[Federal Register: February 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 33)]
[Notices]
[Page 9151-9155]
[DOCID:fr19fe08-95]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57312; File No. SR-NYSE-2004-70]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Amendments No. 2, 3, and 5 and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval to a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendments No. 2, 3, and 5, To Amend Rule 104 To Require Specialists To
Yield Proprietary Trades to Later-Arriving System Orders

February 12, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On December 13, 2004, the New York Stock Exchange LLC \1\ (``NYSE''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ a
proposed rule change to amend NYSE Rule 104 to require that in
transactions between a specialist and a contra order that have been
agreed to but not yet reported, the specialist must yield to any system
orders that enter the specialist's book and can take the specialist's
position in such transaction except if the specialist's transaction
meets a specified exception. On January 7, 2005, the Exchange filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change,
as modified by Amendment No. 1, was published for public comment in the
Federal Register on January 28, 2005.\4\ The Exchange filed Amendments
No. 2,\5\ 3,\6\ 4,\7\ and 5 \8\ to the proposed rule change on August
11, 2005, October 14, 2005, September 15, 2006, and February 8, 2008,
respectively. The Commission received five comment letters from a
single commenter opposing the proposed rule change.\9\ On June 7, 2005
and November 18, 2005, the Exchange submitted responses to the
comments.\10\ This order

provides notice of filing of Amendments No. 2, 3, and 5 to the proposed
rule change, and grants accelerated approval to the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendments No. 2, 3, and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Formerly known as the New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51048 (Jan. 18, 2005),
70 FR 4171 (``Notice'').
    \5\ Amendment No. 2 superseded the original filing and Amendment
No. 1 in their entirety and included (i) clarifying changes to the
descriptions of the exceptions to the rule, (ii) the addition of
system orders to the exception relating to non-regular way
transactions, and (iii) the addition of convert and parity orders
(``CAP orders'') to the exception relating to electing transactions.
    \6\ In Amendment No. 3, the Exchange revised the purpose section
of the filing to clarify the discussion of the exception relating to
non-regular way transactions. Amendment No. 3 also makes certain
technical changes to the proposed rule change.
    \7\ Amendment No. 4 was withdrawn on February 8, 2008, by
Amendment No. 5.
    \8\ In Amendment No. 5, the Exchange: (i) Withdraws Amendment
No. 4; (ii) makes certain technical corrections to the proposed rule
change; (iii) clarifies that NYSE Rule 123B(d) does not apply to
transactions handled pursuant to proposed NYSE Rule 104.10(10); (iv)
eliminates references to the election of stop orders by specialists,
as this functionality is now automated; (v) eliminates references to
the Intermarket Trading System, which has been decommissioned; (vi)
amends Item 5 of Amendment No. 2 to clarify that the Exchange had
received comments on the proposal; and (vii) corrects a
typographical error in Amendment No. 3.
    \9\ See letters from George Rutherfurd, Consultant
(``Rutherfurd''), to the Commission, dated February 18, 2005
(``February 18th Rutherfurd Letter''), April 8, 2005, June 15, 2005
(``June 15th Rutherfurd Letter''), October 20, 2005 (``October 20th
Rutherfurd Letter''), and November 27, 2005 (``November 27th
Rutherfurd Letter'') (together, the ``Rutherfurd Letters'').
    \10\ See letters from Mary Yaeger, Assistant Secretary, NYSE, to
Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission, dated June 7, 2005 (``June
7th NYSE Letter'') and November 18, 2005 (``November 18th NYSE
Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 104 Supplementary Material
.10 to provide that when a specialist has completed but not yet
reported a transaction as principal with an order in the book or in the
crowd, the specialist must yield to any order received through
SuperDOT[supreg] that could take the specialist's place in the
unreported principal transaction. The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE
Rule 104 Supplementary Material .10 to add new section (10) to require
that, notwithstanding the ability of a specialist to trade as principal
with either a system order or a broker in the crowd, if a marketable
order arrives on the book before the reporting of the specialist's
trade as principal is complete, the specialist must yield to such
order. Where the specialist is required to yield, the customer whose
order entered the book would be reported as the contra party for the
trade instead of the specialist.
    The proposed rule would provide the following six exceptions to
this requirement.
    1. Correction of a Bona Fide Specialist Error in a Previously
Reported Transaction. These are cases where a specialist has to issue
corrected reports that include dealer participation via the Display
Book[supreg] to correct a previously executed and reported transaction.
Such corrections could involve the price, volume, or names involved on
a transaction. If an executable system order is on the same side as the
dealer participation necessary to correct the error, this would trigger
the Display Book's[supreg] ``P'' indicator (preventing the specialist
from participating as dealer ahead of executable system orders). In
this situation, the specialist would be permitted to use the override
feature, provided that the specialist places an ``Error'' notation in
the Display Book's[supreg] free form comment field. The specialist
would be required to adequately document the error on the firm's books
and records.
    2. Trading in Satisfaction of the Specialist's Obligation to Give
Up a Trade to an Agency Order. These are cases where Exchange policy
permits the specialist to give up a trade to an agency order after the
initial trade has been reported and the specialist cannot substitute
the agency customer's name, such as where a customer requests to
participate on a trade previously executed by the specialist as
principal on a non-regular way basis. When reporting such substituted
trades, the specialist would have to participate as dealer in order to
unwind his own participation in the initial transaction. If an
executable system order is on the same side as the dealer participation
necessary to effect the substitution, this would trigger the Display
Book's[supreg] ``P'' indicator. In this situation, the specialist would
be permitted to use the override feature to complete the substitute
transaction. The specialist would be required to document the
substitution trade in the Display Book's[supreg] free form comment
field.
    3. Report of Non-Regular-Way Principal to Customer Transaction.
These are cases where a member firm represents a non-regular-way
settlement order (e.g., cash basis, next day, and seller's option) and
the specialist is willing to trade with that order at a price at which
there are regular-way settlement customer orders on the same side on
the Display Book[supreg] at the same or a better price.\11\ The
override feature may be used by the specialist to effect the non-
regular way transactions, provided, however, that the specialist may be
required to give up the trade to an agency order if the customer
indicates its willingness to participate on the same terms as the
specialist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Non-regular-way orders may be represented by a broker in
the crowd or may be entered through the SuperDOT[supreg] system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Principal Participation in CAP Order Electing Transaction.\12\
These are cases where the specialist chooses to execute the elected
portions of CAP orders at the same price as the electing sale.\13\ In
these cases, the specialist bases the price on the total volume of the
electing orders and the CAP orders, and then effects both the electing
transaction and the CAP transaction contemporaneously and at the same
price. NYSE Rule 123A.30 requires the specialist to report the
transaction that elects the CAP orders independently from the
transaction that fills the elected CAP orders. Orders may arrive on the
Display Book[supreg] between the time the specialist reports the
electing trade and the fill for the CAP transaction, which would
trigger the ``P'' indicator. In connection with the transaction filling
the CAP order, the specialist would be permitted to use the override
feature. The specialist would be required to document the dealer
participation by placing an applicable comment in the Display
Book's[supreg] free form comment field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In Amendment No. 5, the Exchange omitted stop orders from
exceptions 4 and 5 because stop order execution is now automated.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54820 (November 27, 2006),
71 FR 70824 (December 6, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-65). Since specialists
no longer handle stop orders manually, the exception from the
proposed rule is no longer necessary.
    \13\ See NYSE Rule 123A.30. CAP orders are orders in which the
specialist may convert all or part of an unelected portion of a
percentage order, and may trade on parity with the elected or
converted portions of the order, as long as the specialist is not
holding orders at the same price that do not grant parity. Even
though the specialist is not obligated to guarantee an execution to
CAP orders at the same price as the electing sale, he may choose to
do so. The Exchange stated that it inadvertently omitted references
to CAP orders in exception 4, although they were specifically
referred to in an analogous situation in exception 5. Accordingly,
in Amendment No. 2, the Exchange added CAP orders to exception 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Principal Participation in Connection with CAP Order Executed as
Part of the Opening of Trading.\14\ These are cases where the
specialist participates as dealer in connection with CAP orders. In
these situations, the CAP orders are included in the specialist's
calculation of the opening price, are elected by the opening trade, and
are executed contemporaneously and consecutively with the opening
transaction at the opening price, but are reported separately from the
report of the opening transaction. Orders may arrive on the Display
Book[supreg] between the time the specialist reports the opening trade
and the fill for the converted portion of the CAP orders, which would
trigger the ``P'' indicator. In connection with the transaction filling
the converted portion of CAP orders, the specialist would be permitted
to use the override feature. The specialist would be required to
document the dealer participation by placing the required comment in
the Display Book's[supreg] free form comment field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Regarding elimination of stop orders from exception 5, see
supra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Closing Transactions to Offset Market-at-the-Close (``MOC'')
and/or Limit-at-the-Close (``LOC'') Order Imbalances. These are cases
where the specialist participates on the closing transaction to offset
a MOC and/or LOC order imbalance. The situation may arise if unexecuted
market orders entered just prior to the close are assigned to the
paired-off portion of the closing trades. When the specialist reports
dealer participation to offset an imbalance on the first print of the
closing (as required by Exchange Rule 123C(3)(A)) and there are market
orders on the same side assigned to the paired off portion, which is
the second print of the close, the ``P'' indicator would be triggered.
In this instance, the specialist would be permitted to use the override
feature. The specialist would be

required to document the dealer participation by indicating ``MOC'' in
the Display Book's[supreg] free form comment field.

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. In
particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as
amended, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \15\ which
requires, among other things, an exchange to have rules that are
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \16\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered its impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the proposed rule change should help
ensure that system orders entered into the Exchange's Display Book
through an Exchange order delivery system such as SuperDOT[supreg]
receive executions in the Exchange market to the greatest extent
possible, and should help to minimize the risk of improper trading
ahead of SuperDOT[supreg] orders by the specialist. The Commission also
believes that the exceptions to the proposed rule are sufficiently
limited and represent situations in which it would continue to be
appropriate for the specialist to act as principal, notwithstanding the
presence of a new customer order on the book.
    In his comments, Rutherfurd states that the proposal ``attempts to
codify a truly bizarre notion'' whereby ``an order must participate in
trade even though the order was not even in the marketplace when the
trade took place * * *.'' \17\ Rutherfurd states that the Exchange's
technological limitations (whether reporting or surveillance) seem to
have given rise to this rule.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ February 18th Rutherfurd Letter, supra note 9, at 1. See
also June 15th Rutherfurd Letter, supra note 9, at 1; and October
20th Rutherfurd Letter, supra note 9, at 2.
    \18\ February 18th Rutherfurd Letter, supra note 9, at 4. See
also June 15th Rutherfurd Letter, supra note 9, at 2; October 20th
Rutherfurd Letter, supra note 9, at 2; and November 27th Rutherfurd
Letter, supra note 9, at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rutherfurd also states that the proposal conflicts with existing
Exchange rules and that the Exchange fails to address such conflict.
For example, Rutherfurd believes that the proposed rule change is
inconsistent with Rule 76's crossing/price improvement procedure, in
that it would assign a price to a subsequent SuperDOT[supreg] market
order without giving it an opportunity to receive a better price.\19\
In addition, Rutherfurd also states ``[t]he fact that the specialist
may have followed the crossing procedure (or not, as in a floor broker
trade) in a prior trade has no relevance whatsoever to a specialist's
responsibility to expose the subsequently arriving [SuperDOT[supreg]]
order to market interest existing at the time the order is
received.''\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ February 18th Rutherfurd Letter, supra note 9, at 5. See
also June 15th Rutherfurd Letter, supra note 9, at 5-7; and October
20th Rutherfurd Letter, supra note 9, at 1.
    \20\ June 15th Rutherfurd Letter, supra note 9, at 6. In
addition, Rutherfurd states that scenario 1, which was provided by
the Exchange to illustrate the operation of NYSE Rules 76 and 91,
would require a specialist ``to try to buy stock when all he or she
wants to do is sell'' and to ``do so in a manner that `penny jumps'
a public limit order they are representing as agent.'' Id. at 9. The
Exchange subsequently corrected scenario 1. See November 18th NYSE
Letter, supra note 10, at 1-2. Rutherfurd states that the revised
scenario 1 is ``still deeply flawed.'' See November 27th Rutherfurd
Letter, supra note 9, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, Rutherfurd states the Exchange's proposal would not
allow for the possibility of price improvement and that a
SuperDOT[supreg] order arriving after a specialist has consummated a
trade could suffer economic harm. In addition, Rutherfurd states that
under the proposal, a specialist could participate in a better-priced
transaction that should have gone to a later-arriving SuperDOT[supreg]
order if, as the specialist is in the process of substituting the
subsequent SuperDOT[supreg] order for its own interest in a consummated
but not yet reported transaction, the Exchange's autoquote publishes an
improved price.\21\ Rutherfurd also contends that the Exchange has used
the term ``yield'' incorrectly and should instead have used the phrase
``substitution of principals,'' arguing that the Exchange's use of the
term ``yield'' will create confusion because of its traditional use in
the securities context (as in, for example, Section 11(a)(1)(G) under
the Act \22\).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ February 18th Rutherfurd Letter, supra note 9, at 6. See
also June 15th Rutherfurd Letter, supra note 9, at 10.
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78k(a)(1)(G) (regarding an exchange member
``yield[ing] priority, parity, and precedence in execution'' to non-
member orders).
    \23\ February 18th Rutherfurd Letter, supra note 9, at 5. See
also June 15th Rutherfurd Letter, supra note 9, at 2-5; and November
27th Rutherfurd Letter, supra note 9, at 5. In addition, the
Rutherford Letters discuss a number of Exchange proposed rule
changes, rules and other matters unrelated to this proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that Rutherfurd's comments are misplaced and
should be disregarded.\24\ Specifically, the Exchange states that
``Exchange Rules 76 and 91 require that before purchasing (selling) for
his own account, a specialist must offer (bid for) the security at a
price that is lower (higher), by the minimum variation, than the
specialist's bid (offer) for his own account'' to ensure ``there is no
other buy (sell) interest in the market that is willing to trade at the
better price.'' \25\ The Exchange believes that ``this procedure
ensures that the specialist's bid (offer) is the best available price
at the time that the dealer trade is orally consummated, [and that] any
later-arriving DOT order(s) to which the specialist must yield under
proposed Rule 104.10[(10)] would, by definition, also be receiving the
best available price in the market at the moment that that order
arrived on the book.'' \26\ The Commission believes that this is a
reasonable interpretation of the Exchange's rules.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See June 7th NYSE Letter, supra note 10.
    \25\ Id. at 2.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ The Commission also notes that the Exchange amended Rule
123B to clarify that a specialist executing systems order in
accordance with proposed Rule 104.10(10)(i) is not required to
expose such orders to buying and selling interest in the trading
crowd. See Amendment No. 5, supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange states that the proposal does not permit
specialists to trade at the expense of subsequent SuperDOT[supreg]
orders.\28\ Specifically, the Exchange states that Rutherfurd's example
is based on a flawed assumption that the later-arriving sell order was
entitled to trade with the even-later-arriving buy order and that the
fact that a better price is subsequently received is irrelevant.\29\
The Exchange acknowledges that under the proposal the specialist might
be able to trade with even-later-arriving order at the improved
price.\30\ Although this may appear unfair to the later-arriving order,
the Exchange notes that ``it is not a foregone conclusion that the
specialist will be the contra party to the even-later-arriving'' order,
and believes that Rutherfurd ignores the fact the ``the specialist
continues to bear the market risk of yielding to the later-arriving
sell order.'' \31\ The Commission agrees with

the Exchange that it is not a forgone conclusion that the specialist
will be the contra party to the even-later-arriving order. The
Commission notes that, while the specialist may at times receive the
benefit of trading with the even later arriving order at an improved
price, the specialist is subject to market risk and the even-later-
arriving order could just as easily be at an inferior price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See June 7th NYSE Letter, supra note 10, at 3-4.
    \29\ Id. at 4.
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange disagrees with Rutherfurd that it misused the
term ``yield'' and his belief that use of the term would be confusing
and should be changed.\32\ The Commission acknowledges the commenter's
view that the Exchange's use differs from its use in some other
contexts; at the same time, the Commission believes that the use of the
term ``yield'' is appropriately within the Exchange's discretion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rutherfurd responded to the Exchange by reiterating his prior
comments and added that the solution to the inability of the Exchange
surveillance systems to ``distinguish between proper versus improper
specialist principal trading'' is ``enhanced surveillance, not bizarre,
radical new law.'' \33\ Although Rutherfurd does not agree with the
approach taken by the Exchange, the Commission believes that proposal
constitutes an appropriate exercise of the Exchange's business
judgment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ June 15th Rutherfurd Letter, supra note 9, at 2. See also
November 27th Rutherfurd Letter, supra note 9, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rutherfurd further states that the Exchange does not provide
sufficient rationale for the proposed rule or the exceptions
thereto.\34\ He also states that the Exchange did not comply with the
requirements of Form 19b-4 with respect to Amendment No. 2.\35\ The
Commission believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
sufficient to comply with the requirements of Form 19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See October 20th Rutherfurd Letter, supra note 9, at 2. See
also November 27th Rutherfurd Letter, supra note 9, at 1.
    \35\ October 20th Rutherfurd Letter, supra note 9, at 1.
Specifically, Rutherfurd noted that in Item 1(b) the NYSE stated it
``does not believe the proposal will have any direct effect, or any
significant indirect effect, on any other Exchange rule in effect at
the time of this filing.'' Rutherfurd states ``[i]t is inconceivable
that the NYSE can make this statement in good faith'' and that the
``NYSE is proposing a procedure that is absolutely at odds with Rule
76/91.'' Id. As stated above, the Commission believes that the
Exchange's interpretation of Rules 76 and 91 is reasonable. Also, as
noted below, the Exchange amended NYSE Rule 123B to clarify that
when a specialist is executing a system order pursuant to proposed
NYSE Rule 104.10(10), the specialist is not required to expose the
order to buying and selling interest in the crowd. In addition,
Rutherfurd contends that the NYSE should have referenced his
comments in Item 5 of Amendment No. 2 (regarding whether the
Exchange has solicited or received comments). Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Accelerated Approval

    The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\36\ for accelerating approval of Amendments No. 2, 3, and 5 to
the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after publication
in the Federal Register.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Pursuant to Section 19s(b)(2) of the
Act, the Commission may not approve any proposed rule change, or
amendment thereto, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of
publication of the notice thereof, unless the Commission finds good
cause for so doing.
    \37\ In Amendment No. 5, the Exchange withdrew Amendment No. 4.
See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange made clarifying changes to the
proposed rules that raise no new or novel issues. The Exchange also
revised the exception relating to non-regular way principal
transactions to specify that such non-regular-way orders are
``principal to customer'' orders to capture orders represented by a
broker in the crowd or entered through the SuperDOT[supreg] system.
Previously, the Exchange inadvertently omitted system orders from the
description of orders covered by this exception. In Amendment No. 3,
the Exchange modified the discussion of this exception to reflect the
corresponding change in the rule text in Amendment No. 2.\38\ The
Commission finds that the addition of system orders to this exception
presents no new or novel issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ In addition, the Amendment No. 3 made technical changes to
the proposed rule change. The Commission believes that Amendment No.
3 does not raise any new issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange also amended the exception
relating to principal participation in electing transactions to add CAP
orders to the exception. In the case of CAP orders, the specialist
bases the price on the total volume of the electing orders and the CAP
orders, and then effects both the electing transaction and the CAP
transaction contemporaneously and at the same price. NYSE Rule 123A.30
(CAP orders) requires the specialist to report the transaction that
elects the CAP orders independently from the transaction that fills the
elected CAP orders. As a result, orders may arrive on the Display
Book[supreg] between the time the specialist reports the electing trade
and the fill for the CAP transaction. Although adding CAP orders to the
exception may expand the number of instances in which a specialist may
trade notwithstanding a later-arriving system order, the Exchange
believes that the addition of CAP orders to the exception does not
raise new issues. The Commission agrees with the Exchange that the
addition of CAP orders to the exception does not raise any new issues.
    In Amendment No. 5, the Exchange amended NYSE Rule 123B to clarify
that, when a specialist is executing a system order pursuant to
proposed NYSE Rule 104.10(10), the specialist is not required to expose
the order to buying and selling interest in the crowd. The Commission
believes that this amendment helps to address inconsistencies between
proposed Rule 104.10(10) and other Exchange rules. Amendment No. 5 also
eliminates references to the election of stop orders by specialists, as
this functionality is now automated, and eliminates references to the
Intermarket Trading System, which has been decommissioned. In addition,
Amendment No. 5 makes technical and clarifying changes.\39\ The
Commission believes that Amendment No. 5 presents no new or novel
issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See, e.g., discussion in note 35, supra and accompanying
text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission finds that good cause exists,
consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\40\ and Section 19(b) of
the Act \41\ to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendments No. 2, 3, and 5, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning Amendments No. 2, 3, and 5, including whether
Amendments No. 2, 3, and 5 are consistent with the Act. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-NYSE-2004-70 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2004-70. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2004-70 and should be
submitted on or before March 11, 2008.

VI. Conclusion

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\42\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2004-70), as modified
by Amendments No. 2, 3, and 5, be, and it hereby is, approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\43\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E8-2981 Filed 2-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3969-3970]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01268]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001]

Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of
Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory
Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on March 9, 2015, from 8
a.m. to 5:15 p.m.
    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building
31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD
20993-0002. Information regarding special accommodations due to a
disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm; under the heading
``Resources for You,'' click on ``Public Meetings at the FDA White Oak
Campus.'' Please note that visitors to the White Oak Campus must enter
through Building 1.
    Contact Person: Jennifer Shepherd, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX: 301-847-
8533, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information
Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area). A
notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that
impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always
be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.
    Agenda: During the morning session, the committee will discuss new
drug application (NDA) 206333, deoxycholic acid injection, a cytolytic
drug, submitted by Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, proposed for the
improvement in the appearance of moderate-to-severe convexity or
fullness associated with submental fat in adults.
    During the afternoon session, the committee will discuss pediatric
development of systemic products for the treatment of atopic dermatitis
with inadequate response to topical prescription therapy.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
February 23, 2015. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 10:30 a.m. to 11 a.m., and 3:30 p.m. to 4 p.m.
Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should
notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general
nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and
addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before
February 12, 2015. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited.
If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the
scheduled open public hearing session. The contact

person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak
by February 13, 2015.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Jennifer Shepherd at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: January 20, 2015.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2015-01268 Filed 1-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4066-4067]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00899]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OEI-2011-0096; FRL-10018-48-OMS]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Cross-
Media Electronic Reporting Rule (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), ``Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule'' (EPA ICR No. 2002.08, OMB Control No. 2025-
0003) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing
so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the
proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed
extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through August 31,
2021. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 16, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEI-
2011-0096, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shirley Miller or Dipti Singh,
Information Exchange Services Division, Office of Information
Management, Office of Mission Support (2823T), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> respectively; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or 0f7c66616867216b667f7b664f6a7f6e21686079.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: The scope of this ICR is the electronic reporting
components of the Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR),
which is designed to: (i) allow EPA to comply with the Government
Paperwork Elimination Act of 1998; (ii) provide a uniform, technology-
neutral framework for electronic reporting across all EPA programs;
(iii) allow EPA programs to offer electronic reporting as they become
ready for CROMERR; and (iv) provide states with a streamlined process--
together with a uniform set of standards--for approval of their
electronic reporting provisions for all their EPA-authorized programs.
Responses to the collection of information are voluntary. In order to
accommodate CBI, the information collected must be in accordance with
the confidentiality regulations set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
Additionally, EPA will ensure that the information collection
procedures comply with the Privacy Act of 1974 and the OMB Circular
108.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities that report electronically
to EPA and state or local government authorized programs; and state and
local government authorized programs implementing electronic reporting.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary, required to obtain
or retain a benefit (CROMERR was established to ensure compliance with
the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA)).
    Estimated number of respondents: About 119,800 (total).
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: About 77,000 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: about $3,979,500 (per year), includes
$586,300 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: The annual respondent burden estimate in the
currently approved CROMERR ICR (EPA ICR Number 2002.07) is 86,554
hours. The annual respondent burden estimate for this ICR (EPA ICR
Number 2002.08) is anticipated to be about 77,000 hours. This
represents a decrease of 9,554 hours in the total estimated respondent
burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB.
    The decrease in respondent burden can be attributed primarily to
three reasons. First, even though the annual number of registrants with
EPA's electronic document receiving system (i.e., the Central Data
Exchange (CDX)) has increased over the past three years, the actual
number of registrants under the e-Manifest system was lower than
projected in the currently approved ICR. As a result, there is a net
decrease in the number of registrants. Second, over the past three
years, the Agency made improvements to CDX to enhance efficiencies in
end-user registration, integration, and Help Desk support. These
improvements resulted in reduced burden to respondents. Third, as a
result of technological improvements, the Agency now is able to obtain
real world data via google analytics on the frequency and amount of
time a respondent spends accessing CDX web pages and features. Based on
this information, EPA has revised the burden estimates associated with
some of the CDX registration and identity proofing activities. The
Agency believes that these revised burden estimates more accurately
reflect the resources spent by respondents conducting electronic
reporting activities under CROMERR, and for states gaining approval of
their electronic reporting provisions for all their EPA-authorized
programs. The overall change in respondent burden is considered an
``adjustment,'' because it results from changes in the respondent
universe and hourly burden estimates used in the development of the
ICR.

    Dated: January 6, 2021.
Jennifer Campbell,
Director, Office of Information Management, Office of Mission Support.
[FR Doc. 2021-00899 Filed 1-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 182)]
[Notices]
[Page 48251]
[DOCID:fr22se09-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

September 11, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP09-1032-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company.
    Description: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company submits Gas
Transportation Agreements with MGI Supply, Ltd, Second Revised Sheet
413B et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 1, to be effective
10/1/09.
    Filed Date: 09/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090903-0203.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 15, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-1033-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P.
    Description: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits Second Revised
Sheet 3 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume 1 et al.
    Filed Date: 09/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090903-0202.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 15, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-1034-000.
    Applicants: Enbridge Pipelines (Midla) L.L.C.
    Description: Enbridge Pipelines (Midla) LLC submits First Revised
Sheet No. 5 to FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, to be
effective 9/4/09.
    Filed Date: 09/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090904-0057.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 15, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-1038-000.
    Applicants: Viking Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Viking Gas Transmission Company submits nonconforming
firm Transportation Agreement, a service agreement entered into with
Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation under RP09-1038.
    Filed Date: 09/09/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090910-0456.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-1039-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company.
    Description: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company submits petition
for limited waivers of sections 19.5(g) et al. of the General Terms and
Conditions of Columbia Gulf's FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1
under RP09-1039.
    Filed Date: 09/09/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090910-0454.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-1040-000.
    Applicants: Ozark Gas Transmission, L.L.C.
    Description: Ozark Gas Transmission, LLC submits First Revised
Sheet 1 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1 to be
effective 11/16/09 under RP09-1040. 1 of 2.
    Filed Date: 09/09/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090910-0452.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 21, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed 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>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22725 Filed 9-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 11, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21670-21671]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07574]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP23-125-000]

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC; Notice of Request
Under Blanket Authorization and Establishing Intervention and Protest
Deadline

    Take notice that on March 30, 2023, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of
America, LLC (Natural), 1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000, Houston,
Texas 77002, filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice
request pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.206, 157.213(b), and
157.216(b) of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act
(NGA), and Natural's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-402-
000, for authorization to reclassify four injection/withdrawal (I/W)
wells to water removal wells and perform certain associated work,
including adding a new launcher assembly for inspection of a lateral,
and abandoning associated storage field laterals and above ground
appurtenances, all at Natural's Herscher Storage Field, which is
located in Kankakee County, Illinois and utilizes the Galesville and
Mount Simon reservoirs.
    Natural also states that the project will not result in any
abandonment of, or decrease in service to, Natural's customers, and
that the project will have no impact on the Herscher Storage Field's
certificated parameters, all as more fully set forth in the
application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (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. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
FERCOnlineSuppo[email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this prior notice request should be
directed to Ben Carranza, Vice President, Regulatory, Kinder Morgan,
Inc., as Operator of Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC, 1001
Louisiana Street, Suite 1000, Houston, Texas 77002, at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or by email at [email protected].
    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure,\1\ within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will
either: complete its environmental review 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 environmental
assessment (EA) for this proposal. The filing of an 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 157.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review
of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a
motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the
project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to
intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to
intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 5, 2023. How
to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained
below.

Protests

    Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the NGA,\2\ any person \3\ or the Commission's staff may file a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed or if a
protest is filed and then withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed
time for filing a protest, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request for

authorization will be considered by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 157.205.
    \3\ Persons include individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities. 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section
157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,\4\ and must be submitted by
the protest deadline, which is June 5, 2023. A protest may also serve
as a motion to intervene so long as the protestor states it also seeks
to be an intervenor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 157.205(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interventions

    Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this
proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of
Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently
challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \5\ and the regulations under the NGA \6\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is June 5, 2023. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
your interest in the proceeding. For an individual, this could include
your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene. For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \6\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are
filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied.
Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late
and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide
justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status
will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the
Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The
Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments
on or before June 5, 2023. The filing of a comment alone will not serve
to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you
must intervene in the proceeding.

How To File Protests, Interventions, and Comments

    There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and
comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number
CP23-125-000 in your submission.
    (1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by
using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the
Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and
Filings. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; first select General'' and then select ``Protest'',
``Intervention'', or ``Comment on a Filing''; or \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Additionally, you may file your comments electronically by
using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's
website at www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings.
Using eComment is an easy method for interested persons to submit
brief, text-only comments on a project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to
the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket
number CP23-125-000.

To mail via USPS, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426
To mail via any other courier, use the following address: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852

    The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option
1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-
8258 or [email protected]
    Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant
either by mail at: Ben Carranza, Vice President, Regulatory, Kinder
Morgan, Inc., as Operator of Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America,
LLC, 1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000, Houston, Texas 77002, or by
email at [email protected]. Any subsequent submissions by
an intervenor must be served on the applicant and all other parties to
the proceeding. Contact information for parties can be downloaded from
the service list at the eService link on FERC Online.

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at
(866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link as described above. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission,
such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. For more information and to register, go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: April 5, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-07574 Filed 4-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P