Additional Considerations for the Development of the Siloxanes Monitoring Program
Scott D. Dyer, Principal Scientist
Scott E. Belanger, Research Fellow
Environmental Stewardship Organization
The Procter & Gamble Company

For the
Personal Care Products Council

1 August 2012

In order to successfully complete a monitoring program, it is imperative to agree on the goals of the effort.  In the specific case of D4/D5 cyclic siloxanes there are two competing goals.  These are loosely integrated in a lengthy "charge" statement addressed to the Siloxane Technical Working Group - POTW Monitoring date 24 July 2012.

Goal 1:  Develop a science-based, rational proposal for monitoring of Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) sites to evaluate sources of and pathways to the environment for D4 and D5 discharged from POTWs.

Goal 2:  Develop a science-based, rational proposal for monitoring of Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) sites to develop a national risk assessment for D4 and D5.

Stated as above, these goals are still very broad and do not extend to other aspects of the D4/D5 monitoring. Other possible goals are certainly in discussion and would include understanding releases from manufacturing sites/scenarios.  Also, while the goals are stated in terms of POTWs, they also necessarily include understanding pathways and exposure in the context of the receiving water and its biota.  Goal 1 and 2 are not totally incompatible, but each requires a different strategy.  With the understanding that Goal 1 was the original stated goal of the siloxanes monitoring program under discussion with SEHSC and USEPA, we would offer some thoughts given the long experience that P&G has in conducting both types of monitoring programs.  This includes an evaluation of ideas brought forth by USEPA in the documents "Major Factors Impacting Environmental Levels of Siloxanes (D4/D5) at POTWs without Industrial Siloxane Sources and Selection of Sites for Monitoring" and "Results from EPA's Proposed D-Optimal Design of Experiment Analysis".

It appears from both of the USEPA documents that there are a number of unknowns being considered by USEPA that are actually much more well understood than believed.  The choice of critical factors that could control environmental levels of siloxanes to be included in the design could be streamlined and improved.
   * Population Served by POTW  -  this factor is unlikely to be critical.  The use of consumer products, for example containing D4/D5, in a region is not dependent on population size associated with a given POTW.  While this may increase the total load to a treatment facility, the per capita use of water will also increase and result in fairly equivalent levels of a compound in the influent.  High population-served communities (urban areas) typically have storm water issues and poorer habitat quality due to hydrological modifications  -  leading to poorer biological data. Of course, we recognize there is noise in these factors, but population is not a sound surrogate by itself.
   * Treatment Type  -  this factor is likely to be critical.  Treatment types vary in efficiency.  A frequency analysis by Procter & Gamble (unpublished) on the 2000 CWNS showed that there were nearly 200 treatment train combinations.  Twenty treatment processes accounted for 89% of all WWTPs in the dataset.  The top five treatment types were (in order of frequency):  activated sludge (AS), stabilization pond (SP), aerated lagoon (AL), oxidation ditch (OD), trickling filter (TF).  These comprised 63% of the dataset.  The remaining proportion of plants did not contain data describing secondary treatment processes or was found to be a combination of two or more treatment processes (e.g., AS/TF  -  activated sludge with trickling filter).
   * Total Suspended Solids  -  this factor is unlikely to be critical if the site selection is constrained to well operating treatment plants dominated by municipal (non-industrial) inputs.  TSS is a common reporting parameter for POTWs and this is indicative of performance.  There is also a relationship between treatment type and TSS (see Appendix 2), therefore these are known co-variates and would be covered by Treatment Type. Note also that Trickling Filters often have less stringent permitted values  -  as they are low hydrological retention periods, thus treat with less efficiency.  An examination of water quality values is a good way to make sure that that treatment plant is working appropriately.  In this context, "high TSS" for TF systems is contextually different than "high TSS" for AS plants (along with many other factors).
   * Geography  -  this factor is unlikely to be critical relative to the other factors.  Previous monitoring campaigns for D4/D5 (Hope et al. 2012; Wang et al. in press) in colder climates (colder than the southern half of the US) indicate this is not likely to be a factor.  Other monitoring campaigns P&G has conducted on volatile/semi-volatile fragrance chemicals (e.g., Federle et al. 2010) did not find geographic location to be a factor (sites range from California to Texas, the Carolinas upper mid-west to the northeastern states).
   * Receiving water body flow  -  in practical terms this term is actually not clear, but we are interpreting this to mean the relative level of dilution at a site, not velocity or total river discharge.  This is unlikely to be an influence depending on the goals of the work.  Again, in practical terms, the nationwide summer time low flow dilution which usually represents worst case, is very close to 1.  P&G has termed this Practical Dilution Factor and this is not the same as simple as instantaneous Effluent:River Discharge volume.  Since many treatment facilities exist along water bodies, their discharge also contributes to the condition downstream.  When considering these factors, actual dilution in-stream is close to 1 nationally.  Dyer and colleagues have discussed this concept recently with US EPA as part of broader discussions involving the use of the ACI iSTREEM river model.  This is the only model currently available, including USEPA national models, which can address upstream municipal sources within a watershed-based context.  Discharge into lakes from wastewater facilities is also less likely to be an issue in most of the combinations of factors involved (for example, high populations being served by a POTW in the south with low organic matter and high suspended solids release will virtually be impossible to find).
   * Organic content of receiving water  -  in order for this to be important, organic matter in receiving waters must be more competitive for D4/D5 than the effluent solids to which they are already associated (noting that finding "biologically free" D4/D5 in wastewater is highly unlikely given present monitoring efforts.  Organic matter in wastewater will dominate this phenomenon and will already be covered by assessing a variety of wastewater treatment plant types which will likely different solids loading to the environment.

In our view, the SEHSC proposal correctly identified that the dominant variable of concern is the type of wastewater treatment under the assumption that monitoring is intended to only be conducted at well operated POTWs as sites. We also believe that to rely on precise definition of projected α and β in modeling numbers of sites (either SEHSC or the USEPA proposals) suggest a level of knowledge and distributions associated with the individual factors that is either imperfect or simply not present.  For example, distribution of environmental parameters such as organic carbon, dilution, and TSS are decidedly non-normal and are not independent.  The use of best professional judgment at some point is a necessity.  Based on the underlying context of the parameters chosen by USEPA as important to factor in, it appears the underlying assumption would be that sediment would be the primary compartment of interest:
   * TSS as a concern being a vector to sediment
   * Low flow as a concern being associated with the likelihood of having depositional regions
   * Organic matter as a concern being associated with deposition as well.

What is missing?
   * Assessment of the percent contribution of industrial discharge to sites.  This is likely a critical factor for deselecting sites.
   * Assessment of the permit compliance situations for sites.  This is another critical factor for deselecting sites.
   * Any monitoring effort involving POTWs requires the POTW as a complicit cooperating party.  The breadth and intent of the monitoring effort (by either proposal) will not be welcome at many POTWs without full protection for anonymity which will be virtually impossible in this instance.  This does constrain what can be done and where.
   * Assessment of state level information that can be used to inform what biological condition exists at potential sites.  In fact, we would strongly encourage a discussion that does not de-couple POTW or manufacturing site monitoring from the in-stream biological and chemical monitoring effort.  These are intimately linked to the goals.
   * The need to understand the relationships of physical factors, such as habitat, when working to assess the potential environmental effects of chemicals is well articulated by G. Allen Burton et al (2012, Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, 31:  1-10).  Dr. Burton is a frequent participant in USEPA SAB and US NAS panels and is the current Editor in Chief of the journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.
   * A clear acknowledgement about what is already known from a physical-chemistry, environmental monitoring, and biological condition point of view that can inform the appropriate path forward.  This would be supplemented by what is known from experiences in constructing similar monitoring efforts in the very recent past.  If all sites proposed using D-Optimal Design are to include biology this would become one of the largest such efforts, if not the largest, ever undertaken to relate environmental exposure pathways to biological effects.

We would recommend using the WERF Trace Organic Contaminants (TOrCs) Program as a template for site selection and prioritization as this represents the state-of-the-science.  Their recent report, CEC5R08, has been recognized as a basis for discussions in other venues, such as the Great Lakes Contaminants of Emerging Concern discussions held under the International Joint Commission with USEPA, Environment Canada, and scientific stakeholders.  Importantly, the approach can accommodate both site-specific, watershed, and national scale types of assessments.  The consumer products industry has used the tools outlined therein for developing watershed risk assessments for a large array of consumer product chemicals discharged from wastewater in the Trinity River, Texas (Atkinson et al., 2009).  The tools were also applied in an a very complex evaluation of aliphatic alcohols in POTWs, water, sediment, and biota to understand microbially generated alcohol from that associated with consumer products in several watersheds across the US (DeLeo et al. 2011,  Mudge et al. 2010, 2012).

Finally, in reiteration, we share the opinion that 5 sites are sufficient to achieve the goals of the program if stated as Goal 1 above as this is built upon much previously developed knowledge of the environmental fate, effects, and behavior of D4 and D5.

Literature

Burton GA, De Zwart D, Diamond J, Dyer S, Kapo K, Liess M, Posthuma L.  2012.  Making ecosystem reality checks the status quo.  Environ. Toxicol. Chem.  31:  1-10
Degao Wang et al. (In Press). Concentrations of cyclic volatile methyl siloxanes (cVMS) in various environmental media from Southern Ontario and Southern Quebec. Water Science and Technology Directorate Environment Canada.

DeLeo P, Mudge SM, Dyer SD 2011. Use of market forensics to estimate the environmental load of ingredients from consumer products.  Environ Forensics 12:349-356.

Federle TW, Sun P, Dyer SD, and Kiel B. 2010. Aquatic and terrestrial risk assessments for polycyclic musks based on U. S. distributions of measured concentrations in effluent and sludge.  Platform presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry-North America, Portland, Oregon.

Hope BK, Pillsbury L, Boling B. 2012. A state-wide survey in Oregon (USA) of trace metals and organic chemicals in municipal effluent. Sci. Total Environ. 417/418:263-272.

Mudge SM, DeLeo PC, Dyer SD. 2012. Quantifying the anthropogenic fraction of fatty alcohols in a terrestrial environment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 31:1209-1222.

Mudge SM, Eadsforth C, DeLeo P, Meier-Augenstein W. 2010. What contribution do detergent fatty alcohols make to sewage discharges and the marine environment? J. Environ. Monit. 12:1846 - 1856.

Appendix 1

Important Data Sources Used for Site Selection
   * iSTREEM
         o National watershed model for 48 coterminous United States.  Built off of USEPA's Enhanced Reach File 1 with WWTP inputs from Clean Water Needs Survey and Permit Compliance System (location).  Includes raw drinking water intakes from Safe Drinking Water Information System.
         o Considers upstream contributions for mean and 7Q10 low flow conditions, hence provides bounding conditions for realistic exposures.  Upstream conditions are always a potential confounding factor as WWTPs are distributed along a river.
         o Can provide WWTP influent, effluent, receiving water concentrations and raw drinking water concentrations based on per capita use.
         o Useful for determining the relationships of dilution with treatment type.
         o Is the only model currently available, including USEPA national models, which can address upstream municipal sources within a watershed-based context.
   * Clean Water Needs Survey (CWNS)
         o Core dataset for iSTREEM
         o Provides per capita served per WWTP as well as percent industry (proportion of flow)
               # The type of industry is not identified
         o Provides information on the treatment trains
               # For example, AS/TF is an activated sludge plant with a trickling filter unit
               # A frequency analysis by Procter & Gamble (unpublished) on the 2000 CWNS showed that there were nearly 200 treatment train combinations.  Twenty treatment processes accounted for 89% of all WWTPs in the dataset.  The top five treatment types were (in order of frequency):  activated sludge (AS), stabilization pond (SP), aerated lagoon (AL), oxidation ditch (OD), trickling filter (TF).  These comprised 63% of the dataset.  The remaining proportion of plants did not contain data describing secondary treatment processes or was found to be a combination of two or more treatment processes (e.g., AS/TF  -  activated sludge with trickling filter).
   * Permit Compliance System (upgraded to ICES-NPDES)
         o Core database for compliance of all dischargers
         o Provides monthly water quality data (ammonia, BOD, COD, TSS, TDS, etc...) as well as compliance metrics (codes for various types of permit violations)
               # Procter & Gamble has used violation metrics as a method of deselecting sites for monitoring of consumer product chemicals in STPs and receiving waters.  Significant Non-compliance Errors (SNCE), violations, are typically water quality exceedances (e.g., ammonia, TSS, BOD, or toxicity).   These exceedances may also be associated with inadequate treatment capacity at a site.  If the goal is to understand the distribution of siloxane, these are confounding factors that can be excluded by limiting use of sites where treatment plants operate within their legal limits.
                     * In another Procter & Gamble Study (unpublished), it was found that violation codes denoted in PCS as "E90" (effluent parameter exceeding permitted limits) have been used as a general descriptor of plant operating performance.  Significant Non-compliance Errors (SNCE) describing: 1) permit scheduling/paperwork, 2) significant effluent permit exceedences, and 3) non-receipt of influent/effluent monthly/quarterly measurements were have also been used to determine STPs to avoid in monitoring programs.
               # WERF's Trace Organics Program has used PCS data to derive risk scenarios (see attached WERF Report CEC5R08C and Executive Summary-Eco Workshop 4-29-08)
                     * Note:  while the WERF program was devoted to a mixture of down the drain chemicals (e.g., contaminants of emerging concern, ammonia, others), the process of identifying potential sites where causality may be addressed is very pertinent to hypothetical risks and verification needs regarding siloxanes.  Note also that this program was born out of Trace Organics workshop in which USEPA, USGS, USDA and state environmental agencies participated.  Some scientists may consider siloxanes as CECs
         o Used to screen for historical adequacy of treatment
   * State EPA/DNRs
         o State agencies are responsible for understanding biological status.  Instream sampling is used to verify sufficient biological condition.  Habitat quality is also a critical determinant in understanding potential impacts to instream biology.
   * On-the-ground Verification
         o All screened sites need to be verified via phone calls (i.e., make sure treatment types are accurate, dilution, presence of biota, etc.) and then via direct observation (i.e. what a treatment plant operator is often biased, hence a set of the same people should verify each potential location before final selection)

Appendix 2

Analysis of the relationships between treatment, % design flow and water quality (total ammonia, BOD and TSS), and PCS violations (P&G, unpublished).  The Figures below describe these relationships.

Summary:  Stabilization Ponds and Aerated Lagoons provide the poorest treatment, particularly for TSS, Ammonia and BOD.  This is due to their purpose to grow bacteria and algae which are often discharged in the effluent.  There are significantly more Significant Non-compliance Errors (SNCE) for these treatment types.  STPs within 75-100% design capacity do best in removing contaminants.  Oxidation Ditch and Activate Sludge plants appear to be roughly equivalent in treating for conventional pollutants.


MEMORANDUM
To: 		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0072
From: 		U.S. EPA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: 	RIA Chapter 10

PLACEHOLDER FOR ZIP FILE containing RIA Chapter 10  -  Economy-Wide Impacts Modeling Files.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 138 (Thursday, July 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33523-33525]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15191]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81146; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2017-44]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7.38E To
Specify the Ranking of an Odd Lot Order That Has a Display Price That
Is Better Than Its Working Price

July 14, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on June 30, 2017, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.38E (Odd and Mixed Lots) to
specify the ranking of an odd lot order that has a display price that
is better than its working price. The proposed rule change is available
on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.38E (Odd and Mixed Lots) to
specify the ranking of an odd lot order that has a display price that
is better than its working price.
    Rule 7.38E provides that the working price of an odd lot order will
be adjusted both on arrival and when resting on the Exchange Book based
on the limit price of the order as follows:
     If the limit price of an odd lot order is equal to or
worse than the contra-side PBBO, it will have a working price equal to
the limit price.
     If the limit price of an odd lot order is better than the
contra-side PBBO, it will have a working price equal to the contra-side
PBBO.
     If the PBBO is crossed, the odd lot order will have a
working price equal to the same-side PBB or PBO.
    By moving the working price, an odd lot order to buy (sell) will
not trade at a price above (below) the PBO (PBB), or if the PBBO is
crossed, above (below) the PBB (PBO). In either case, if the odd lot
order is ranked Priority 2--Display Orders,\4\ its display price would
not change when its working price is adjusted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As described in Rule 7.36E(e)(2), Priority 2--Display Orders
are non-marketable Limit Orders with a displayed working price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exchange rules are currently silent regarding how a resting odd lot
order that has a display price that is better than its working price
would be ranked for trading at that working price.\5\ This scenario
would only occur if a resting odd lot order is displayed at a price,
and then an Away Market PBBO crosses that display price. In that
limited scenario, pursuant to Rule 7.38E(b)(1) described above, the
working price of the odd-lot order would be adjusted to a price
inferior to the display price, but it would remain displayed at the now
crossed price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Pursuant to Rule 7.38E(b)(1), on arrival, an odd lot order's
working price may be adjusted consistent with the terms of the
order. However, an arriving odd-lot order would not be assigned a
working price that would be inferior to the price at which the
arriving odd lot order would be displayed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to specify that in such case, the ranking and
priority category applicable to such an order at its display [sic],
i.e., the price it is displayed and Priority 2--Display Orders, would
govern its ranking for purposes of a trade at its different, inferior
working price.\6\ This ranking would differ from the Exchange's general
rule that an order is ranked based on its working price.\7\ However,
the Exchange believes that if the display price of an order is better
than its working price, such order has already demonstrated a public
willingness to trade at a more aggressive price because it continues to
be published in a market data feed at the more aggressive display
price.\8\ In such case, the order should receive the benefit of the
ranking (both price and priority category) associated with its better
display price when determining how that order would be traded at its
working price. In other words, an odd-lot order with a better display
price than its working price would not be ranked based on its working
price, including that it would not be assigned Priority 3--Non-Display
Orders at its working price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As described in Rule 7.36E(c), an order is ranked based on
price, priority category, and time. Such ranking is only applicable
once an order is resting on the Exchange Book.
    \7\ Rule 7.36E(d) provides that all orders are ranked based on
the working price of the order. Rule 7.36E(e)(3) generally provides
that non-marketable orders for which the working price is not
displayed have third priority behind Market Orders and non-
marketable Limit Orders that are displayed at their working price.
This proposed rule change would be an exception to these rules.
    \8\ See Rule 7.36E(b)(1) (odd-lot sized orders are considered
displayed for ranking purposes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that if an odd-lot order is assigned
a new working price that is worse than its display price, such order
should not be assigned a new working time. In other words, when trading
at its working price, its time ranking would be based on the working
time associated with its display price.\9\ Maintaining the original
working time of such order would ensure that it maintains its original
ranking, even if it trades at a different price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Rule 7.36E(f)(2) provides that an order is assigned a new
working time any time the working price of the order changes. This
proposed rule change would be an exception to this general rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule
7.38E(b)(1) to provide that an odd-lot order ranked Priority 2--Display
Orders would not be assigned a new working time if its working price is
adjusted under Rule 7.38E(b)(1). In addition, if the display price of
an odd lot order to buy (sell) is above (below) its working price, it
would be ranked based on its display price.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For example, assume the PBBO is 10.07 x 10.10 and the
Exchange receives orders ranked Priority 2--Display Orders in the
following sequence: T1 to buy 25 shares displayed at 10.08, T2 to
buy 25 shares displayed at 10.09, T3 to buy 25 shares displayed at
10.08, and T4 to buy 100 shares displayed at 10.07. Assume next that
the PBO changes to 10.07. The working price of T1, T2, and T3 will
be adjusted to 10.07, but they would keep their original working
time. Next, the Exchange receives an incoming order to sell 100
shares at 10.07. The Exchange would trade the incoming order with
the resting orders in the following sequence: T2, T1, T3, and then
T4 would be allocated the remaining 25 shares. T2 would trade before
T1 because it has a better price ranking based on its display price.
If the incoming order to sell were for 50 shares, only T2 and T1
would trade.

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

    Because once on Pillar, the Exchange would trade an odd lot order
with a display price better than its working price trades in this
manner [sic], these changes will be in effect when the Exchange
implements Pillar.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\11\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\12\ in particular, because
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system because the Exchange believes
that an order that has been displayed should receive the benefit of the
ranking of that displayed price if it trades at a less aggressive
working price. This scenario would only occur if a resting odd-lot
order has been displayed at a price, and then an Away Market PBBO
crosses that price and then the working price of that order is adjusted
to a price inferior to its display price. In such case, while the odd
lot order would be executed at its working price, because it was both
willing to trade at a better price and is still displayed at that
better price, the Exchange proposes that it would be ranked based on
its display price for purposes of its execution at the working price.
If the PBBO had not crossed the odd-lot order, such order would have
had the benefit of the ranking based on its display price and the
Exchange believes it would be consistent with the protection of
investors and the public for the odd-lot order to retain such ranking
when its working price is moved to an inferior price. The Exchange
further believes that the proposed rule change would promote fair and
orderly markets that would protect investors and the public interest
because it would to [sic] promote the display of liquidity by ensuring
that a displayed odd lot order maintains its ranking even if it trades
at a less aggressive price.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change would
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system because it would promote
transparency in Exchange rules and reduce potential confusion regarding
how an odd-lot order would be ranked and execute in the limited
scenario when the display price of a resting odd lot has been crossed,
and it has been assigned a working price inferior to its display price.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive
issues but rather to provide an incentive for market participants to
enter aggressively-priced displayed liquidity.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). The Commission has waived the
requirement under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) that the Exchange provide it
with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule
change, at least five business days prior to the date of the filing
of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by
the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \15\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \16\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay. The
Exchange represents that it anticipates beginning the migration of
symbols to Pillar on July 24, 2017. Waiver of the 30-day operative
delay would allow the Exchange to implement the proposed rule change
concurrently with the commencement of its migration of symbols to
Pillar, and thus reduce any potential for confusion of how odd-lot
orders would be processed on the new trading platform. Accordingly, the
Commission finds that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest and designates
the proposal operative upon filing.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \17\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 change should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2017-44 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2017-44. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2017-44 and should
be submitted on or before August 10, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. 2017-15191 Filed 7-19-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 232 (Wednesday, December 3, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 71679]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28445]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2001-0002; FRL-9920-08-Region-2]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Consolidated Iron and Metal
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 2, announces
the deletion of the Consolidated Iron and Metal Superfund Site (Site)
located in the City of Newburgh, Orange County, New York, from the
National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to
section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
The EPA and the State of New York, through the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), have determined that
all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation,
maintenance, and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this
deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: This action is effective on December 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket Identification No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2001-0002. All documents in the
docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information 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 either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Site information repositories. Locations, contacts,
phone numbers and viewing hours are: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 2, Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor,
New York, NY 10007-1866, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Hours: Monday to Friday
from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Newburgh Free Library, Consolidated
Iron and Metal Site Repository File, 124 Grand Street, Newburgh, NY
12550, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Hours: Monday & Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to
9:00 p.m., Tuesday, Wednesday, & Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Negrelli, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, Emergency and
Remedial Response Division, 290 Broadway, 20th Floor, New York, NY
10007-1866;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to be deleted from the NPL is:
Consolidated Iron and Metal Superfund Site, City of Newburgh, Orange
County, New York. A Notice of Intent to Delete for this Site was
published in the Federal Register FRL-9917-27-Region-2 on October 1,
2014, (79 FR 59182).
    The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was
October 30, 2014. No adverse public comments were received and
therefore no response to comments was required. The deletion action is
appropriate.
    EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action.
Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the
NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of
the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not
affect responsible party liability in the unlikely event that future
conditions warrant further actions.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

     Dated: November 18, 2014.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, EPA, Region 2.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended
as follows:

PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923, 3 CFR 1987 Comp., p. 193.

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing ``NY'',
``Consolidated Iron and Metal'', ``Newburgh''.

[FR Doc. 2014-28445 Filed 12-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26026-26028]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10576]

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

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: ER10-1908-010; ER10-1909-010; ER10-1910-010; ER10-
1911-010.
    Applicants: Duquesne Conemaugh, LLC, Duquesne Keystone, LLC,
Duquesne Light Company, Duquesne Power, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the Duquesne MBR
Sellers.
    Filed Date: 4/28/15.
    Accession Number: 20150428-5563.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-823-003; ER15-1348-001; ER12-1561-002.
    Applicants: Roseton Generating LLC, Castleton Commodities Merchant
Trading L.P., CCI Rensselaer LLC.
    Description: Supplement to March 20, 2015 Triennial Market Power
Analysis Update of Castleton Commodities Merchant Trading L.P., et al.
for the Northeast Region.
    Filed Date: 4/28/15.
    Accession Number: 20150428-5560.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-279-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
Interstate Power and Light Company.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: 2015-04-29_Guttenberg WDS
Compliance Filing to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150429-5417.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-325-005; ER11-4500-008; ER12-128-006; ER14-
2858-003.
    Applicants: Enel Cove Fort, LLC, Enel Stillwater, LLC, EGP
Stillwater Solar, LLC, Origin Wind Energy, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Enel Cove
Fort, LLC, et. al.
    Filed Date: 4/28/15.
    Accession Number: 20150428-5566.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-480-000; ER15-1451-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Informational Filing on Market Data Required 120 Days
in Advance of Reinstating Convergence Bidding at the Interties of the
California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Filed Date: 12/31/14.
    Accession Number: 20141231-5317.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-480-000; ER15-1451-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Supplement to December 31, 2014 Informational Filing
on Market Data Required 120 Days in Advance of Reinstating Convergence
Bidding at the Interties of the California Independent System Operator
Corporation.

    Filed Date: 4/3/15.
    Accession Number: 20150403-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-883-002.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Second Amended GIA
Distrib Serv Agmt San Gorgonio Weswinds II, Difwind Farms to be
effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 4/28/15.
    Accession Number: 20150428-5332.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-945-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., ITC
Midwest LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: 2015-04-29_ITC Midwest Adder
Compliance Filing to be effective 4/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150429-5325.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1190-001.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, Inc., Duke Energy Progress, Inc.,
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): OATT Attachment C
Amendment (3rd) to be effective 2/10/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150429-5005.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1419-001.
    Applicants: Emera Maine.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Amended Order No. 676-H
Compliance Filing to be effective 5/15/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/28/15.
    Accession Number: 20150428-5509.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1584-000.
    Applicants: New York State Electric & Gas Corporation.
    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: Notice of Cancellation of
E&P Agreement with Beacon Power Corporation to be effective 5/11/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/28/15.
    Accession Number: 20150428-5466.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1585-000.
    Applicants: New York State Electric & Gas Corporation.
    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: Notice of Cancellation of
E&P Agreement with Broome Energy Resources LLC to be effective 5/11/
2015.
    Filed Date: 4/28/15.
    Accession Number: 20150428-5470.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1586-000.
    Applicants: New York State Electric & Gas Corporation.
    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: Notice of Cancellation of
E&P Agreement with Marsh Hill Energy LLC to be effective 5/11/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/28/15.
    Accession Number: 20150428-5471.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1587-000.
    Applicants: New York State Electric & Gas Corporation.
    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: Notice of Cancellation of
E&P Agreement with Stony Creek Energy LLC to be effective 5/11/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/28/15.
    Accession Number: 20150428-5478.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1588-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 5th
Amendment to Extend the PG&E-NCPA Interconnection Agreement to be
effective 6/30/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150429-5013.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1589-000.
    Applicants: Energy Technology Savings, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Notice
of Succession & Tariff Revisions to be effective 4/7/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150429-5204.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1590-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 205
filing re: credit policy financial reporting enhancements--annual
updates to be effective 7/15/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150429-5223.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1591-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: Notice of Cancellation of
Attachment EIP to be effective 4/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150429-5251.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1592-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Revision to Table of Contents to be effective 4/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150429-5255.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1593-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): GIA and
Distribution Service Agmt SunEdison Elm Avenue Fontana Project to be
effective 4/30/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150429-5274.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1594-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 3023
Hallam Wind, LLC GIA to be effective 4/20/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150429-5301.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1595-000.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): PAC LTF
BORA-ENPR/LGBP Service Agreements to be effective 7/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150429-5306.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1596-000.
    Applicants: Dynegy Commercial Asset Management, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Notices
of Succession and Revisions to Market-Based Rate Tariffs to be
effective 4/30/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150429-5358.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1597-000.
    Applicants: Dynegy Conesville, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Notices
of Succession and Revisions to Market-Based Rate Tariffs to be
effective 4/30/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150429-5361.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1598-000.
    Applicants: Dynegy Dicks Creek, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Notices
of Succession and Revisions to Market-Based Rate Tariffs to be
effective 4/30/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150429-5362.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1599-000.
    Applicants: Dynegy Energy Services (East), LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Notices
of Succession and Revisons to Market-Based Rate Tariffs to be effective
4/30/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150429-5365.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1600-000.

    Applicants: Dynegy Fayette II, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Notices
of Succession and Revisions to Market-Based Rate Tariffs to be
effective 4/30/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150429-5366.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1601-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
04-29_SA 2710 Notice of Termination J097 GIA to be effective 7/6/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150429-5371.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1602-000.
    Applicants: Dynegy Hanging Rock II, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Notices
of Succession and Revisons to Market-Based Rate Tariffs to be effective
4/30/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150429-5373.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1603-000.
    Applicants: Dynegy Killen, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Notices
of Succession and Revisions to Market-Based Rate Tariffs to be
effective 4/30/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150429-5378.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1604-000.
    Applicants: Dynegy Lee II, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Notices
of Succession and Revisions to Market-Based Rate Tariffs to be
effective 4/30/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150429-5403.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1605-000.
    Applicants: Dynegy Miami Fort, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Notices
of Succession and Revisions to Market-Based Rate Tariffs to be
effective 4/30/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150429-5404.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1606-000.
    Applicants: Dynegy Stuart, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Notices
of Succession and Revisions to Market-Based Rate Tariffs to be
effective 4/30/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150429-5406.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1607-000.
    Applicants: Dynegy Washington II, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Notices
of Succession and Revisions to Market-Based Rate Tariffs to be
effective 4/30/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150429-5412.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1608-000.
    Applicants: Dynegy Zimmer, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Notices
of Succession and Revisions to Market-Based Rate Tariffs to be
effective 4/30/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150429-5413.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1609-000.
    Applicants: Kiyoshi Technologies, LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 Kiyoshi Technologies,
LLC, FERC Electric Tariff to be effective 6/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150429-5416.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES15-21-000.
    Applicants: Connecticut Light & Power Company, Western
Massachusetts Electric Company.
    Description: Application of The Connecticut Light and Power Company
and Western Massachusetts Electric Company to Issue Short-Term Debt
Securities.
    Filed Date: 4/28/15.
    Accession Number: 20150428-5559.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/19/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following land
acquisition reports:

    Docket Numbers: LA15-1-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Electric Marketing, LLC, Alabama Electric
Marketing, LLC, Astoria Generating Company, L.P., Big Sandy Peaker
Plant, LLC, California Electric Marketing, LLC, Crete Energy Venture,
LLC, CSOLAR IV South, LLC, CSOLAR IV West, LLC, High Desert Power
Project, LLC, Kiowa Power Partners, LLC, Lincoln Generating Facility,
LLC, New Covert Generating Company, LLC, New Mexico Electric Marketing,
LLC, Rolling Hills Generating, L.L.C., Tenaska Alabama Partners, L.P.,
Tenaska Frontier Partners, Ltd., Tenaska Alabama II Partners, L.P.,
Tenaska Gateway Partners, Ltd., Tenaska Georgia Partners, L.P., Tenaska
Power Management, LLC, Tenaska Power Services Co., Tenaska Virginia
Partners, L.P, Texas Electric Marketing, LLC, TPF Generation Holdings,
LLC, Wolf Hills Energy, LLC.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of the Tenaska MBR
Sellers.
    Filed Date: 4/28/15.
    Accession Number: 20150428-5529.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/19/15.

    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: April 29, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-10576 Filed 5-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P