[Federal Register: November 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 229)]
[Notices]
[Page 67616-67618]
[DOCID:fr29no07-43]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56833; File No. SR-CHX-2007-26]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
and Amendment Number 1 Thereto Relating to Participant Fees and Credits

November 21, 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 31, 2007, The Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
Exchange. On November 19, 2007, CHX filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change. The Exchange has designated this proposal as one
establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the
Exchange under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, 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).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The CHX proposes to amend its Schedule of Participant Fees and
Credits (the ``Fee Schedule'') to: (a) Provide that port fees would not
be charged to participant firms that provide a certain amount of
liquidity to the ``Matching System'' \5\; (b) modify the ``provide''
credits associated with trades in Tape B securities to create an
incentive to send orders in these and other securities to the Matching
System; (c) modify the fees for the receipt of orders through the CHX
Connect network; and (d) add new fees in connection with the processing
of away-market trades that are sent to clearing through the Exchange's
facilities. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the
Exchange's Web site, http://www.chx.com/rules/proposed_rules.htm, the

Exchange, and the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See generally, CHX Rules, Article 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CHX 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. CHX has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Through this filing, the Exchange would amend its Fee Schedule in
several ways. First, the Exchange would amend the Fee Schedule to
provide that port fees would not be charged to participant firms that
provide a certain amount of liquidity to the Matching System.\6\
Specifically, port fees would not be charged to a participant firm for
any month in which that firm executes an average daily volume of 5
million or more provide shares in the Matching

System.\7\ The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to eliminate
the port fees charged to participant firms that send a high level of
volume to the Matching System because the Exchange's costs of providing
services to these firms are offset by the revenues produced by the
firms' trading activity on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Under the Exchange's Fee Schedule, port charges of $400 per
month currently are assessed for each participant give-up that has
access through a participant connection to the Matching System. Port
charges are not assessed for access to the Matching System through
the Exchange's Brokerplex system.
    \7\ A ``provide'' share is one that is given a provide credit
under the take/provide provisions of the Exchange's Fee Schedule.
See Fee Schedule, Section E(1). In calculating a firm's average
daily volume, the Exchange would not count activity on days when the
Exchange closes early.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As its second Fee Schedule change, the Exchange would modify the
provide credits associated with trades in Tape B securities to create
an incentive for CHX participants to send orders in these and other
securities to the Matching System. Under the current Fee Schedule, the
Exchange charges a $.0029/share take fee and pays a $.0026/share credit
in connection with the execution of single-sided orders of 100 or more
shares in the Exchange's Matching System. The Exchange proposes to
increase, to $.0036/share, the credit paid for trades in Tape B
securities, for any participant firm that executes an average daily
volume of 5 million or more provide shares in Tape A and/or C
securities in the Exchange's Matching System. The Exchange also
proposes to increase, to $.0032/share, the credit paid for trades in
Tape B securities, for any participant firm that executes an average
daily volume of fewer than 5 million provide shares in Tape A and/or C
securities.\8\ These increases in the credit paid for trades in Tape B
securities are in direct response to price changes announced by other
market centers and are designed to create an incentive for CHX
participants to send orders in Tape B securities to the CHX, rather
than to other markets.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In calculating a firm's average daily volume, the Exchange
would not count trading activity on days when the Exchange closes
early. The Exchange calculates a firm's ADV based on the total
number of provide shares executed in the Exchange's Matching System
for each full trading day in a month, divided by the number of full
trading days.
    \9\ The Exchange's proposal to make the top tier of the credit
available to firms that execute at least a certain number of shares
in Tape A and C securities similarly is designed to create an
incentive for firms to send orders in these securities to the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another proposed change to the Fee Schedule would modify the fees
for the receipt of orders through the CHX Connect network.\10\ Under
the current Fee Schedule, the Exchange charges a $5,000 per month fee
to any participant firm that receives orders through the CHX Connect
network. The Exchange proposes to increase this fee to $10,000/month
and charge an additional fee of $.0004/share for executions that are
processed by the network. These changes are designed to help cover the
costs of providing the network. The Exchange, however, proposes to
reduce the base fee from $10,000 per month to as low as $5,000 per
month, by applying a credit of $.0004 for each provide share executed
in the Exchange's Matching System.\11\ This credit would create an
incentive for users of the CHX Connect network to send orders to the
Exchange's Matching System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange's CHX Connect system is a communications
service that allows its participants to route orders to any
destination connected to the CHX's network, including (1) the CHX
Matching System; (2) CHX institutional brokers; (3) market makers or
other broker-dealers connected to the CHX's network, which provide
order handling and execution services in the over-the-counter
market; and (4) other destinations (including order-routing vendors)
that are connected to the CHX's network. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 54846 (November 30, 2006), 71 FR 71003 (December 7,
2006) (SR-CHX-2006-34). Fees are charged under the Fee Schedule to
participants that receive orders through this service.
    \11\ No credits will be carried over from month to month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The last proposed change to the Fee Schedule would add new fees in
connection with the processing of certain away-market trades that are
sent to clearing through the Exchange's facilities. Under the
Exchange's existing Fee Schedule, the Exchange charges a $.0015/share
fee for the clearing-related processing of away-market trades in
securities that are not listed or traded pursuant to unlisted trading
privileges on the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to increase this fee
to $.0035/share for clearing reports in Tape A and B securities and to
$.0025/share for clearing reports in Tape C securities up to a maximum
of $100 per side.\12\ The Exchange also proposes to apply the fees to
trades in all securities, instead of limiting the fee to securities
that are not listed or traded on the Exchange, to better allocate the
Exchange's costs across all of these clearing-only reports.\13\ These
fee changes are designed to help offset the Exchange's costs of
processing these transactions for clearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ These fees would be assessed only on away-market trades
that are reported to the tape, but not to clearing, in another
market. The fees would be charged for each report that is submitted
to clearing through the Exchange's systems.
    \13\ With the introduction of the Exchange's electronic book and
its move to its new trading model, the Exchange has begun trading
more securities pursuant to unlisted trading privileges, leaving
fewer issues that are neither listed nor traded on the Exchange. The
Exchange believes it is no longer appropriate to assess these
processing fees only on a subset of the reports that are sent to
clearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the proposed fee changes, except the change to the CHX
Connect fees, would take effect November 1, 2007. The proposed changes
to the CHX Connect fees would take effect December 1, 2007.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the
Act \14\ in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among its members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change is filed pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \15\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder \16\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other
charge applicable only to a member imposed by a self-regulatory
organization. Accordingly, the proposal is effective upon Commission
receipt of the filing. 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 furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \17\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under
Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period
to commence on November 19, 2007, the date on which CHX filed
Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CHX-2007-26 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-CHX-2007-26. 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 CHX. 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-CHX-2007-26 and should be
submitted on or before December 20, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-23170 Filed 11-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 91 (Friday, May 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22135-22136]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09627]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14818-000]

Watterra Energy, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene

    On January 17, 2017, Watterra Energy, LLC filed an application for
a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Green River Lake Dam
Hydroelectric Project (project), to be located at the existing U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers' Green River Lake Dam on the Green River near
the City of Campbellsville, Taylor County, Kentucky. The sole purpose
of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder
priority to file a license application

during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the
permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise
enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A 706-
foot-long, 8-foot-diameter steel penstock lining the existing concrete
conduit; (2) an 8-foot-long, 8-foot-wide bifurcation structure attached
to the proposed penstock, with one branch extending to the proposed
powerhouse, and the other branch providing an outlet point for the
release of floodwaters; (3) a 70-foot-long, 55-foot-wide powerhouse
containing two Francis generating units with a total capacity of 10.6
megawatts; (4) a 55-foot-long, 70-foot-wide switchyard; and (5) a
21,900-foot-long, 12.7 kilovolt transmission line. The estimated annual
generation of the project would be 48.6 gigawatt-hours, and would
operate as directed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Craig Dalton, Watterra Energy, LLC, 220 West
Main Street, Hamilton, MT 59840; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Navreet Deo; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14818-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14818) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: May 5, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-09627 Filed 5-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36822-36826]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14802]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92340; File No. SR-FICC-2021-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Modify the FICC Government Securities Division Rulebook, FICC
Mortgage-Backed Securities Division Clearing Rules, and FICC Mortgage-
Backed Securities Division EPN Rules

July 7, 2021.
    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 June 30, 2021, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the clearing agency. FICC filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(4) thereunder.\4\ 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).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change of FICC consists of modifications to the
FICC Government Securities Division (``GSD'') Rulebook (``GSD Rules''),
the FICC Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (``MBSD'') Clearing Rules
(``MBSD Rules'') and the FICC MBSD EPN Rules (``EPN Rules,'' and
together with the GSD Rules and the MBSD Rules, the ``Rules'') \5\ in
order to (i)

correct or clarify the use of certain defined terms in the Rules, (ii)
make certain clarifications and corrections in the Rules, and (iii)
make certain technical changes to the Rules, each as described in more
detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Capitalized terms used herein and not defined shall have the
meanings assigned to such terms in the GSD Rules, MBSD Rules and EPN
Rules, as applicable, available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

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

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    FICC is proposing to (i) correct the use of certain defined terms
in the Rules, (ii) make certain clarifications and corrections in the
Rules, and (iii) make certain technical changes to the Rules, each as
described in more detail below.
(i) Proposal To Correct or Clarify the Use of Certain Defined Terms in
the Rules
A. Proposal To Delete Terms That Are no Longer Used in the Rules
    FICC is proposing to remove the following defined terms and related
descriptions, as applicable, in the Rules:
     ``GCF Securities Account'' in GSD Rule 1 and the phrase
``and for which the Corporation establishes a GCF Securities Account''
in the defined term ``GCF Clearing Agent Bank'' in GSD Rule 1 because
these provisions relate to the interbank service of the GCF Repo
Service, which FICC does not expect to reinstitute.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In 2016, the Commission approved FICC's proposed rule change
to suspend the interbank service of the GCF Repo Service. The GCF
Repo Service has operated on both an ``interbank'' and ``intrabank''
basis. ``Interbank'' means that the two GCF Repo Participants, which
have been matched in a GCF Repo transaction, each clear at a
different clearing bank. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
78206 (June 30, 2016), 81 FR 44388 (July 7, 2016) (SR-FICC-2016-
002).
    ``Intrabank'' means that the two GCF Repo Participants, which
have been matched in a GCF Repo transaction, clear at the same
clearing bank. FICC does not expect to reinstitute the interbank
service of the GCF Repo Service at this time and removed all
references to this service from the GSD Rules in 2020. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88766 (April 29, 2020), 85 FR
26747 (May 5, 2020) (SR-FICC-2020-005) (``FICC Clean-Up Changes
Filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``and Clearing Fund Funds-Only Settlement Amount'' in the
defined term ``Opening Balance'' in GSD Rule 1 because ``Clearing Fund
Funds-Only Settlement Amount'' is no longer a defined term in the GSD
Rules.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Most of the references to the term ``Clearing Fund Funds-
Only Settlement Amount'' were deleted in the FICC Clean-Up Changes
Filing because this is an outdated Clearing Fund component and
should have been deleted when GSD moved to a VaR-based Clearing Fund
methodology. See FICC Clean-up Changes Filing, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     the defined term ``Direct Transaction'' in MBSD Rule 1
because this defined term is no longer used in the MBSD Rules (it was
used in a previous version of the rules relating to loss allocation).
     the defined term ``Eligible Letter of Credit'' in MBSD
Rule 1 because this defined term is no longer used in the MBSD Rules
(it is no longer a required form of Clearing Fund).
     the defined term ``TBA Comparison'' from MBSD Rule 1
because this defined term is not used in the MSBD Rules and is also
duplicative (it has the same definition as the defined term ``Trade
Comparison'').
     the defined term ``GCF Collateral Excess Account'' in MBSD
Rule 1 because this is a typographical error and was inadvertently
included in the MBSD Rules. GCF Collateral Excess Account is only
relevant to the GSD Rules, not the MBSD Rules.
B. Proposal To Revise References To Reflect the Existing Defined Terms
and Related Changes
    FICC is proposing to capitalize references to the following words
to reflect the existing defined terms in their respective Rules:
     ``registered clearing agencies'' in GSD Rule 36 and EPN
Article V, Rule 10
     ``clearing agency'' in EPN Article V, Rule 14
    As described above, because FICC is proposing to capitalize the
references to registered clearing agencies and clearing agencies in the
EPN Rules in order to be consistent with the GSD Rules and MSBD Rules,
FICC is also proposing to add the defined terms ``Registered Clearing
Agency'' and ``Clearing Agency to EPN Article I, Rule 1 to enhance
clarity.
    FICC is also proposing to revise ``Securities and Exchange
Commission'' to ``SEC'' in GSD Rule 36 to reflect the existing defined
term.
    In addition, FICC is proposing to add ``EPN'' before the references
to ``Rules'' in EPN Article V, Rule 10 to reflect the existing defined
term.
C. Proposal To Revise Capitalized Terms To Reflect That They Are Not
Defined Terms
    FICC is proposing to revise the references from ``Website'' to
``website'' in Section 2 of GSD Rule 3 because ``Website'' is not a
defined term.
(ii) Proposal To Make Certain Clarifications and Corrections in the
Rules
A. Remove Certain Categories Where There Is no Charge
    Certain categories are included in the FICC MSBD Schedule of
Charges Broker Account Group (``Broker Schedule of Charges'') and the
FICC MSBD Schedule of Charges Dealer Account Group (``Dealer Schedule
of Charges'') of the MBSD Rules and the FICC MSBD EPN Schedule of
Charges in the EPN Rules even though there are no charges associated
with those categories.
    As such, for simplicity and to enhance clarity, FICC is proposing
to remove the category entitled ``DK and Modify'' from the subsection
entitled ``Trade Processing'' under Section 1 of the Broker Schedule of
Charges of the MBSD Rules.
    FICC is also proposing to remove the category entitled ``DK and
Modify'' from the subsections entitled (a) ``Trade Processing,'' (b)
``Trade-for-Trade Transactions, Specified Pool Trades, and Stipulated
Trades,'' and (c) ``Option Trades'' under Section I of the Dealer
Schedule of Charges of the MBSD Rules.
    In addition, FICC is also proposing to remove certain categories
from the sections entitled ``Message Processing Fees'' and ``Pool
Substitution Cancel/Correct'' in the FICC MSBD EPN Schedule of Charges.
Specifically, FICC proposes to remove the following categories:
     ``DK Send or Receive:''
     ``Cancel Send or Receive:''
     ``Retransmission Request:''
     ``Cancel/Correct Receive:''
     ``Cancel/Correct DK Send or Receive:''
     ``Cancel/Correct Retransmission Request:''
B. Clarify the Rules Related to Notification of Rule Changes
    In order to be consistent with similar provisions in the GSD Rules
and the EPN Rules and to enhance clarity, FICC is also proposing to add
``and Registered Clearing Agencies'' to MBSD Rule 27. FICC believes
this proposed change would clarify that FICC shall promptly notify
Registered Clearing Agencies in addition to Members of any proposal to
change, revise, add, or repeal any Rule.
    In addition, currently, GSD Rule 36 states that FICC would notify
all

Members and registered clearing agencies of any rule change proposals,
and MBSD Rule 27 states that FICC would notify all Members of any rule
change proposals. Similarly, EPN Article V, Rule 10 states that FICC
would notify all EPN Users and registered clearing agencies of any rule
change proposals by posting the proposal on the FICC website.
    As a clearing agency registered with the Commission, the Act
provides a clear framework under which FICC's Rules are adopted and
enforced. Under the rule change process, generally, before a proposed
rule change may take effect, (i) the change and an explanatory
statement must be filed with the Commission and posted by FICC on the
FICC website, (ii) notice of the filing and the substantive terms or
description of the change must be published by the Commission in the
Federal Register for public review and comment, and (iii) the
Commission must approve the change (or the change must otherwise be
permitted to take effect). FICC's Rules are filed with and reviewed by
the Commission. As a clearing agency registered under Section 17A of
the Act,\8\ a self-regulatory organization subject to Section 19 of the
Act,\9\ and a systemically important financial market utility under
Title VIII of Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
of 2010 (``Dodd-Frank''),\10\ FICC is required to follow: (1) A
specified process \11\ whenever it proposes a new rule or a change or
amendment to its Rules and (2) a specified process \12\ whenever it
proposes to make a change to its rules, procedures or operations that
could materially affect the nature or level of risks presented by FICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s.
    \10\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
    \11\ This process is set forth in Section 19(b) of the Act and
Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 15 U.S.C. 78s(b) and 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \12\ This process is set forth in Section 806(e) of Dodd-Frank
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 12 U.S.C. 5465(e) and 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These rule change processes provide notice to Members and provide
an opportunity for those parties to comment on such changes. Rule 19b-4
under the Act requires that FICC post any rule change proposals on its
website within two business days after the filing of a proposed rule
change,\13\ post any rule changes that are approved by the Commission
within two business days after it has been notified of the Commission's
approval \14\ and post any rule change within two business days of the
Commission's notice of such proposed change for rule changes that are
effective upon filing.\15\ FICC complies--and will continue to comply--
with such notice requirements which it believes are adequate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(l).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(m)(2).
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Clarify Certain Provisions Regarding Notice to Interested Persons in
the Rules
    FICC is proposing to revise certain provisions regarding notice to
Interested Persons in GSD Rule 45, MBSD Rule 35 and EPN Article V, Rule
16. Specifically, in the second paragraph of Section 1 of GSD Rule 45,
second paragraph of MSBD Rule 35, and EPN Article V, Rule 16, FICC
proposes to revise ``delivered'' to ``sufficiently served,'' so the
provision would state that FICC would deem a notice sufficiently served
once such notice is posted to the website to be consistent with the
other provisions in the first paragraph of Section 1 and Section 2 of
GSD Rule 45, the first paragraph of Section 1 and Section 2 of MBSD
Rule 35, and the first paragraph of EPN Article V, Rule 16.
    FICC would also revise GSD Rule 45, MBSD Rule 35, and EPN Article
V, Rule 16 to state that it is the responsibility of the Interested
Persons to retrieve notices daily from FICC's website.
    FICC would also add a provision to EPN Article V, Rule 16 to state
that any notice from an Interested Person to FICC shall be sufficiently
served on FICC if the notice is in writing and is delivered, mailed, or
transmitted by facsimile machine to FICC at its principal place of
business, Attention: Secretary, or such other place as FICC designates
in order to be consistent with Section 2 of GSD Rule 45 and Section 2
of MBSD Rule 35. This new provision would also state that any such
notice to FICC shall be deemed to have been given when received.
D. Remove Certain Redundant or Unnecessary Provisions for Clarity
    FICC is proposing to remove the second paragraph in GSD Rule 2A,
Section 3 that states that FICC shall retain the right to deny
membership to an applicant if FICC becomes aware of any factor or
circumstance about the applicant or its Controlling Management which
may impact the suitability of that particular applicant as a Member of
FICC because it is redundant.
    In addition, FICC proposes to remove ``or any Committee thereof''
from GSD Rule 47 and MBSD Rule 37 because it is redundant. In addition,
FICC proposes to remove ``, or any committee of the Board,'' in EPN
Article V, Rule 1 because it is also redundant. The definition of
``Board of Directors'' currently includes committees.
    Furthermore, for simplicity and because it is unnecessary, FICC
proposes to remove the word ``all'' before ``EPN Users'' in EPN Article
V, Rule 10.
E. Clarify the Provision Relating to a Special Charge in the GSD Rules
    The fourth paragraph in Section 1b(a) of GSD Rule 4 describes a
special charge. FICC is proposing to revise the phrase ``additional
amount'' to ``additional payment'' in this paragraph. To enhance
transparency and clarity, FICC would also revise the provision to state
that FICC may charge (and not just calculate) an additional payment (a
``special charge'') applicable to a Margin Portfolio as determined by
FICC from time to time in view of market conditions and other financial
and operational capabilities of the Member, and FICC would make any
such determination based on such factors as FICC determines to be
appropriate from time to time. This revised provision would be moved
from the fourth paragraph to a new subsection (viii) in Section 1b(a)
of GSD Rule 4 preceded by the word ``plus.''
F. Certain Clarifications and Corrections to GSD Rule 22C
    FICC is proposing to make certain clarifications to GSD Rule 22C
which describes FICC's interpretation in relation to the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (``FDICIA'').
    FICC proposes to correct the title of GSD Rule 22C by adding the
word ``Improvement'' after ``Corporation.''
    FICC would revise ``Netting Members'' to ``Members'' in GSD Rule
22C to clarify that the transactions of Members other than Netting
Members may be Novated to FICC. Such Members may therefore have net
claims against FICC under the GSD Rules, and FICC may have net claims
against such Members under the GSD Rules. In each such case, both the
Members and FICC intend FDICIA's clearing organization netting
provisions to apply.
    In addition, FICC is proposing to add ``or used'' after ``defined''
in GSD Rule 22C to clarify that some terms discussed in GSD Rule 22C
are used in FDICIA but either are not defined at all or not defined in
FDICIA.
    FICC is also proposing to add ``or delivery'' in the third and
fourth paragraph since the term ``payment'' as used in FDICIA includes
a ``noncash

payment,'' \16\ and it is FICC's and each Member's intent that both the
cash payment and security delivery entitlements and obligations of FICC
and each Member be subject to FDICIA's clearing organization netting
provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 12 U.S.C. 4402(15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC is also proposing to add ``and each Cross-Margining
Arrangement and associated agreement and guaranty'' in the last
paragraph of GSD Rule 22C to clarify the intent of FICC and each Member
that the Cross-Margining Arrangements and associated agreements and
guaranties are within the scope of Section 404(h) of FDICIA and
therefore subject to its protections for ``any security agreement or
arrangement or other credit enhancement related to one or more netting
contracts'' between clearing organization members.
    FICC would correct references to this Rule 22C. Specifically, FICC
would revise references from ``this Rule 22C'' to ``Rule 22B'' because
Rule 22B (not Rule 22C) provides for the exercise of netting and close-
out rights that FICC and its Members intend to be within the scope of
FDICIA's protections.
    FICC is also proposing to remove the reference to GSD to reflect
the fact that FICC, not GSD, is a ``clearing organization'' within the
meaning of FDICIA.
    FICC would also revise the last sentence in GSD Rule 22C to clarify
that the netting provided for under Rules 22A and 22B falls within the
scope of the general netting protections of Section 404(a) of FDICIA.
G. Other Clarifications and Corrections to the MBSD Rules
    To enhance transparency, FICC is proposing to clarify the defined
term ``Settlement Price'' in MBSD Rule 1 to add a case that occurs in
current practice. Specifically, FICC proposes to revise subsection (b)
to add unallocated TBAs that go through the process for determining the
TBA Reprice Transaction Adjustment Payment.
    FICC is also proposing correct the defined term ``Settlement
Value'' in MBSD Rule 1 to reflect current practice by (i) removing the
references to a Trade-for-Trade Transaction, an SBO-Destined Trade, a
Stipulated Trade, and a SBON Trade because only Pool Deliver
Obligations, Pool Receive Obligations, and Specified Pool Trades
include interest, and (ii) adding a new paragraph for Trade-for-Trade
Transactions, an SBO-Destined Trade, a Stipulated Trade, and an SBON
Trade that would state that with respect to these types of trades,
Settlement Value would mean the amount in dollars equal to the Par
Amount of each Eligible Security that comprises these trades multiplied
by the Settlement Price.
    FICC is also proposing to add ``and SBON Trades'' to the definition
of ``TBA Obligations'' and remove ``, with respect to'' and
``settlement obligations generated by the Trade Comparison System'' in
MSBD Rule 1 to correct an omission and reflect current practice.
    FICC would also clarify that the term settlement date in MSBD Rule
8, Section 2B refers to the SIFMA settlement date because the Expanded
Pool Netting process only occurs four times a month (during the SIFMA
settlement cycle).
    In addition, FICC is proposing to add the phrase ``for purposes of
this Rule 8, hereinafter referred to'' before the defined term ``ExP
Day'' in MSBD Rule 8, Section 2B to enhance clarity.
    FICC would also add the following cash-only settlement amounts
``Miscellaneous Adjustment Amount from TBA Clearing (MIS),''
``Miscellaneous Adjustment Amount from Pool Netting (MSC),'' and
``Miscellaneous Adjustment from EPN (MSE)'' to MSBD Rule 11, Section 7.
MSBD Rule 11, Section 7 describes the computation of the Cash Balance
for each applicable account. Furthermore, FICC would add the defined
term ``Miscellaneous Adjustment Amount'' to MSBD Rule 1, and such
definition would be consistent with the definition for the same term in
the GSD Rules.
    FICC is proposing to add ``Date'' after ``Trade'' under Processing
Fees of Section I of the Broker Schedule of Charges and under
Processing Fees of Section I of the Dealer Schedule of Charges to
enhance clarity.
H. Other Clarifications and Corrections to the EPN Rules
    To enhance clarity and to be consistent with GSD Rule 44 and MBSD
Rule 34, FICC is proposing to revise EPN Article V, Rule 1. Currently,
EPN Article V, Rule 1 states that except where action by the Board of
Directors, or any committee of the Board, is specifically required by
the By-Laws or the EPN Rules, FICC may act by its President, any
Managing Director or any Executive Director or by such person, as may
be designated from time to time by the Board of Directors. FICC
proposes to revise EPN Article V, Rule 1 to state that where action by
the Board of Directors is required by the EPN Rules, FICC may act, to
the fullest extent permitted by law, by the Chairman of the Board, by
its President, any Managing Director or any Executive Director or by
such person or persons, whether or not employed by FICC, as may be
designated from time to time by the Board of Directors.
    FICC also proposes to correct EPN Article II, Rule 2, Section 3.
Specifically, FICC proposes to revise that the Message Summary Report
lists the summary totals of each message type by EPN Eligible Security
and Participant. This report lists the summary totals of each message
type (not list the contents of each message).
    FICC also proposes to clarify EPN Article III, Rule 1, Section 2 by
removing subsection (a) because FICC does not review an applicant's
financial ability, and FICC does not collect financials for EPN Users.
    To enhance clarity, FICC proposes to revise the reference from
``Greater than 10 accounts'' to ``11 Accounts and over'' under the
section entitled ``Account Maintenance Fees'' in the FICC MSBD EPN
Schedule of Charges.
(iii) Proposal To Make Certain Technical Changes in the Rules
    FICC is proposing to make the following technical changes in the
Rules to enhance the clarity and readability of the Rules:
A. Grammar-Related Technical Changes
    FICC is proposing to make certain grammar-related technical
changes. FICC is proposing to make a conforming grammatical change in
the final paragraph of GSD Rule 22C to change ``relating'' to
``related.'' FICC is also proposing to revise ``payments'' to
``payment'' as a conforming grammatical change in GSD Rule 22C. FICC
would also remove the word ``which'' in GSD Rule 11B, Section (a) to
make a grammatical correction. FICC would add the word ``or'' as a
grammatical correction in the definition of ``Settlement Value'' in
MSBD Rule 1. FICC is also proposing to make a conforming grammatical
change to remove the comma in the definition of ``TBA Obligations'' in
MBSD Rule 1.
B. Correct Typographical Errors
    FICC is proposing to revise ``An'' to ``Any'' to correct a
typographical error in the fourth paragraph of GSD Rule 22C.
C. Other Technical Changes
    FICC is also proposing to make the technical changes described
below.
     conform the use of dashes in Section 2 of GSD Rule 38 and
Section 2 of MBSD Rule 29.
     revise the comma to a semi-colon in the last paragraph of
GSD Rule 22C.
     add a comma in the last sentence of GSD Rule 22C, in the
defined term ``Clearing System'' in MBSD Rule 1.

     add a hyphen between ``the'' and ``Market'' in the defined
term ``Off-the Market Transaction'' in MBSD Rule 1.
     correct a section reference in MSBD Rule 11, Section 7(l)
by revising the reference from Section 6 to Section 10.
     make conforming changes to MBSD Rule 11, Section 7 to
replace the comma with a semi-colon and add plus or minus after the
items described in subsections (o), (p), and (q).
     make a conforming change to EPN Article III, Rule 1,
Section 2 by revising subsections (b) and (c) to subsections (a) and
(b), respectively because FICC is proposing to remove subsection (a),
as described above.
2. Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the Rules
be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement
of securities transactions.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes to (i) correct or clarify the use of certain
defined terms in the Rules, (ii) make certain clarifications and
corrections in the Rules, and (iii) make certain technical changes to
the Rules would help to ensure that the Rules are accurate and clear to
participants. When participants better understand their rights and
obligations regarding the Rules, such participants are more likely to
act in accordance with the Rules, which FICC believes would promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions. As such, FICC believes that the proposed changes would be
consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FICC does not believe the proposed rule changes to (i) correct or
clarify the use of certain defined terms in the Rules, (ii) make
certain clarifications and corrections in the Rules, and (iii) make
certain technical changes to the Rules would impact competition. The
proposed rule changes would help to ensure that the Rules remain clear
and accurate. In addition, the changes would facilitate participants'
understanding of the Rules and their obligations thereunder. These
changes would not affect FICC's operations or the rights and
obligations of the membership. As such, FICC believes the proposed rule
changes would not have any impact on competition.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    FICC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to
this proposal. FICC will notify the Commission of any written comments
received by FICC.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \19\ of the Act and paragraph (f) \20\ of Rule 19b-4
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-FICC-2021-005 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2021-005. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of FICC and on DTCC's website
(http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). All comments received
will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2021-005 and should be submitted on
or before August 3, 2021.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-14802 Filed 7-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 222 (Monday, November 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55102-55103]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25056]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP18-150-000.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Revised GTC 24.1 (Overbeck) to
be effective 11/8/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/8/17.

    Accession Number: 20171108-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-151-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Neg Rate 2017-11-08 Encana to
be effective 11/8/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/8/17.
    Accession Number: 20171108-5147.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-152-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to NRA Filing
Tenaska Marketing Ventures RP18- to be effective 11/8/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/8/17.
    Accession Number: 20171108-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-153-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 20171109 Service Agreement
Form Revisions to be effective 12/9/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/9/17.
    Accession Number: 20171109-5048.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-154-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 20171109 Negotiated Rate to be
effective 11/10/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/9/17.
    Accession Number: 20171109-5156.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-955-001.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Report Filing: Notification of Susquehanna West
Project In-Service Date RP17-955-001 CP-148-000.
    Filed Date: 11/13/17.
    Accession Number: 20171113-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-155-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Nat Gas &
Electric 795328 to be effective 11/10/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/13/17.
    Accession Number: 20171113-5006.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-156-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--BP 511017
eff 11-10-2017 to be effective 11/10/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/13/17.
    Accession Number: 20171113-5007.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/17.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.  385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to
the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 13, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-25056 Filed 11-17-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 88 (Monday, May 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 25026]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09940]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting; Cancellation

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:  86 FR 24059, May
5, 2021.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING:  Friday, May 7, 2021
at 1:00 p.m.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The Closed Meeting scheduled for Friday, May 7,
2021 at 1:00 p.m., has been cancelled.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.

    Dated: May 6, 2021.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-09940 Filed 5-6-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


 1  National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan December 24, 2002 The Bush Administration affirms its commitment to the goal of no net loss of the Nation= s wetlands. The Administration is hopeful of achieving that goal and in the near future to begin increasing the overall functions and values of our wetlands through the combined efforts of the numerous governmental programs and initiatives, including the Clean Water Act, and non regulatory wetland conservation initiatives and partnerships among federal agencies, state, tribal and local governments, and the private and not for profit sectors. The primary purpose of this Action Plan is to further achievement of the goal of no net loss by undertaking a series of actions to improve the ecological performance and results of wetlands compensatory mitigation under the Clean Water Act and related programs. The actions, listed below and outlined in more detail in the attached Action Plan, will help ensure effective restoration and protection of the functions and values of our Nation= s wetlands, consistent with the goals of our clean water laws. The themes guiding these actions include:

‚ working in consultation with the Tribes, States, and interested parties to provide a consistent voice on compensatory mitigation matters; ‚ focusing our guidance, research, and resources to advance ecologically meaningful compensatory mitigation, informed by science; ‚ emphasizing accountability, monitoring, and followthrough in evaluating compensatory mitigation; ‚ applying the same compensatory mitigation provisions to Federal projects and on Federal lands as we do to private parties, consistent with existing laws and policies; ‚ providing information and options to those who need to mitigate for losses of wetlands functions; and ‚ providing technical and research assistance to those who undertake the work of mitigation.

An interagency team will guide the development and implementation of the following action items. Recognizing that advances in science and technology will continue to improve our ability to protect and restore the Nation= s aquatic resources, some of the following action items may be modified by the team consistent with our evolving understanding of effective wetlands management.  2  Clarifying Recent Mitigation Guidance ‚ The Army Corps of Engineers ( Corps), in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), the Department of Agriculture ( USDA), the Department of the Interior ( DOI), the Federal Highway Administration ( FHWA), and the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA), has re evaluated its mitigation Regulatory Guidance Letter and is reissuing it to improve mitigation implementation provisions.

Integrating Compensatory Mitigation into a Watershed Context ‚ The Corps and EPA, in conjunction with USDA, DOI, and NOAA, working with States and Tribes, will co lead the development of guidance on the use of on site vs. offsite and in kind vs. out of kind compensatory mitigation by the end of 2003.

‚ EPA and the Corps, in conjunction with USDA, DOI, and NOAA, working with States and Tribes, will co lead the development of guidance on the use of vegetated buffers as a potential component of compensatory mitigation by 2004.

‚ The Corps and EPA, in conjunction with USDA, DOI, and NOAA, working with States and Tribes, will develop guidance on the appropriate use of preservation for compensatory mitigation by 2004.

‚ Building on the guidance above, EPA and the Corps, working with USDA, DOI, and NOAA, will co lead an analysis with Tribes and States on the use of compensatory mitigation within a watershed context and identify criteria for making compensatory mitigation decisions in this context by 2005.

Improving Compensatory Mitigation Accountability ‚ EPA, the Corps, and the FHWA will develop guidance that clarifies implementation of the TEA 21 preference for mitigation banking in 2003.

‚ EPA will continue to provide financial assistance through its wetlands State grants program to encourage Tribes, States, and others to increase the success of mitigation in their jurisdictions.  3  ‚ EPA and the Corps, in conjunction with USDA, DOI, and NOAA, will develop guidance by 2004 for protecting those wetlands for which mitigation, restoration, or creation is not feasible or scientifically viable.

‚ EPA and the Corps, in conjunction with USDA, DOI, and NOAA, will clarify considerations for mitigating impacts to streams in the Section 404 program in 2003.

Clarifying Performance Standards ‚ The Corps, EPA, USDA, DOI, and NOAA, working with States and Tribes, will develop a model mitigation plan checklist for permit applicants in 2003.

‚ EPA and the Corps, in conjunction with USDA, DOI, and NOAA, will review and develop guidance adapting the National Academies of Sciences' National Research Councilrecommended guidelines for creating or restoring selfsustaining wetlands to the Section 404 program in 2003.

‚ EPA will analyze existing research to determine the effectiveness of using biological indicators and functional assessments for evaluating mitigation performance in 2003.

‚ Building upon the biological indicators and functional assessments research, EPA, in conjunction with the Corps, USDA, DOI, and NOAA, and working with States and Tribes, will lead the development of performance standards guidance on monitoring and adaptive management of mitigation sites by 2005.

‚ EPA and the Corps, in conjunction with USDA, DOI, and NOAA, will clarify key concepts related to performance standards.

Improving Data Collection and Availability ‚ The Corps, EPA, USDA, DOI, and NOAA, in conjunction with States and Tribes, will compile and disseminate information regarding existing mitigation tracking database systems in 2003.

‚ Building upon the analysis of existing mitigation data base systems, the Corps, EPA, USDA, DOI, and NOAA will establish a shared mitigation data base by 2005.  4  ‚ Utilizing the shared data base, the Corps, in conjunction with EPA, USDA, DOI, and NOAA, will provide an annual public report card on compensatory mitigation to complement reporting of other wetlands programs by 2005.  5  The signatories or their designated representatives shall meet annually to review the progress being made regarding the implementation of the Action Plan. EPA and the Corps may invite other relevant federal agencies to participate in one or more of the action items.

This plan may be modified as necessary, by mutual written agreement of all the parties.

The participating agencies intend to fully carry out the terms of this agreement. All provisions in this agreement, however, are subject to available resources and authorities of the respective agencies under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

/ Signed/___ 12/ 24/ 02 Les Brownlee Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Works Department of the Army ( Civil Works)

/ Signed/___ 12/ 24/ 02 G. Tracy Mehan, III Assistant Administrator for Water U. S. Environmental Protection Agency / Signed   Scott B. Gudes/ 12/ 24/ 02 / for/ Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr. U. S. Navy ( ret.) Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere U. S. Department of Commerce / Signed/___ 12/ 24/ 02 Lynn Scarlett Assistant Secretary of Policy, Management, and Budget Department of Interior  6  / Signed/__ _ 12/ 24/ 02 Mark E. Rey Under Secretary for Natural Resources and the Environment U. S. Department of Agriculture / Signed   George E. Schoener/ 12/ 24/ 02 / for/ Emil H. Frankel Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy U. S. Department of Transportation  1  ACTION PLAN Introduction Several recent independent analyses and public commentaries have provided a critical evaluation of the effectiveness of compensatory mitigation for authorized losses of wetlands and other waters of the United States under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. These analyses and commentaries highlighted a number of shortfalls and identified a variety of technical, programmatic, and policy recommendations for the Federal agencies, States, and other involved parties.

In particular, the agencies are mindful of the comprehensive evaluation of wetlands compensatory mitigation completed by the National Academies of Sciences' National Research Council ( NAS) last year. This report, in addition to the General Accounting Office ( GAO) report on in lieu fee mitigation and others recently completed, provided the basis for a broad, independently facilitated stakeholder gathering in October 2001, during which the agencies gathered feedback from those with an interest in the future of compensatory mitigation, including representatives from academia, States, mitigation bankers, in lieu fee mitigation providers, environmental organizations, home builders, and industry. We recognize that success in our ultimate goal is dependent on effective interactions with these stakeholders as we proceed.

Background The Bush Administration affirms its commitment to the goal of no net loss of the Nation= s wetlands. The Administration is hopeful of achieving that goal and in the near future to begin increasing the overall functions and values of our wetlands through the combined efforts of the numerous governmental programs and initiatives, including the Clean Water Act, and non regulatory wetland conservation initiatives and partnerships among Federal agencies, state, tribal and local governments, and the private and not for profit sectors. A fundamental objective of the Clean Water Act Section 404 program is that authorized losses of wetlands and other waters are offset by restored, enhanced, or created wetlands and other waters that replace those lost acres and functions and values. Importantly, the regulatory program provides first that all appropriate and practicable steps be taken to avoid impacts to wetlands and other waters, and then that remaining impacts be minimized, before determining necessary compensatory mitigation to offset remaining impacts. This mitigation sequence parallels that which is embodied in the National Environmental Policy Act governing the review of other Federal actions as well. Compliance with these mitigation sequencing requirements is an essential environmental safeguard to ensure that Clean  2  Water Act objectives for the protection of the Nation= s remaining wetlands are achieved.

Federal guidance on compensatory mitigation has been provided in several interagency documents, including the 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army Concerning the Determination of Mitigation under the Clean Water Act Section 404( b)( 1) Guidelines ( MOA). In 1995, EPA and the Department of the Army were joined by the Departments of the Interior, Commerce, and Agriculture in developing the Federal Guidance on the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks ( Banking Guidance). In 2000, the multi agency Federal Guidance on the Use of In Lieu Fee Arrangements for Compensatory Mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act ( In Lieu Fee Guidance) was issued. These interagency efforts have helped clarify compensatory mitigation objectives, endorse entrepreneurial mechanisms to achieve mitigation goals, and guide permit applicants in developing environmentally sound and enforceable mitigation projects. It is in light of this background that the agencies outline the following specific actions to improve wetlands compensatory mitigation under the Clean Water Act and related programs.

Clarifying Recent Mitigation Guidance The Corps, in consultation with EPA, USDA, DOI, FHWA, and NOAA, has re evaluated its mitigation Regulatory Guidance Letter and is reissuing it to clarify mitigation implementation provisions. The GAO noted that in some circumstances where mitigation involved third party providers that were not mitigation bankers or in lieu fee providers, permits did not clearly state who was responsible for the success of the compensatory mitigation. Consistent with previous joint guidance and independent recommendations, the Corps will reissue the mitigation Regulatory Guidance Letter to clearly identify the party responsible for the ecological performance and results of the compensatory mitigation, the level of documentation necessary by applicants and mitigation providers, and other relevant implementation issues to ensure that mitigation is properly completed.

Integrating Compensatory Mitigation into a Watershed Context The Corps and EPA, in conjunction with USDA, DOI, and NOAA, working with States and Tribes, will co lead the development of guidance on the use of on site vs. off site and in kind vs. out of kind compensatory mitigation by the end of 2003. Existing guidance provides that " compensatory actions  should be undertaken, when practicable, in areas adjacent or  3  contiguous to the discharge site ( on site compensatory mitigation)" and that " generally, in kind compensatory mitigation is preferable to out of kind." Existing guidance provides flexibility, however, by allowing the use of off site mitigation where it is determined to be practicable and environmentally preferable to on site mitigation and allows use of out of kind mitigation in circumstances where it is environmentally desirable, in the context of consolidated mitigation. To ensure effective and consistent use of off site and out of kind compensatory mitigation, the agencies will clarify, and if necessary, expand upon, existing guidance. This effort will build on existing language developed for the 1990 MOA, Federal Banking Guidance, In Lieu Fee Guidance, and Mitigation RGL and provide examples illustrating when it may be appropriate to use off site and/ or out of kind mitigation in lieu of on site and/ or in kind mitigation.

EPA and the Corps, in conjunction with USDA, DOI, and NOAA, working with States and Tribes, will co lead the development of guidance on the use of vegetated buffers as a potential component of compensatory mitigation by 2004. Lands bordering open waters ( e. g., rivers, lakes, estuaries) play important roles including but not limited to maintaining water quality, providing habitat for fish and wildlife, and providing flood storage benefits. To date, limited guidance has been provided to agency field staff on the appropriate use of vegetated buffers as a component of an overall compensatory mitigation plan. To ensure appropriate and consistent use of vegetated buffers, the agencies will provide guidance to clarify the use of vegetated buffers as mitigation in the Section 404 program. This effort will utilize performance goals/ standards in recommending vegetated buffers and include examples of methodologies for determining mitigation credit for vegetated buffers. This effort will draw upon buffer information complied for the non point/ agricultural water programs and existing wetlands/ forestry best management practices.

The Corps and EPA, in conjunction with USDA, DOI, and NOAA, working with States and Tribes, will develop guidance on the appropriate use of preservation for compensatory mitigation by 2004. Typically, the preservation of existing aquatic resources has been accepted as compensatory mitigation only in exceptional circumstances. To ensure the appropriate and consistent use of preservation as compensatory mitigation, the agencies will develop specific guidance that will clarify the exceptional circumstances described in current guidance in which preservation may serve as an effective and environmentally appropriate approach to satisfy compensatory mitigation requirements. This effort will build on existing language developed for the 1990 MOA and Federal Banking Guidance and provide examples of acceptable preservation  4  projects.

Building on the guidance above, EPA and the Corps, working with USDA, DOI, and NOAA, will co lead an analysis with Tribes and States on the use of compensatory mitigation within a watershed context and identify criteria for making compensatory mitigation decisions in this context by 2005. As a general matter, compensatory mitigation decisions are made on a caseby case basis and often do not consider the proper placement of mitigation projects within the landscape context, the ecological needs of the watershed, and the cumulative effects of past impacts. The Federal agencies will analyze the issues associated with better use of compensatory mitigation within a watershed context, with assistance from the States and agencies. Following this analysis, the agencies will develop guidance to encourage placement of mitigation where it would have the greatest benefit and probability for long term sustainability. The guidance will help decision makers utilize the watershed based planning tools/ resources already developed by the agencies as well as state ( Basinwide Management Approach), regional ( Synoptic Assessment, Southeastern Ecological Framework), and local ( watershed plans, land suitability models) watershed planning efforts. This guidance will complement other non regulatory watershed management initiatives and partnerships.

Improving Compensatory Mitigation Accountability EPA, the Corps, and the FHWA will develop guidance that clarifies implementation of the TEA 21 preference for mitigation banking in 2003. The statutory preference for mitigation banking in offsetting impacts to aquatic resources and natural habitats from federally funded highway projects has caused some confusion in circumstances where onsite mitigation opportunities are available. The agencies will clarify how the mitigation banking preference may be used to most effectively mitigate for such projects with linear and scattered impacts to wetlands.

EPA will continue to provide financial assistance through its wetlands State grants program to encourage Tribes, States, and others to increase the success of mitigation in their jurisdictions. EPA has identified improving wetlands ecological performance and results of compensatory mitigation as a priority, along with wetlands monitoring and assessment and the protection of vulnerable wetlands and aquatic resources. The Wetland Program Development Grants, administered by EPA, provide recipients an opportunity to conduct projects that promote coordination and accelerate research, investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects, extent,  5  prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution. Priority is given to proposals that address EPA= s priority areas, including improving the effectiveness of compensatory mitigation. EPA will announce a set of Wetland Program Development Grants for projects that support the improvement of mitigation success in achieving wetlands performance and results, in the context of building or enhancing wetlands protection, restoration, or management programs, and will publicize the annual availability of grants for this purpose.  6  EPA and the Corps, in conjunction with USDA, DOI, and NOAA, will develop guidance by 2004 for protecting those wetlands for which mitigation, restoration, or creation is not feasible or scientifically viable. As concluded by the NAS, there are a number of aquatic resource systems for which successful recreation or restoration has not been effectively demonstrated and therefore avoidance of impacts to these resources was strongly recommended. Certain aquatic resource types require a specific combination of plant types, soil characteristics, and water supply that are currently difficult to create. To ensure that we meet our Clean Water Act goals, the agencies will provide guidance emphasizing the protection of the Nation= s wetlands resources that are difficult to restore.

EPA and the Corps, in conjunction with USDA, DOI, and NOAA, will clarify considerations for mitigating impacts to streams in the Section 404 program in 2003. Historically, impacts to stream systems such as filling, impoundment, and channelization, have been compensated with wetland mitigation. To date, limited guidance has been provided to agency field staff in the appropriate considerations for mitigating impacts to streams. To ensure appropriate and consistent mitigation for impacts to streams, the agencies, working with States, will clarify considerations for mitigating impacts to streams in the Section 404 program. Many agency field offices are independently developing a variety of stream assessment approaches and stream standard operating procedures ( e. g., NC, SC, GA, TN, KY, MS, and AL). Also, a number of stream and stream/ wetland mitigation banks have been established or are currently under review by agency field offices. These and other ongoing stream restoration training efforts will help inform development of the guidance.

Clarifying Performance Standards The Corps, EPA, USDA, DOI, and NOAA, working with States and Tribes, will develop a model mitigation plan checklist for permit applicants in 2003. The type of information needed for mitigating impacts to wetlands and other waters is often unclear to permit applicants. Taking advantage of State and Corps District examples, this effort would result in a model compensatory mitigation checklist to facilitate permit applicants providing necessary information early in the permitting process. The checklist would also allow more effective participation during public notice and help minimize delays in the permit decision making process. The checklist could be regionally adapted to respond to specific needs of different areas of the country. A number of mitigation checklists are currently in use by various Districts, States, and Mitigation Bank Review Teams and could be readily  7  consulted.  8  EPA and the Corps, in conjunction with USDA, DOI, and NOAA, will review and develop guidance adapting the NAS recommended guidelines for creating or restoring self sustaining wetlands to the Section 404 program in 2003. The NAS proposed ten operational guidelines that would aid agency personnel and mitigation practitioners in designing projects to become ecologically self sustaining. As stated by the NAS, to become self sustaining, aquatic resource mitigation sites must have the proper hydrological processes present and be able to persist over time. The agencies will adapt the NAS guidelines for use in the Section 404 program. The NAS recommended guidelines could be adapted into a series of questions ( e. g., checklist) that could be made available to permit applicants and answered by regulatory staff in consultation with other resource agencies during project review.

EPA will analyze existing research to determine the effectiveness of using biological indicators and functional assessments for evaluating mitigation performance in 2003. Independent evaluations of mitigation raised concerns that there was an over reliance on the use of vegetation to measure wetlands mitigation success. Biological assessments ( bioassessments are based on the premise that the community of plants and animals living in a wetland will reflect the health of a wetland. Typically, bio assessments evaluate wetland health and could be used in conjunction with functional assessments, which are primarily designed to inform management decisions regarding proposed impacts to wetlands and restoration of wetlands to compensate for wetland losses. EPA will lead an effort to review potential biological indicators, functional assessments, and other reference site parameters for assessing compensatory mitigation. Literature reviewed by NAS in the completion of its report and work done by the Corps and EPA to develop several assessment methodologies will serve as a starting point.

Building upon the biological indicators and functional assessments research, EPA, in conjunction with the Corps, USDA, DOI, and NOAA, and working with States and Tribes, will lead the development of performance standards guidance on monitoring and adaptive management of mitigation sites by 2005. Current guidance does not provide sufficient consistency regarding how to evaluate achievement of wetlands ecological performance and results, nor does current guidance establish appropriate monitoring and adaptive management activities. The GAO recommended that the agencies establish criteria for evaluating performance of mitigation projects and develop and implement procedures for assessing achievement of wetlands ecological performance and results. The NAS concluded that more effective monitoring, as part of adaptive management, as well as compliance evaluations, would increase the performance of  9  compensatory mitigation sites and allow for adaptive management. EPA will lead the effort to build upon the guidelines for maintaining self sustaining wetlands, draw upon published approaches to performance standards, and use the results of the biological/ functional assessments analysis.

EPA and the Corps, in conjunction with USDA, DOI, and NOAA, will clarify key concepts related to performance standards.

Improving Data Collection and Availability The Corps, EPA, USDA, DOI, and NOAA, in conjunction with States and Tribes, will compile and disseminate information regarding existing mitigation tracking data base systems in 2003. The independent evaluations of mitigation highlighted a need for improved data to track mitigation. While a system currently exists to track acreages of permitted impacts and compensatory mitigation required, the lack of wetlands function information and other parameters hampers efforts to accurately measure achievement of wetlands performance goals and results. The Corps and the other Federal agencies will compile and evaluate the merits of the various mitigation tracking data base systems in use, including the Corps= RAMS/ RAMS2 data base as well as regional data bases established by agency field offices.

Building upon the analysis of existing mitigation data base systems, the Corps, EPA, USDA, DOI, and NOAA will establish a shared mitigation data base by 2005. Based on the results of the analysis, the agencies will establish a data base that can be shared with federal and state regulatory and resource agencies and the public. An interagency team is currently working on a pilot internet based tool to assist in tracking large scale mitigation projects such as mitigation banks. This tool is being designed to manage and monitor information regarding mitigation bank credit/ debit transactions, attainment of performance standards, credit release, and bank documents. The system is being designed to reside on a District= s server and allow different levels of access/ input for the public, bank sponsors, Corps staff, and other Mitigation Bank Review Team members.

Utilizing the shared data base, the Corps, in conjunction with EPA, USDA, DOI, and NOAA, will provide an annual public report card on compensatory mitigation to complement reporting of other wetlands programs by 2005. The NAS reported that @ the goal of no net loss of wetlands is not being met for wetland functions by the mitigation program.@ To ensure that the public is informed about the status of the Administration= s commitment to the no net loss of wetlands goal, the Corps would lead the development of an annual public report card on the  10  contributions of the Section 404 program to the no net loss of wetlands goal, to complement  11  reporting of other wetlands programs. Shared databases would allow relatively easy queries regarding credit/ debit transactions and the status of restoration/ enhancement for mitigation projects and sites.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 17, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34054-34055]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15118]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2018-1026; Airspace Docket No. 18-AEA-20]
RIN 2120-AA66

Removal of Jet Route J-147; Eastern United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action removes jet route J-147 which currently extends
between Beckley, WV, and Casanova, VA. This action is necessary due to
the planned decommissioning of the Greenbrier, WV, VOR/DME navigation
aid which provides navigation guidance for segments of the route. The
Greenbrier VOR/DME is being decommissioned as part of the FAA's VOR
Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, October 10, 2019. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://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. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11C at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is

published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy Group,
Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

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
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it modifies the route structure in the National Airspace
System as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air
traffic.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register for Docket No. FAA-2018-1026 (83 FR 67162; December 28, 2018)
to remove jet route J-147 due to the planned decommissioning of the
Greenbrier, WV, VOR/DME navigation aid. Interested parties were invited
to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments
on the proposal. No comments were received.
    Jet routes are published in paragraph 2004 of FAA Order 7400.11C
dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The jet route listed in this
document will be subsequently removed from the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by removing jet route J-147 which currently extends between the
Beckley, WV, VOR/DME and the Casanova, VA, VORTAC. This action is
necessary due to the planned decommissioning of the Greenbrier, WV,
VOR/DME which provides navigation guidance for segments of J-147.
Alternative routing through the area is available by using the adjacent
jet routes J-42 or J-213.

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.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (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 airspace action of removing jet
route J-147 between the Beckley, WV, VOR/DME and the Casanova, VA,
VORTAC has no potential to cause any significant environmental impacts,
and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment. Therefore, this airspace action has been
categorically excluded from further environmental impact review in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its
implementing regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, and in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,
paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further
environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify
classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see
14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas;
Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). In accordance with
FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances,
this action has been reviewed for factors and circumstances in which a
normally categorically excluded action may have a significant
environmental impact requiring further analysis, and it is determined
that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of
an environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

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 7400.11C,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and
effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 2004 Jet Routes.

* * * * *

J-147 [Remove]

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 8, 2019.
Rodger A. Dean Jr.,
Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2019-15118 Filed 7-16-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P