scene representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 4 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. on Thursday,
March 1, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2012-0092 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2012-0092 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 rule, call or email Mr. Jeff Yunker, Waterways Management
Division, Coast Guard Sector New York; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory 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 specific information regarding the
event was not received in time to publish a NPRM and seek comments
before issuing a final rule before the effective date. Publishing an
NPRM and delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public
interest since the occasion would occur before a notice and comment
rulemaking could be completed, thereby potentially jeopardizing the
safety of the President of the United States, members of his official
party, and other senior government officials.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register for the reasons in the preceding
paragraph.

Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rule is 33 U.S.C. 1226 and 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, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1,
which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish security
zones.
    The United States Secret Service requested that the Coast Guard
establish a security zone on the waters of the East River and Bronx
Kill during the arrival and departure of the President of the United
States to and from Randalls and Wards Islands, New York. The purpose of
the temporary security zone is to facilitate the security and safety of
the President of the United States during his visit to New York City.

Discussion of Rule

    The temporary security zone is effective on March 1, 2012, from 4
p.m. until 11:30 p.m. The security zone is located on a portion of the
East River and the Bronx Kill. The East River security zone is
approximately 1,500 yards to 2,150 yards long and 290 yards to 860
yards wide. The Bronx Kill security zone is approximately 430 yards
long and 30 yards to 340 yards wide. Specific geographic locations are
specified in the regulatory text. Vessels or persons violating this
rule are subject to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50
U.S.C. 192.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563,
Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The
Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    This determination is based on the limited time that vessels will
be restricted from the zone. The temporary security zone will only be
in effect for less than eight hours on March 1, 2012. The Coast Guard
expects minimal adverse impact to mariners from the zone's activation
based on the limited duration of the enforcement period, the limited
geographic area affected and because affected mariners may request
authorization from the COTP or the designated on-scene representative
to transit the zone.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. 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
may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in a portion of the East River or Bronx Kill, in the
vicinity of Randalls or Wards Islands, NY, during the effective period.
    This temporary security zone will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following
reasons: The security zone is of limited size and duration. Persons or
vessels may request permission to transit the security zone from the
COTP or the designated on-scene representative.
    Additionally, before and during the effective period, the Coast
Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the
waterway, including verbal broadcast notice to mariners and distribute
a written notice to waterway users online at http://homeport.uscg.mil/newyork.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    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.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

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 concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves establishment of a
temporary security zone on a portion of the East River and Bronx Kill
during the arrival and departure of the President of the United States
to and from Randalls and Wards Islands. An environmental analysis
checklist and a categorical exclusion determination will be available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine security, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and 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; 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.T01-0092 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-0092  Security Zone, East River and Bronx Kill; Randalls
and Wards Islands, NY

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary security zone: All
waters of the East River between the Hell Gate Rail Road Bridge (mile
8.2), and a line drawn from a point at approximate position
40[deg]47'27.12'' N, 073[deg]54'35.14'' W (Lawrence Point, Queens) to a
point at approximate position 40[deg]47'52.55'' N, 073[deg]54'35.25'' W
(Port Morris Stacks), and all waters of the Bronx Kill southeast of the
Bronx Kill Rail Road Bridge (mile 0.6).
    (b) Definitions. For purposes of this section ``Designated on-scene
representative'' is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer who has been designated by the COTP to act on the COTP's
behalf.
    (c) Effective period. This section is effective from 4 p.m. until
11:30 p.m. on March 1, 2012.
    (d) Regulations. (1) All persons are required to comply with the
general regulations governing security zones found in 33 CFR 165.33.
    (2) Entry, transit, or anchoring within the security zone described
in paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited unless authorized by the
COTP or the COTP's designated representative. The designated on-scene
representative may be on a Coast Guard vessel, or onboard a federal,
state, or local agency vessel that is authorized to act in support of
the Coast Guard.
    (3) The COTP will provide notice of this security zone by
appropriate means, which may include but are not limited to a Local
Notice to Mariners or Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (4) Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the
security zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP
or the designated on-scene representative. Those vessels may be
required to anchor or moor up to a waterfront facility.
    (5) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the
security zone shall telephone the COTP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or the
designated on-scene representative via VHF channel 16 to obtain
permission to do so.

    Dated: February 14, 2012.
G.P. Hitchen,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port New York.
[FR Doc. 2012-4270 Filed 2-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21574-21575]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8620]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2011-0039; OMB No. 1660-0124]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request, FEMA Preparedness Grants: Emergency Operations
Center (EOC) Grant Program

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 10, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA
20598-3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information

    Title: FEMA Preparedness Grants: Emergency Operations Center (EOC)
Grant Program.
    Type of information collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0124.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 089-0-0-3, EOC Grant Program
Investment Justification; FEMA Form 089-0-0-18, EOC Prioritization of
Investment Justifications Template; FEMA Form 089-0-0-3A, EOC
Investment Justification Scoring Worksheet.
    Abstract: The Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Grant Program is
intended to improve emergency management and preparedness capabilities
by supporting flexible, sustainable, secure, and interoperable EOCs
with a focus on addressing identified deficiencies and needs. Fully
capable emergency operations facilities at the State, Territory, Local
and/or Tribal levels are an essential element of a comprehensive
national emergency management system and are necessary to ensure
continuity of operations and continuity of government in major
disasters caused by any hazard.
    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,456.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Hour Burden per Respondent: EOC Grant Program
Investment Justification, FEMA Form 089-0-0-3, 8 hours; EOC
Prioritization of Investment Justifications Template, FEMA Form 089-0-
0-18, 5 hours 30 minutes; EOC Investment Justification Scoring
Worksheet, FEMA Form 089-0-0-3A, 30 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 6,258 hours.
    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the
hour burden is $195,386.10. There are no annual costs to respondents
operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There is no
annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is
$380,762.85.

    Dated: March 28, 2012.
John G. Jenkins, Jr.,
Acting Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2012-8620 Filed 4-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-78-P


[Federal Register: October 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 198)]
[Notices]
[Page 60506-60508]
[DOCID:fr13oc06-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. AD06-11-000]

Transparency Provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005; Program
for the Technical Conference

October 6, 2006.
    On September 5, 2006 and on September 29, 2006, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) announced that a conference will be
held in the above-referenced proceeding on October 13, 2006, at the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426 in the Commission Meeting Room from 9:30 a.m.
until 3 p.m. (EDT). The Chairman and Commissioners are expected to
attend.

    All interested persons are invited to attend. There is no
registration or fee to attend.
    Sections 316 and 1281 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005,\1\
respectively, added section 23 to the Natural Gas Act \2\ and section
220 to the Federal Power Act.\3\ These sections provide that the
Commission may act to facilitate price transparency in wholesale
natural gas and electricity markets, and authorize the Commission to
adopt such rules as may be necessary to assure the timely dissemination
of information about the availability and prices of natural gas and
electric energy and transmission service in such markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Energy Policy Act of 2005, Sec. Sec.  316 and 1281, Pub. L.
No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 594, 691-92 and 978-79 (2005).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. Sec.  717t-2 (2005).
    \3\ 16 U.S.C. Sec.  824t (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The conference will consist of two panels. The morning panel will
focus on natural gas and the afternoon panel will focus on electric
energy. Each panel will include representatives from across the
relevant industry, with as broad representation as possible (industry
representatives). In addition, representatives from the index
publishers, relevant markets, and other market information providers
will in attendance and available to answer questions or respond to
points during the discussion (information providers). The Commission
regrets that all requests to be panelists could not be accommodated
because of time limitations. Any interested persons may submit comments
into the docket, preferably by November 1, 2006.
    Each panel will begin with short statements (no longer than three
minutes) by the industry representatives related to the questions
published in the September 29, 2006 notice. Following those initial
statements, the industry representatives and, as needed, the
information providers will engage in discussion led by questions from
the Commissioners and staff. Before the end of the panel, the
information providers will be permitted a short statement (no longer
than two minutes) to respond to issues discussed or to summarize how
their services support the goals of market transparency.
    The morning panel will focus on facilitating price transparency in
markets for the sale or transportation of physical natural gas in
interstate commerce.

Panel 1 9 a.m.-11:30 a.m.

     Christopher Conway, President, Conoco/Phillips Gas and
Power, and Chairman of Natural Gas Supply Association.
     Donald Santa, President, Interstate Natural Gas
Association of America.
     Jane R. Lewis-Raymond, Vice President, General Counsel,
Corporate Secretary & Chief Compliance Officer-Piedmont Natural Gas
Co., representing the American Gas Association.
     Les Fyock, Vice President, American Public Gas
Association.
     Alex Strawn, Senior Purchasing Manager, Proctor & Gamble,
and Chairman of Process Gas Consumers.
     Paul Cicio, Executive Director, Industrial Energy
Consumers of America
     Sheila Rappazzo, Chief, Gas Policy Office of Gas & Water,
NY State Department of Public Service.
    To respond to comments and questions from the Commissioners, staff,
or industry representatives listed above, the following information
providers will be present:
     Michael Prokop, Executive Vice President, Amerex Brokers,
LLC.
     Porter Bennett, President, Bentek Data.
     Bob Anderson, Executive Director of CCRO and President of
Energy Data. Hub, representing Committee of Chief Risk Officers.
     Sean O'Leary, Chief Executive Officer, Genscape.
     Chuck Vice, President & Chief Operating Officer,
InterContinental Exchange (ICE).
     Larry Foster, Global Editorial Director, Power, McGraw
Hill Platts.
     Dexter Steiss, Executive Publisher, Natural Gas
Intelligence.
     Robert Levin, Senior Vice President, Research Department
NYMEX.
     Andrew Ott, Vice President of Market Services, PJM, on
behalf of PJM and the ISO/RTO Council.
     Randy Rischard, Publisher, SNL Energy.
    The afternoon panel will focus on facilitating price transparency
in markets for the sale and transmission of electric energy in
interstate commerce.

Panel 2 1 p.m.-3 p.m.

     John E. Shelk, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Electric Power Supply Association.
     Gloria Halstead, Director, Federal Agency Relations,
Edison Electric Institute.
     Howard Spinner, Virginia State Corporation Commission.
     Jeffrey L. Walker, Senior Vice President President & Chief
Risk Officer ACES Power Marketing.
    To respond to comments and questions from the Commissioners, staff
or industry representatives listed above, the following information
providers will be present:
     Michael Prokop, Executive Vice President, Amerex Brokers,
LLC.
     Bob Anderson, Executive Director of CCRO and President of
Energy Data Hub, representing Committee of Chief Risk Officers.
     Sean O'Leary, Chief Executive Officer, Genscape.
     Chuck Vice, President & Chief Operating Officer,
InterContinental Exchange (ICE).
     Brian Jordan, McGraw Hill Platts.
     Ron McNamara, Vice President, Market Management & Chief
Economist, MISO.
     Robert Levin, Senior Vice President, Research Department
NYMEX.
     Andrew Ott, Vice President of Market Services, on behalf
of PJM Interconnection and the ISO/RTO Council.
     Randy Rischard, Publisher, SNL Energy.
    The sessions will be dedicated, for the most part, to a discussion
of the availability of information that the market deems necessary to
transact business effectively and efficiently, how should it be
disseminated, what necessary data is in abundance and what data is
either hard to acquire or unavailable, and what more (if anything)
should the Commission do.
    As previously announced, a free webcast of this event will be
available through http://www.ferc.gov. Anyone with Internet access who desires

to view this event can do so by navigating to http://www.ferc.gov's Calendar

of Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will
contain a link to its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides
technical support for the webcasts and offers access to the meeting via
phone bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit
http://www.CapitolConnection.org or contact Danelle Perkowski or David

Reininger at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Transcripts of the meeting will be available immediately for a fee
from Ace Reporting Company<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-336-6646). They will
be available for free on the Commission's eLibrary system and on the
events calendar approximately one week after the meeting.
    FERC conferences and meetings are accessible under section 508 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    Questions about the conference should be directed to Saida Shaalan,
by

e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-16966 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 55377]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22810]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-4380-000]

 Bellevue Solar, 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
Bellevue Solar, 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 September 20, 2011.
    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
14 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 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 e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 31, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-22810 Filed 9-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P