[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54359-54362]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21296]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70268; File No. SR-FINRA-2013-032]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Revise the Series 16 Examination Program

August 27, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'' or ``SEA'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby
given that on August 20, 2103, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA.
FINRA has designated the proposed rule change as ``constituting a
stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning,
administration, or enforcement of an existing rule'' under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder,\4\ which
renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    FINRA is filing revisions to the content outline and selection
specifications for the Supervisory Analyst (Series 16) examination
program.\5\ The proposed revisions update the material to reflect
changes to the laws, rules and regulations covered by the examination
and to incorporate the functions and associated tasks currently
performed by a Supervisory Analyst. In addition, FINRA is proposing to
make changes to the format of the content outline. FINRA is not
proposing any textual changes to the By-Laws, Schedules to the By-Laws
or Rules of FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ FINRA also is proposing corresponding revisions to the
Series 16 question bank. Based on instructions from SEC staff, FINRA
is submitting this filing for immediate effectiveness pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder, and
is not filing the question bank for review. See Letter to Alden S.
Adkins, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, NASD Regulation,
from Belinda Blaine, Associate Director, Division of Market
Regulation, SEC, dated July 24, 2000. The question bank is available
for SEC review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revised content outline is attached.\6\ The Series 16 selection
specifications have been submitted to the Commission under separate
cover with a request for confidential treatment pursuant to SEA Rule
24b-2.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Commission notes that the revised content outline is
attached to the filing as Exhibit 3a, not to this Notice
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.24b-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Section 15A(g)(3) of the Act \8\ authorizes FINRA to prescribe
standards of training, experience, and competence for persons
associated with FINRA members. In accordance with that provision, FINRA
has developed examinations that are designed to establish that persons
associated with FINRA members have attained specified levels of
competence and knowledge, consistent with applicable registration
requirements under FINRA rules. FINRA periodically reviews the content
of the examinations to determine whether revisions are necessary or
appropriate in view of changes pertaining to the subject matter covered
by the examinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(g)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Incorporated NYSE Rules 344, 344.11 and 472(a)(2) \9\ and NYSE Rule
Interpretations 344/03 and/04 require an individual who is responsible
for approving research reports at a Dual Member to be registered and
qualified as a Supervisory Analyst.\10\ Such person is required to
present evidence of appropriate experience (which is having at least
three years prior experience within the immediately preceding six years
involving securities or financial analysis) and pass the Supervisory
Analyst (Series 16) qualification examination. Rather than passing the
entire Supervisory Analyst qualification examination, such person may
obtain a waiver from Part II of the Supervisory Analyst qualification
examination upon verification that the person has passed Level I of the
Chartered Financial Analyst (``CFA'') examination. NYSE Rule 472(a)(2)
further provides that where a Supervisory Analyst lacks technical
expertise in a particular product area that is the subject of a
research report, the content in the report may be co-approved by a
product specialist; if no such expertise resides within the member, the
rule requires the member to arrange approval by a qualified outside
Supervisory Analyst.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The current FINRA rulebook consists of (1) FINRA Rules; (2)
NASD Rules; and (3) rules incorporated from NYSE (``Incorporated
NYSE Rules'') (together, the NASD Rules and Incorporated NYSE Rules
are referred to as the ``Transitional Rulebook''). While the NASD
Rules generally apply to all FINRA members, the Incorporated NYSE
Rules apply only to those members of FINRA that are also members of
the NYSE (``Dual Members''). The FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA
members, unless such rules have a more limited application by their
terms. For more information about the rulebook consolidation
process, see Information Notice, March 12, 2008 (Rulebook
Consolidation Process). For convenience, the Incorporated NYSE Rules
are hereinafter referred to as the NYSE Rules.
    \10\ In addition, pursuant to FINRA Rules and NASD Rules, a
Supervisory Analyst may approve: (1) Research reports on debt and
equity securities; (2) retail communications that are excepted from
the definition of ``research report'' under NASD Rule 2711(a)(9)(A);
(3) other research that does not meet that definition of ``research
report'' under NASD Rule 2711(a)(9), provided that the Supervisory
Analyst has technical expertise in the particular product area and
any other required registrations; (4) third-party research reports;
and (5) globally branded research reports prepared by foreign
research analysts, as a condition for an exemption from the research
analyst registration requirements. See NASD Rule 1050(f)(3)(A);
FINRA Rule 2210(b)(1)(B) and NASD Rule 2711(h)(13)(C). Accordingly,
in addition to testing knowledge of applicable NYSE Rules, the
Series 16 examination program tests knowledge of applicable FINRA
Rules and NASD Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In consultation with a committee of industry representatives, FINRA
recently undertook a review of the Series 16 examination program. As a
result of this review, FINRA is proposing to make revisions to the
content outline to reflect changes to the laws, rules and regulations
covered by the examination and to incorporate the functions and
associated tasks currently performed by a Supervisory Analyst. FINRA
also is proposing to make changes to the format of the content outline.
    Current Outline
    The current content outline is divided into two critical parts,
each of which has 50 questions:
    Part I: Regulatory Administration; and
    Part II: Securities Analysis.
    Part I includes the respective applicable laws, rules and
regulations, and Part II includes technical and analytical knowledge.
The current outline also includes a preface (addressing, among other
things, the purpose, administration and scoring of the examination),
sample questions and reference material.
    Proposed Revisions
    FINRA is proposing to rename Part I and Part II of the outline and
include two major job functions under each part. The following are the
renamed parts and major job functions, with the associated number of
questions:
    Part I. Regulations:
    Function 1: Review and approve research analysts' communications to
ensure compliance with applicable SEC and FINRA rules and regulations,
and firm policies and procedures (34 questions); and
    Function 2: Serve as liaison between the Research Department and
other internal and external parties (16 questions).
    Part II. Valuation of Securities:
    Function 1: Review the content of the report to assess the
accuracy, consistency and sources of data and calculations included in
the report (16 questions); and
    Function 2: Review the content of the report to ensure a reasonable
basis exists for the analyst's conclusions (e.g., price targets,
recommendations, ratings, estimates, and valuation parameters) (34
questions).

    Each function also includes specific tasks describing activities
associated with performing that function. There are five tasks (T1
through T5) associated with Part I, Function 1; four tasks (T6 through
T9) associated with Part I, Function 2; three tasks (T1 through T3)
associated with Part II, Function 1; and six tasks (T4 through T9)
associated with Part II, Function 2.\11\ By way of example, one such
task (T5, Part I, Function 1) is to verify that a research report
includes all applicable required disclosures.\12\ In addition, the
outline lists with respect to Part I the laws, rules and regulations a
candidate is expected to know to perform the functions and associated
tasks outlined in that part. These include the applicable FINRA Rules
(e.g., FINRA Rule 2210), NASD Rules (e.g., NASD Rule 2711), NYSE Rules
(e.g., NYSE Rule 344) and SEC rules (e.g., Securities Act Rule
137).\13\ Further, the outline lists with respect to Part II the
technical and analytical knowledge (e.g., analysis of packaged
securities) required to perform the functions and associated tasks
outlined in that part.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Exhibit 3a, Outline Pages 7 and 10.
    \12\ See Exhibit 3a, Outline Page 7.
    \13\ See Exhibit 3a, Outline Pages 7-9.
    \14\ See Exhibit 3a, Outline Pages 10-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA conducted a job analysis study of Supervisory Analysts, which
included the use of a survey, in developing the functions and tasks and
updating the required knowledge set forth in the revised outline. The
functions and tasks, which appear in the revised outline for the first
time, reflect the day-to-day activities of a Supervisory Analyst.
    As noted above, FINRA also is proposing to revise the content
outline to reflect changes to the laws, rules and regulations covered
by the examination. Among other revisions, FINRA is proposing to revise
the content outline to reflect the adoption of rules in the
consolidated FINRA rulebook (e.g., NASD IM-2110-4 (Trading Ahead of
Research Reports) was consolidated as FINRA Rule 5280 (Trading Ahead of
Research Reports)).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See also Rule Conversion Chart, available at http://www.finra.org/Industry/Regulation/FINRARules/p085560.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is proposing similar changes to the Series 16 selection
specifications and question bank.
    Finally, FINRA is proposing to make changes to the format of the
content outline, including the preface, sample questions and reference
material. Among other changes, FINRA is proposing to: (1) Add a table
of contents; \16\ (2) provide more details regarding the purpose of the
examination and a list of the types of communications that can be
approved by a Supervisory Analyst; \17\ (3) provide more details on the
required experience to be eligible to register as a Supervisory Analyst
and a list of examples of appropriate experience; \18\ (4) explain that
the passing scores are established by FINRA staff, in consultation with
a committee of industry representatives, using a standard setting
procedure and that the scores are an absolute standard independent of
the performance of candidates taking the examination; \19\ (5) note the
required waiting periods for retaking failed examinations; \20\(6) note
that each candidate will receive a score report at the end of the test
session, which will indicate a pass or fail status and include a score
profile listing the candidate's performance on each major content area
covered on the examination; \21\ and (7) delete Appendix 1, Financial
Ratios and Formulas Reference, which provided a sampling of the types
of ratios and formulas that relate to Part II of the outline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Exhibit 3a, Outline Page 2.
    \17\ See Exhibit 3a, Outline Page 3.
    \18\ See Exhibit 3a, Outline Page 3.
    \19\ See Exhibit 3a, Outline Page 5.
    \20\ See Exhibit 3a, Outline Page 6.
    \21\ See Exhibit 3a, Outline Page 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number of questions on the Series 16 examination will remain at
100 multiple-choice questions (50 multiple-choice questions for each
part), and candidates will continue to have one and one-half hours to
complete Part I of the examination and two hours to complete Part II.
Currently, a score of 72 percent is required to pass Part I of the
examination, and a score of 74 percent is required to pass Part II. The
passing scores will remain the same.
    Availability of Content Outlines
    The current Series 16 content outline is available on FINRA's Web
site, at www.finra.org/brokerqualifications/exams. The revised Series
16 content outline will replace the current content outline on FINRA's
Web site.
    FINRA is filing the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. FINRA proposes to implement the revised Series 16
examination program on October 28, 2013. FINRA will announce the
proposed rule change and the implementation date in a Regulatory
Notice.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed revisions to the Series 16
examination program are consistent with the provisions of Section
15A(b)(6) of the Act,\22\ which requires, among other things, that
FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and
Section 15A(g)(3) of the Act,\23\ which authorizes FINRA to prescribe
standards of training, experience, and competence for persons
associated with FINRA members. FINRA believes that the proposed
revisions will further these purposes by updating the examination
program to reflect changes to the laws, rules and regulations covered
by the examination and to incorporate the functions and associated
tasks currently performed by a Supervisory Analyst.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(g)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The updated examination aligns
with the functions and associated tasks currently performed by
Supervisory Analysts and tests knowledge of the most current laws,
rules, regulations and skills relevant to those functions and tasks. As
such, the proposed revisions would make the examination more efficient
and effective.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \24\ and paragraph (f)(1) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\25\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If
the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved
or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).

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

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-FINRA-2013-032 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2013-032. 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 FINRA. 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-FINRA-2013-032 and should be
submitted on or before September 24, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-21296 Filed 8-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 12 (Thursday, January 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 3964]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00854]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Request for Public Comment, Raleigh County Memorial Airport,
Beckley, WV

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration is requesting public
comment on the proposed release of 154.0957 acres of land currently
owned by the Raleigh County Commission, Sponsor for the Raleigh County
Memorial Airport, Beckley, West Virginia. The parcel is located off the
north end of the airport and descends in to ``Piney Creek Gorge'' to a
depth in excess of 600ft below the airport elevation and has no
aeronautical benefit. The land is dormant, no infrastructure exists and
land has no practical use. Due to terrain, no future development
opportunities exist for the airport. Once released, the land will be
sold and placed in a Conservation Easement, with restriction of no
future development. Proposed buyer would be placing the area of request
in a conservation easement for wildlife enhancement, with no adverse
impact to the airport. Land will remain as compatible use to the
airport. Land will be sold as surface rights only, no conveyance of
mineral rights. The airport land being released is not needed for
airport development as shown on the Airport Layout Plan. Fair Market
Value has been determined based upon an appraisal of the Property.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 19, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Connie Boley-Lilly,
Program Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Beckley Airports
Field Office, 176 Airport Circle, Room 101, Beaver, West Virginia
25813.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Mr. Tom Cochran, Airport Manager of the Raleigh
County Memorial Airport at the following address: Thomas Cochran,
Airport Manager, Raleigh County Memorial Airport, 176 Airport Circle,
Room 105, Beaver, West Virginia 25813.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Connie Boley-Lilly, Program
Specialist, Beckley Airport Field Office,<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 125, Fax
(304) 253-8028. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public
comment on the request to release property at the Raleigh County
Memorial Airport, Beckley, WV. Under the provisions of AIR 21(49 U.S.C.
47108(h)(2)).
    The Raleigh County Memorial Airport is proposing the release of
approximately 154.0957 acres of a `surface rights only' property to be
sold and then placed in a Conservation Easement with restriction of no
future development. The release and sale of this property will allow
the Sponsor to take advantage of un-useable land and use the proceeds
for that sale, for the future development of the airport.

    Issued in Beckley, West Virginia, on January 8, 2013.
Matthew P. DiGiulian,
Manager, Beckley Airport Field Office, Eastern Region.
[FR Doc. 2013-00854 Filed 1-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 231 (Monday, December 4, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 57248]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26001]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP18-20-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Request
Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on November 15, 2017, Transcontinental Gas Pipe
Line Company, LLC (Transco), P.O. Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251, filed
a prior notice application pursuant to sections 157.205, and 157.208 of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations
under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Transco's blanket certificate
issued in Docket No. CP82-426-000. Transco requests authorization to
construct and operate three new heaters and related appurtenant
facilities at the existing Meadow Heater facility located in the
Borough of Ridgefield, Bergen County, New Jersey, all as more fully set
forth in the application, which is open to the public for inspection.
The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Marg
Camardello, P.O. Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251 or by phone (713) 215-
3380.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenter will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.

    Dated: November 27, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary
[FR Doc. 2017-26001 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 64819]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27309]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. IS18-766-000; IS18-767-000]

Mid-America Pipeline Company, LLC; Seminole Pipeline Company LLC;
Notice of Technical Conference

    Take notice that a technical conference will be held Thursday,
January 17, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. (Eastern Standard Time), in Hearing Room
7, at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington DC 20426.
    At the technical conference, the Commission staff and the parties
to the proceeding should be prepared to discuss all issues set for
technical conference as established in the October 25, 2018 order, Mid-
America Pipeline Company, LLC et al., 165 FERC 61,046. All interested
persons are permitted to attend.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY); or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this technical conference please contact
Matthew Petersen at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: December 12, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-27309 Filed 12-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                                                                       6560-50
                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                40 CFR Part 261
                     [EPA-R10-RCRA-2018-0538; SW-FRL-     ]

                      Hazardous Waste Management System;
                    Identifying and Listing Hazardous Waste
                                   Exclusion

 AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
 ACTION:  Final Rule.
SUMMARY:  The EPA (also, "the Agency" or "we" in this preamble) is granting a petition submitted by Sandvik Special Metals (Sandvik), in Kennewick, Washington to exclude (or "delist") up to 1,500 cubic yards of F006 wastewater treatment sludge per year from the list of federal hazardous wastes.
      The Agency has decided to grant the petition based on an evaluation of waste-specific information provided by Sandvik and a consideration of public comments received.  This action conditionally excludes the petitioned waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill permitted, licensed, or registered by a State to manage the delisted wastewater treatment sludge.  The rule also imposes testing conditions for waste generated in the future to ensure that this waste continues to qualify for delisting. Subject to state-only requirements within the state of Washington, or federally-authorized or state-only requirements in other states where the subject wastes may be disposed of, Sandvik's petitioned waste may be disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or otherwise registered by a State to manage industrial solid waste.
 DATES: This final rule is effective on [Insert date of publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER].

 ADDRESSES:  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. [EPA-R10-RCRA-2018-0538].  All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov web site.  Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.  Publicly available docket materials are available electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the RCRA Records Center, 16th floor, U.S. EPA, Region 10, 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 155, OAW-150, Seattle, Washington 98101. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We recommend you telephone David Bartus at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 10 office. The public may copy material from the regulatory docket at 15 cents per page.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Dr. David Bartus, EPA, Region 10, 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 155, OAW-150, Seattle, Washington 98070; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
 As discussed in Section V below, the Washington State Department of Ecology is evaluating Sandvik's petition under state authority. Information on Ecology's action may be found at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1804023.html.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized as follows:
I.	Background
	A.	What is a Delisting Petition?
	B.	What Regulations Allow a Waste to be Delisted?
II.	Sandvik's Petition
	A.	What Waste did Sandvik Petition to Delist?
	B.	What Information was Submitted in Support of this Petition?
III.	EPA's Evaluation and Public Comments
	A.	What Decision is EPA Finalizing and Why?
	B.	Public Comments Received and EPA's Response
IV.	Final Rule
	A.	What are the Terms of this Exclusion?
	B.	When is the Delisting Effective?
	C.	How does this Action Affect the States?

V.	Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background
A. What is a Delisting Petition?
	A delisting petition is a request from a generator to exclude waste from the list of hazardous wastes under RCRA regulations. 	In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that waste generated at a particular facility does not meet any of the criteria for which EPA listed the waste as set forth in 40 C.F.R. 261.11 and the background document for the waste.  In addition, a petitioner must demonstrate that the waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (that is, ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and must present sufficient information for us to decide whether factors other than those for which the waste was listed warrant retaining it as a hazardous waste.  See 40 CFR 260.22, 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 6921(f) and the background documents for a listed waste.
	A generator remains obligated under RCRA to confirm that its waste remains nonhazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics to ensure that future generated wastes meet the conditions set. This remains required even if EPA has "delisted" the wastes.
B. What Regulations Allow a Waste to be Delisted?
 	Under 40 CFR 260.20, 260.22, and 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), facilities may petition the EPA to remove their wastes from hazardous waste control by excluding them from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32.  Specifically, 40 CFR 260.20 allows any person to petition the Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through 266, 268, and 273 of 40 CFR.  40 CFR 260.22 provides a generator the opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste from the lists of hazardous wastes on a "generator specific" basis.
 II.	Sandvik's Petition
A.	What Waste did Sandvik Petition EPA to Delist?

	On April 27, 2018, Sandvik petitioned the EPA to exclude an annual volume of up to 1,500 cubic yards of F006 wastewater treatment sludges generated at its facility located in Kennewick, Washington from the list of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31. F006 is defined in § 261.31 as "Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations . . ."   Sandvik claims that the petitioned waste does not meet the criteria for which F006 was listed (i.e., cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel and complexed cyanide) and that there are no other factors which would cause the waste to be hazardous.
B.	What Information was Submitted in Support of this Petition?
	Sandvik conducted a detailed chemical analysis of their WWTF sludge according to a written sampling and analysis plan (SAP), provided as Attachment 2 to the delisting petition. Sandvik also asserted in its analysis that its waste does not meet the criteria for which F006 waste was listed and there are no other factors that might cause the waste to be hazardous.
	To support its assertion that the waste is not hazardous, Sandvik collected numerous samples of the waste for analysis as documented in the preamble to the EPA's proposed delisting rule. The EPA assessed Sandvik's data presented in the petition with respect to its intended use, and found the data were of sufficient quality and quantity to satisfy delisting decision criteria.
III.	EPA's Evaluation and Public Comments
A.	What Decision is EPA Finalizing and Why?
	Today the EPA is finalizing an exclusion for up to 1,500 cubic yards of wastewater treatment sludge generated annually at the Sandvik facility in Kennewick, Washington.  Sandvik petitioned EPA to exclude, or delist, the wastewater treatment sludge because Sandvik believed that the petitioned waste does not meet the criteria for which it was listed and that there are no additional constituents or factors which could cause the waste to be hazardous.  Review of this petition included consideration of the original listing criteria, as well as the additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).  See 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22 (d)(2)-(4).
	On September 12, 2018, the EPA proposed to exclude or delist the wastewater treatment sludge generated at Sandvik's facility from the list of hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261.31 and accepted public comment on the proposed rule (See 83 FR 46126).  EPA considered all comments received, and for reasons stated in both the proposal and this document, we believe that the wastewater treatment sludge from Sandvik's facility should be excluded from hazardous waste control.
B.	Public Comments Received and EPA's Response
      EPA received six public comments on the proposed rule. Three of these comments supported the EPA's proposed exclusion (comments 0020, 0021 and 0023).  Comment 0020 did raise a concern regarding the effect of the proposed delisting on residents of Kennewick. The EPA appreciates this concern, noting that the analysis supporting the proposed exclusion clearly documents that management of Sandvik's waste under the exclusion will be fully protective of residents both Kennewick, Washington and any solid waste landfill that may receive Sandvik's delisted waste. Comment 21 suggested that annual verification sampling and analysis could be done more frequently. Based on documentation provided by Sandvik regarding the highly-regulated nature of Sandvik's production process that is expected to result in the petitioned waste to remain largely consistent over time, the EPA does not believe that a requirement to perform verification sampling and analysis more frequently than annually is warranted.
      One commenter (comment 0022) raised questions concerning glass recycling not relevant to the proposed exclusion.
      Two comments recommended that the EPA perform additional analysis before finalizing the proposed exclusion. Comment 0019 stated that more research is needed regarding the effects of groundwater contamination of arsenic, and on the direction of groundwater from the receiving landfill. This comment also requested that the sludge be tested for the characteristics of ignitability, reactivity and corrosivity. Sandvik used the DRAS model to develop and document compliance with delisting criteria on a constituent-specific basis, including arsenic. The DRAS model reflects established science and policy regarding multipath analysis including groundwater.  The results of this modeling indicate to the EPA that no additional research is needed prior to finalization of the requested exclusion. The EPA also notes that federal delisting regulations clearly state that candidate wastes cannot exhibit a hazardous characteristic, and that Sandvik's petition documents compliance with this requirement, as do conditions of the proposed exclusion.
      Comment 24 stated that the proposed rule should not go into effect without an independent evaluation of the waste water sought to be exclude, and that it is inappropriate to rely on the evaluation of the petitioner alone. The EPA has performed an extensive and detailed review of Sandvik's petition, providing exactly the independent analysis requested by the commenter. The EPA does not believe further independent analysis of Sandvik's petition ix necessary or warranted.
IV.	Final Rule
A.	What are the Terms of this Exclusion?
      Sandvik must dispose of this waste in a Subtitle D landfill permitted or licensed by a state, and will remain obligated to verify that the waste meets the allowable concentrations set forth here.  Sandvik must also continue to determine whether the waste is identified in of 40 C.F.R. Subpart C pursuant to § 261.11(c).  This exclusion applies only to a maximum annual volume of 1,500 cubic yards and is effective only if all conditions contained in this rule are satisfied.
B.	When is the Delisting Effective?
      This rule is effective [Insert date of publication in FEDERAL REGISTER].  The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 amended section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to become effective in less than six months when the regulated community does not need the six-month period to come into compliance.  This rule reduces rather than increases the existing requirements and, therefore, is effective immediately upon publication under the Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
C.	How does this Action Affect the States?
       Today's exclusion is being issued under the federal RCRA delisting program.  Therefore, only states subject to federal RCRA delisting provisions would be affected.  This exclusion is not effective in states that have received authorization to make their own delisting decisions.  Also, the exclusion may not be effective in states having a dual system that includes federal RCRA requirements and their own requirements.  EPA allows states to impose their own regulatory requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under section 3009 of RCRA.  These more stringent requirements may include a provision that prohibits a federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the state.  As noted in the proposed rule preamble, the Washington State Department of Ecology is expected to make a parallel decision under their separate state authority.  The EPA also notes that if Sandvik transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in any state with delisting authorization, it must obtain a delisting from that state before it can manage the waste as nonhazardous in that state.
V.	Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A.	Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
      This proposed action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget because it is a rule of particular applicability, not general applicability. The proposed action approves a delisting petition under RCRA for the petitioned waste at a particular facility.
B.	Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs
      This proposed action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because actions such as approval of delisting petitions under RCRA are exempted under Executive Order 12866.
C.	Paperwork Reduction Act
      This proposed action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it only applies to a particular facility.
D.	Regulatory Flexibility Act
      Because this rule is of particular applicability relating to a particular facility, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provision of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
F.	Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
      This proposed action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 - 1538) and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no new enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
G.	Executive Order 13132: Federalism
      This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
 H.	Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
      This proposed action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This proposed action applies only to a particular facility on non-tribal land. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
I.	Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
      This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This proposed action's health and risk assessments using the Agency's Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS), which considers health and safety risks to children, are described in section III.E above. The technical support document and the user's guide for DRAS are included in the docket.
J.	Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
      This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
K.	National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
      This proposed action does not involve technical standards as described by the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
L.	Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
      The EPA believes that this proposed action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples. The EPA has determined that this proposed action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The Agency's risk assessment, as described in section III.E above, did not identify risks from management of this material in an authorized, solid waste landfill (e.g. RCRA Subtitle D landfill, commercial/industrial solid waste landfill, etc.). Therefore, the EPA believes that any populations in proximity of the landfills used by this facility should not be adversely affected by common waste management practices for this delisted waste.
M.	Congressional Review Act
      This proposed action is exempt from the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) because it is a rule of particular applicability.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
      Hazardous waste, Recycling, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
      Authority:  § 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6921(f).
Dated:

______________________________________
Timothy B. Hamlin,
Director,
Office of Air and Waste.
	For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended as follows:
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:
      Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.

2. Amend Table 1 of Appendix IX to part 261 by adding the following waste stream in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Appendix IX to part 261 - Wastes Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22.

Table 1--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources

Facility	Address		Waste description

          *          *          *          *          *	*	*
Sandvik Special Metals	Kennewick, Washington	Wastewater treatment sludges, F006, generated at Sandvik Special Metals (Sandvik) facility in Kennewick, Washington at a maximum annual rate of 1,500 cubic yards per year. The sludge must be disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill which is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized by a state to accept the delisted wastewater treatment sludge. The exclusion becomes effective as of [insert final publication date].
                              1. Delisting Levels:
                              (A) The constituent concentrations in a representative sample of the waste must not exceed the following levels: Total concentrations (mg/kg): Arsenic  -  9,840; Cadmium  -  37,100; Chromium  -  77,500; Cobalt  -  103,000. TCLP Concentrations (mg/l in the waste extract): Arsenic  -  0.042; Barium  -  100; Cadmium  -  0.451; Chromium  -  5.00; Cobalt  -  1.06; Copper  -  120; Fluoride  -  194; Lead  -  2.95; Nickel  -  66.4; Silver  -  5.00; Vanadium  -  16.9; Zinc  -  992.
                              2. Annual Verification Testing:  To verify that the waste does not exceed the delisting concentrations specified in Section 1.A, Sandvik must collect and analyze one representative waste sample with coolant on an annual basis no later than each anniversary of the effective date of this delisting using methods with appropriate detection concentrations and elements of quality control. If both titanium and zirconium products have been in production and contributed to candidate wastes within the three-month period prior to each anniversary of the effective date of this delisting, samples of waste from both manufacturing processes must be collected for that reporting cycle.  Otherwise, sampling only of that material in production within the specified three-month period is required. Sampling data must be provided to the EPA no later 60 days following each anniversary of the effective date of this delisting, or such later date as the EPA may agree to in writing. Sandvik must conduct all verification sampling according to a written sampling plan and associated quality assurance project plan that ensures analytical data are suitable for their intended use, which must be made available to the EPA upon request. Sandvik's annual submission must also include a certification that all wastes satisfying the delisting concentrations in Condition 1.A have been disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill which is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized by a state to accept the delisted wastewater treatment sludge.
                              3. Changes in Operating Conditions: Sandvik must notify the EPA in writing if it significantly changes the manufacturing process, the chemicals used in the manufacturing process, the treatment process, or the chemicals used in the treatment process. Sandvik must handle wastes generated after the process change as hazardous until it has demonstrated that the wastes continue to meet the delisting concentrations in section 1.C, demonstrated that no new hazardous constituents listed in 40 CFR Part 261 Appendix VIII have been introduced into the manufacturing process or waste treatment process, and it has received written approval from the EPA that it may continue to manage the waste as non-hazardous.
                              4. Data Submittals: Sandvik must submit the data obtained through verification testing or as required by other conditions of this rule to the Director, Office of Air and Waste, U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 6[th] Avenue Suite 155, OAW-150, Seattle, Washington, 98070 or his or her equivalent. The annual verification data and certification of proper disposal must be submitted within 60 days after each anniversary of the effective date of this delisting exclusion, or such later date as the EPA may agree to in writing. Sandvik must compile, summarize, and maintain on-site for a minimum of five years, records of analytical data required by this rule, and operating conditions relevant to those data. Sandvik must make these records available for inspection. All data must be accompanied by a signed copy of the certification statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12). If Sandvik fails to submit the required data within the specified time or maintain the required records on-site for the specified time, the EPA may, at its discretion, consider such failure a sufficient basis to reopen the exclusion as described in paragraph 5.
                              5. Reopener Language - (A) If, any time after disposal of the delisted waste, Sandvik possesses or is otherwise made aware of any data relevant to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent is at a higher than the specified delisting concentration, then Sandvik must report such data, in writing, to the Director, Office of Air and Waste, EPA, Region 10, or his or her equivalent, within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data.
                              (B) Based on the information described in paragraph (A) and any other information received from any source, the EPA will make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires Agency action to protect human health or the environment. Further action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to protect human health and the environment.
                              (C) If the EPA determines that the reported information does require Agency action, the EPA will notify Sandvik in writing of the actions it believes are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a statement providing Sandvik with an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed Agency action is not necessary or to suggest an alternative action. Sandvik shall have 30 days from the date of the EPA's notice to present the information.
                              (D) If after 30 days Sandvik presents no further information or after a review of any submitted information, the EPA will issue a final written determination describing the Agency actions that are necessary to protect human health or the environment. Any required action described in the EPA's determination shall become effective immediately, unless the EPA provides otherwise.
 *	*	*	*	*	*	*


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 19233]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07507]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4268-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

Mississippi; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-4268-DR), dated March 25,
2016, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: March 25, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated March 25, 2016, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Mississippi resulting from severe storms and flooding beginning
on March 9, 2016, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such
a major disaster exists in the State of Mississippi.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Lai Sun Yee, of FEMA is appointed to
act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Mississippi have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Bolivar, Coahoma, and Washington Counties for Individual
Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Mississippi are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

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
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-07507 Filed 4-1-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 35 (Thursday, February 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5508-5511]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02904]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85143; File No. SR-MRX-2019-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 3

February 14, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 31, 2019, Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``MRX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Pricing Schedule at Options 7,
Section 3, entitled ``Regular Order Fees and Rebates.''
    While these amendments are effective upon filing, the Exchange has
designated the proposed amendments to be operative on February 1, 2019.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqmrx.cchwallstreet.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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Pricing
Schedule at Options 7, Section 3, entitled ``Regular Order Fees and
Rebates'' at Table 2 to (1) amend PIM Fees for Crossing Orders \3\ for
both Penny and Non-Penny Symbols; (2) increase Non-Penny Fees for
Reponses to Crossing Orders; (3) adopt a letter ``(c)'' within Options
7, Section 1 for ease of reference to defined terms. The Exchange will
describe each amendment below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A ``Crossing Order'' is an order executed in the Exchange's
Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order Mechanism, Price Improvement
Mechanism (``PIM'') or submitted as a Qualified Contingent Cross
order. For purposes of this Pricing Schedule, orders executed in the
Block Order Mechanism are also considered Crossing Orders.

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

Fees for Crossing Orders
    Today, MRX assesses a Fee for Crossing Orders in Penny and Non-
Penny Symbols of $0.20 per contract for Market Maker,\4\ Non-Nasdaq MRX
Market Maker,\5\ Firm Proprietary,\6\ Broker-Dealer,\7\ and
Professional Customer \8\ orders, and $0.00 per contract for Priority
Customer Orders.\9\ These fees apply to both originating and contra-
side orders for all Crossing Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A ``Market Maker'' is a market maker as defined in Nasdaq
MRX Rule 100(a)(30). Market Maker fees discussed in this section
also apply to Market Maker orders sent to the Exchange by Electronic
Access Members.
    \5\ A ``Non-Nasdaq MRX Market Maker'' is a market maker as
defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, registered in the same options class on another options
exchange.
    \6\ A ``Firm Proprietary'' order is an order submitted by a
Member for its own proprietary account.
    \7\ A ``Broker-Dealer'' order is an order submitted by a Member
for a broker-dealer account that is not its own proprietary account.
    \8\ A ``Professional Customer'' is a person or entity that is
not a broker/dealer and is not a Priority Customer.
    \9\ A ``Priority Customer'' is a person or entity that is not a
broker/dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders
in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its
own beneficial account(s), as defined in Nasdaq MRX Rule
100(a)(37A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MRX proposes to continue assessing the Fees for Crossing Orders in
Table 2 for Penny and Non-Penny Symbols with respect to originating PIM
Orders. MRX proposes to assess a Fee for Crossing Orders in all symbols
for PIM orders of $0.05 per contract provided a market participant is
on the contra-side of a PIM auction. This fee would apply to all market
participants. This fee represents a reduced fee for Market Maker, Non-
Nasdaq MRX Market Maker, Firm Proprietary, Broker-Dealer, and
Professional Customer orders (from $0.20 to $0.05 per contract) and an
increased fee for Priority Customers (from $0.00 to $0.05 per
contract).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ MRX is not amending fees with respect the Facilitation
Mechanism, Solicited Order Mechanism, or an order submitted as a
Qualified Contingent Cross order or an order executed in the Block
Order Mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, MRX proposes to pay a rebate to an originating Priority
Customer PIM Order that executes with a response (an order or quote),
other than the PIM contra-side order, of $0.40 per contract in Penny
Symbols and $1.00 per contract in Non-Penny Symbols. The Exchange
believes that this proposal will encourage greater participation in PIM
auctions.
    The Exchange proposes to amend note 1 within the Pricing Schedule
at Options 7, Section 3 to add ``-side'' after the term ``contra'' in
the existing sentence. The Exchange also proposes to add the following
text to that sentence, ``. . . except for PIM Orders. With respect to
PIM Orders, the Fees for Crossing Orders apply to PIM originating
orders, however all market participants on the contra-side of a PIM
auction will be assessed a Fee for Crossing Orders of $0.05 per
contract. An originating Priority Customer PIM Order that executes with
any response (order or quote), other than the PIM contra-side order,
will receive a rebate of $0.40 per contract in Penny Symbols and $1.00
per contract in Non-Penny Symbols.''
Fees for Responses to Crossing Orders
    Today, MRX assesses a Fee for Responses to Crossing Orders of $0.50
per contract in Penny Symbols to all market participants and $0.95 per
contract in Non-Penny Symbols to all market participants.
    MRX proposes to increase the Fees for Responses to Crossing Orders
in Non-Penny Symbols from $0.95 to $1.10 per contract for all market
participants. No changes are proposed to Penny Symbols for Fees for
Reponses to Crossing Orders. The Exchange proposes to utilize the
increased rate to offer rebates to Priority Customers who submit PIM
Orders as described above.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ MRX proposes herein to pay a rebate to an originating
Priority Customer PIM Order that executes with any response, other
than the PIM contra-side order, of $0.40 per contract in Penny
Symbols and $1.00 per contract in Non-Penny Symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Options 7, Section 1
    The Exchange proposes to amend Options 7, Section 1 to add a letter
``(c)'' before certain defined terms for ease of reference.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in
particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among members and issuers and
other persons using any facility, and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. The
Exchange believes that the proposed changes will attract PIM order flow
to MRX, which will create trading opportunities on MRX to the benefit
of all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Fees for Crossing Orders
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to assess contra-side PIM
Orders a reduced Fee for Crossing Orders in both Penny and Non-Penny
Symbols of $0.05 per contract instead of $0.20 per contract to Market
Maker, Non-Nasdaq MRX Market Maker, Firm Proprietary, Broker-Dealer,
and Professional Customer orders is reasonable because the Exchange
proposes to encourage theses market participants to submit a greater
amount of order flow to the MRX PIM auction. The Exchange believes that
it is reasonable to assess Priority Customers an increased $0.05 per
contract Fee for Crossing Orders \14\ for contra-side PIM Orders in
Penny and Non-Penny Symbols because the Exchange is also offering
Priority Customers an opportunity to receive a rebate of $0.40 per
contract in Penny Symbols and $1.00 per contract in Non-Penny Symbols
for any originating Priority Customer PIM Order that executes with any
response, other than the PIM contra-side order. As is the case today,
Priority Customers will not pay a Fee for Crossing Orders in Penny and
Non-Penny Symbols with respect originating PIM Orders and non-PIM
Crossing Order transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Today, Priority Customers pay no Fee for Crossing Orders
(originating or contra-side orders) with respect to PIM transactions
in either Penny or Non-Penny Symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to assess contra-side PIM
Orders a lower Fee for Crossing Orders in both Penny and Non-Penny
Symbols of $0.05 per contract instead of $0.20 per contract to Market
Maker, Non-Nasdaq MRX Market Maker, Firm Proprietary, Broker-Dealer,
and Professional Customer orders is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange will uniformly charge all market
participants, except Priority Customers, a lower contra-side Fee for
Crossing PIM Orders in Penny and Non-Penny Symbols. While a Priority
Customer's contra-side Fee for Crossing PIM Orders will increase from
$0.00 to $0.05 per contract in both Penny and Non-Penny Symbols, the
Priority Customer has an opportunity to receive a rebate of $0.40 per
contract in Penny Symbols and $1.00 per contract in Non-Penny Symbols
for any originating Priority Customer PIM Order that executes with any
response, other than the PIM contra-side order. As is the case today,
Priority Customers will not pay an originating Fee for PIM Orders.
Further, the Exchange notes that Priority Customer interest brings
valuable liquidity to the

market, which liquidity benefits other market participants. Priority
Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more
trading opportunities, which attracts Market Makers. An increase in the
activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter
spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order
flow from other market participants.
Fees for Responses to Crossing Orders
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the Non-Penny
Symbol Fees for Responses to Crossing Orders from $0.95 to $1.10 per
contract for all market participants is reasonable because while these
fees are increasing the Exchange believes that the fees remain
competitive and will continue to attract order flow to the Exchange.
Further, the Exchange proposes to utilize the increased rate to offer
rebates to Priority Customers who submit PIM Orders as described
herein.\15\ Priority Customer liquidity benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts
Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants
in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See note 9 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the Non-Penny
Symbol Fees for Responses to Crossing Orders from $0.95 to $1.10 per
contract for all market participants is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because all market participants will be uniformly
assessed the increased fee in Non-Penny Symbols.
Options 7, Section 1
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 7, Section 1 to add a
letter ``(c)'' before certain defined terms is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because this non-substantive amendment
merely makes the section easier to reference.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange's proposal does
not impose a burden on inter-market competition because the proposed
fee structure for Crossing Orders remains competitive with other
options exchanges. MRX operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee
levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities
available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment,
the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive
with other exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own
fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust
their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to
which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition
is extremely limited.
Fees for Crossing Orders
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to assess contra-side PIM
Orders a lower Fee for Crossing Orders in both Penny and Non-Penny
Symbols of $0.05 per contract instead of $0.20 per contract to Market
Maker, Non-Nasdaq MRX Market Maker, Firm Proprietary, Broker-Dealer,
and Professional Customer orders does not impose a burden on intra-
market competition because the Exchange will uniformly pay all market
participants, except Priority Customers, a lower contra-side Fee for
Crossing PIM Orders in Penny and Non-Penny Symbols. While a Priority
Customer's contra-side Fee for Crossing PIM Orders will increase from
$0.00 to $0.05 per contract in Penny and Non-Penny Symbols, the
Priority Customer has an opportunity to receive a rebate of $0.40 per
contract in Penny Symbols and $1.00 per contract in Non-Penny Symbols
for any originating Priority Customer PIM Order that executes with any
response, other than the PIM contra-side order. As is the case today,
Priority Customers will not pay an originating Fee for PIM Orders.
Further, the Exchange notes that Priority Customer interest brings
valuable liquidity to the market, which liquidity benefits other market
participants. Priority Customer liquidity benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts
Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants
in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
Fees for Responses to Crossing Orders
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the Non-Penny
Symbol Fees for Responses to Crossing Orders from $0.95 to $1.10 per
contract for all market participants does not impose a burden on intra-
market competition because all market participants will be uniformly
assessed the increased fee in Non-Penny Symbols.
Options 7, Section 1
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 7, Section 1 to add a
letter ``(c)'' before certain defined terms does not impose an undue
burden on intra-market competition because this non-substantive
amendment merely makes the section easier to reference.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\16\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public
interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-MRX-2019-02 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MRX-2019-02. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your

comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission
will post all comments on the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do
not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MRX-
2019-02 and should be submitted on or before March 14, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-02904 Filed 2-20-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 6, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55593-55594]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21828]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 7887-018]

Ashuelot River Hydro, Inc.; Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of
the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent To File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 7887-018.
    c. Date Filed: June 30, 2021.
    d. Submitted By: Ashuelot River Hydro, Inc. (ARH).
    e. Name of Project: Minnewawa Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On Minnewawa Brook in Cheshire County, New Hampshire.
No federal lands are occupied by the project works or located within
the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 and 5.5 of the Commission's
regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Robert E. King, Ashuelot River
Hydro, Inc., 42 Hurricane Road, Keene, NH 03431; phone at (603) 352-
3444; email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Steve Kartalia at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. ARH filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process
on June 30, 2021, and provided public notice of its request on August
21, 2021. In a letter dated September 30, 2021, the Director of the
Division of Hydropower Licensing approved ARH's request to use the
Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries under section 7
of the

Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at
50 CFR part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating
consultation with the New Hampshire State Historic Preservation
Officer, as required by section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. On June 30, 2021, ARH filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD;
including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission,
pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    m. A copy of the PAD may be viewed and/or printed on the
Commission's website (http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY).
    n. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an
application for a subsequent license for Project No. 7887. Pursuant to
18 CFR 16.20, each application for a subsequent license and any
competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at
least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All
applications for license for this project must be filed by June 30,
2024.
    o. Register online at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx
to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this
or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: September 30, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-21828 Filed 10-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34372-34373]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14023]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER11-2201-004.
    Applicants: Evergreen Wind Power III, LLC.
    Description: Compliance Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be
effective 4/4/2011.
    Filed Date: 5/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120530-5052.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1177-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing per Order dated 4/30/2012 in ER12-
1177 to be effective 5/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120530-5128.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1178-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing per Order dated 4/30/2012 in ER12-
1178 to be effective 5/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120530-5173.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1185-001.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 05-30-12 Demand Curves Compliance to be effective 5/1/
2012.
    Filed Date: 5/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120530-5107.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1862-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Amendment to Gates Solar Station LGIA WDT SA No. 87 to
be effective 5/31/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120530-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1863-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Queue Position X2-011 ? Original Service Agreement No.
3322 to be effective 5/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120530-5046.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1864-000.
    Applicants: Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc.
    Description: 2012 RIA Annual Update to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120530-5067.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1865-000.
    Applicants: Alta Wind VI, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Succession and Updated MBR Tariff of Mustang
Hills, LLC to be effective 4/30/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120530-5078.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1866-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PAC Energy NITSA Rev 16 to be effective 5/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120530-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1867-000.
    Applicants: Tampa Electric Company.

    Description: Section 205 Transmission Depreciation Accrual Rates
Filing to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120530-5126.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1868-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: NYISO Compliance Filing--Non-Historic Fixed Price TCCs
to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120530-5142.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1869-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: LGIA among NYISO, NiMo, NYSEG and Nine Mile Point-
SA1757 to be effective 5/14/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120530-5199.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1870-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: 2nd Revised PNM/HLM TSA to be effective 3/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120530-5201.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1871-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: E&P Agreement for Potrero Hills Energy Producers to be
effective 6/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20120531-5004.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1872-000.
    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: Request of San Diego Gas & Electric Company for One-
Time Waiver of Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1.
    Filed Date: 5/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120530-5230.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/12.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:
    Docket Numbers: PH12-13-000.
    Applicants: Alaska Power & Telephone Company.
    Description: Waiver Notification pursuant to 18 CFR Section
366.4(c)(1) of Alaska Power & Telephone Company.
    Filed Date: 5/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120530-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/12.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings:
    Docket Numbers: RR12-11-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
    Description: North American Electric Reliability Corporation's
Report of Budgeted to Actual Costs for 2011 for NERC and the Regional
Entities.
    Filed Date: 5/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120530-5251.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/12.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 31, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-14023 Filed 6-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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

General Comment:The attached files are the following docket-related documents:
?  U.S. DOT/FAA - Notice of proposed rulemaking
?  U.S. DOT/FAA - Notice of proposed rulemaking grid
?  U.S. DOT/FAA - Final rule
?  U.S. DOT/FAA - Final rule grid