[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 163 (Monday, August 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51334-51340]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20792]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75721; File No. SR-NYSE-2015-35]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No.
1, Amending Certain of Its Disciplinary Rules To Facilitate the
Reintegration of Certain Regulatory Functions From Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc.

August 18, 2015.
    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 August 5, 2015, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. On August 14, 2015, the exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change, which amended and replaced the proposed rule
change in its entirety. 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\ 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 certain of its disciplinary rules to
facilitate the reintegration of certain regulatory functions from
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''). This
Amendment No. 1 supersedes the original filing in its entirety. The
text of 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 certain of its disciplinary rules to
permit the reintegration of certain regulatory functions from FINRA as
of January 1, 2016.
Background of Proposed Rule Change
    On June 14, 2010, the NYSE, NYSE Regulation, Inc. (``NYSE
Regulation''),\4\ and FINRA entered into a Regulatory Services
Agreement (``RSA''), whereby FINRA was retained to perform the market
surveillance and enforcement functions that had previously been
performed by NYSE, through its wholly-owned subsidiary NYSE Regulation.
Pursuant to the RSA, FINRA has been performing Exchange enforcement-
related regulatory services, including investigating and enforcing
violations of Exchange rules, and conducting disciplinary proceedings
arising out of such enforcement actions, including those relating to
NYSE-only rules and against dual members and non-FINRA members. To
facilitate FINRA's performance of these functions, the Exchange amended
its rules to provide that Exchange rules that refer to NYSE Regulation
or its staff, Exchange staff, and Exchange departments should be
understood to also refer to FINRA staff and FINRA departments acting on
behalf of the Exchange pursuant to the RSA.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NYSE Regulation, a not-for-profit subsidiary of the
Exchange, performs the Exchange's regulatory functions pursuant to a
delegation agreement. See note 7 [sic], infra. The Exchange recently
filed to, among other things, terminate the delegation agreement,
establish a regulatory oversight committee (``ROC'') as a committee
of the board of directors of the Exchange, and reintegrate its
regulatory and market functions. See Release No. 75288 (June 24,
2015), 80 FR 37316 (June 30, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-27) (the ``NYSE ROC
Filing''). The amendments proposed herein are consistent with, and
not dependent on approval of, the NYSE ROC Filing.
    \5\ See Rule 0. Notwithstanding the RSA, the Exchange retains
ultimate legal responsibility for, and control of, the Exchange's
regulatory functions performed by FINRA. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 62355 (June 22, 2010), 75 FR 36729 (June 28, 2010) (SR-
NYSE-2010-46).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2013, the Exchange adopted new disciplinary rules that are, with
certain exceptions, substantially the same as the text of the FINRA
Rule 8000 Series and Rule 9000 Series, which set forth rules for
conducting investigations and enforcement actions.\6\ Those rules were
implemented on July 1, 2013 \7\ and, among other things: (1) Identify
FINRA's Department of Enforcement and Department of Market Regulation
as the departments permitted to commence disciplinary proceedings, when
authorized by FINRA's Office of Disciplinary Affairs (``ODA''); (2)

identify ODA as the office permitted to accept or reject a letter of
acceptance, waiver, and consent (``AWC'') or minor rule violation plan
letter on behalf of the Board; and (3) identify ODA as the office
permitted to accept or reject an offer of settlement if not opposed by
FINRA's Department of Enforcement or Department of Market Regulation.
Those rules do not, however, specify whether Exchange staff or
departments, or staff of the Exchange's wholly-owned subsidiary NYSE
Regulation, to which the Exchange currently delegates certain
regulatory functions,\8\ may perform the functions described in the
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 68678 (January 16,
2013), 78 FR 5213 (January 24, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-02), 69045 (March
5, 2013), 78 FR 15394 (March 11, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-02), and 69963
(July 10, 2013), 78 FR 42573 (July 16, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-49).
    \7\ See NYSE Information Memorandum 13-8 (May 24, 2013).
    \8\ The Exchange currently delegates to NYSE Regulation certain
responsibilities and functions of the Exchange, including taking
``action to assure compliance with the rules, interpretations,
policies and procedures of [the Exchange], the federal securities
laws, or other laws, rules and regulations that [the Exchange] has
the authority to administer or enforce, through examination,
surveillance, investigation, enforcement, disciplinary and other
programs.'' Delegation Agreement by and among New York Stock
Exchange LLC, NYSE Regulation, Inc. and NYSE Market, Inc. (the
``Delegation Agreement''), Section II, A.2. The Exchange, however,
retains ultimate responsibility for such delegated responsibilities
and functions. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53382, 71 FR
11251, 11264 (February 27, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2005-77). Actions taken by
NYSE Regulation pursuant to delegated authority remain subject to
review, approval or rejection by the board of directors of the
Exchange. The one exception is that actions taken by NYSE Regulation
upon review of disciplinary decisions by the NYSE Regulation board
of directors is not subject to review, approval or rejection by the
Exchange and constitutes a final action of the Exchange. See
Delegation Agreement, Section I. The Exchange is not proposing in
this filing any changes to its rules that impact the review of
disciplinary decisions by the NYSE Regulation board of directors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In October 2014, the Exchange announced that, upon expiration of
the current RSA on December 31, 2015, certain market surveillance,
investigation and enforcement functions performed on behalf of the
Exchange would be reintegrated.\9\ Accordingly, effective January 1,
2016, the Exchange will perform certain of the market surveillance,
investigation and enforcement functions FINRA was retained to perform
in 2010. The proposed changes to the disciplinary rules in the present
filing are necessary to permit the Exchange to perform certain
regulatory functions currently performed on the Exchange's behalf by
FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ It is anticipated that FINRA, under a new RSA currently
being negotiated, would continue to conduct, inter alia, the
registration, testing and examination of broker-dealer members of
the Exchange, and certain cross-market surveillance and related
investigation and enforcement activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes the following changes to facilitate the
reintegration of certain regulatory functions from FINRA by providing
that investigative and enforcement functions of the Exchange under the
Rule 8000 and 9000 Series would be performed by personnel and
departments reporting to the Chief Regulatory Officer of the Exchange
\10\ or by FINRA personnel and departments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NYSE Regulation staff report to the Chief Executive Officer
of NYSE Regulation, who is also the Chief Regulatory Officer
(``CRO'') of the Exchange.

(1) Amend Rule 9120 to include two new defined terms:
``Enforcement,'' referring to any department reporting to the CRO of
the Exchange with responsibility for investigating or imposing
sanctions on a member organization or covered person, in addition to
FINRA's departments of Enforcement and Market Regulation; and
``Regulatory Staff,'' referring to any officer or employee reporting
directly or indirectly to the CRO of the Exchange, in addition to
FINRA staff acting on behalf of the Exchange in connection with the
Rule 8000 and 9000 Series;
(2) amend Rules 9120, 9131, 9146, 9211, 9212, 9213, 9215, 9216,
9251, 9253, 9264, 9269, 9270, 9551, 9552, 9554, 9556, 9810, 9820 and
9830 to replace references to Exchange and FINRA departments and
personnel with references to ``Enforcement'' and ``Regulatory
Staff'';
(3) amend Rules 8210 and 9110 to provide that in performing
functions under the disciplinary code, the CRO and Regulatory Staff
shall function independently of the commercial interests of the
Exchange and of the member organizations;
(4) amend Rules 9141 and 9242 to prohibit former Regulatory Staff
from appearing in a proceeding under the Rule 9000 Series and from
providing expert testimony in a proceeding under the Rule 9000
Series within one year of termination, respectively;
(5) amend Rules 9211, 9216 and 9270 to provide that the CRO would be
responsible for authorizing complaints; approving letters of
acceptance, waiver, and consent; approving minor rule violation plan
letters; and approving offers of settlement in place of FINRA's ODA;
and
(6) amend Rules 476, 8120, 9001, 9110, 9217, 9232, 9310 and 9810 to
make certain technical changes and correct a typographical error.

    The Exchange proposes that the changes described herein would be
operative on January 1, 2016, following the reintegration of certain
regulatory functions from FINRA as described below.
Replacement of References To Exchange and FINRA Departments and
Personnel With References to Enforcement and Regulatory Staff
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 9120, 9131, 9146, 9211, 9212,
9213, 9215, 9216, 9251, 9253, 9264, 9269, 9270, 9551, 9552, 9554, 9556,
9810, 9820 and 9830 to replace references to Exchange and FINRA
departments and personnel with references to the defined terms
``Enforcement'' and ``Regulatory Staff.''
    The proposed amendments would allow disciplinary actions to be
investigated and prosecuted on the Exchange's behalf by officers or
employees reporting to the CRO beginning on January 1, 2016, while
still enabling FINRA staff to continue to perform investigative and
disciplinary activities that FINRA is authorized to perform on the
Exchange's behalf.
    More specifically, the Exchange proposes to make the following
amendments:
     Rule 9120 (Definitions) sets forth the definitions
applicable to the disciplinary code. The Exchange proposes to add
definitions of ``Enforcement,'' referring to any department reporting
to the CRO of the Exchange with responsibility for investigating or
imposing sanctions on a member organization or covered person, in
addition to FINRA's departments of Enforcement and Market Regulation;
and ``Regulatory Staff,'' referring to any officer or employee
reporting, directly or indirectly, to the CRO of the Exchange, in
addition to FINRA staff acting on behalf of the Exchange in connection
with the Rule 8000 and 9000 Series.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Certain rules in the Rule 8000 and 9000 Series currently
refer to ``Exchange staff,'' a term which includes NYSE employees,
NYSE Regulation staff that administers rules under the Delegation
Agreement, and authorized FINRA staff pursuant to Rules 0 and 1. The
proposed definition of ``Regulatory Staff'' provides that for
purposes of the Rule 8000 Series and Rule 9000 Series (except for
Rule 9557), the term ``Exchange staff'' shall have the same meaning
as ``Regulatory Staff.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to delete the definitions of ``Head of
Enforcement'' (Rule 9120(q)) and ``Head of Market Regulation'' (Rule
9120(r)), which refer to the FINRA department heads.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Exchange also proposes to delete the definition of ODA
(Rule 9120(v)) and replace all references to ODA in the Exchange's
rules with ``CRO,'' for the reasons discussed in ``Substitution of
CRO for ODA in Rules 9211, 9216 and 9270,'' infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Exchange proposes to replace the reference to the
``Department of Enforcement or the Department of Market Regulation'' in
Rule 9120(y) (definition of the term ``Party'') with ``Enforcement.''
The Exchange further proposes to streamline the definition of
``Interested Staff'' (Rule 9120(u)) to eliminate references to Exchange
and FINRA departments and staff, and provide that ``Interested Staff''
under any proceeding brought under the Code

of Procedure means Regulatory Staff or Exchange staff who (i) report,
directly or indirectly, to any Enforcement employee, or to the head of
any department or office that issues a notice or decision or is
designated as a Party under the Rule 9000 Series, (ii) directly
participated in the authorization or initiation of a complaint or
proceeding, or (iii) directly participated in the proceeding, or
directly participated in an examination, investigation, prosecution, or
litigation related to a proceeding, as well as any person(s) who
supervise such staff. Thus, as in the current definition, the new
definition of ``Interested Staff'' in a particular matter encompasses
supervisory personnel up to the most senior level, including the CRO,
when staff reporting to such supervisory personnel directly
participated in the matter.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to renumber the remaining
definitions in Rule 9120.
     Rule 9131 (Service of Complaint) provides that the
``Department of Enforcement or the Department of Market Regulation''
shall serve a complaint on both a party and counsel for a party. The
Exchange proposes to replace these references with ``Enforcement.'' The
proposed change would enable Enforcement to serve disciplinary
complaints beginning January 1, 2016.
     Rule 9146 (Motions) governs motion practice under the
disciplinary rules. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 9146(k)(1) to
replace a reference to the ``Department of Enforcement and the
Department of Market Regulation and other Exchange staff'' with
``Regulatory Staff.'' The Exchange also proposes to replace a reference
to ``Exchange staff'' in subsection (k)(2) with ``Regulatory Staff.''
The proposed changes would identify the staff that may receive or use
documents subject to a protective order.
     Rule 9211 (Authorization of Complaint) sets forth the
process for authorizing issuance of a complaint against a member
organization or covered person. The Exchange proposes to replace
references to the ``Department of Enforcement or the Department of
Market Regulation'' with ``Enforcement'' in Rules 9211(a)(1) and
(a)(2). The Exchange proposes to add the phrase ``has reason to
believe'' in subsection (a)(1) with reference to Enforcement to make
the construction consistent with other disciplinary rules (e.g., Rule
9216). The proposed change would enable the Exchange, in addition to
FINRA, to authorize and issue disciplinary complaints beginning January
1, 2016. As discussed below, the Exchange also proposes to amend Rule
9211 to provide that the Exchange's CRO would authorize issuance of a
complaint.
     Rule 9212 (Complaint Issuance) sets forth the requirements
of the complaint. In subsection (a)(1), the Exchange proposes to delete
the first sentence as redundant, and to delete two references to
``Department of Enforcement or the Department of Market Regulation.''
The proposed change would permit ``authorized Enforcement staff'' to
sign a complaint that would be served by ``Enforcement.''
    The Exchange also proposes to replace ``Department of Enforcement
or the Department of Market Regulation'' with ``Enforcement'' in Rule
9212(a)(2) to permit, in addition to the relevant FINRA departments,
any department reporting to the CRO that meets the definition of
``Enforcement'' to propose a hearing location or that the Chief Hearing
Officer select a Floor-Based Panelist as provided for therein.
    Similarly, the Exchange proposes to replace ``Department of
Enforcement or the Department of Market Regulation'' with
``Enforcement'' in Rule 9212(b) and Rule 9212(c)(1) and (2) to enable
any department reporting to the CRO that meets the definition of
``Enforcement,'' in addition to the relevant FINRA departments, to
amend and withdraw complaints.
     Rule 9213(a) (Assignment of Hearing Officer) provides for
the appointment of a Hearing Officer and Panelists by the Chief Hearing
Officer as soon as practicable after the filing of a complaint by the
``Department of Enforcement or the Department of Market Regulation.''
The Exchange proposes to replace this reference with ``Enforcement'' to
include complaints filed by any department reporting to the CRO that
meets the definition of ``Enforcement,'' in addition to the relevant
FINRA departments.
     Rule 9215(f) (Answer to Complaint) sets forth the
requirements for answering a complaint. The Exchange proposes to
replace ``Department of Enforcement or the Department of Market
Regulation'' with ``Enforcement'' in Rule 9215(f) to enable any
department reporting to the CRO that meets the definition of
``Enforcement,'' in addition to the relevant FINRA departments, to send
a second notice if a respondent does not file an answer or timely
respond to the complaint.
     Rule 9216(a) (Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent Procedures)
sets forth the procedures by which a respondent can execute an AWC
letter prior to the issuance of a complaint. Under the current rule,
FINRA's Department of Enforcement or Department of Market Regulation
prepares and requests that a member organization or covered person
execute an AWC letter, and ``Exchange staff'' may determine the
effective date of sanctions unless the letter states otherwise. The
Exchange proposes to replace ``Department of Enforcement or the
Department of Market Regulation'' in Rule 9216(a)(1) with
``Enforcement'' to permit any department reporting to the CRO that
meets the definition of ``Enforcement,'' in addition to the relevant
FINRA departments, to prepare and request execution of AWC letters. The
Exchange also proposes to replace ``Exchange staff'' with ``Regulatory
Staff'' to identify the staff that may determine the effective date of
sanctions.
    Rule 9216(b) (Procedure for Violation Under Plan Pursuant to SEA
Rule 19d-1(c)(2)) sets forth the procedures for executing a minor rule
violation plan letter.\13\ Under the current rule, FINRA's Department
of Enforcement or Department of Market Regulation may prepare and
request that a member organization or covered person execute a minor
rule violation plan letter, and ``Exchange staff'' may determine the
effective date of sanctions unless the letter states otherwise. The
Exchange proposes to replace references to ``the Department of
Enforcement or the Department of Market Regulation'' in Rule 9216(b)(1)
with ``Enforcement'' so that any department reporting to the CRO that
meets the definition of ``Enforcement,'' in addition to FINRA, may
prepare and request such letters. The Exchange also proposes to replace
``Exchange staff'' with ``Regulatory Staff'' to identify the staff that
may determine the effective date of sanctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ A minor rule violation plan letter under the Exchange's
rules permits a fine not to exceed $2,500 and/or a censure to be
imposed with respect to certain specifically enumerated rules. See
Rules 9216(b)(1) and 9217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 9251 (Inspection and Copying of Documents in
Possession of Staff) requires that documents prepared or obtained in
connection with an investigation be made available to a respondent. The
Exchange proposes to amend subsections (a) (documents that must be made
available for inspection and copying), (b) (documents withheld from
inspection and copying), (c) (list of documents withheld), (d) (timing
of inspection and copying), and (g) (failure to make documents
available) to replace references to ``the Department of Enforcement or
the Department of Market Regulation'' with ``Enforcement'' to bring
departments reporting to the CRO that meet the definition of

``Enforcement'' within the scope of this rule.
     Rule 9253 (Production of Witness Statements) sets forth
the procedures for filing motions to obtain witness statements. The
Exchange proposes to amend Rule 9253(a) and (b) to replace ``Department
of Enforcement or the Department of Market Regulation'' with
``Enforcement'' to bring departments reporting to the CRO that meet the
definition of ``Enforcement'' within the scope of this Rule.
     Rule 9264 (Motion for Summary Disposition) sets forth the
procedures for filing summary disposition motions. The Exchange
proposes to replace ``Department of Enforcement or the Department of
Market Regulation'' with ``Enforcement'' to bring departments reporting
to the CRO that meet the definition of ``Enforcement'' within the scope
of this Rule.
     Rule 9269 (Default Decisions) sets forth the process for
issuance and review of default decisions. The Exchange proposes to
replace ``Department of Enforcement or the Department of Market
Regulation'' in subsection (a)(2) with ``Enforcement'' in order to
bring departments reporting to the CRO that meet the definition of
``Enforcement'' within the scope of this Rule. The Exchange also
proposes to replace ``Exchange staff'' with ``Regulatory Staff'' in
subsection (d) to identify the staff that may determine the effective
date of certain sanctions.
     Rule 9270 (Settlement Procedure) governs offers of
settlement. The Exchange proposes to replace ``the Department of
Enforcement or the Department of Market Regulation'' in subsections (e)
and (f) with ``Enforcement'' in order to permit a department reporting
to the CRO that meets the definition of ``Enforcement'' to consider
offers of settlement by respondents. The Exchange also proposes to
replace ``Exchange staff'' with ``Regulatory Staff'' in subsection
(c)(5) to identify the staff that may determine the effective date of
sanctions when provided in an offer of settlement.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ As discussed below, the Exchange further proposes to amend
Rule 9270 to have certain offers of settlement submitted to the CRO
and not ODA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 9551 (Failure to Comply with Public Communication
Standards) governs expedited proceedings relating to a member
organization's departure from the public communication standards of
Rule 2210. The Exchange proposes to replace ``Exchange staff'' with
``Regulatory Staff'' to identify the staff that initiates and otherwise
participates in such proceedings.
     Rule 9552 (Failure to Provide Information or Keep
Information Current) sets forth procedures for expedited proceedings
relating to a member organization or covered person's failure to
provide information or keep information current. The Exchange proposes
to replace ``Exchange staff'' with ``Regulatory Staff'' to identify the
staff that initiates and otherwise participates in such proceedings.
     Rule 9554 (Failure to Comply with an Arbitration Award or
Related Settlement or an Order of Restitution or Settlement Providing
for Restitution) governs expedited proceedings relating to
noncompliance with an arbitration award, settlement agreement, or
restitution order. The Exchange proposes to replace ``Exchange staff''
with ``Regulatory Staff'' to identify the staff that initiates and
otherwise participates in such proceedings.
     Rule 9556 (Failure to Comply with Temporary and Permanent
Cease and Desist Orders) governs expedited proceedings relating to
noncompliance with a temporary or permanent cease and desist order. The
Exchange proposes to replace ``Exchange staff'' with ``Regulatory
Staff'' to identify the staff that initiates and otherwise participates
in such proceedings.
     Rule 9810 (Initiation of Proceeding) sets forth procedures
for initiating temporary cease and desist proceedings. The Exchange
proposes to replace ``Department of Enforcement or the Department of
Market Regulation'' with ``Enforcement'' in the title and the text of
the rule to permit a department reporting to the CRO that meets the
definition of ``Enforcement'' to initiate such proceedings.
     The Exchange proposes to replace references to
``Department of Enforcement or the Department of Market Regulation''
with ``Enforcement'' in Rule 9820 (Appointment of Hearing Officer and
Hearing Panel), which governs the appointment of Hearing Officers and
Panelists for temporary cease and desist proceedings, to bring
departments reporting to the CRO that meet the definition of
``Enforcement'' within the scope of this Rule.
     Rule 9830 (Hearing) sets forth hearing procedures for
temporary cease and desist proceedings. The Exchange proposes to amend
Rule 9830(b) and (h) to replace ``Department of Enforcement or the
Department of Market Regulation'' with ``Enforcement'' to permit
service of a notice in a temporary cease and desist proceeding on a
department reporting to the CRO that meets the definition of
``Enforcement,'' and to describe available remedies in the event
Enforcement fails to appear at a hearing.
Independence of the CRO and Staff in the Disciplinary Process
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 8210 and 9110 to add rule text
providing that in performing functions under the disciplinary code, the
CRO and Regulatory Staff would function independently of the commercial
interests of the Exchange and the commercial interests of the member
organizations. This requirement is already being met and is consistent
with longstanding policies and practices at the Exchange. The proposed
change would also be consistent with rules currently in effect for the
equities and options markets of the Exchange's affiliate NYSE Arca,
Inc., and would reflect the Exchange's ongoing commitment to performing
its regulatory functions under its disciplinary rules in an independent
and impartial manner.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Arca Equities Rule 10.2(a); Arca Options Rule 10.2(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One Year Revolving Door Restriction and Prohibition on Serving as
Expert Witness
    Rule 9141 governs appearances in a proceeding. The Exchange
proposes to amend Rule 9141 by adding a new section (c) that would
prohibit former Regulatory Staff from making an appearance before an
Adjudicator on behalf of any other person in any proceeding under the
Rule 9000 Series within one year immediately following termination of
employment with the Exchange or FINRA. The rule text is broader than
FINRA's counterpart rule in that it covers not only former FINRA staff
but also former Regulatory Staff that reported to the CRO, and covers
both officers and employees. The rule text is otherwise substantially
the same as the text of FINRA Rule 9141(c), which the Exchange declined
to adopt in 2013.\16\ At the time, the Exchange did not believe it was
necessary to bar former employees from such appearances because its
employees were not conducting disciplinary functions and their
appearance would not create the same type of potential conflict of
interest. Once Regulatory Staff reporting to the CRO again directly
perform market surveillance, investigation and enforcement functions
following expiration of the current RSA, that would no longer be the
case and the Exchange therefore believes that such a prohibition would
help prevent

potential conflicts or appearance of conflicts of interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69045, 78 FR at
15395 n.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 9242, which governs
pre-hearing submissions, to add a new section (b) prohibiting former
Regulatory Staff from providing expert testimony on behalf of any other
person in any proceeding under the Rule 9000 Series within one year
immediately following termination of employment with the Exchange or
FINRA. The Exchange also proposes that nothing in proposed Rule 9242(b)
would prohibit former Regulatory Staff from testifying as a witness on
behalf of the Exchange or FINRA. The rule text is broader than FINRA's
counterpart rule in that it covers not only former FINRA staff but also
former Regulatory Staff that reported to the CRO, and covers both
officers and employees. The rule text is otherwise substantially the
same as the text of FINRA Rule 9242(b), which the Exchange declined to
adopt in 2013 for the same reasons it did not adopt the one year
prohibition of FINRA Rule 9141(c). Given the Exchange's anticipated
resumption of certain regulatory functions, the Exchange believes that
a prohibition on former Regulatory Staff providing expert testimony
would help prevent potential conflicts or appearance of conflicts of
interest. The Exchange also believes that, consistent with FINRA Rule
9242(b), permitting a former Regulatory Staff member to testify as a
witness on behalf of the Exchange does not pose potential conflicts of
interest.
Substitution of CRO for ODA in Rules 9211, 9216 and 9270
    The Exchange proposes that the CRO rather than FINRA's ODA would be
responsible for: (1) Authorizing issuance of a complaint; (2) accepting
or rejecting AWC letters and minor rule violation plan letters; and (3)
accepting or rejecting uncontested offers of settlement.
    The Exchange believes that providing for the CRO to authorize
issuance of complaints and approve settlements would be consistent with
the Exchange's reintegration of regulatory functions and the rules of
other SROs.\17\ The proposed change is also consistent with certain
powers the CRO currently has under the disciplinary rules.\18\
Moreover, as noted above, by rule the CRO would be required to operate
independently of the commercial interests of the Exchange and of member
organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See e.g., BATS Exchange Rules 8.4 and 8.8; Chicago Stock
Exchange Article 12, Rules 1(b) and (d) (providing that the CRO
shall direct written charges and approve or reject offers of
settlement). The International Securities Exchange (``ISE''), Miami
International Securities Exchange (``MIAX'') and BOX Options
Exchange (``BOX'') also provide that complaints are to be approved
by the CRO. Each also requires offers of settlement to be authorized
by the CRO if a hearing panel has not yet been appointed, and
requires letters of consent to be authorized by the CRO and approved
by a business conduct committee. See ISE Rules 1603, 1604 and 1609;
MIAX Rules 1003, 1004 and 1009; BOX Rules 12030, 12040 and 12090.
    \18\ In adopting FINRA's disciplinary rules, the Exchange
provided that the CRO, rather than FINRA's CEO, would authorize the
initiation of temporary cease and desist proceedings and the
initiation of suspension or cancellation proceedings for a violation
of a temporary cease and desist order. The Exchange also retained
the ability of the CRO to resolve certain procedural matters in
connection with settlements under Rule 9270(d). See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 69045, 78 FR at 15394, 15398-15400 & n.24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To accomplish these changes, the Exchange proposes to amend Rules
9211, 9216 and 9270 as follows:
     Rule 9211(a)(1) and (a)(2) would be amended to replace
``Office of Disciplinary Affairs'' with ``CRO.'' This proposed change
would identify the CRO rather than ODA as being responsible for
authorizing Enforcement to issue a complaint.
     Rule 9216(a)(3) and (a)(4) would be amended to replace
references to ``Office of Disciplinary Affairs'' with ``CRO.'' The
proposed change would permit the CRO to accept or reject an AWC letter
and, if accepted, to be deemed final.
     Rule 9216(a)(4) would be amended to provide that if the
CRO rejects an AWC letter, the Exchange may take other appropriate
disciplinary action with respect to the alleged violation or
violations. This is consistent with the current rule as it relates to
an AWC letter that is rejected by FINRA's ODA.
     Rule 9216(b)(3) and (b)(4) would be amended to replace
``Office of Disciplinary Affairs'' with ``CRO.'' This proposed change
would allow an executed minor rule violation plan letter to be
submitted to the CRO, which, on behalf of the SRO Board, may accept or
reject it. If accepted, it would be deemed final; if the CRO rejects
the letter, the Exchange may take other appropriate disciplinary action
with respect to the alleged violation or violations. This is consistent
with the current rule as it relates to a minor rule violation plan
letter that is accepted or rejected by ODA.
     Finally, Rule 9270(e), (f), (h), and (j) would also be
amended to replace ``Office of Disciplinary Affairs'' with ``CRO.'' The
proposed change to subsection (f) would provide that uncontested offers
of settlement would be transmitted to the CRO and, if accepted under
proposed Rule 9270(f)(3), would be issued and become final. Under
proposed Rule 9270(h), if the CRO does not accept an uncontested offer
of settlement, the respondent would be notified in writing and the
offer of settlement and proposed order of acceptance would be deemed
withdrawn.\19\ Under proposed Rule 9270(j), an offer of settlement
rejected by the CRO would not prejudice a respondent and would not be
introduced into evidence in connection with the determination of the
issues involved in the pending complaint or in any other proceeding.
This is consistent with the current rule as it relates to an offer of
settlement that is not accepted by ODA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Because the Exchange does not have sanction guidelines, the
CRO, Hearing Panel, or Extended Hearing Panel, as applicable, would
consider Exchange precedent or such other precedent as it deemed
appropriate in determining whether or not to accept a settlement
offer under Rule 9270. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68678
at 43 n.38 (January 16, 2013), 78 FR 5213 at 5229 n.39 (January 24,
2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-02).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Miscellaneous Amendments to Rules 476, 8120, 9001, 9110, 9217, 9232,
9310 and 9810
    The Exchange proposes several miscellaneous amendments to make
certain technical changes and correct a typographical error.
    First, the Exchange proposes to insert a reference to the Rule 8000
Series in Rule 476 in order to clarify that both the Rule 8000 Series
and the Rule 9000 Series would apply to proceedings for which no Charge
Memorandum was filed with the hearing board under Rule 476(d) prior to
July 1, 2013 and for which no written Stipulation and Consent was
submitted to a Hearing Officer prior to July 1, 2013.\20\ The Exchange
proposes the same change to Rule 9001, which specifies the effective
date of the Rule 9000 Series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Rule 476 is the Exchange's legacy disciplinary rule that
applies to a Charge Memorandum filed under Rule 476(d) prior to July
1, 2013 or for which a written Stipulation and Consent was submitted
prior to July 1, 2013. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.
68678, 78 FR at 5213 and 69045, 78 FR at 15394.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange proposes to delete the last sentence in Rule
476 as obsolete. By its terms, that sentence relates only to orders
issued on or before July 1, 2013.
    Third, the Exchange proposes to add a reference to the term
``Regulatory Staff'' in Rule 8120, because, as set forth above, that
new defined term is referenced in certain proposed changes to the Rule
8000 Series.
    Fourth, the Exchange proposes to delete the last sentence in Rule
9110(c) as obsolete.

    Fifth, the Exchange proposes to correct a typographical error in
Rule 9217, which sets forth the rules eligible for minor rule plan
fines, by adding a dash in the rule text describing Rule 123C.
    Sixth, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 9232(b), which governs
appointment of panelists, to provide that the Board shall from time to
time appoint a Hearing Board as set forth in the rule. Under the
current rule, the Chairman of the Board, subject to Board approval, has
this responsibility. The Exchange believes that because the approval of
the Board is required for appointment of the Hearing Board, it is not
necessary to specify that the Chairman of the Exchange Board would
appoint the Hearing Board subject to such approval.
    Seventh, the Exchange proposes two [sic] technical, clarifying
amendments to Rule 9310. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 9310 to
provide that none of the persons referenced in the Rule, i.e., Board
directors, members of the Committee for Review, and the parties, may
request Board review of a decision concerning an Exchange member that
is an affiliate. Under the current Rule, only the parties are
prohibited from requesting Board review of a decision in such
circumstances.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ A decision with respect to an Exchange member that is an
affiliate of the Exchange constitutes final Exchange disciplinary
action pursuant to SEC Rule 19d-1(c)(1) and may not be reviewed by
the Board. See Rule 9268(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to add the phrase ``Service and
Filing of Notice'' to the title of Rule 9810(a) in order to identify
the subject matter covered by the rule.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\22\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\23\ in particular, in that it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system. In addition, the Exchange believes
that the proposed rule change furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(7) of the Act,\24\ in particular, in that it provides fair
procedures for the disciplining of members and persons associated with
members, the denial of membership to any person seeking membership
therein, the barring of any person from becoming associated with a
member thereof, and the prohibition or limitation by the Exchange of
any person with respect to access to services offered by the Exchange
or a member thereof. In addition, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(3) of the
Act,\25\ in particular, in that it supports the fair representation of
members in the administration of the Exchange's affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that eliminating references to FINRA
departments and replacing them with ``Enforcement,'' a new defined term
that includes any department reporting to the CRO of the Exchange with
responsibility for investigating or imposing sanctions on a member
organization or covered person, in addition to FINRA's departments of
Enforcement and Market Regulation, in Rules 9120, 9131, 9146, 9211,
9212, 9213, 9215, 9216, 9251, 9253, 9264, 9269, 9270, 9810, 9820 and
9830 would facilitate the Exchange's ability to directly conduct
investigations and bring disciplinary actions for matters it will be
conducting after the reintegration of certain functions next year. The
Exchange believes that defining ``Regulatory Staff'' as including any
officer or employee reporting directly or indirectly to the CRO of the
Exchange in addition to FINRA staff acting on behalf of the Exchange in
connection with the Rule 8000 and 9000 Series, in Rules 9120, 9146,
9216, 9269, 9270, 9551, 9552, 9554, and 9556 would similarly facilitate
the Exchange's ability to directly conduct investigations and bring
disciplinary actions, as well as FINRA.
    Because the substance of the rules would remain unchanged, the
Exchange believes that the proposed change would provide fair
procedures for the disciplining of members and persons associated with
members, the denial of membership to any person seeking membership
therein, the barring of any person from becoming associated with a
member thereof, and the prohibition or limitation by the Exchange of
any person with respect to access to services offered by the Exchange
or a member thereof. Further, removing references to Exchange and FINRA
offices and departments in the Exchange's Rules that are unnecessary in
light of Rule 0 removes impediments to and perfects a national market
system because it would reduce potential confusion that may result from
retaining different designations in the Exchange's rulebook. Removing
potentially confusing conflicting designations would also further the
goal of transparency and add consistency to the Exchange's Rules.
    The Exchange believes that adding rule text to Rules 8210 and 9110
stating that the CRO and Regulatory Staff would function independently
of the commercial interests of the Exchange and the commercial
interests of member organizations in performing functions under the
disciplinary rules would further ensure the integrity and independence
of the disciplinary process and further provide fair procedures for the
disciplining of members and persons associated with members. For the
same reasons, addition of the proposed rule text would protect
investors and the public interest and would therefore be consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act.
    The Exchange believes that prohibiting former Regulatory Staff from
representing respondents and providing expert testimony in Exchange
disciplinary matters within one year immediately following termination
of employment would provide greater harmonization between Exchange and
FINRA rules of similar purpose. As previously noted, the proposed rule
text is based on FINRA's current rule text, which already has been
approved by the Commission. As such, the proposed rule change would
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
facilitating transactions in securities and will remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system.
    The Exchange also believes that making the CRO responsible for
authorizing complaints and approving AWC letters, minor rule violation
plan letters and offers of settlement in place of FINRA's ODA is fair
and reasonable, and provides adequate procedural protections. In
particular, requiring approval of complaints and settlements by an
independent CRO will serve as an appropriate check on the authority of
the investigative and enforcement staff at both the Exchange and FINRA
to bring and resolve such actions.
    Further, the Exchange believes that by having decisions regarding
initiating and resolving formal disciplinary actions and resolving
minor rule violations made by an individual with the most direct
expertise relevant to the NYSE's markets,\26\ the proposal promotes
efficiency and consistency and aligns the Exchange's process with other
SROs. As noted above, the proposed change is consistent with the
reintegration of regulatory functions by the Exchange and the practices
at other

SROs where CROs authorize issuance of complaints and approve
settlements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69045, 78 FR
at 15401.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, making technical amendments and correcting a typographical
error in Rules 476, 8120, 9001, 9110, 9217, 9232, 9310 and 9810 removes
impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by
removing confusion that may result from having incorrect or redundant
material in the Exchange's rulebook. The Exchange believes that
eliminating incorrect or redundant material would not be inconsistent
with the public interest and the protection of investors because
investors will not be harmed and in fact would benefit from increased
transparency, thereby reducing potential confusion. Removing such
references will also remove impediments to and perfects the mechanism
of a free and open market by ensuring that persons subject to the
Exchange's jurisdiction, regulators, and the investing public can more
easily navigate and understand the Exchange's rulebook. The Exchange
believes that eliminating incorrect or redundant material would not be
inconsistent with the public interest and the protection of investors
because investors will not be harmed and in fact would benefit from
increased transparency, thereby reducing potential confusion. Removing
such references will also further the goal of transparency and add
clarity to the Exchange's rules.

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 to enable the
Exchange to directly investigate and initiate disciplinary actions
following and facilitate the reintegration of certain regulatory
functions from FINRA.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

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-NYSE-2015-35 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2015-35. 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 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-NYSE-2015-35, and should be
submitted on or before September 14, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-20792 Filed 8-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


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

General Comment:The current regulations that the FDA is about to impose upon e-cig users I believe is not in the interest of the consumer. Currently there is no real data to prove that there is major health issues from the usage of e-cigs. There is very little evidence to  support what is currently said against its usage. Many reports of liquid nicotine are also misleading the public saying that a drop of "ejuice" can kill a child. But in these cases that children have obtained the juices and consumed it, there should have been more responsible parents. Most e-cig vendors have labels warning that nicotine is addictive and too keep out of reach of children. It was also said that pure nicotine can kill a child, and that is true. It can also kill an adult just as easily, which is why those who have any kind of pure nicotine wear protective gloves to protect themselves from the liquid.

As far as use of ecigs go, i have been using ecigs for over a year. I smoked cigarettes for over a year and a half, and i could tell that it was effecting my health adversely. I went from running to two miles daily to having trouble running 1 - 2. It also at times cause head aches, and breathing problems. I swapped to using e-cigs and after 2 weeks i could tell my health was improving even while still using the e-cigs. After 2 months of usage I felt well enough to start running again and working out. The first time I went running I was able to run a mile and continue walking another. I still felt great after this and was not winded as I used to be.

We do have the right to have a say in what is done to the community of ecig users and we will use those rights to protest this proposal put forth by the FDA.

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.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 191 (Friday, October 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 59769]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25009]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-2704-000]

National Gas & Electric, LLC: Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
National Gas & Electric, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 15, 2015.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Dated: September 25, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-25009 Filed 10-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 218)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 66543]
[DOCID:fr10no08-16]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2008-1046]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation: Upper Mississippi River,
Clinton, Iowa, Activity Identifier; Repair and Maintenance

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Clinton Railroad Drawbridge, across the Upper Mississippi River, mile
518.0, at Clinton, Iowa. The deviation is necessary to allow time for
performing needed maintenance and repairs to the bridge. This deviation
allows the bridge to open on signal if at least 24 hours advance notice
is given from 12:01 a.m., December 15, 2008 until 9 a.m., March 15,
2009.

DATES: This temporary deviation is effective from 12:01 a.m., December
15, 2008 until 9 a.m., March 15, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-1046 and are available online
at www.regulations.gov. They are also available for inspection or
copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and the
Robert A. Young Federal Building, Room 2.107F, 1222 Spruce Street, St.
Louis, MO 63103-2832, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FUTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge Administrator,<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you
have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Union Pacific Railroad Company requested
a temporary deviation for the Clinton Railroad Drawbridge, across the
Upper Mississippi, mile 518.0, at Clinton, Iowa to open on signal if at
least 24 hours advance notice is given in order to facilitate needed
bridge maintenance and repairs. The Clinton Railroad Drawbridge
currently operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, which states the
general requirement that drawbridges shall open promptly and fully for
the passage of vessels when a request to open is given in accordance
with the subpart. In order to facilitate the needed bridge work, the
drawbridge must be kept in the closed-to-navigation position. This
deviation allows the bridge to open on signal if at least 24 hours
advance notice is given from 12:01 a.m., December 15, 2008 until 9
a.m., March 15, 2009.
    There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section
of the Upper Mississippi River.
    The Clinton Railroad Drawbridge, in the closed-to-navigation
position, provides a vertical clearance of 18.7 feet above normal pool.
Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial tows and
recreational watercraft. This temporary deviation has been coordinated
with waterway users. No objections were received.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: October 15, 2008.
Roger K. Wiebusch,
Bridge Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-26671 Filed 11-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


5 1 CHAPTER FIVE BENEFITS In enacting the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act ( EPCRA) of 1986 and the Pollution Prevention Act ( PPA) of 1990, Congress recognized the significant benefits of providing information on the presence, releases, and waste management of toxic chemicals. The Toxic Release Inventory ( TRI) has proven to be one of the most powerful forces in empowering the federal government, state and local governments, industry, environmental groups and the general public to fully participate in an informed dialogue about the environmental impacts of toxic chemicals in the United States. TRI's publicly available database provides quantitative information on toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities. With the collection of this information starting in 1987 came the ability for the public, government, and the regulated community to understand the magnitude of chemical releases in the United States, and to assess the need to reduce the releases and transfers of toxic chemicals. TRI enables all interested parties to establish credible baselines, to set realistic goals for environmental progress, and to measure progress in meeting these goals over time. As such, the TRI system has become a neutral yardstick by which progress can be measured by all stakeholders.

EPA believes that the changes proposed in this rulemaking will enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the TRI program while continuing to provide communities with the same high level of significant chemical release and other waste management information. Certain data, however, will be lost under the proposed rule and thus negative benefits will accrue to society. Alternately, on the cost side, industry will realize a cost savings due to reduced reporting burden. The likely impact of modifying the 13 data elements are discussed below:

Removal of Longitude/ Latitude Reporting Requirement ( Part I, section 4.6)

EPA believes that the locational data available in FRS will provide sufficient latitude/ longitude data for TRI reporting facilities. Locational information will be readily available for any and all TRI reports and applications, such as TRI Explorer, Form R retrievals from Envirofacts. TRI data and facility identification data including locational information will be seamlessly joined for access all data users. EPA will do this by databasing the information and the use of web services.

Eliminating the latitude/ longitude reporting requirement and relying on other geo spatial means to supply TRI reporting facilities' locational data not only reduces Form R and Form A reporting burden for TRI reporters, it is in line with the Agency's goal to " collect once and use many." EPA believes that this approach allows the Agency to provide better documented data that will be more consistently collected, quality assured, and managed than the current practice. 5 2 Removal of Reporting Requirements for EPA Program Identity Numbers ( Part I, Sections 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10)

FRS integrates into a single record all program identification and permit information numbers, including those for the RCRA, NPDES and Underground Injection programs. These identification numbers will still be available in FRS and can be accessed at anytime through the EnviroFacts Web site: www. epa. gov/ enviro/ frs. Thus, EPA believes it is possible to eliminate the reporting requirements on Form R and Form A for Agency program identification numbers without sacrificing data quality.

Removal of Reporting Requirement for Determining the Percentage of the Total Quantity of Toxic Chemicals Contributed by Stormwater ( Part II, Section 5.3 Column C)

Removal of this data element will result in the loss of information on the percentage of the total quantity of listed chemicals that are contributed by stormwater. Only facilities with monitoring data on the amount of EPCRA section 313 chemicals that are released to stormwater runoff currently report this information.

EPA is not aware of anyone who uses the information reported in this data element and, therefore, believes it is unnecessary to continue collecting the information. In this proposed rulemaking, however, the Agency is seeking comment on whether anyone uses this information, and if so, why and how it is used.

Modifications to the Reporting Requirement for On Site Waste Treatment Methods and Efficiency ( Part II, Section 7)

The Agency has not been able to verify that information regarding facilities' on site waste treatment, energy recovery and recycling of EPCRA section 313 chemicals is routinely used. This information is therefore thought to be of little utility to TRI stakeholders. The Agency believes that simplifying this section will result in reduced reporting burden for those facilities required to complete this portion of the form. Specific modifications are as follows:

Section 7A On Site Waste Treatment Methods and Efficiency: Columns a, c and e By removing columns a, c, and e, information on the general waste stream type for each waste stream treated by the facility, the concentration range of the listed chemical as it enters the treatment step, and an indication as to whether the waste treatment efficiency reported is based on actual operating data would be lost.

Section 7A On Site Waste Treatment Methods and Efficiency: Column b The existing 64 waste management codes available for this data element will be replaced with five of the waste management codes ( i. e., M codes) used for reporting in Part II, section 6.2 of the Form R where facilities report quantities of toxic chemicals transferred to off site locations. EPA believes that decreasing the number codes available will reduce reporting burden for two 5 3 reasons. First, facilities will have fewer codes to consider when reporting in this section. Second, the codes will be used in two sections of the form. As a result, facilities will no longer need to familiarize themselves with two different sets of waste management codes when reporting in both Part II, sections 6.2 and 7A.

Section 7A On Site Waste Treatment Methods and Efficiency: Column d The proposed modification of this data element would shift the reported data from an actual percentage of the EPCRA section 313 chemical removed from the waste stream to a waste treatment efficiency range. If the ranges are defined narrowly, little information is lost ( i. e., the range closely approximates the actual percentage.)

Section 7B On site Energy Recovery Processes The proposed modification of this data element will result in the loss of information specifying the type of on site energy recovery device used to combust the toxic chemical; specifically, Industrial Kiln, Industrial Furnace, or Industrial Boiler. Instead, facilities will simply indicate whether or not they perform energy recovery on site.

Section 7C On Site Recycling Processes The existing 16 recycling codes available for this data element will be replaced with all but one of the recycling codes used in Part II, section 6.2 of the Form R. Similar to the proposed modification 7A. 1b, decreasing the number codes available should reduce reporting burden for two reasons. First, facilities will have fewer codes to consider when reporting in this section. Second, the codes will be used in two sections of the form. As a result, facilities will no longer need to familiarize themselves with two different sets of waste management codes when reporting in both Part II, sections 6.2 and 7C.

Removal of Reporting Data Field for Optional Submission of Additional Information ( Part II, Section 8.11)

Although an indication of whether or not additional information on source reduction, recycling, or pollution control activities at the facility is attached to Form R will be eliminated, the actual information will not be lost. EPA will provide a way for facilities to submit this information electronically. In addition, EPA plans to make this information available on EPA's public access Web site.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 60938]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19172]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR23-67-000.
    Applicants: TPL SouthTex Transmission Company LP.
    Description: Sec.  284.123(g) Rate Filing: SOC updates 2023 to be
effective 8/31/2023.
    Filed Date: 8/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230830-5084.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/20/23.
    Protest Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/23

    Docket Numbers: RP23-983-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Gulf South Go Live GMS Filing
to be effective 10/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 8/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230830-5019.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-984-000.
    Applicants: Boardwalk Storage Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: BSC GMS Live Tariff Record
Filing to be effective 10/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 8/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230830-5022.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-985-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 2023 ACA Tracker Filing--GSS,
LSS, SS-2, S-2 to be effective 10/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 8/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230830-5040.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-986-000.
    Applicants: Northwest Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 2023 Winter Fuel Filing to be
effective 10/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 8/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230830-5073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-987-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement
Update (Conoco Sept 2023) to be effective 9/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 8/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230830-5074.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-988-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement
Update (Pioneer Sept 2023) to be effective 9/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 8/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230830-5100.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/23.

    Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a
complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with
Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211,
385.214, or 385.206) 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.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    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>.
    For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Commission's Office of Public Participation
(OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in
Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including
landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and
others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission
processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such
as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected]

    Dated: August 30, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-19172 Filed 9-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 155)]
[Notices]
[Page 46636]
[DOCID:fr11au08-88]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1770-DR]

Nebraska; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Nebraska (FEMA-1770-DR), dated June 20, 2008, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: July 29, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Nebraska is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of June 20, 2008.

    Holt County for Individual Assistance (already designated for
Public Assistance.)
    Wheeler County for Public Assistance.

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

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-18424 Filed 8-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


[Federal Register: September 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 184)]
[Notices]
[Page 48814-48817]
[DOCID:fr24se09-107]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Environmental Impact Statement for the California High-Speed
Train Project From Los Angeles to San Diego via the Inland Empire, CA

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

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is to advise the public that FRA and the
California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) will jointly prepare a
project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and project Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for the Los Angeles to San Diego (LA-SD) Section of
the Authority's proposed California High-Speed Train (HST) System in
compliance with relevant State and Federal laws, in particular the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
    In 2001, the Authority and FRA started a tiered environmental
review process for the HST system and in 2005, completed the first tier
California High-Speed Train Program EIR/EIS (Statewide Program EIR/EIS)
and approved the statewide HST System for intercity travel in
California between the major metropolitan centers of Sacramento and the
San Francisco Bay Area in the north, through the Central Valley, to Los
Angeles and San Diego in the south. The approved HST System would be
about 800 miles long, with electric propulsion and steel-wheel-on-
steel-rail trains capable of maximum operating speeds of 220 miles per
hour (mph) on a mostly dedicated steel-

wheel-on-steel rail system of fully grade-separated, access controlled
track with state-of-the-art safety, signaling, communication, and
automated train control systems. In approving the HST System, the
Authority and FRA also selected corridors/general alignments and
station location options throughout most of the system. In 2008, the
Authority and FRA completed a second program EIR/EIS to evaluate and
select general alignments and station locations within the broad
corridor between and including the Altamont Pass and the Pacheco Pass
to connect the Bay Area and Central Valley portions of the HST System.
The preparation of the LA-SD HST Project EIR/EIS will involve the
development of preliminary engineering designs and the assessment of
potential environmental effects associated with the construction,
operation, and maintenance of the HST system, including track and
ancillary facilities along the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR)/
Interstate 215/Interstate 15 corridor from Los Angeles to San Diego.

DATES: Written comments on the scope of the LA-SD HST Project EIR/EIS
should be provided to the Authority by 5 p.m., Friday, November 20,
2009. Public scoping meetings are scheduled from October 13, 2009, to
November 3, 2009, as noted below in the cities of San Diego, Escondido,
Murrieta, Corona, Monterey Park, Riverside, West Covina, El Monte,
Pomona, Ontario, and San Bernardino, California.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope of this EIR/EIS should be sent
to Mr. Dan Leavitt, Deputy Director, ATTN: LA-SD HST Project EIR/EIS,
California High-Speed Rail Authority, 925 L Street, Suite 1425,
Sacramento, CA 95814, or via e-mail with subject line ``LA-SD HST
Section via the Inland Empire'' to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments may
also be provided orally or in writing at the scoping meetings scheduled
from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. at the following locations:

San Diego County

     October 13, 2009--Lawrence Family Jewish Community Center,
4126 Executive Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037.
     October 14, 2009--Ramada Limited San Diego Airport, 1403
Rosecrans Street, San Diego, CA 92106.
     October 15, 2009--Escondido Center for the Arts, 340 N.
Escondido Blvd., Escondido, CA 92025.

Riverside County

     October 19, 2009--Murrieta Public Library, Eight Town
Square, 24700 Adams Avenue, Murrieta, CA 92562.
     October 20, 2009--Corona Public Library, West Room, 650 S.
Main Street, Corona, CA 92882.
     October 22, 2009--Cesar Chavez Community Center, Bobby
Bonds Park, 2060 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92507.

Los Angeles County

     October 21, 2009--Shepherd of the Hills United Methodist
Church, Wesley Fellowship Hall, 333 South Garfield Avenue, Monterey
Park, CA 91754.
     October 26, 2009--City of West Covina City Hall, Community
Room, First Floor, 1444 West Garvey Avenue, West Covina, CA 91790.
     October 28, 2009--El Monte Community Center Grace T. Black
Auditorium, 3130 Tyler Avenue, El Monte, California 91731.
     October 29, 2009--Pomona First Baptist Church, Room E-202,
586 N. Main Street, Pomona, California 91768.

San Bernardino County

     November 2, 2009--Ontario Airport Administrative
Conference Rooms, 1923 E. Avion Street, Ontario, CA 91764.
     November 3, 2009--Norman Feldheym Central Library, Kellogg
Room, 555 West 6th Street, San Bernardino, CA 92410.
    Two regulatory agency scoping meetings have been scheduled on the
following dates and times:
     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6010 Hidden Valley Road,
Room 1, Carlsbad, CA 92011. October 15, 2009 from 9 a.m. to 12 noon.
     California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana
Region 8, Highgrove Room, 3737 Main Street, Suite 500, Riverside, CA
92501-3348. October 22, 2009 from 9 a.m. to 12 noon.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Valenstein, Environmental
Program Manager, Office of Railroad Development, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. (Mail Stop 20), Washington,
DC 20590; (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>); or Mr. Dan Leavitt, Deputy
Director, ATTN: LA-SD HST Project EIR/EIS, California High-Speed Rail
Authority, 925 L Street, Suite 1425, Sacramento, CA 95814 (telephone:
(916) 324-1541)).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Authority was established in 1996 and is
authorized and directed by statute to undertake the planning and
development of a proposed statewide HST network that is fully
coordinated with other public transportation services. The Authority
adopted a Final Business Plan in June 2000, which reviewed the economic
feasibility of an 800-mile-long HST capable of speeds in excess of 200
miles per hour on a mostly dedicated, fully grade-separated state-of-
the-art track. The Authority released an updated Business Plan in
November 2008.
    The FRA has responsibility for overseeing the safety of railroad
operations, including the safety of any proposed high-speed ground
transportation system. FRA is also authorized to provide Federal
funding for intercity passenger rail capital investments, including
high-speed rail. For the proposed HST, it is anticipated that FRA would
need to take certain regulatory actions prior to operation and may
provide financial assistance for the project including grant funding.
    In 2005, the Authority and FRA completed the Statewide Program EIR/
EIS for the Proposed California High Speed Train System, as the first
phase of a tiered environmental review process. The Authority certified
the Statewide Program EIR under CEQA and approved the proposed HST
System. FRA issued a Record of Decision on the Statewide Program EIR/
EIS as required under NEPA. The Statewide Program EIR/EIS established
the purpose and need for the HST system, and compared the proposed HST
System with a No Project/No Action Alternative and a Modal Alternative.
In approving the Statewide Program EIR/EIS, the Authority and FRA
selected the HST Alternative, selected certain corridors/general
alignments and general station locations for further study,
incorporated mitigation strategies and design practices, and specified
further measures to guide the development of the HST System during the
site-specific project-level environmental review to avoid and minimize
potential adverse environmental impacts. In the Statewide Program EIR/
EIS, the Authority and FRA selected the UPRR/I-215/I-15 corridor for
the LA-SD via the Inland Empire section of the HST.
    The LA-SD HST Project EIR/EIS will tier from the Statewide Program
EIR/EIS in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations, (40 CFR 1508.28) and State CEQA Guidelines (14 California
Code of Regulations 15168(b)). Tiering ensures that the LA-SD HST
Project EIR/EIS builds upon program analysis and decisions made with
the Statewide Program EIR/EIS.
    The Project EIR/EIS will describe site-specific environmental
impacts, identify specific mitigation measures to address those
impacts, and incorporate design features to avoid and minimize
potential

adverse environmental impacts. The FRA and the Authority will assess
the site characteristics, size, nature, and timing of the proposed
project to determine whether the impacts are potentially significant
and whether impacts can be avoided or mitigated. This project EIR/EIS
will identify and evaluate reasonable and feasible site-specific
alignment alternatives, and evaluate the impacts of construction,
operation, and maintenance of the HST System. Information and documents
regarding this HST environmental review process will be made available
through the Authority's Internet site: http://
www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/.
    Purpose and Need: The purpose of the proposed HST System is to
provide a new mode of high-speed intercity travel that would link major
metropolitan areas of the State; interface with airports, mass transit,
and highways; and provide added capacity to meet increased intercity
travel demand in California in a manner sensitive to and protective of
California's unique natural resources. The need for a HST System is
directly related to the expected growth in population, and increases in
intercity travel demand in California over the next twenty years and
beyond. With the growth in travel demand, there will be an increase in
travel delays arising from the growing congestion on California's
highways and at its airports. In addition, there will be negative
effects on the economy, quality of life, and air quality in and around
California's metropolitan areas from an increasingly congested
transportation system that will become less reliable as travel demand
increases. The intercity highway system, commercial airports, and
conventional passenger rail serving the intercity travel market are
currently operating at or near capacity, and will require large public
investments for maintenance and expansion to meet existing demand and
future growth. The proposed HST System is designed to address some
social, economic and environmental problems associated with
transportation congestion in California.
    Alternatives: The LA-SD HST Project EIR/EIS will consider a No
Action or No Project Alternative and an HST Alternative for the LA-SD
via the Inland Empire section.
    No Action Alternative: The No Action Alternative (No Project or No
Build) represents the conditions in the corridor as it existed in 2009,
and as it would exist based on programmed and funded improvements to
the intercity transportation system and other reasonably foreseeable
projects through 2035, taking into account the following sources of
information: the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and
Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) for all modes of travel, airport
plans, intercity passenger rail plans, city and county plans.
    HST Alternative: The Authority proposes to construct, operate and
maintain an electric-powered steel-wheel-on-steel-rail HST System,
about 800 miles long, capable of operating speeds of 220 mph on mostly
dedicated, fully grade-separated, access controlled tracks, with state-
of-the-art safety, signaling, communication and automated train control
systems. In the Statewide Program EIR/EIS, the Authority and FRA
selected the Inland Empire alignment, which was divided into three
segments: (1) Los Angeles to March Air Reserve Base (ARB); (2) March
ARB to Mira Mesa; and (3) Mira Mesa to San Diego. Between LA Union
Station and March ARB, the selected alignment generally follows the
UPRR Riverside/Colton corridor. From March ARB to Mira Mesa the
selected I-215/ I-15 alignment generally follows the I-215 and then the
I-15 corridor to Mira Mesa. There are two alignment options along
Carroll Canyon and Miramar Road that would directly serve downtown San
Diego. Both the Carroll Canyon and Miramar Road alignment options
between Mira Mesa and San Diego are preferred for further
investigation.
    Since 2008, the Authority has collaborated with the Southern
California High-Speed Rail Inland Corridor Group (SoCal ICG), which was
formed by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the Authority
and Southern California Association of Governments, San Diego
Association of Governments, San Bernardino Associated Governments, the
Riverside County Transportation Commission and the San Diego County
Regional Airport Authority. One of the purposes of the SoCal ICG is to
demonstrate partnership with regional entities and to assist the
Authority with the review of the Program EIR/EIS alternative alignments
and station locations and in identifying additional alternative project
alignments and optional station locations to be studied in the LA-SD
Project EIR/EIS. The Authority has consulted with the SoCal ICG on a
monthly basis since the summer of 2008.
    To support the Project EIR/EIS process, the SoCal ICG partner
agencies formed four Technical Working Groups (TWGs) in Los Angeles,
Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties to assist the
Authority in refining the programmatic LA-SD alignment adopted in 2005.
The TWGs met with the Authority in November 2008, February 2009 and
July/August 2009 to discuss additional alternative alignments and
optional station locations to be further considered in the Project EIR/
EIS along with the alignment alternatives and station locations
selected with the Program EIR/EIS.
    These alternative project alignments include: alternatives to the
UPRR Riverside/Colton alignment in Los Angeles County and San
Bernardino County along the Metrolink, I-10, I-605, Holt Avenue and
State Route 60 (SR-60) corridors, an alternative alignment along the I-
15 corridor through San Bernardino County and Riverside County, and an
alternative alignment west of the University City corridor in San Diego
County. Engineering studies will be undertaken as part of this Project
EIR/EIS that will examine and refine alignments in the UPRR/I-215/I-15
corridor. The entire alignment would be grade-separated from existing
roadways. The options to be considered for the design of grade-
separated roadway crossings would include (1) depressing the street to
pass under the rail line; (2) elevating the street to pass over the
rail line; and (3) leaving the street as-is and constructing rail line
improvements to pass over or under the local street. In addition,
alternative sites for right-of-way maintenance, train storage
facilities and a train service and inspection facility will be
evaluated in the LA-SD Section project area.
    Preferred station locations selected by the Authority and FRA
through the Statewide Program EIR/EIS will be evaluated in the LA-SD
HST Project EIR/EIS. These stations are East San Gabriel Valley Station
in City of Industry, Ontario Airport Connector Station, and Riverside
County/East San Bernardino County near the University of California
Riverside. Station locations from Murrieta to San Diego include the
Temecula Valley Station in Murrieta at the I-15/I-215 interchange,
Escondido Station Area along the I-15, Mid-San Diego County Station at
University City, and San Diego Station-Downtown at the Santa Fe Depot.
As part of the early agency outreach and input from the TWGs, the
following alternative station locations were identified for further
evaluation: El Monte, West Covina, and Pomona via the I-605, Holt
Avenue, and I-10 corridors; San Bernardino via the SANBAG/Metrolink
corridor; Riverside-UCR, Riverside-March ARB, and Murrieta via the I-
215 corridor; Corona and Escondido Transit Center via the I-15
corridor, University Towne Center via the University City corridor; and
San Diego International Airport at Lindbergh Field.

    Probable Effects: The purpose of the EIR/EIS process is to
evaluate, in a public setting, the potential effects of the proposed
project on the physical, human, and natural environment. The FRA and
Authority will continue the tiered evaluation of significant
environmental, social, and economic impacts of the construction and
operation of the LA-SD Section of the HST System. Impact areas to be
addressed include transportation impacts; safety and security; land use
and zoning; land acquisition, displacements, and relocations;
cumulative and secondary impacts; agricultural land impacts; cultural
resources impacts, including impacts on historical and archaeological
resources and parklands/recreation areas; neighborhood compatibility
and environmental justice; natural resource impacts including air
quality, wetlands, water resources, noise, vibration, energy, wildlife
and ecosystems, including endangered species. Measures to avoid,
minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts will be identified and
evaluated.
    The LA-SD HST Project EIR/EIS will be prepared in accordance with
FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545
(May 26, 1999)) and will address, as necessary, other applicable
statutes, regulations, and executive orders, including the Clean Air
Act, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act, the Endangered Species Act, and Executive Order
12898 on Environmental Justice.
    This EIR/EIS process will also continue the NEPA/Clean Water Act
Section 404 integration process established through the Statewide
Program EIR/EIS process. The EIR/EIS will evaluate project alignment
alternatives, and station and maintenance facility locations to support
a determination of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDPA) by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    Scoping and Comments: FRA encourages broad participation in the EIS
process during scoping and review of the resulting environmental
documents. Comments are invited from all interested agencies and the
public to ensure the full range of issues related to the proposed
action and reasonable alternatives are addressed and all significant
issues are identified. In particular, FRA is interested in learning
whether there are areas of environmental concern where there might be a
potential for significant site-specific impacts from the LA-SD Section
of the HST System. Public agencies with jurisdiction are requested to
advise FRA and the Authority of the applicable permit and environmental
review requirements of each agency, and the scope and content of the
environmental information germane to the agency's statutory
responsibilities relevant to the proposed project. Public agencies are
requested to advise FRA if they anticipate taking a major action in
connection with the proposed project and if they wish to cooperate in
the preparation of the Project EIR/EIS. Public scoping meetings have
been scheduled as an important component of the scoping process for
both the State and Federal environmental review. The scoping meetings
described in this Notice will also be the subject of additional public
notification.
    FRA is seeking participation and input of all interested Federal,
State, and local agencies, Native American groups, and other concerned
private organizations or individuals on the scope of the EIR/EIS.
Implementation of the LA-SD Section of the HST System is a Federal
undertaking with the potential to affect historic properties. As such,
it is subject to the requirements of Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470f). In accordance with
regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36
CFR part 800, FRA intends to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of
this Act with the preparation of the EIR/EIS, beginning with the
identification of consulting parties through the scoping process, in a
manner consistent with the standards set out in 36 CFR 800.8.

    Issued in Washington, DC on September 18, 2009.
Mark E. Yachmetz,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Development, Federal Railroad
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-23003 Filed 9-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: September 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 176)]
[Notices]
[Page 52094]
[DOCID:fr12se07-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. OA07-32-000; ER07-1296-000; ER07-1296-001]

Entergy Services, Inc.; Notice of Filing

September 5, 2007.
    Take notice that on August 20, 2007, Entergy Services, Inc. (ESI),
on behalf of the Entergy Operating Companies, submits a Motion
Requesting Re-Docketing of Notices of Termination and Tariff Sheets for
the three Notices of Termination and certain of the tariff sheet
included in ESI's July 13, 2007, compliance filing submitted in Docket
No. OA07-32-000. ESI also requests they be permitted to retain the July
13, 2007 effective date originally requested by ESI in its compliance
filing.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 19, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-17934 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P