Although every effort is made to identify peer-reviewed dose-response values for all HAPs emitted by the source category included in an assessment, some HAP have no peer-reviewed cancer potency values or reference values for chronic non-cancer or acute effects (inhalation or ingestion).  Since exposures to these pollutants cannot be included in a quantitative risk estimate, an understatement of risk for these pollutants at environmental exposure levels is possible.

Additionally, chronic dose-response values for certain compounds included in the assessment may be under EPA IRIS review and revised assessments may determine that these pollutants are more or less potent than currently thought.  We will re-evaluate risks if, as a result of these reviews, a dose-response metric changes enough to indicate that the risk assessment may significantly mischaracterize human health risk

Cancer assessment

The discussion of dose-response uncertainties in the estimation of cancer risk below focuses on the uncertainties associated with the specific approach currently used by the EPA to develop cancer potency factors.  In general, these same uncertainties attend the development of cancer potency factors by CalEPA, the source of peer-reviewed cancer potency factors used where EPA-developed values are not yet available.  To place this discussion in context, we provide a quote from the EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment [] (herein referred to as Cancer Guidelines).  "The primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures, including default options that are used in the absence of scientific data to the contrary, should be health protective."  The approach adopted in this document is consistent with this approach as described in the Cancer Guidelines.

For cancer endpoints EPA usually derives an oral slope factor for ingestion and a unit risk value for inhalation exposures.  These values allow estimation of a lifetime probability of developing cancer given long-term exposures to the pollutant.  Depending on the pollutant being evaluated, EPA relies on both animal bioassay and epidemiological studies to characterize cancer risk.  As a science policy approach, consistent with the Cancer Guidelines, EPA uses animal cancer bioassays as indicators of potential human health risk when other human cancer risk data are unavailable.

Extrapolation of study data to estimate potential risks to human populations is based upon EPA's assessment of the scientific database for a pollutant using EPA's guidance documents and other peer-reviewed methodologies.  The EPA Cancer Guidelines describes the Agency's recommendations for methodologies for cancer risk assessment.  EPA believes that cancer risk estimates developed following the procedures described in the Cancer Guidelines and outlined below generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk.  That is, EPA's upper bound estimates represent a "plausible upper limit to the true value of a quantity" (although this is usually not a true statistical confidence limit).   In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could also be greater.   When developing an upper bound estimate of risk and to provide risk values that do not underestimate risk, EPA generally relies on conservative default approaches.   EPA also uses the upper bound (rather than lower bound or central) estimates in its assessments, although it is noted that this approach can have limitations for some uses (e.g. priority setting, expected benefits analysis).

Such health risk assessments have associated uncertainties, some which may be considered quantitatively, and others which generally are expressed qualitatively.  Uncertainties may vary substantially among cancer risk assessments associated with exposures to different pollutants, since the assessments employ different databases with different strengths and limitations and the procedures employed may differ in how well they represent actual biological processes for the assessed substance.  EPA's Risk Characterization Handbook also recommends that risk characterizations present estimates demonstrating the impact on the assessment of alternative choices, data, models and assumptions [].  Some of the major sources of uncertainty and variability in deriving cancer risk values are described more fully below.

(1) The qualitative similarities or differences between tumor responses observed in experimental animal bioassays and those which would occur in humans is a source of uncertainty in cancer risk assessment.  In general, EPA does not assume that tumor sites observed in an experimental animal bioassay are necessarily predictive of the sites at which tumors would occur in humans.   However, unless scientific support is available to show otherwise, EPA assumes that tumors in animals are relevant in humans, regardless of target organ concordance.  For a specific pollutant, qualitative differences in species responses can lead to either under-estimation or over-estimation of human cancer risks.

(2) Uncertainties regarding the most appropriate dose metric for an assessment can also lead to differences in risk predictions.  For example, the measure of dose is commonly expressed in units of mg/kg/d ingested or the inhaled concentration of the pollutant.  However, data may support development of a pharmacokinetic model for the absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of an agent, which may result in improved dose metrics (e.g., average blood concentration of the pollutant or the quantity of agent metabolized in the body).  Quantitative uncertainties result when the appropriate choice of a dose metric is uncertain or when dose metric estimates are themselves uncertain (e.g., as can occur when alternative pharmacokinetic models are available for a compound).  Uncertainty in dose estimates may lead to either over or underestimation of risk.

(3) For the quantitative extrapolation of cancer risk estimates from experimental animals to humans, EPA uses scaling methodologies (relating expected response to differences in physical size of the species), which introduce another source of uncertainty.  These methodologies are based on both biological data on differences in rates of process according to species size and empirical comparisons of toxicity between experimental animals and humans.  For a particular pollutant, the quantitative difference in cancer potency between experimental animals and humans may be either greater than or less than that estimated by baseline scientific scaling predictions due to uncertainties associated with limitations in the test data and the correctness of scaled estimates.

(4) EPA cancer risk estimates, whether based on epidemiological or experimental animal data, are generally developed using a  benchmark dose (BMD) analysis to estimate a dose at which there is a specified excess risk of cancer, which is used as the point of departure (or POD) for the remainder of the calculation.  Statistical uncertainty in developing a POD using a benchmark dose (BMD) approach is generally addressed though use of the 95% lower confidence limit on the dose at which the specified excess risk occurs (the BMDL), decreasing the likelihood of understating risk.  EPA has generally utilized the multistage model for estimation of the BMDL using cancer bioassay data (see further discussion below).

(5) Extrapolation from high to low doses is an important, and potentially large, source of uncertainty in cancer risk assessment.  EPA uses different approaches to low dose risk assessment (i.e., developing estimates of risk for exposures to environmental doses of an agent from observations in experimental or epidemiological studies at higher dose) depending on the available data and understanding of a pollutant's mode of action (i.e., the manner in which a pollutant causes cancer).  EPA's Cancer Guidelines express a preference for the use of reliable, compound-specific, biologically-based risk models when feasible; however, such models are rarely available.  The mode of action for a pollutant (i.e., the manner in which a pollutant causes cancer) is a key consideration in determining how risks should be estimated for low-dose exposure.  A reference value is calculated when the available mode of action data show the response to be nonlinear (e.g., as in a threshold response).  A linear low-dose (straight line from POD) approach is used when available mode of action data support a linear (e.g., nonthreshold response) or as the most common default approach when a compound's mode of action is unknown.  Linear extrapolation can be supported by both pollutant-specific data and broader scientific considerations.  For example, EPA's Cancer Guidelines generally consider a linear dose-response to be appropriate for pollutants that interact with DNA and induce mutations.  Pollutants whose effects are additive to background biological processes in cancer development can also be predicted to have low-dose linear responses, although the slope of this relationship may not be the same as the slope estimated by the straight line approach.

EPA most frequently utilizes a linear low-dose extrapolation approach as a baseline science-policy choice (a "default") when available data do not allow a compound-specific determination.  This approach is designed to not underestimate risk in the face of uncertainty and variability.  EPA believes that linear dose-response models, when appropriately applied as part of EPA's cancer risk assessment process, provide an upper bound estimate of risk and generally provide a health protective approach.  Note that another source of uncertainty is the characterization of low-dose nonlinear, non-threshold relationships.  The National Academy of Sciences has encouraged the exploration of sigmoidal type functions (e.g., log-probit models) in representing dose response relationships due to the variability in response within human populations.  Another National Research Council (NRC) report [] suggests that models based on distributions of individual thresholds are likely to lead to sigmoidal-shaped dose-response functions for a population.  This report notes sources of variability in the human population:  "One might expect these individual tolerances to vary extensively in humans depending on genetics, coincident exposures, nutritional status, and various other susceptibility factors..."   Thus, if a distribution of thresholds approach is considered for a carcinogen risk assessment, application would depend on ability of modeling to reflect the degree of variability in response in human populations (as opposed to responses in bioassays with genetically more uniform rodents).  Note also that low dose linearity in risk can arise for reasons separate from population variability: due to the nature of a mode of action and additivity of a chemical's effect on top of background chemical exposures and biological processes.

As noted above, EPA's current approach to cancer risk assessment typically utilizes a straight line approach from the BMDL.  This is equivalent to using an upper confidence limit on the slope of the straight line extrapolation.  The impact of the choice of the BMDL on bottom line risk estimates can be quantified by comparing risk estimates using the BMDL value to central estimate BMD values, although these differences are generally not a large contributor to uncertainty in risk assessment (Subramaniam et. al., 2006) [].  It is important to note that earlier EPA assessments, including the majority of those for which risk values exist today, were generally developed using the multistage model to extrapolate down to environmental dose levels and did not involve the use of a POD.  Subramaniam et. al. (2006) also provide comparisons indicating that slopes based on straight line extrapolation from a POD do not show large differences from those based on the upper confidence limit of the multistage model.

(6) Cancer risk estimates do not generally make specific adjustments to reflect the variability in response within the human population  --  resulting in another source of uncertainty in assessments.  In the diverse human population, some individuals are likely to be more sensitive to the action of a carcinogen than the typical individual, although compound-specific data to evaluate this variability are generally not available.  There may also be important life stage differences in the quantitative potency of carcinogens and, with the exception of the recommendations in EPA's Supplemental Cancer Guidance for carcinogens with a mutagenic mode of action, risk assessments do not generally quantitatively address life stage differences.  However, one approach used commonly in EPA assessments that may help address variability in response is to extrapolate human response from results observed in the most sensitive species and sex tested, resulting typically in the highest URE which can be supported by reliable data, thus supporting estimates that are designed not to underestimate risk in the face of uncertainty and variability.

Chronic noncancer assessment

Chronic noncancer reference values represent chronic exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective. That is, EPA and other organizations which develop noncancer reference values (e.g., the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry  -  ATSDR) utilize an approach that is intended not to underestimate risk in the face of uncertainty and variability.  When there are gaps in the available information, uncertainty factors (UFs) are applied to derive reference values that are intended to be protective against appreciable risk of deleterious effects.  Uncertainty factors are commonly default values e.g., factors of 10 or 3, used in the absence of compound-specific data; where data are available, uncertainty factors may also be developed using compound-specific information.  When data are limited, more assumptions are needed and more default factors are used.  Thus there may be a greater tendency to overestimate risk -- in the sense that further study might support development of reference values that are higher (i.e., less potent) because fewer default assumptions are needed.  However, for some pollutants it is possible that risks may be underestimated.

For non-cancer endpoints related to chronic exposures, EPA derives a Reference Dose (RfD) for exposures via ingestion, and a Reference Concentration (RfC) for inhalation exposures.  These values provide an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of daily oral exposure (RfD) or of a continuous inhalation exposure (RfC) to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime.  To derive values that are intended to be "without appreciable risk," EPA's methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor (UF) approach (U.S. EPA, 1993, 1994) which includes consideration of both uncertainty and variability.

EPA begins by evaluating all of the available peer-reviewed literature to determine non-cancer endpoints of concern, evaluating the quality, strengths and limitations of the available studies.  EPA typically chooses the relevant endpoint that occurs at the lowest dose, often using statistical modeling of the available data, and then determines the appropriate point of departure (POD) for derivation of the reference value.  A POD is determined by (in order of preference): (1) a statistical estimation using the benchmark dose (BMD) approach; (2) use of the dose or concentration at which the toxic response was not significantly elevated (no observed adverse effect level --  NOAEL); or (3) use of the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL).

A series of downward adjustments using default UFs is then applied to the POD to estimate the reference value (U.S. EPA 1994, 2002).  While collectively termed "UFs", these factors account for a number of different quantitative considerations when utilizing observed animal (usually rodent) or human toxicity data in a risk assessment.  The UFs are intended to account for: (1) variation in susceptibility among the members of the human population (i.e., inter-individual variability); (2) uncertainty in extrapolating from experimental animal data to humans (i.e., interspecies differences); (3) uncertainty in extrapolating from data obtained in a study with less-than-lifetime exposure (i.e., extrapolating from subchronic to chronic exposure); (4) uncertainty in extrapolating from a LOAEL in the absence of a NOAEL; and (5) uncertainty when the database is incomplete or there are problems with applicability of available studies.  When scientifically sound, peer-reviewed assessment-specific data are not available, default adjustment values are selected for the individual UFs. For each type of uncertainty (when relevant to the assessment), EPA typically applies an UF value of 10 or 3 with the cumulative UF value leading to a downward adjustment of 10-3000 fold from the selected POD.  An UF of 3 is used when the data do not support the use of a 10-fold factor.  If an extrapolation step or adjustment is not relevant to an assessment (e.g., if applying human toxicity data and an interspecies extrapolation is not required) the associated UF is not used.  The major adjustment steps are described more fully below.

	1) Heterogeneity among humans is a key source of variability as well as uncertainty.  Uncertainty related to human variation is considered in extrapolating doses from a subset or smaller-sized population, often of one sex or of a narrow range of life stages (typical of occupational epidemiologic studies), to a larger, more diverse population.  In the absence of pollutant-specific data on human variation, a 10-fold UF is used to account for uncertainty associated with human variation.  Human variation may be larger or smaller; however, data to examine the potential magnitude of human variability are often unavailable.  In some situations, a smaller UF of 3 may be applied to reflect a known lack of significant variability among humans.

	2) Extrapolation from results of studies in experimental animals to humans is a necessary step for the majority of chemical risk assessments.  When interpreting animal data, the concentration at the POD (e.g. NOAEL, BMDL) in an animal model (e.g. rodents) is extrapolated to estimate the human response.  While there is long-standing scientific support for the use of animal studies as indicators of potential toxicity to humans, there are uncertainties in such extrapolations.  In the absence of data to the contrary, the typical approach is to use the most relevant endpoint from the most sensitive species and the most sensitive sex in assessing risks to the average human.  Typically, compound specific data to evaluate relative sensitivity in humans versus rodents are lacking, thus leading to uncertainty in this extrapolation.  Size-related differences (allometric relationships) indicate that typically humans are more sensitive than rodents when compared on a mg/kg/day basis.  The default choice of 10 for the interspecies UF is consistent with these differences.  For a specific chemical, differences in species responses may be greater or less than this value.

      Pharmacokinetic models are useful to examine species differences in pharmacokinetic processing and associated uncertainties; however, such dosimetric adjustments are not always possible.  Information may not be available to quantitatively assess toxicokinetic or toxicodynamic differences between animals and humans, and in many cases a 10-fold UF (with separate factors of 3 for toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic components) is used to account for expected species differences and associated uncertainty in extrapolating from laboratory animals to humans in the derivation of a reference value.  If information on one or the other of these components is available and accounted for in the cross-species extrapolation, a UF of 3 may be used for the remaining component.

	3) In the case of reference values for chronic exposures where only data from shorter durations are available (e.g., 90-day subchronic studies in rodents) or when such data are judged more appropriate for development of an RfC, an additional UF of 3 or 10-fold is typically applied unless the available scientific information supports use of a different value.

      4) Toxicity data are typically limited as to the dose or exposure levels that have been tested in individual studies; in an animal study, for example, treatment groups may differ in exposure by up to an order of magnitude.  The preferred approach to arrive at a POD is to use BMD analysis; however, this approach requires adequate quantitative results for a meaningful analysis, which is not always possible.  Use of a NOAEL is the next preferred approach after BMD analysis in determining a POD for deriving a health effect reference value.  However, many studies lack a dose or exposure level at which an adverse effect is not observed (i.e., a NOAEL is not identified).  When using data limited to a LOAEL, a UF of 10 or 3-fold is often applied.

      5) The database UF is intended to account for the potential for deriving an underprotective RfD/RfC due to a data gap preventing complete characterization of the chemical's toxicity.  In the absence of studies for a known or suspected endpoint of concern, a UF of 10 or 3-fold is typically applied.

There is no RfD or other comparable chronic health benchmark value for lead compounds.  Thus, to address multipathway human health and environmental risks associated with emissions of lead from this facility, ambient lead concentrations were compared to the NAAQS for lead.  In developing the NAAQS for lead, EPA considered human health evidence reporting adverse health effects associated with lead exposure, as well as an EPA conducted multipathway risk assessment that applied models to estimate human exposures to air-related lead and the associated risk (73FR at 66979). EPA also explicitly considered the uncertainties associated with both the human health evidence and the exposure and risk analyses when developing the NAAQS for lead.  For example, EPA considered uncertainties in the relationship between ambient air lead and blood lead levels (73FR at 66974), as well as uncertainties between blood lead levels and loss of IQ points in children (73FR at 66981).  In considering the evidence and risk analyses and their associated uncertainties, the EPA Administrator noted his view that there is no evidence- or risk-based bright line that indicates a single appropriate level. Instead, he noted, there is a collection of scientific evidence and judgments and other information, including information about the uncertainties inherent in many relevant factors, which needs to be considered together in making this public health policy judgment and in selecting a standard level from a range of reasonable values (73FR at 66998).  In so doing, the Administrator decided that, a level for the primary lead standard of 0.15 μg/m[3], in combination with the specified choice of indicator, averaging time, and form, is requisite to protect public health, including the health of sensitive groups, with an adequate margin of safety (73FR at 67006).  A thorough discussion of the health evidence, risk and exposure analyses, and their associated uncertainties can be found in EPA's final rule revising the lead NAAQS (73 FR 66970-66981, November 12, 2008).

We also note the uncertainties associated with the health-based (i.e., primary) NAAQS are likely less than the uncertainties associated with dose-response values developed for many of the other HAP, particularly those HAP for which no human health data exist.   In 1988, EPA's IRIS program reviewed the health effects data regarding lead and its inorganic compounds and determined that it would be inappropriate to develop an RfD for these compounds, saying, "A great deal of information on the health effects of lead has been obtained through decades of medical observation and scientific research. This information has been assessed in the development of air and water quality criteria by the Agency's Office of Health and Environmental Assessment (OHEA) in support of regulatory decision-making by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and by the Office of Drinking Water (ODW). By comparison to most other environmental toxicants, the degree of uncertainty about the health effects of lead is quite low. It appears that some of these effects, particularly changes in the levels of certain blood enzymes and in aspects of children's neurobehavioral development, may occur at blood lead levels so low as to be essentially without a threshold. The Agency's RfD Work Group discussed inorganic lead (and lead compounds) at two meetings (07/08/1985 and 07/22/1985) and considered it inappropriate to develop an RfD for inorganic lead."  EPA's IRIS assessment for Lead and compounds (inorganic) (CASRN 7439-92-1), http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0277.htm.

We note further that because of the multi-pathway, multi-media impacts of lead, the risk assessment supporting the NAAQS considered direct inhalation exposures and indirect air-related multi-pathway exposures from industrial sources like primary and secondary lead smelting operations.  It also considered background lead exposures from other sources (like contaminated drinking water and exposure to lead-based paints).  In revising the NAAQS for lead, we note that the Administrator placed more weight on the evidence-based framework and less weight on the results from the risk assessment, although he did find the risk estimates to be roughly consistent with and generally supportive of the evidence-based framework applied in the NAAQS determination (73FR at 67004). Thus, when revising the NAAQS for lead to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, EPA considered both the evidence-based framework and the risk assessment, albeit to different extents.

Acute noncancer assessment

Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in the development of acute reference values are quite similar to those developed for chronic durations, but more often using individual UF values that may be less than 10.  UFs are applied based on chemical-specific or health effect-specific information (e.g., simple irritation effects do not vary appreciably between human individuals, hence a value of 3 is typically used), or based on the purpose for the reference value (see the following paragraph).  The UFs applied in acute reference value derivation include:  1) heterogeneity among humans; 2) uncertainty in extrapolating from animals to humans; 3) uncertainty in LOAEL to NOAEL adjustments; and 4) uncertainty in accounting for an incomplete database on toxic effects of potential concern.  Additional adjustments are often applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to arrive at a POD for derivation of an acute reference value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour).

Not all acute reference values are developed for the same purpose and care must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of human health effects relative to the reference value or values being exceeded.  Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of threshold values at different levels of severity should be factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties.

5 References


[Federal Register: February 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 27)]
[Notices]
[Page 6863-6864]
[DOCID:fr11fe09-28]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13314-000]

Corral Creek South Hydro, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene and Competing Applications

February 4, 2009.
    On November 5, 2008, Corral Creek South Hydro, LLC filed an
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
proposing to study the feasibility of the Corral Creek South Pumped
Storage Project to be located in Twin Falls County, Idaho on federal
land administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The proposed
project would be closed loop and would not be built on an existing body
of water.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) An upper earthen dam
with a height of 180 feet and a length of 8,400 feet; (2) an upper
reservoir with a surface area of 118 acres, a capacity of 9,120 acre-
feet, and a maximum pool elevation of 6,620 feet msl; (3) a lower
earthen dam with a height of 200 feet and a length of 4,140 feet; (4) a
lower reservoir with a surface area of 113

acres, a capacity of 10,880 acre-feet, and a maximum pool elevation of
5,500 feet msl; (5) a 30 foot diameter, 4,710 foot long penstock; (6) a
powerhouse containing 10 pump/turbine units with a total installed
capacity of 1,100 MW; (7) a 10.6 mile long, 500 kV transmission line
and; (8) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an
annual production of 3,212 GWh which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Brent L. Smith, P.O. Box 535, Rigby, Idaho,
83442<PHONE_NUMBER>
    FERC Contact: Steven Sachs<PHONE_NUMBER>
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
    Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    For more information on how to submit these types of filings please
go to the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the Commission's Web site at http:/
/www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13314) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-2869 Filed 2-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 136 (Monday, July 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32851-32852]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15123]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Docket No.                   File date                      Presenter or requester
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
    1. CP15-554-000..................          6-29-2018  Stan Knick.
    2. CP15-554-000..................           7-3-2018  Alain San Giorgio.
Exempt:
    1. ER18-1314-000.................          6-21-2018  U.S. Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.
    2. CP16-121-000..................          6-28-2018  U.S. Congress.1
    3. CP14-96-000...................           7-3-2018  The New York State Agencies.2
    4. P-2299-000, P-14581-000.......           7-5-2018  FERC Staff.3
    5. P-2428-007, P-10254-026, P-             7-10-2018  FERC Staff.4
     10253-032.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Senators Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse. Congressmen James R. Langevin and David Cicilline.
2 The New York State Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Services, Department of Public Service,
  Department of Health, and Department of Environmental Conservation.
3 Telephone memorandum dated July 5, 2018 reporting call with John Devine with HDR Engineering.
4 Clarification request memo dated July 10, 2018 reporting communication with applicants Kevin Webb and Beth
  Harris with Enel Green.

    Dated: July 10, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15123 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61599-61600]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24865]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0361; FRL-9522-6]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Trade Secret Claims for Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``Trade Secret Claims for
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act'' (EPA ICR No.
1428.09, OMB Control No. 2050-0078) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of
the ICR, which is currently approved through November 30, 2012. Public
comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (77 FR
34037) on June 8, 2012 during a 60-day comment period. This notice
allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before November 9,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2006-0361, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk
Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sicy Jacob, Office of Emergency
Management, Mail Code 5104A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564-8019; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: This information collection request pertains to trade
secrecy claims submitted under Section 322 of the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA). EPCRA contains
provisions requiring facilities to report to State and local
authorities, and EPA, the presence of extremely hazardous substances
(Section 302), inventory of hazardous chemicals (Sections 311 and 312)
and manufacture, process and use of toxic chemicals (Section 313).
Section 322 of EPCRA allows a facility to withhold the specific
chemical identity from these EPCRA reports if the facility asserts a
claim of trade secrecy for that chemical identity. The provisions in
Section 322 establish the requirements and procedures that facilities
must follow to request trade secrecy treatment of chemical identities,
as well as the procedures for submitting public petitions to the Agency
for review of the ``sufficiency'' of trade secrecy claims.
    Trade secrecy protection is provided for specific chemical
identities contained in reports submitted under each of the following:
(1) Section 303 (d)(2)--Facility notification of changes that have or
are about to occur, (2) Section 303 (d)(3)--Local Emergency Planning
Committee (LEPC) requests for facility information to develop or
implement emergency plans, (3) Section 311--Material Safety Data Sheets
(MSDSs) submitted by facilities, or lists of those chemicals submitted
in place of the MSDSs, (4) Section 312--Emergency and hazardous
chemical inventory forms (Tier I and Tier II), and (5) Section 313
Toxic chemical release inventory form.
    Form Numbers: EPA Form 9510-1, Substantiation to Accompany Claims
of Trade Secrecy under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act of 1986.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are manufacturers or non-manufacturers subject to reporting
under Sections 303, 311/312 or 313 of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 332.
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Total estimated burden: 3154 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.03(b)
    Total estimated cost: $206,155 (per year). No capital and operation
and maintenance costs are associated with any requirements in this ICR.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 48 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This increase is due to the slight increase in the
number of facilities that EPA estimates for the next three years
covered by this ICR. The annual number of claims estimated in the
previous ICR was 327, while this ICR estimates 332 claims.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-24865 Filed 10-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 89)]
[Notices]
[Page 21797-21799]
[DOCID:fr11my09-493]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

May 5, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP09-61-006.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC submits amendments
to

interim negotiated rate agreements and negotiated rate agreements etc.
    Filed Date: 05/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090504-0100.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP96-200-211.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company submits
negotiated rate agreement between CEGT and Shell Energy North America,
LP.
    Filed Date: 05/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090504-0099.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP96-200-212.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Co.
    Description: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Co submits a
negotiated rate agreement with Oneok Energy Service Company, LP.
    Filed Date: 05/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090504-0197.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP97-28-023.
    Applicants: Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd.
    Description: Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd submits Fifth Revised
Sheet 105 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1, to be
effective 6/1/09.
    Filed Date: 05/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090504-0131.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP00-426-045.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC submits First Revised
Sheet 58 et al to its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1, to be
effective 5/1/09.
    Filed Date: 05/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090504-0127.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP00-426-046.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC submits First Revised
Sheet 61 et al to its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1, to be
effective 5/1/09.
    Filed Date: 05/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090504-0128.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-461-001.
    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Dominion Transmission, Inc. submits a revised Service
Agreements with Baltimore Gas and Electric Company Contract 300184 and
FT Contract 200526 in compliance with FERC's 4/17/09 Order.
    Filed Date: 05/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090504-0129.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-490-001.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC submits First Revised
Sheet 517.01 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1, to be
effective 6/1/09.
    Filed Date: 05/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090504-0130.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-559-000.
    Applicants: Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Destin Pipeline Co, LLC submits Fourth Revised Sheet
No. 4 to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1 to be effective 6/1/09.
    Filed Date: 05/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090501-0134.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-563-000.
    Applicants: MIGC LLC.
    Description: MIGC LLC submits First Revised Sheet No 84 et al to
its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No 1, to be effective 5/31/
09.
    Filed Date: 05/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090504-0092.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-564-000.
    Applicants: Empire Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Empire Pipeline, Inc submits First Revised Sheet 9 et
al to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, and FT Service Agreement
F11410 with Macquarie Cook Energy, LLC, to be effective 5/1/09.
    Filed Date: 05/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090504-0093.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-565-000.
    Applicants: Gulfstream Natural Gas System, L.L.C.
    Description: Gulfstream Natural Gas System, LLC submits Tenth
Revised Sheet No 7 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No 1, to be
effective 6/1/09.
    Filed Date: 05/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090504-0094.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-566-000.
    Applicants: Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company.
    Description: Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, LLC submits
Eighth Revised Sheet No 20 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No
1, to be effective 6/1/09.
    Filed Date: 05/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090504-0095.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-567-000.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Company submits Fifth First Revised Sheet
No 117 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No 1, to be
effective 6/1/09.
    Filed Date: 05/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090504-0096.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-568-000.
    Applicants: Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company.
    Description: Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company submits
Eighth Revised Sheet No 176 et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second
Revised Volume No 1, to be effective 6/1/09.
    Filed Date: 05/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090504-0097.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-569-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Northern Natural Gas Company submits 31 Revised Sheet
No 54 et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No 1, to be
effective 11/1/09.
    Filed Date: 05/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090504-0091.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-570-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC submits amendments
to existing negotiated rate Transportation Rate Schedule FTS Agreement
with Chesapeake Energy Marketing, Inc et al.
    Filed Date: 05/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090504-0132.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-571-000.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: Request for Extension of Time to File Updated System
Maps of ANR Pipeline Company.
    Filed Date: 04/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090430-5471.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 12, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-572-000.

    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Dominion Transmission, Inc submits Sixteenth Revised
Sheet 1300 et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 05/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090504-0133.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-573-000.
    Applicants: Northwest Pipeline GP.
    Description: Northwest Pipeline, GP submits for acceptance Third
Revised Sheet 396 et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume
1.
    Filed Date: 05/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090504-0134.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-574-000.
    Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas Company.
    Description: Colorado Interstate Gas Company submits Seventeenth
Revised Sheet 1 et al to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, to be
effective 6/1/09.
    Filed Date: 05/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090504-0145.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-575-000.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: Operations Purchases and Sales Report of ANR Pipeline
Company.
    Filed Date: 04/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090430-5473.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 12, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings 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) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    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 St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings 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>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-10833 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71316-71317]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27125]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2010-0051]

Caltrain's Request for Approval To Test Crossing Optimization on
Its Positive Train Control Network

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides the public with notice that on December
2, 2021, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) submitted
a document entitled, ``Crossing Optimization Project: Test Request,''
Revision 1, dated November 29, 2021, to FRA. Caltrain asks FRA to
approve its request so that Caltrain may field test its Crossing
Optimization on track that has been equipped with positive train
control (PTC) technology.

DATES: FRA will consider comments received by February 14, 2022. FRA
may consider comments received after that date to the extent
practicable and without delaying implementation of valuable or
necessary modifications to a PTC system.

ADDRESSES: All comments should identify the agency name and Docket
Number FRA-2010-0051, and may be submitted on https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
https://www.regulations.gov; this includes any personal information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabe Neal, Staff Director, Signal,
Train Control, and Crossings Division, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 17, 2020, FRA certified
Caltrain's Interoperable Electronic Train Management System (I-ETMS)
PTC system under Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section
236.1015 and Title 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) 20157(h). Pursuant to
49 CFR 236.1035, a railroad must obtain FRA's approval before field
testing an uncertified PTC system, or a product of an uncertified PTC
system, or any regression testing of a certified PTC system on the
general rail system. See 49 CFR 236.1035(a). Please see Caltrain's test
request for the required information, including a complete description
of both Caltrain's Crossing Optimization Project and its specific test
procedures, including the measures that will be taken to ensure safety
during testing.
    Caltrain's test request is available for review online at https://www.regulations.gov (Docket No. FRA-2010-0051). Interested parties are
invited to comment on the test request by submitting written comments
or data. During its review of the test request, FRA will consider any
comments or data submitted. However, FRA may elect not to respond to
any particular comment and, under 49 CFR 236.1035, FRA maintains the
authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the test request
at its sole discretion.

Privacy Act Notice

    In accordance with 49 CFR 211.3, FRA solicits comments from the
public to better inform its decisions. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of
records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov. To facilitate
comment tracking, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the
name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. If you wish to provide comments containing proprietary or
confidential information, please contact FRA for alternate submission
instructions.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Carolyn R. Hayward-Williams,
Director, Office of Railroad Systems and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2021-27125 Filed 12-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 18 (Monday, January 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5860-5861]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01818]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Eighth Meeting: RTCA Next Gen Advisory Committee (NAC)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
eighth meeting of the RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC).

DATES: The meeting will be held February 7, 2013, from 9:30 a.m. to
3:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the ballroom of the Hotel
Monaco, 15 West 200 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or the Web site at http://www.rtca.org.
Alternately, contact Andy Cebula at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a NextGen Advisory Committee meeting. The agenda will
include the following:

February 7, 2013

 Opening of Meeting and Introduction of NAC Members--Chairman
Bill Ayer, Chairman, Alaska Air Group
 Official Statement of Designated Federal Official--The
Honorable Michael Huerta, FAA Administrator
 Review and approval of October 4, 2012 Meeting Summary and
Revision to NAC Terms of Reference
 Chairman's Report--Chairman Ayer
 FAA Report--Mr. Huerta
 Review and Approve Recommendation for Submission to FAA
    [cir] NextGen Implementation Metrics--a recommendation for Key city
pairs evaluation of Transcon/Regional City Pairs that can be used for
NextGen metrics.
 Data sources for measuring NextGen fuel Impact
    [cir] Update of initiative to identify and obtain critical data
sources to track and analyze the impacts of NextGen.
 Cat Ex 2 Task Group
    [cir] Preliminary report on the recommendation for implementing new
statutory authority for a streamlined environmental review process.
 Performance Based Navigation (PBN)
    [cir] Preliminary report to identify and mitigate barriers to
implementing PBN.
 Issues associated with Implementing RNAV/RNP
    [cir] An open discussion by the Committee of Non-technical barriers
of PBN procedures.
 Anticipated Issues for NAC consideration and action at the
next meeting, May 30, 2013
 Other Business
 Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a written statement
to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 9, 2013.
David Sicard,
Manager, Business Operations Group, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-01818 Filed 1-24-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63537-63541]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22663]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96074; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2022-48]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
the NYSE American Options Fee Schedule

October 13, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on October 12, 2022, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE American Options Fee
Schedule (``Fee Schedule'') regarding certain incentive programs. The
Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective October 12,
2022.\4\ The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange originally filed to amend the Fee Schedule on
September 30, 2022 (SR-NYSEAMER-2022-46) and withdrew such filing on
October 12, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to modify the Fee Schedule regarding
three incentive programs currently offered by the Exchange.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to modify (1) the qualifications
for the Alternative Initiating Participant Rebate for Complex CUBE
auctions, as set forth in Section I.G. (the ``Complex CUBE Rebate''),
(2) the qualifications for the credit on Customer Electronic Simple and
Complex executions set forth in Section I.H. (the ``Customer Credit''),
and (3) the amount of the Initiating Participant Credit for Single-Leg
CUBE Auctions set forth in Section I.G. (the ``Initiating Participant
Credit'').
    As further discussed below, the proposed changes are designed to
encourage ATP Holders to increase volume in a variety of transactions
on the Exchange, including CUBE auction volume, Customer Electronic
volume, and Professional Electronic volume.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For purposes of this filing, ``Professional'' Electronic
volume includes: Professional Customer, Broker Dealer, Non-NYSE
American Options Market Maker, and Firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to implement this fee change on October 12,
2022.
Proposed Rule Change
Complex CUBE Auction Alternative Initiating Participant Rebate
    Section I.G. of the Fee Schedule sets forth the per contract fees
and credits for executions associated with Single-Leg and Complex CUBE
Auctions. To encourage participation in Complex CUBE Auctions, the
Exchange offers rebates on certain initiating Complex CUBE volume.
Currently, the Exchange offers the ACE Initiating Participant Rebate to
ATP Holders that also qualify for the American Customer Engagement
(``ACE'') Program \6\ and the Complex CUBE Rebate for ATP Holders that
do not qualify for the ACE program.\7\ Both the ACE Initiating
Participant Rebate and the Complex CUBE Rebate provide for a rebate of
$0.10 per contract, and an ATP Holder that qualifies for both rebates
is entitled to only the greater of the two.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Fee Schedule, Section I.E., American Customer Engagement
(``ACE'') Program, available at: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/american-options/NYSE_American_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
    \7\ See id. at Section I.G., CUBE Auction Fees and Credits,
Complex CUBE Auction.
    \8\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, ATP Holders that meet each of the following monthly
qualification levels are eligible to receive the Complex CUBE Rebate:
(a) 10,000 contracts ADV from Initiating CUBE orders in Complex CUBE
Auctions; (b) Customer Electronic executions of 0.05% of TCADV,
excluding CUBE Auctions, QCC Transactions, and volume from orders
routed to another exchange; and (c) Professional (as defined in Section
I.H. of the Fee Schedule) Electronic executions of 0.03% of TCADV,
excluding CUBE Auctions, QCC Transactions, and volume from orders
routed to another exchange.
    The Exchange proposes to modify the qualifications for the Complex
CUBE Rebate to require that ATP Holders execute: (a) 5,000 contracts
ADV from Initiating CUBE orders in Complex CUBE Auctions; (b) Customer
Electronic executions of 0.03% of TCADV, excluding CUBE Auctions, QCC
Transactions, and volume from orders routed to another exchange; and
(c) Professional (as defined in Section I.H. of the Fee Schedule)
Electronic executions of 0.02% of TCADV, excluding CUBE Auctions, QCC
Transactions, and volume from orders routed to another exchange.

    The Exchange does not propose to modify the amount of the Complex
CUBE Rebate (which will remain at $0.10 per contract), and an ATP
Holder that qualifies for both the ACE Initiating Participant Rebate
and the Complex CUBE Rebate will continue to be entitled only to the
greater of the two rebates.
Credit on Customer Electronic Simple and Complex Executions
    As set forth in Section I.H. of the Fee Schedule, ATP Holders are
currently eligible to receive the Customer Credit of $0.10 per contract
on Customer Electronic Simple and Complex executions, excluding CUBE
Auctions, QCC Transactions, and volume from orders routed to another
exchange, by meeting each of the following monthly qualification
levels: (a) 10,000 contracts ADV from Initiating CUBE Orders in Complex
CUBE Auctions; (b) Customer Electronic executions of 0.05% of TCADV,
excluding CUBE Auctions, QCC Transactions, and volume from orders
routed to another exchange; and (c) Professional Electronic executions
of 0.03% of TCADV, excluding CUBE Auctions, QCC Transactions, and
volume from orders routed to another exchange.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See id. at Section I.H. In calculating an OFP's Electronic
volume, the Exchange will include the activity of either (i)
Affiliates of the OFP, such as when an OFP has an Affiliated NYSE
American Options Market Making firm, or (ii) an Appointed MM of such
OFP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify the qualifications for the Customer
Credit to require that ATP Holders execute: (a) 5,000 contracts ADV
from Initiating CUBE orders in Complex CUBE Auctions; (b) Customer
Electronic executions of 0.03% of TCADV, excluding CUBE Auctions, QCC
Transactions, and volume from orders routed to another exchange; and
(c) Professional (as defined in Section I.H. of the Fee Schedule)
Electronic executions of 0.02% of TCADV, excluding CUBE Auctions, QCC
Transactions, and volume from orders routed to another exchange. The
Exchange does not propose to modify the amount of the Customer Credit,
which will remain at $0.10 per contract.
Single-Leg CUBE Auction Initiating Participant Credit
    Section I.G. of the Fee Schedule sets forth the rates for per
contract fees and credits for executions associated with Single-Leg and
Complex CUBE Auctions.\10\ To encourage participants to utilize Single-
Leg CUBE Auctions, the Exchange offers rebates and credits on certain
initiating Single-Leg CUBE volume. Currently, as described in Note 1 in
the Single-Leg CUBE Auction section of Section I.G., the Exchange
offers Initiating Participant Credits for each contract in a Contra
Order paired with a CUBE Order that does not trade with the CUBE Order
because it is replaced in the auction.\11\ The Exchange offers a $0.30
per contract credit for Penny issues and a $0.70 per contract credit
for Non-Penny issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See id. at Section I.G., CUBE Auction Fees & Credits.
    \11\ See id., Single-Leg CUBE Auction, note 1 (setting forth
both the ACE Initiating Participant Rebate and the Alternative
Initiating Participant Rebate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify the amounts of the Initiating
Participant Credits to offer a $0.26 per contract credit for Penny
issues and a $0.65 per contract credit for Non-Penny issues. The
Exchange further proposes to modify Note 1 to provide that ATP Holders
that execute at least 0.40% of TCADV in Electronic Customer Complex
Orders would be eligible for an increased Initiating Participant Credit
of $0.30 per contract for Penny issues and $0.70 per contract for Non-
Penny issues, instead of the proposed $0.26 and $0.65 per contract
credits for Penny and Non-Penny issues, respectively.
* * * * *
    The proposed changes are designed to incent ATP Holders to direct
order flow to the Exchange and to encourage ATP Holders to engage in a
variety of transactions on the Exchange. In particular, the Exchange
believes the proposed change would encourage ATP Holders to direct more
auction-eligible order flow, Customer Electronic volume, and
Professional Electronic volume to the Exchange to qualify for the
Complex CUBE Rebate, Customer Credit, and/or Initiating Participant
Credit. The Exchange notes that the proposed changes to the Complex
CUBE Rebate and Customer Credit would also maintain alignment between
the requirements for the Complex CUBE Rebate and Customer Credit. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed changes to the Initiating
Participant Credit, although they would decrease the amount of the
credit available to ATP Holders that do not execute the proposed
required level of Electronic Customer Complex volume, would continue to
provide an incentive for participation in Single-Leg CUBE Auctions,
while also encouraging increased Electronic Customer Complex volume.
Although the Exchange cannot predict with certainty whether ATP Holders
will be incentivized to qualify for the Complex CUBE Rebate, Customer
Credit, or Initiating Participant Credit, as modified, the Exchange
believes that, to the extent that the proposed changes achieve their
intended purpose, the increased liquidity on the Exchange would result
in enhanced market quality for all participants.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\13\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change is Reasonable
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (``Reg NMS
Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for
order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding
index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% of the market
share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options
trades.\15\ Therefore, currently no exchange possesses significant
pricing power in the execution of multiply-listed equity and ETF
options order flow. More specifically, in August 2022, the Exchange had
less than 8% market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity
and ETF options trades.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The OCC publishes options and futures volume in a variety
of formats, including daily and monthly volume by exchange,
available here: https://www.theocc.com/Market-Data/Market-Data-Reports/Volume-and-Open-Interest/Monthly-Weekly-Volume-Statistics.
    \16\ Based on a compilation of OCC data for monthly volume of
equity-based options and monthly volume of ETF-based options, see
id., the Exchange's market share in multiply listed equity and ETF
options was 7.56% for the month of August 2021 and 7.57% for the
month of August 2022.

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

    The Exchange's fees are constrained by intermarket competition, as
ATP Holders may direct their order flow to any of the 16 options
exchanges, including those offering incentives similar to the Complex
CUBE Rebate, Customer Credit, and Initiating Participant Credit.\17\
Thus, ATP Holders have a choice of where they direct their order flow.
The proposed modifications to the Complex CUBE Rebate, Customer Credit,
and Initiating Participant Credit are designed to continue to encourage
ATP Holders to engage in a variety of transactions on the Exchange and
increase volume in CUBE auctions as well as Customer and Professional
Electronic executions. The Exchange believes all market participants
stand to benefit from increased order flow, which promotes market
depth, facilitates tighter spreads, and enhances price discovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See, e.g., Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe'') Fee Schedule,
Volume Incentive Program, available at: https://cdn.cboe.com/resources/membership/Cboe_FeeSchedule.pdf (providing per contract
credits that, similar to the Complex CUBE Rebate and Customer
Credit, have qualifications based on volume from a variety of
executions, including auction volume, volume from various account
types, and volume from both simple and complex executions); Cboe Fee
Schedule, Break-Up Credits (offering break-up credits on certain
orders executed through Cboe Automated Improvement Mechanism of
$0.25 and $0.60 for penny and non-penny classes, respectively,
similar to the Initiating Participant Credit for Single-Leg CUBE
orders); Cboe EDGX (``EDGX'') Options Fee Schedule, Break-Up
Credits, available at: https://www.cboe.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/ (offering break-up credits on certain orders
executed through EDGX Automated Improvement Mechanism of $0.25 and
$0.60 for penny and non-penny program securities, respectively,
similar to the Initiating Participant Credit for Single-Leg CUBE
orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain options exchange transaction fees. Stated otherwise, changes
to exchange transaction fees and rebates can have a direct effect on
the ability of an exchange to compete for order flow.
    The proposed rule change is designed to continue to incent ATP
Holders to direct liquidity to the Exchange in a variety of forms and
from a variety of sources, thereby promoting market depth, price
discovery, and price improvement and enhancing order execution
opportunities for market participants. In particular, the Exchange
believes it is reasonable to provide ATP Holders with a rebate or
credit for achieving certain volume goals in different types of
executions.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed changes are designed
to continue to encourage ATP Holders to execute a variety of orders on
the Exchange. The Exchange further believes that maintaining the same
criteria to qualify for the Complex CUBE Rebate or Customer Credit
should encourage greater use of the Exchange by all ATP Holders, which
may lead to greater opportunities to trade and for price improvement
for all participants. The Exchange notes that all market participants
stand to benefit from increased transaction volume, as such increase
promotes market depth, facilitates tighter spreads and enhances price
discovery, and may lead to a corresponding increase in order flow from
other market participants.
    The Exchange cannot predict with certainty whether any ATP Holders
would seek to qualify for the Complex CUBE Rebate or the Customer
Credit, as modified, but believes that the proposed qualifying bases
for the Complex CUBE Rebate and Customer Credit, which lower the volume
necessary to qualify and maintain alignment between the volume
requirements across the two incentives, are achievable for ATP Holders
and would continue to incent ATP Holders to direct volume to the
Exchange. The Exchange also believes that the proposed modification of
the Initiating Participant Credit, although it would decrease the
credit earned by ATP Holders that do not execute the proposed required
level of Customer Electronic Complex volume, would continue to promote
both participation in Single-Leg CUBE Auctions and increased Customer
Electronic Complex volume directed to the Exchange.
    Finally, to the extent the proposed changes attract greater volume
and liquidity, the Exchange believes the proposed changes would improve
the Exchange's overall competitiveness and strengthen its market
quality for all market participants. In the backdrop of the competitive
environment in which the Exchange operates, the proposed rule changes
are a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase the depth of its
market and improve its market share relative to its competitors.
The Proposed Rule Change is an Equitable Allocation of Fees and Rebates
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is an equitable
allocation of its fees and rebates. The proposal is based on the amount
and type of business transacted on the Exchange, and ATP Holders can
seek to qualify for these incentives or not. The Exchange further
believes that, because ATP Holders would need to meet requirements
based on Initiating CUBE Orders, Customer Electronic executions, and
Professional Electronic executions in order to qualify for either the
Complex CUBE Rebate or Customer Credit, and would need to meet a
requirement based on Electronic Customer Complex to earn a higher
Initiating Participant Credit on Single-Leg CUBE orders, the proposed
changes are designed to continue to encourage ATP Holders to aggregate
their executions at the Exchange as a primary execution venue. To the
extent that the proposed changes attract more volume to the Exchange,
this increased order flow would continue to make the Exchange a more
competitive venue for order execution. Thus, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule changes would improve market quality for all market
participants on the Exchange and, as a consequence, attract more order
flow to the Exchange thereby improving market-wide quality and price
discovery.
The Proposed Rule Change is not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory because the proposed modifications would apply to all
similarly-situated market participants on an equal and non-
discriminatory basis. The proposed changes are based on the amount and
type of business transacted on the Exchange, and ATP Holders are not
obligated to try to achieve any of the incentives offered. Rather, the
proposals are designed to continue to encourage participants to utilize
the Exchange as a primary trading venue (if they have not done so
previously) and increase auction, Customer Electronic, and Professional
Electronic volume sent to the Exchange. In addition, the proposed
modifications would continue to align the requirements for the Customer
Credit and Complex CUBE Rebate, which may lead to greater opportunities
to trade--and for price improvement--for all participants.
    To the extent that the proposed changes attract more executions to
the Exchange, this increased order flow would continue to make the
Exchange a more competitive venue for order execution. Thus, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule changes would improve market
quality for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a
consequence, attract more order flow to the Exchange thereby improving
market-wide quality and price discovery. The

resulting increased volume and liquidity would provide more trading
opportunities and tighter spreads to all market participants and thus
would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed changes would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price
discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities
for all market participants. As a result, the Exchange believes that
the proposed changes further the Commission's goal in adopting
Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among orders, which
promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of
orders, large and small.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Reg NMS Adopting Release, supra note 14, at 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed change is designed to
continue to attract increased and diverse order flow to the Exchange by
offering competitive credits and rebates, which may increase the volume
of contracts traded on the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change, by specifying requirements in
auction, Customer Electronic, and Professional Electronic volume, would
incent ATP Holders to participate in a variety of types of executions
on the Exchange to qualify for the Complex CUBE Rebate, Customer
Credit, and Initiating Participant Credit. To the extent that this
purpose is achieved, all of the Exchange's market participants should
benefit from the improved market liquidity. Enhanced market quality and
increased transaction volume resulting from the anticipated increase in
order flow directed to the Exchange would benefit all market
participants and improve competition on the Exchange.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor one
of the 16 competing option exchanges if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other
exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. Based on publicly-
available information, and excluding index-based options, no single
exchange currently has more than 16% of the market share of executed
volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.\19\ Therefore,
no exchange currently possesses significant pricing power in the
execution of multiply-listed equity and ETF options order flow. More
specifically, in August 2022, the Exchange had less than 8% market
share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options
trades.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 15.
    \20\ Based on a compilation of OCC data for monthly volume of
equity-based options and monthly volume of ETF-based options, see
id., the Exchange's market share in multiply listed equity and ETF
options was 7.56% for the month of August 2021 and 7.57% for the
month of August 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment because it modifies the Exchange's fees and
rebates in a manner designed to encourage ATP Holders to direct trading
interest to the Exchange, to provide liquidity and to attract order
flow. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed change
would encourage ATP Holders to direct increased and diverse volume to
the Exchange, thereby increasing the number of executions (and
executions of varying types) on the Exchange. The Exchange further
believes that maintaining consistency between the requirements for the
Complex CUBE Rebate and Customer Credit could make the incentives more
achievable for ATP Holders and would thus continue to make the Exchange
a more attractive and competitive venue for order execution. To the
extent that this purpose is achieved, all the Exchange's market
participants should benefit from the improved market quality and
increased opportunities for price improvement.
    Thus, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes could promote
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including
those that currently offer similar pricing incentives, by encouraging
additional orders to be sent to the Exchange for execution.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \21\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \22\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \23\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2022-48 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2022-48. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your

comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission
will post all comments on the Commission's internet website (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 website 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 filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do
not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEAMER-2022-48, and should be submitted on or before November 9,
2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-22663 Filed 10-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 39)]
[Notices]
[Page 9124-9125]
[DOCID:fr02mr09-68]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Notice for Waiver of Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance;
Midway Airport, Chicago, Illinois

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes to rule and
invite comment on the release of land at Chicago Midway International
Airport under the provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford
Aviation Investment Act for the 21st Century (AIR21).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 1, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at 2300
East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois, or at City of Chicago
Department of Aviation, 10610 Zemke Road, Chicago, Illinois.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James G. Keefer, Manager, Chicago
Airports District Office, Federal Aviation Administration, 2300 East
Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois, 60018. Telephone Number 847-294-
7336/FAX Number<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release property at Chicago Midway International Airport
under the provisions of AIR 21. The following is a brief overview of
the request:
    The City of Chicago, the owner of Chicago Midway International
Airport, requests the release of certain parcels of land from airport
property for the following purposes: (1) To enable the exchange of
certain city-owned airport land for other City-owned non-airport land
contiguous to airport property; (2) to reflect the relocation of
certain public roadways for airport development; and (3) to release
certain city-owned airport land that is no longer used or needed for
airport purposes. Neither the use nor the ownership of the property
will change as a result of this request. The requested release will
bring the airport Exhibit A map into conformance with its existing land
use.
    The City of Chicago Department of Aviation has requested to release
to the City of Chicago Department of Transportation, for use by the
Chicago Transit Authority approximately 2.02 acres of city-owned
airport land, located south of vacated West 59th Street, north of
relocated West 59th Street and east of the airport's southern entrance
roads, in exchange for approximately 2.18 acres of City-owned non-
airport land, located north of vacated West 59th Street, east of the
airport terminal and west of the Chicago Transit Authority's Orange
Line train station, will be added to the airport. The City also
requests the release of airport land used for relocated public roadways
consisting of approximately 6.77 acres.
    The relocated public roadways include portions of South Cicero
Avenue between West 53rd Street and West 61st Street and portions of
West 59th Street between the Beltline Railroad and South Cicero Avenue.
The airport has received approximately 15.53 acres from the vacation of
former public roadways, including the roadways that were relocated. The
City wants to release Parcel 10 and easements for Parcels 1 and 4. The
parcel and easements, originally acquired for airport navigational aid
purposes are no longer needed. Parcel 10, consisting of approximately
0.18 acres, was acquired with Federal financial assistance in 1958 for
navigational aids that were eventually located elsewhere. Parcel 10 is
located approximately 1555 feet northwest of the airport, it is beyond
the end of the runway safety zone, and it is not needed for any airport
purposes. The City will return the fair market value proceeds of Parcel
10 to the Chicago Airport system.

    Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois, on February 17, 2009.
James G. Keefer,
Manager, Chicago Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. E9-4350 Filed 2-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P