[Federal Register: October 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 201)]
[Notices]
[Page 59126-59127]
[DOCID:fr18oc07-86]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56655; File No. SR-BSE-2007-47]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the Listing of Options Series With $2.50 Strike Price
Intervals Between $50 and $75

October 12, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 4, 2007, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (``BSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange.
The Exchange has designated this proposal as non-controversial under
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Supplementary Material to
Section 6 of Chapter IV of the Rules of the Boston Options Exchange
(``BOX'') pertaining to $2.50 strike price intervals. The text of the
proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's
Public Reference Room, and http://www.bostonoptions.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to amend the BOX rules to clarify its
existing practice of listing options series with $2.50 strike price
intervals for strike prices between $50 and $75 on those option classes
that have been selected as part of the $2.50 Strike Price Program,\5\
provided that the $2.50 strike price intervals between $50 and $75 are
no more than $10 from the closing price of the underlying stock in its
primary market on the preceding day. For example, if an options class
has been selected as part of the $2.50 Strike Price Program, and the
underlying security closes at $48.50 in its primary market, the
Exchange may list strike prices of $52.50 and $57.50 on the next
business day. If an underlying security closes at $54.00, the Exchange
may list strike prices of $52.50, $57.50, and $62.50 on the next
business day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See BOX Rules Ch. IV, Sec. 6, Supp. Mat. .03. Pursuant to
the existing terms of the $2.50 Strike Price Program, BOX is
permitted to list strike prices at $2.50 intervals where the strike
price is greater than $25 but less than $50 on 200 option classes
selected by the various options exchanges for participation in the
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is intended to provide customers with
greater flexibility in their investment choices for options on stocks
priced between $50 and $75. Similar proposals have been approved and
adopted at competitor exchanges, resulting in additional trading
opportunities, creation of increased flexibility in trading decisions,
and affording customers more precision in their investment strategies.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \7\ in particular, because it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one
that does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or
the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition;
or (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of filing (or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest), the proposed rule
change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
\8\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\9\ The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the operative delay to permit the
proposed rule change to become operative prior to the 30th day after
filing.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange
provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file
the proposed rule change at least five business before doing so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it would benefit investors by clarifying the terms of BOX's
$2.50 Strike Price Program, and would promote competition by bringing
the rules regarding BOX's program into agreement with the rules of
other options exchanges with similar programs.\11\ Therefore, the
Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., International Securities Exchange Rule 504(g).
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay of this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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 the furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-BSE-2007-47 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2007-47. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2007-47 and should be
submitted on or before November 8, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-20536 Filed 10-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 14, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35897-35898]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12695]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0310; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASW-6]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Oakwood, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Class E airspace at Oakwood, TX. The
FAA is finalizing this action due to an airspace review conducted as
part of the decommissioning of the Leona very high frequency (VHF)
omnidirectional range (VOR) as part of the VOR Minimal Operational
Network (MON) Program.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, September 8, 2022. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends the Class E airspace extending upward from

700 feet above the surface at Carter Ranch Airport, Oakwood, TX, to
support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (87 FR 21060; April 11, 2022) for Docket No. FAA-2022-0310 to
amend the Class E airspace at Oakwood, TX. Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11F.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 amends the Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Carter Ranch
Airport, Oakwood, TX, by removing the Leona VORTAC and associated
extension from the airspace legal description; removes the exclusionary
language from the airspace legal description as it is not required; and
removes the city associated with the airport to comply with changes to
FAA Order JO 7400.2N, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.
    This action is the result of an airspace review conducted as part
of the decommissioning of the Leona VOR, which provided navigation
information for the instrument procedures at this airport, as part of
the VOR MON Program.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,
paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any
potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary
circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental
assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Oakwood, TX [Amended]

Carter Ranch Airport, TX
    (Lat. 31[deg]34'01''N, long. 95[deg]46'00''W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Carter Ranch Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 8, 2022.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2022-12695 Filed 6-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 54579]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19369]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-P-0438]

Determination That MICRO-K LS (Potassium Chloride) Extended-
Release Liquid Suspension, 20 Milliequivalents/Packet, Was Not
Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has
determined that MICRO-K LS (potassium chloride) extended-release liquid
suspension, 20 milliequivalents (mEq)/packet, was not withdrawn from
sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination will
allow FDA to approve abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for
MICRO-K LS (potassium chloride) extended-release liquid suspension, 20
mEq/packet, if all other legal and regulatory requirements are met.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sungjoon Chi, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6216, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-9674<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price
Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417)
(the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate
versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants
must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are
seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same
strength and dosage form as the ``listed drug,'' which is a version of
the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to
repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain
approval of a new drug application (NDA).
    The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which
requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes
this list as part of the ``Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic
Equivalence Evaluations,'' which is known generally as the ``Orange
Book.'' Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the
Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for
reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed
drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21
CFR 314.162).
    A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may
determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn
from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination
may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale,
but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed
drug (Sec.  314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that
does not refer to a listed drug.
    MICRO-K LS (potassium chloride) extended-release liquid suspension,
20 mEq/packet, is the subject of NDA 019561, held by KV Pharmaceutical
Co., and initially approved on August 26, 1988. MICRO-K LS is indicated
for the treatment of patients with hypokalemia, with or without
metabolic alkalosis; in digitalis intoxication; and in patients with
hypokalemic familial periodic paralysis. MICRO-K LS is also indicated
for the prevention of hypokalemia in patients who would be at
particular risk if hypokalemia were to develop, e.g., digitalized
patients or patients with significant cardiac arrhythmias, hepatic
cirrhosis with ascites, states of aldosterone excess with normal renal
function, potassium losing nephropathy, and certain diarrheal states.
    In a letter dated October 8, 2010, KV Pharmaceutical Co. notified
FDA that MICRO-K LS (potassium chloride) extended-release liquid
suspension, 20 mEq/packet, was being discontinued, and FDA moved the
drug product to the ``Discontinued Drug Product List'' section of the
Orange Book. In the Federal Register of June 8, 2011 (76 FR 33310), FDA
announced that it was withdrawing approval of NDA 019561, effective
July 8, 2011.
    Hyman, Phelps, and McNamara, P.C. submitted a citizen petition
dated January 27, 2020 (Docket No. FDA-2020-P-0438), under 21 CFR
10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether MICRO-K LS
(potassium chloride) extended-release liquid suspension, 20 mEq/packet,
was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
    After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records
and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined
under Sec.  314.161 that MICRO-K LS (potassium chloride) extended-
release liquid suspension, 20 mEq/packet, was not withdrawn for reasons
of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or
other information suggesting that MICRO-K LS (potassium chloride)
extended-release liquid suspension, 20 mEq/packet, was withdrawn for
reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our
files for records concerning the withdrawal of MICRO-K LS (potassium
chloride) extended-release liquid suspension, 20 mEq/packet, from sale.
We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for
possible postmarketing adverse events. We have found no information
that would indicate that this drug product was withdrawn from sale for
reasons of safety or effectiveness.
    Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list MICRO-K LS (potassium
chloride) extended-release liquid suspension, 20 mEq/packet, in the
``Discontinued Drug Product List'' section of the Orange Book. The
``Discontinued Drug Product List'' delineates, among other items, drug
products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other
than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to MICRO-K LS (potassium
chloride) extended-release liquid suspension, 20 mEq/packet, may be
approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and
regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines
that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current
standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such
labeling.

    Dated: August 27, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-19369 Filed 9-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: December 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 244)]
[Notices]
[Page 72352]
[DOCID:fr20de07-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP08-59-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Technical
Conference

December 13, 2007.
    The Commission's December 5, 2007 order in the above captioned
proceeding \1\ directed that a technical conference be held to address
the issues raised by Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation's (Columbia
Gas) November 7, 2007 filing proposing to modify its existing SIT Rate
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 121 FERC ] 61,232 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that the Commission will convene a technical conference
on Thursday, January 31, 2008, at 10 a.m. (EST), in a room to be
designated at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Commission Staff and parties will have the opportunity to discuss
all of the issues raised by Columbia Gas' proposals to modify its SIT
Rate Schedule. Specifically, Columbia Gas should be prepared to address
all the concerns raised in the protests, and if necessary, to provide
additional technical, engineering, and operational support for its
proposals. Any party proposing alternatives to Columbia Gas's proposals
should also be prepared to similarly support its position.
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    All interested persons are permitted to attend. For further
information, please contact Eugene Kim at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-24658 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38024-38026]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15082]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF13-9-000]

Magnolia LNG, LLC; Liquefied Natural Gas Limited; Notice of
Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned
Magnolia Liquefied Natural Gas Project, Request for Comments on
Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that
will discuss the environmental impacts of the Magnolia Liquefied
Natural Gas Project (Magnolia LNG Project) involving construction and
operation of facilities by Magnolia LNG, LLC (Magnolia) in Calcasieu
Parish, Louisiana. The Commission will use this EIS in its decision-
making process to determine whether the project is in the public
convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EIS. Please note
that the scoping period will close on July 19, 2013.
    You may submit comments in written form or verbally. Further
details on how to submit written comments are in the Public
Participation section of this notice. In lieu of or in addition to
sending written comments, the Commission invites you to attend the
public scoping meeting scheduled as follows:

FERC Public Scoping Meeting, Magnolia LNG Project, July 11, 2013; 6:00
p.m. local time.

Historic Cash & Carry Building, 801 Enterprise Blvd., Lake Charles, LA
70601.

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this planned
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

Summary of the Planned Project

    Magnolia, a newly formed subsidiary of Liquefied Natural Gas
Limited, plans to build, own, and operate the Magnolia LNG facility
located on land at the Port of Lake Charles within Calcasieu Parish,
south of Lake Charles, Louisiana. The facility would receive natural
gas from North American sources via an existing pipeline and would
liquefy and store it for export and domestic use.
    The Magnolia LNG Project would consist of the following facilities:
     Four liquefaction trains, with a capacity of 2.0 metric
tons per annum (mtpa) for a total of 8.0 mtpa nominal capacity;
     approximately 200 feet of interconnect pipeline located
entirely within the project site;
     two LNG storage tanks with a capacity of approximately
160,000 cubic meters each;
     an LNG vessel loading terminal and berth; and
     an LNG truck loading area, as well as other ancillary
facilities.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    The planned liquefaction facilities would be constructed on an
approximately 108-acre parcel of land located within Industrial Canal
South Shore PLC Tract 475 at the Port of Lake Charles. The construction
of the LNG vessel loading terminal and berth would require
approximately 1.3 million cubic yards of material to be dredged from
the Industrial Canal. The location is zoned for heavy industrial use on
an industrial canal off the main Calcasieu River Ship Channel. Magnolia
is still in the planning phase for the Magnolia LNG Project and some
additional workspace requirements have not been finalized.

The EIS Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of an
authorization under Section 3a of the Natural Gas Act. NEPA also
requires us \2\ to discover and address concerns the public may have
about proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal
of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EIS on the
important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests
public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EIS. We
will consider all

filed comments during the preparation of the EIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EIS, we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the planned project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     land use;
     water resources and wetlands;
     cultural resources;
     vegetation, fisheries, and wildlife;
     socioeconomics;
     air quality and noise;
     endangered and threatened species; and
     public safety.
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned project
or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen
or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Although no formal application has been filed, we have already
initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process.
The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement
of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before
the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we
have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their
involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EIS. In
addition, representatives from the FERC participated in the public open
house sponsored by Magnolia in Lake Charles, Louisiana on May 2, 2013
to explain the environmental review process and answer questions from
interested stakeholders.
    The EIS will present our independent analysis of the issues. We
will publish and distribute the draft EIS for public comment. After the
comment period, we will consider all timely comments and revise the
document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. To ensure we have
the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully
follow the instructions in the Public Participation section beginning
on page 5 of this notice.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues
related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the
preparation of the EIS.\3\ Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice. Currently, the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers have expressed their intention to participate as cooperating
agencies in the preparation of the EIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Sec.  1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to
solicit its views and those of other government agencies, interested
Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on
historic properties.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register for Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will define the project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE)
in consultation with the SHPO as the project develops. On natural gas
facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject
to ground disturbance (examples include construction area, contractor
storage yards, and access roads). Our EIS for this project will
document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and
summarize the status of consultations under section 106.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and
the environmental information provided by Magnolia. This preliminary
list of issues may change based on your comments and our analysis.
Issued identified include:
     Potential impacts on ship and barge traffic, recreational
fishing, and aquatic resources in the Calcasieu Ship Channel;
     potential water quality impacts from dredging;
     visual effects on surrounding areas;
     public safety and hazards associated with the transport of
natural gas and LNG; and
     potential impacts and benefits of the construction
workforce on local housing, infrastructure, public services, and the
economy.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so
that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before July
19, 2013. This is not your only public input opportunity; please refer
to the Environmental Review Process flowchart in Appendix 2.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
project docket number (PF13-9-000) with your submission. The Commission
encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available
to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for interested
persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) whose

property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes
within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who
submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental
mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the
information related to this environmental review to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the planned project.
    Copies of the completed draft EIS will be sent to the environmental
mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to
receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the
attached Information Request (Appendix 3).

Becoming an Intervenor

    Once Magnolia LNG, LLC files its application with the Commission,
you may want to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to
the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in
the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web
site. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for
intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission
receives a formal application for the project. To know when a formal
application is filed with the Commission, we recommend that interested
parties eSubscribe to the docket for this project (PF13-9-000).
Directions to eSubscribe are detailed below.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., PF13-
9). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: June 18, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-15082 Filed 6-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 221)]
[Notices]
[Page 64608-64609]
[DOCID:fr16no07-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12895-000]

BPUS Generation Development, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

November 8, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12895-000.
    c. Date filed: July 30, 2007.
    d. Applicant: BPUS Generation Development, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Mississippi Lock & Dam No. 13 Hydroelectric
Project.
    f. Location: Mississippi River in Clinton County, Iowa. It would
use the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Mississippi Lock & Dam No. 13.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Jeffrey M. Auser, P.E., BPUS Generation
Development, LLC, 225 Greenfield Parkway, Suite 201, Liverpool, NY
13088,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the project
number (P-12895-000) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project using the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' Mississippi Lock & Dam No. 13 and operated in a
run-of-river mode would consist of: (1) A new 125-foot long, 160-foot
wide, 60-foot high concrete powerhouse; (2) a new intake channel and
tailrace on the levee section of the Corps' facility opposite the
existing lock structure; (3) three turbine/generator units with a
combined installed capacity of 11.5 megawatts; (4) a new 6,500-foot
long above ground transmission line extending from the switchyard near
the powerhouse to an interconnection point with an existing
transmission line west of the powerhouse; and (5) appurtenant
facilities. The proposed Mississippi Lock & Dam No. 13 Project would
have an average annual generation of 86 gigawatt-hours.
    l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket

number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy
is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in
item h above.
    m. Competing Preliminary Permit: Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30
and 4.36.
    n. Competing Development Application: Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    o. Notice of Intent: A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    p. Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit: A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    q. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210,
385.211, 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT
TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'',
``PROTEST'', and ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the
Project Number of the particular application to which the filing
refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the
original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's
regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be
sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A
copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant
specified in the particular application.
    s. Agency Comments: Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-22401 Filed 11-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8234-8235]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02976]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

First Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 229, 406 MHz Emergency
Locator Transmitters (ELTs) Joint With EUROCAE WG-98 Committee

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

ACTION: First Meeting 406 MHz Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs)
Joint with EUROCAE WG-98 Committee.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
first meeting of the 406 MHz Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs)
Joint with EUROCAE WG-98 Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held March 10, 2014 from 10:00am-5:00pm and
March 11-12, 2014 from 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or you
may contact Sophie Bousquet<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-330-0663.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 224. The agenda will
include the following:

March 10-12

 Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
 Agenda Overview
 RTCA Overview
    [cir] Background on RTCA and Process
 Review of ELT 2nd Generation context
    [cir] ``Specifications for new generation ELT''--Philippe Plantin
de Hugues, BEA
    [cir] ``Introductory Presentation''--Charisse Green, FAA
    [cir] ``EASA presentation''--Xavier Audouze, EASA
    [cir] ``Analysis of ELT SAR events assisted by Cospas-Sarsat''--
Dany Saint-Pierre, COSPAS-SARSAT
    [cir] ``MEOSAR update''--Chris O'Connors, NOAA
    [cir] ``Operational Requirement C/S G.008 update''--Allan Knox,
USAF
    [cir] ``Second Generation Beacon efforts to date''--George
Theodorakos, NASA
 WG-98 KoM (Nov 26-27, 2013) and ToR overview
 SC-229 Scope and Terms of Reference
 SC-229/WG-98 Structure and Organization of Work
    [cir] Detailed Schedule
    [cir] Workspace presentation
 Review of WG-98 preliminary comments on ED-62A and DO-204A
 Other Business
 Date and Place of Next Meetings
 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 February 5, 2014.
Paige Williams,
Management Analyst, NextGen, Business Operations Group Federal Aviation
Administration
[FR Doc. 2014-02976 Filed 2-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:I am rarely motivated to comment on issues of this nature, but seriously...who will benefit from a typical and systemic approach to an issue that is clearly complex and stands to help so many? Answer? The few, not the many. Please reconsider your time constraints, pause and think about those that see vaping as not an opportunity to profit or coerce, but as a way to avoid the evils of TOBACCO and more importantly it's proven combustible health risks. This process requires more time.

"A 75 day comment period is insufficient time for the vaping industry and the wider vaping community to comment on the proposed deeming regulations. I would respectfully request that the period for comment be extended to 180 days."

Thanking you in advance for your consideration.

Regards, Yet another happy non smoker.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 188 (Friday, September 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45647-45650]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20888]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81713; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2017-109]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca
Rule 14.2 To Make Technical and Conforming Updates in Connection With
the Recent Merger of NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. With and Into the
Exchange

September 25, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on September 12, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II 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 NYSE Arca Rule 14.2 (Liability of
Exchange) to make technical and conforming updates in connection with
the recent merger of NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (``NYSE Arca Equities'')
with and into the Exchange.
    The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 14.2 to make
technical and conforming updates in connection with the recent merger
of its wholly-owned subsidiary NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (``NYSE Arca
Equities'') with and into the Exchange (the ``Merger'').
    On June 2, 2017, the Exchange filed rule changes with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') in connection with
the proposed Merger (the ``Original Filing'').\4\ On August 15, 2017,
the Exchange filed a partial amendment to the Original Filing (the
``Amendment''), which, among other things, amended the Original Filing
to reflect changes to the proposed rule text that resulted from changes
to the NYSE Arca and NYSE Arca Equities rules that became operative
after June 2, 2017.\5\ On

August 17, 2017, the Commission approved the proposed rule changes, as
amended, and the Merger occurred on that same date.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80929 (June 14,
2017), 82 FR 28157 (June 20, 2017) (SR-NYSEArca-2017-40)
(``Notice'').
    \5\ See Partial Amendment 2 to SR-NYSEArca-2017-40 (August 15,
2017). The Amendment also was submitted to the Commission as a
comment letter on the Original Filing. See letter from Martha
Redding, Associate General Counsel, NYSE Group, to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Commission (August 15, 2017), available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2017-40/nysearca201740-2221802-160732.pdf.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81419 (August 17,
2017), 82 FR 40044 (August 23, 2017) (SR-NYSEArca-2017-40) (Approval
Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the Merger, NYSE Arca had two rulebooks: The NYSE Arca
rules for its options market and the NYSE Arca Equities rules for its
equities market. At the Merger, the NYSE Arca Equities rules were
integrated into the NYSE Arca rules, so that there is now one NYSE Arca
rulebook.\7\ In that process, NYSE Arca Rule 14 (Liability of Directors
and Exchange) was amended to incorporate NYSE Arca Equities Rule 13
(Liability of Directors and Corporation).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See id. at 40044.
    \8\ See id. at 40048.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 24, 2017, the Commission approved a proposed rule change to
amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 13.2 (Liability of Corporation).\9\
Because such rule change was approved after the Original Filing but
prior to the Merger, it should have been included in the Amendment.
However, due to an oversight, the Amendment did not incorporate the
changes to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 13.2 into NYSE Arca Rule 14.2.\10\
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to make technical and conforming
changes to NYSE Arca Rule 14.2 in order to conform it to the text of
previous NYSE Arca Equities Rule 13.2 approved by the Commission on
July 24, 2017.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81197 (July 24,
2017), 82 FR 35244 (July 28, 2017) (SR-NYSEArca-2017-46) (Approval
Order).
    \10\ The Amendment updated NYSE Arca Equities Rule 13.2 in
Exhibit 5I to Original Filing to reflect the changes made in SR-
NYSEArca-2017-46. See Item 19 of the Amendment, supra note 5, at 13-
15. Exhibit 5I set forth the NYSE Arca Equities Rules, which were
deleted in their entirety at the time of the Merger.
    \11\ The Exchange notes that during the period between the
Merger and the date of the present filing, it did not receive a
claim that exceeded the liability limits and thus the Exchange was
not prevented from fully compensating an ETP Holder for losses
suffered in connection with the use of the Exchange's facilities,
including losses caused by the negligent act or omission of an
Exchange employee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, the Exchange proposes to:
     Amend Rule 14.2(a) to provide that the limitation of
liability set forth in that paragraph would apply to ``successors,
representatives, or customers'' of Equities Trading Permit holders
(``ETP Holders''), Options Trading Permit holders (``OTP Holders'') and
Options Trading Permit firms (``OTP Firms'') of the Exchange,
consistent with previous NYSE Arca Equities Rule 13.2(a);
     Amend Rule 14.2(b), which describes certain prerequisites
for qualifying for compensation, to replace the words ``acknowledged
receipt of'' with the word ``received,'' consistent with previous NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 13.2(b);
     Amend Rule 14.2(b) and (c) to eliminate the daily caps on
liability, consistent with previous NYSE Arca Equities Rule 13.2(b) and
(c); and
     Amend Rule 14.2(c) and add a new Rule 14.2(d) to change
the procedural requirements for submitting notification to the Exchange
of any claims for compensation, consistent with previous NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 13.2(c) and (d). As a technical change, the obsolete
reference to the ``Corporation'' in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 13.2(d),
which referred to NYSE Arca Equities, would be updated to refer to the
``Exchange'' in new Rule 14.2(d).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 28161 (noting that in rule
text based on NYSE Arca Equities rules, references to the
Corporation would be replaced with references to the Exchange).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act,\13\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(1) \14\ in particular, in that it enables the Exchange to be so
organized as to have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes
of the Exchange Act and to comply, and to enforce compliance by its
exchange members and persons associated with its exchange members, with
the provisions of the Exchange Act, the rules and regulations
thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to Rule 14.2 would
enable the Exchange to continue to be so organized as to have the
capacity to carry out the purposes of the Exchange Act and comply and
enforce compliance with the provisions of the Exchange Act by its
members and persons associated with its members, because, by
incorporating the amendments to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 13.2 that the
Commission approved on July 24, 2017, the proposed change would ensure
that the changes made to Rule 14.2 to reflect the Merger were accurate
and complete.
    For similar reasons, the Exchange also believes that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in that
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system in general, to protect investors and the
public interest, because, by incorporating the amendments to NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 13.2 that the Commission approved on July 24, 2017, the
proposed change would ensure that the changes made to Rule 14.2 to
reflect the Merger were accurate and complete, thereby reducing
potential investor or market participant confusion. The proposed change
would clarify the scope of the limitation of liability, including the
elimination of daily liability caps and applicable procedural
requirements, for all ETP Holders, OTP Holders, and ETP Firms [sic],
and ensure that all Exchange permit holders would be subject to the
same rule.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Commission notes that NYSE Arca Rule 14.2 applies to
ETP Holders, OTP Holders, and OTP Firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act,\17\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(1) \18\ in particular, in that it enables the Exchange to be so
organized as to have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes
of the Exchange Act and to comply, and to enforce compliance by its
exchange members and persons associated with its exchange members, with
the provisions of the Exchange Act, the rules and regulations
thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to Rule 14.2 would
enable the Exchange to continue to be so organized as to have the
capacity to carry out the purposes of the Exchange Act and comply and
enforce compliance with the provisions of the Exchange Act by its
members and persons associated with its members, because, by
incorporating the amendments to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 13.2 that the
Commission approved on July 24, 2017, the proposed change would ensure
that the changes made to Rule 14.2 to reflect the Merger were accurate
and complete.
    For similar reasons, the Exchange also believes that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the

Act,\19\ in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system in general, to protect investors and the
public interest, because, by incorporating the amendments to NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 13.2 that the Commission approved on July 24, 2017, the
proposed change would ensure that the changes made to Rule 14.2 to
reflect the Merger were accurate and complete, thereby reducing
potential investor or market participant confusion. The proposed change
would clarify the scope of the limitation of liability, including the
elimination of daily liability caps and applicable procedural
requirements, for all ETP Holders, OTP Holders, and ETP Firms [sic],
and ensure that all Exchange permit holders would be subject to the
same rule.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra note 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not intended to address competitive issues but rather is concerned
solely with updating Rule 14.2 to reflect the previously approved
amendments to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 13.2, ensuring that all Exchange
permit holders would be subject to the same rules.

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 Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \21\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\22\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \23\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\24\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange notes that
such waiver would allow the Exchange to implement without further delay
the previously-approved amendments to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 13.2 and
would ensure continuity in the Exchange's treatment of ETP Holders, as
ETP Holders subject to NYSE Arca Rule 14.2 would be subject to the same
limitations of liability as they were under NYSE Arca Equities Rule
13.2 prior to the Merger, including the elimination of daily liability
caps. In addition, the Exchange notes that the proposed rule change
would clarify the scope of its limitation of liability rule, including
the elimination of daily liability caps and applicable procedural
requirements, for all ETP Holders, OTP Holders, and OTP Firms, and
ensure that all Exchange permit holders would be subject to the same
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Waiver of the operative delay will help ensure consistent treatment of
ETP Holders, OTP Holders, and OTP Firms under NYSE Arca Rule 14.2 and
help avoid the potential for confusion as to the applicable limitations
of liability with respect to that rule. Therefore, the Commission
hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposal
operative upon filing with the Commission.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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) of the Act \26\ to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2017-109 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-NYSEArca-2017-109. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2017-109 and should
be submitted on or before October 20, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-20888 Filed 9-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 212 (Friday, November 1, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58722-58723]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23923]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-P-2982]

Determination That MEXITIL (Mexiletine Hydrochloride) Capsules,
150 Milligrams, 200 Milligrams, and 250 Milligrams, Were Not Withdrawn
From Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) has
determined that MEXITIL (mexiletine hydrochloride) capsules, 150
milligrams (mg), 200 mg, and 250 mg, were not withdrawn from sale for
reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination will allow FDA
to approve abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for MEXITIL
(mexiletine hydrochloride) capsules, 150 mg, 200 mg, and 250 mg, if all
other legal and regulatory requirements are met.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carlarease Hunter, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6213, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-3702<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price
Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417)
(the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate
versions of drug products under an

ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants must, with certain exceptions, show
that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same
active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the ``listed
drug,'' which is a version of the drug that was previously approved.
ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing
otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).
    The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which
requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes
this list as part of the ``Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic
Equivalence Evaluations,'' which is known generally as the ``Orange
Book.'' Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the
Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for
reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed
drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21
CFR 314.162).
    A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may
determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn
from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination
may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale but
must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug
(Sec.  314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does
not refer to a listed drug.
    MEXITIL (mexiletine hydrochloride) is the subject of NDA 018873,
held by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and initially
approved on December 30, 1985. MEXITIL (mexiletine hydrochloride)
capsules, 150 mg, 200 mg, and 250 mg, are indicated for the treatment
of documented ventricular arrhythmias, such as sustained ventricular
tachycardia, that, in the judgment of the physician, are life-
threatening.
    MEXITIL (mexiletine hydrochloride) capsules, 150 mg, 200 mg, and
250 mg, are currently listed in the ``Discontinued Drug Product List''
section of the Orange Book.
    Hetero Labs Limited submitted a citizen petition dated June 19,
2019 (Docket No. FDA-2019-P-2982), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that
the Agency determine whether MEXITIL (mexiletine hydrochloride)
capsules, 150 mg, 200 mg, and 250 mg, were withdrawn from sale for
reasons of safety or effectiveness.
    After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records
and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined
under Sec.  314.161 that MEXITIL (mexiletine hydrochloride) capsules,
150 mg, 200 mg, and 250 mg, were not withdrawn for reasons of safety or
effectiveness.
    The petitioner has identified no data or other information
suggesting that MEXITIL (mexiletine hydrochloride) capsules, 150 mg,
200 mg, and 250 mg, were withdrawn for reasons of safety or
effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records
concerning the withdrawal of MEXITIL (mexiletine hydrochloride)
capsules, 150 mg, 200 mg, and 250 mg, from sale. We have also
independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible
postmarketing adverse events. We have reviewed the available evidence
and determined that this drug product was not withdrawn from sale for
reasons of safety or effectiveness.
    Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list MEXITIL (mexiletine
hydrochloride) capsules, 150 mg, 200 mg, and 250 mg, in the
``Discontinued Drug Product List'' section of the Orange Book. The
``Discontinued Drug Product List'' delineates, among other items, drug
products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other
than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to MEXITIL (mexiletine
hydrochloride) capsules, 150 mg, 200 mg, and 250 mg, may be approved by
the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory
requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling
for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the
Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.

    Dated: October 28, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-23923 Filed 10-31-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 4 (Friday, January 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 789-790]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP12-36-000]

Tres Palacios Gas Storage LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on December 20, 2011, Tres Palacios Gas Storage
LLC (Tres Palacios), Two Brush Creek Boulevard, Kansas City, Missouri
64112, filed in the above referenced docket an application pursuant to
section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the
Commission's regulations, for an order granting a certificate of public
convenience authorizing Tres Palacios to add Copano Energy L.L.C.
(Copano) Houston Central natural gas processing plant as a receipt
point on its storage facility header pipeline system by: (i)
Constructing a 19.7-mile, 24-inch diameter pipeline from Tres Palacios'
North Pipeline Corridor to the Copano plant, and (ii) constructing a
new interconnection and receipt meter station at the Copano Plant, all
as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed
on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter
the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at (866) 208-
3676, or TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Further, Tres Palacios seeks reaffirmation of the previously
granted authorization to charge market-based rates for its storage and
hub services.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to James
F. Bowe, Jr., Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, 1101 New York Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20005, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Comment Date: January 19, 2012.

    Dated: December 29, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-11 Filed 1-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MEMO: Description of docketed GIS analyses , fish tissue Hg database and Excel-based risk assessment spreadsheet modeling conducted to support the revised national-scale mercury risk assessment
December, 2011
(point of contact: Dr. Zachary Pekar, USEPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>This memo briefly outlines the GIS-related analyses completed in support of the revised national-scale mercury risk assessment and how information generated through those analyses was incorporated into the revised risk assessment spreadsheet. The revised risk assessment spreadsheet is included in the docket with the final rule as "Revised Risk Assessment Model-2016.xlsx". This memo also describes the excel files comprising the fish tissue Hg database used in the risk assessment, which have been docketed as "2011 mercury fish tissue dataset" with the final rule.  This memo is not intended to provide a rigorous overview of the risk assessment approach, which is provided in the "Revised Technical Support Document: National-Scale Assessment of Mercury Risk to Populations with High Consumption of Self-caught Freshwater Fish In Support of the Appropriate and Necessary Finding for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Generating Units"  (Revised Mercury Risk TSD).
A number of GIS-related shapefiles were docketed with Mercury Risk TSD accompanying the proposed rule and were used without additional modification in the revised risk assessment (docket id: EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-3079).  For that reason, only those GIS shapefiles which have been updated as part of the revised risk assessment have been docketed with the final rule, including updated shapefiles of the watershed-level interpolation of mercury deposition for the 2005 and 2016 scenarios. In addition, we have also docketed the revised fish tissue mercury database used in the risk assessment. The updated fish tissue Hg data were incorporated into the analysis as Excel files and used directly in the risk calculation spreadsheet (rather than being incorporated into the GIS analysis).  And for this reason, we have docketed the full fish tissue mercury dataset (see below), but have not docketed any shapefiles related to the fish tissue Hg data, since they were not used in the risk assessment.
The following procedure was used to generate risk estimates for the revised national-scale mercury risk assessment:
Step 1) Develop an updated (augmented) fish tissue Hg dataset for use in the risk assessment:  The procedure used to derive the 2011 mercury fish tissue dataset is fully documented in the Revised Mercury Risk TSD, section 1.4.2). Figures 1-3 through 1-6 illustrate how the various underlying fish tissue Hg datasets were filtered and integrated to produce the final 2011 mercury fish tissue HUC-level dataset used to derive the 75[th] percentile fish tissue Hg estimates. Each of the underlying datasets identified in these figures used in deriving the final integrated dataset (e.g., USGS States, USGS Others, NRSA) have been docketed as separate Excel files under the title "2011 mercury fish tissue dataset".
Step 2) Generate HUC-level fish tissue Hg 75[th] percentile values (using the fish tissue Hg dataset described in Step 1) and incorporate those estimates into the "Revised Risk Assessment Model-2016.xlsx" spreadsheet: The procedure used for this is described in detail in the Revised Mercury Risk TSD.  The screening of watersheds to exclude non-air Hg sources was accomplished as part of the process of developing the fish tissue database and will not be discussed further here. The 75[th] percentile fish tissue watershed-level data (i.e., 3,141 watershed-level fish tissue Hg concentrations) are incorporated as a separate sheet in the Revised Risk Assessment Model-2016.xlsx which has been docketed (see <MeHg fish tissue combined> worksheet within "Revised Risk Assessment Model-2016.xlsx").
Step 3) Incorporate the watershed-level CMAQ-derived total and U.S. EGU-related Hg deposition (for the 2005 and 2016 scenarios) into the "Revised Risk Assessment Model-2016.xlsx" spreadsheet:  We have corrected the spatial interpolation of the gridded modeling results to the watersheds, using the CMAQ modeling conducted in support of the Mercury Risk TSD accompanying the proposed rule. These corrected watershed-level Hg deposition concentrations are docketed as shapefiles and have been incorporated into the "Revised Risk Assessment Model-2016.xlsx" spreadsheet as a separate worksheet (presenting watershed-level Hg deposition values - see <2005 Hg dep> and <2016 Hg dep> worksheets).
Step 4) Identify watersheds where each of the female subsistence fish consumer scenarios are active:  We used shapefiles from the March analysis to identify which watersheds potentially have fishing activity by each of the female subsistence fish consuming populations we were considering in the analysis (and consequently, those shapefiles are not redocketed here). However, for this analysis, rather than doing the intersection of watersheds with potential activity by specific subsistence scenarios and those with mercury fish tissue Hg levels in GIS, we implemented this step within the "Revised Risk Assessment Model-2016.xlsx" spreadsheet.  Specifically, we had a sheet identifying which tracts had potential activity for a given female subsistence fish consuming scenario (see <Scenario location by HUC> worksheet) and then we assessed the intersection within the "Revised Risk Assessment Model-2016.xlsx" spreadsheet. For the revised mercury risk assessment, the typical female subsistence fish consumer scenario was evaluated for all watersheds with fish tissue Hg data (i.e., we did not filter out any of these watersheds based on application of census data for this scenario).
Additional detail on the layout of the Excel risk assessment spreadsheet can be found on the "NOTES" sheet incorporated as part of the spreadsheet.