[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 95157-95158]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31201]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0249]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0056

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension
of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0056,
Labeling required in 33 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Parts 181 and
183 and 46 CFR 25.10-3. Our ICR describes the information we seek to
collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only
impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before
January 26, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2016-0249] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you
may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:
    (1) Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,
attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely manner, mark the fax, attention Desk Officer for the Coast
Guard.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Stop 7710, Washington, DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether
this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for
the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the
Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical
utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of
the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These
comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred
to in this Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2016-0249], and must be received by January 26,
2017.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Number: 1625-0056.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard has published the 60-day notice (81 FR 62164, September 8,
2016) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no
comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Labeling required in 33 CFR parts 181 and 183 and 46 CFR
25.10-3.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0056.
    Summary: Parts 181 and 183 of Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations
and 46 CFR 25.10-3 contain the regulations and safety standards
authorized by the statutes which apply to manufacturers of recreational
boats, un-inspected commercial vessels and associated equipment. The
regulations and safety standards contain information collections, which
require boat and associated equipment manufacturers, importers and the
boating public to apply for serial numbers and to display various
labels evidencing compliance: Hull Identification Numbers; U.S. Coast
Guard Maximum Capacities Label; Gasoline Fuel Tank Label; USCG Type
Fuel Hose Label; and Certified Navigation Light Label.
    Need: Title 46 U.S.C. 4302(a)(3) gives the Coast Guard the
authority to require the display of seals, labels, plates, insignia, or
other devices for certifying or evidencing compliance with safety
regulations and standards of the United States Government for
recreational vessels and associated equipment.
    Forms: N/A.
    Respondents: Manufacturers of boats, fuel tanks, fuel hoses and
navigation lights.
    Frequency: Once.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from
156,170 hours to 176,029 hours a year due to the Coast Guard increasing
the reporting burden and an increase in the annual boat sales volume.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: December 18, 2016.
Thomas P. Michelli,
U.S. Coast Guard, Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-31201 Filed 12-23-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: June 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 116)]
[Notices]
[Page 34524-34526]
[DOCID:fr17jn10-145]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0078]

Decision That Certain Nonconforming Motor Vehicles Are Eligible
for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of decision by NHTSA that certain nonconforming motor
vehicles are eligible for importation.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces decisions by NHTSA that certain motor
vehicles not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) are eligible for
importation into the United States because they are substantially
similar to vehicles originally manufactured for sale in the United
States and certified by their manufacturers as complying with the
safety standards, and they are capable of being readily altered to
conform to the standards or because they have safety features that
comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all
applicable FMVSS.

DATES: These decisions became effective on the dates specified in Annex
A.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be
refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that
the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle
originally manufactured for importation into and/or sale in the United
States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as
the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being
readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.
    Where there is no substantially similar U.S.-certified motor
vehicle, 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B) permits a nonconforming motor vehicle
to be admitted into the United States if its safety features comply
with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable
FMVSS based on destructive test data or such other evidence as NHTSA
decides to be adequate.
    Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notices
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in
the Federal Register.
    NHTSA received petitions from registered importers to decide
whether the vehicles listed in Annex A to this notice are eligible for
importation into the United States. To afford an opportunity for public
comment, NHTSA published notices of these petitions as specified in
Annex A. The reader is referred to those notices for a thorough
description of the petitions. No substantive comments were received in
response to these notices. Based on its review of the information
submitted by the petitioners, NHTSA has decided to grant the petitions.

Vehicle Eligibility Number for Subject Vehicles

    The importer of a vehicle admissible under any final decision must
indicate on the form HS-7 accompanying entry the appropriate vehicle
eligibility number indicating that the vehicle is eligible for entry.
Vehicle eligibility numbers assigned to vehicles admissible under this
decision are specified in Annex A.

Final Decision

    Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, NHTSA hereby decides
that each motor vehicle listed in Annex A to this notice, which was not
originally manufactured to comply with all applicable FMVSS, is either
substantially similar to a motor vehicle manufactured for importation
into and/or sale in the United States, and certified under 49 U.S.C.
30115, as specified in Annex A, and is capable of being readily altered
to conform to all applicable FMVSS or has safety features that comply
with, or is capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B) and (b)(1); 49
CFR 593.8; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: June 9, 2010.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

Annex A

Nonconforming Motor Vehicles Decided To Be Eligible for Importation

1. Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0045

    Nonconforming Vehicles: 2006-2007 Mercedes Benz G-Class Long
Wheelbase Multi-Purpose Passenger Vehicle.
    Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2006-2007 Mercedes
Benz G-Class Long Wheelbase Multi-Purpose Passenger Vehicle.
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 75 FR 19461 (April 14, 2010).
    Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-527. (Effective date May 25, 2010.)

2. Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0031

    Nonconforming Vehicles: 1991 Porsche 911 Series Passenger Cars.
    Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 1991 Porsche 911
Series Passenger Cars.
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 75 FR 14484 (March 25, 2010).
    Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-526. (Effective date May 20, 2010.)

3. Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0191

    Nonconforming Vehicles: 2005-2006 Mercedes Benz S Class Passenger
Cars Manufactured Before September 1, 2006.
    Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2005-2006 Mercedes
Benz S Class Passenger Cars Manufactured Before September 1, 2006.
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 75 FR 1117 (January 8, 2010).
    Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-525. (Effective date February 22,
2010.)

4. Docket No. NHTSA-2009-193

    Nonconforming Vehicles: 2001-2002 Ducati MH900E Motorcycles.
    Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2001-2002 Ducati
MH900E Motorcycles.
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 75 FR 1681 (January 12, 2010).
    Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-524. (Effective date February 22,
2010.)

5. Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0169

    Nonconforming Vehicles: 1994-1999 Bimota SB6 Motorcycles.
    Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 1994-1999 Bimota SB6
Motorcycles.
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 74 FR 57734 (November 9, 2009).
    Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-523. (Effective date December 29,
2009.)

6. Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0161

    Nonconforming Vehicles: 2009 Harley Davidson FX, FL, XL and VR
Series Motorcycles.
    Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2009 Harley Davidson
FX, FL, XL and VR Series Motorcycles.
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 74 FR 51943 (October 8, 2009).
    Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-522. (Effective date November 18,
2009.)

7. Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0148

    Nonconforming Vehicles: 2003-2006 Mercedes Benz C Class (W203
Chassis) Passenger Cars Manufactured Before September 1, 2006.
    Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2003-2006 Mercedes
Benz C Class (W203 Chassis) Passenger Cars Manufactured Before
September 1, 2006.
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 74 FR 42734 (August 24, 2009).
    Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-521. (Effective date October 20,
2009.)

8. Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0102

    Nonconforming Vehicles: 2006 BMW M3 Passenger Cars Manufactured
Before September 1, 2006.
    Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2006 BMW M3
Passenger Cars Manufactured Before September 1, 2006.
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 74 FR 26762 (June 3, 2009).
    Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-520. (Effective date July 29,
2009.)

9. Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0101

    Nonconforming Vehicles: 2006 Porsche Cayenne Multipurpose Passenger
Vehicles Manufactured Before September 1, 2006.
    Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2006 Porsche Cayenne
Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles Manufactured Before September 1, 2006.
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 74 FR 26764 (June 3, 2009).
    Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-519. (Effective date July 29,
2009.)

10. Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0094

    Nonconforming Vehicles: 2006 Ferrari 599 Passenger Cars
Manufactured Before September 1, 2006.
    Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2006 Ferrari 599
Passenger Cars Manufactured Before September 1, 2006.
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 74 FR 24895 (May 26, 2009).
    Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-518. (Effective date July 7, 2009.)

11. Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0067

    Nonconforming Vehicles: 2008 Harley Davidson FX, FL, XL and VR
Series Motorcycles.
    Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2008 Harley Davidson
FX, FL, XL and VR Series Motorcycles.
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 74 FR 18036 (April 20, 2009).
    Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-517. (Effective date May 27, 2009.)

12. Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0212

    Nonconforming Vehicles: 2007 Chevrolet Trailblazer Multipurpose
Passenger Vehicle Manufactured Before September 1, 2007, for sale in
Kuaiti Market.
    Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2007 Chevrolet
Trailblazer Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle Manufactured Before
September 1, 2007.
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 74 FR 1276 (January 12, 2009).
    Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-514. (Effective date February 18,
2009.)

13. Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0186

    Nonconforming Vehicles: 2005-2006 Porsche 911 Carrera Cabriolet
Passenger Cars Manufactured Before September 1, 2006.
    Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2005-2006 Porsche
911 Carrera Cabriolet Passenger Cars Manufactured Before September 1,
2006.
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 73 FR 75172 (December 10, 2008).
    Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-513. (Effective date January 16,
2009.)

14. Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0139

    Nonconforming Vehicles: 2005-2006 Mercedes Benz SLK Class (171
Chassis) Passenger Cars.

    Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2005-2006 Mercedes
Benz SLK Class (171 Chassis) Passenger Cars.
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 73 FR 51550 (September 3, 2008).
    Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-511. (Effective date October 14,
2008.)

15. Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0014

    Nonconforming Vehicles: 2009 AL-SPAW EMA Mobile Stage Trailers.
    Because there are no substantially similar U.S.-certified version
2009 AL-SPAW EMA Mobile Stage Trailers, the petitioner sought import
eligibility under 49 U.S.C. 30141 (a) (1) (B).
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 75 FR 9019 (February 26, 2010).
    Vehicle Eligibility Number: VCP-42. (Effective date April 6, 2010.)

[FR Doc. 2010-14565 Filed 6-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 221 (Tuesday, November 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71892-71895]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29231]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76411; File No. SR-BATS-2015-98]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for BZX Options

November 10, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 2, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to BATS Rules
15.1(a) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See
Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule applicable to the
Exchange's options platform effective immediately, in order to: (i)
Make certain changes, including the adoption of routing fees, in
connection with the launch of the options exchange operated by the
Exchange's affiliate EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX Options''); and (ii)
to adopt and modify certain pricing tiers offered by the Exchange.
BZX Options References
    At the outset, the Exchange proposes to re-brand its options
platform as BZX Options, rather than BATS Options, as it intends to use
BATS Options to describe EDGX Options and BZX Options collectively. In
connection with this change the Exchange proposes to: (i) Re-title the
fee schedule; (ii) modify the description of fee code OO, which refers
to the Exchange's opening process; (iii) modify references in footnote
5, which applies to the Quoting Incentive Program (``QIP''); (iv)
modify references in the Unicast Access section under BATS Connect
fees; and (v) modify references in the Options Regulatory Fee section.
In each instance the Exchange proposes to refer to BZX Options. With
respect to the Unicast Access section, the Exchange also proposes to
add reference to EDGX Options in the list of Exchange affiliates to
which such fees do not apply.
Routing to EDGX Options
    As noted previously, the Exchange's current approach to routing
fees is to set forth in a simple manner certain sub-categories of fees
that approximate the cost of routing to other options exchanges based
on the cost of transaction fees assessed by each venue as well as costs
to the Exchange for routing (i.e., clearing fees, connectivity and
other infrastructure costs, membership fees, etc.) (collectively,
``Routing Costs''). The Exchange then monitors the fees charged as
compared to the costs of its routing services and adjusts its routing
fees and/or sub-categories to ensure that the Exchange's fees do indeed
result in a rough approximation of overall Routing Costs, and are not
significantly higher or lower in any area. The Exchange proposes to
adopt routing fees for orders that are routed by the Exchange to EDGX
Options consistent with this approach.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt fee codes RC and RD, which will
apply to Customer \6\ orders routed to EDGX Options in Penny Pilot
Securities \7\ and non-Penny Pilot Securities, respectively. Both fee
code RC and fee code RD will yield no charge, as EDGX Options has not
proposed to charge a fee for Customer orders.\8\ The Exchange also
proposes to adopt fee codes RF and RG, which will apply to Non-Customer
orders \9\ routed to EDGX Options in Penny Pilot Securities and non-
Penny Pilot Securities, respectively. The Exchange proposes to charge
$0.56 for orders yielding fee code RF and $0.96 per contract for orders
yielding fee code RG, which in each case represents the base fee for a
Non-Customer order (other than market maker order) executed on EDGX
Options plus an additional fee to cover Routing Costs.\10\ Although the
Exchange does not propose to charge a fee for Customer orders routed to
EDGX Options, the Exchange will incur Routing Costs in connection with
such routing. The Exchange notes, however, that Customer orders
executed on EDGX Options will receive rebates in certain circumstances
that the Exchange does not propose to pass back to Members.
Accordingly, the Exchange anticipates that the proposed fee structure
will approximate the cost of routing Customer orders to EDGX Options.
The Exchange also notes that the proposed fees for fee codes RF and RG
are higher than the fees charged by EDGX Options for market maker
orders sent directly to

EDGX Options.\11\ The Exchange does not anticipate that market makers
will be significant users of Exchange routing services, as such
participants typically maintain direct connectivity to other options
exchanges. Also, as it has done historically in connection with the fee
structure for routing to other options exchanges, the Exchange is
proposing the charges set forth above, including the grouping of all
Non-Customer orders, to maintain a simple fee schedule with respect to
routing fees that approximates the total cost of routing, including
Routing Costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Customer'' applies to any transaction identified by a
Member for clearing in the Customer range at the OCC, excluding any
transaction for a Broker Dealer or a ``Professional'' as defined in
Exchange Rule 16.1.
    \7\ ``Penny Pilot Securities'' are those issues quoted pursuant
to Exchange Rule 21.5, Interpretation and Policy .01.
    \8\ See SR-EDGX-2015-54 filed October 30, 2015, available at:
http://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/regulation/rule_filings/approved/2015/SR-EDGX-2015-54.pdf.
    \9\ The Exchange also proposes to adopt a definition of Non-
Customer order, which would apply to any transaction that is not a
Customer order, as described below.
    \10\ See supra note 8.
    \11\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Customer Penny Pilot Add Tiers
    Currently, the Exchange offers a standard rebate of $0.25 per
contract for Customer orders in Penny Pilot Securities that add
liquidity to the Exchange, which apply to fee code PY. As set forth in
footnote 1 of the fee schedule, the Exchange also offers tiered pricing
pursuant to which Members can receive higher rebates up to $0.50 if
they qualify pursuant to various criteria, including volume levels on
BZX Options and, with respect to the Exchange's Cross-Asset Add Tiers,
volume levels on BZX Options as well as volume on the Exchange's equity
trading platform (``BZX Equities''). The Exchange proposes to add four
new tiers to incentivize Members to add additional volume on the
Exchange, particularly in Customer orders. The Exchange also proposes
to delete one of the Cross-Asset Add Tiers, as set forth below.
    The Exchange's current Customer Add Volume Tiers 1 through 3
require certain levels of ADV \12\ as a percentage of average TCV.\13\
The Exchange proposes to add Customer Add Volume Tiers 4 through 6,
which will require certain levels of ADAV \14\ as a percentage of
average TCV. Below is a summary of proposed tiers 4 through 6:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ``ADV'' means average daily volume calculated as the number
of contracts added or removed, combined, per day.
    \13\ ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the
volume reported by all exchanges to the consolidated transaction
reporting plan for the month for which the fees apply, excluding
volume on any day that the Exchange experiences an Exchange System
Disruption and on any day with a scheduled early market close.
    \14\ ``ADAV'' means average daily added volume calculated as the
number of contracts per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Customer Add Volume Tier 4 would provide a Customer order
add rebate of $0.50 per contract for any Member that has an ADAV equal
to or greater than 0.85% of average TCV.
     Customer Add Volume Tier 5 would provide a Customer order
add rebate of $0.52 per contract for any Member that has an ADAV in
Customer orders equal to or greater than 0.80% of average TCV and an
ADAV in Market Maker \15\ orders equal to or greater than 0.40% of
average TCV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ ``Market Maker'' applies to any transaction identified by a
Member for clearing in the Market Maker range at the OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Customer Add Volume Tier 6 would provide a Customer order
add rebate of $0.53 per contract for any Member that has an ADAV in
Customer orders equal to or greater than 1.80% of average TCV.
    Similar to other pricing where the Exchange seeks to incentivize
growth by providing tiered pricing based on a Member's participation
increase over time, the Exchange also proposes to adopt a new Customer
Step-Up Volume Tier. Pursuant to the Customer Step-Up Volume Tier a
Member would receive a Customer order add rebate of $0.53 per contract
to the extent the Member has an Options Step-Up Add TCV \16\ in
Customer orders from September 2015 baseline equal to or greater than
0.40%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ ``Options Step-Up Add TCV'' means ADAV as a percentage of
TCV in the relevant baseline month subtracted from current ADAV as a
percentage of TCV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the proposed new tiers described above, the Exchange
proposes to eliminate Customer Cross-Asset Add Tier 2, and in turn, to
re-number current Customer Cross-Asset Add Tier 1 as Customer Cross-
Asset Add Tier.
Non-Customer Add Volume Tier Rebates for Increased Participation
    The Exchange currently offers enhanced rebates under the: (i)
Firm,\17\ Broker Dealer,\18\ and Joint Back Office \19\ Penny Pilot Add
Volume Tiers, which are set forth in footnote 2; (ii) the NBBO Setter
Tiers, which are set forth in footnote 4; (iii) the Market Maker and
Non-BATS Market Maker \20\ Penny Pilot Add Volume Tiers, which are set
forth in footnote 6; and (iv) the Firm, Broker Dealer, and Joint Back
Office Non-Penny Pilot Add Volume Tiers, which are set forth in
footnote 8. These tiers are collectively referred to hereafter as the
``Non-Customer Add Volume Tiers''. To incentivize the growth of BZX
Options, particularly in Non-Customer orders, the Exchange proposes to
adopt step-up pricing as follows. A Member with an Options Step-Up Add
TCV in Non-Customer Orders from the Member's March 2015 baseline equal
to or greater than 0.15% and an ADAV in Non-BATS Market Maker
(``NBMM''), Firm, Broker Dealer (``BD'') and Joint Back Office
(``JBO'') orders equal to or greater than 0.30% of average TCV would
qualify for the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ ``Firm'' applies to any transaction identified by a Member
for clearing in the Firm range at the Options Clearing Corporation
(``OCC''), excluding any Joint Back office transaction.
    \18\ ``Broker Dealer'' applies to any order for the account of a
broker dealer, including a foreign broker dealer, that clears in the
Customer range at the OCC.
    \19\ ``Joint Back Office'' applies to any transaction identified
by a Member for clearing in the Firm Range at the OCC that is
identified with an origin code as Joint Back Office.
    \20\ ``Non-BATS Market Maker'' applies to any transaction
identified by a Member for clearing in the Market Maker range at the
OCC, where such Member is not registered with the Exchange as a
Market Maker, but is registered as a market maker on another options
exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Under footnote 2, a rebate of $0.43 per contract for Firm,
BD, and JBO orders that add liquidity in Penny Pilot Securities, which
yield fee code PF.
     Under footnote 6, a rebate of $0.43 per contract for
Market Maker and NBMM orders that add liquidity in Penny Pilot
Securities, which yield fee code PM.
     Under footnote 8, a rebate of $0.67 per contract for Firm,
BD, and JBO orders that add liquidity in non-Penny Pilot Securities,
which yield fee code NF.
    Also, the Exchange proposes to modify the criteria for NBBO Setter
Tier 3 to align with the step-up criteria proposed above. Pursuant to
NBBO Setter Tier 3, qualifying Members earn an additional rebate per
contract of $0.04 on Non-Customer orders that add liquidity. Currently,
to qualify for this tier a Member must: (i) Have an Options Step-Up Add
TCV from September 2014 baseline equal to or greater than 0.30%; (ii)
have an ADV equal to or greater than 0.40% of average TCV; and (iii)
have an order that establishes a new NBBO. The Exchange proposes to
modify the first and second criteria for this tier to align with the
step-up criteria for the other Non-Customer Add Volume Tiers described
above. Specifically, a Member must have: (i) An Options Step-up Add TCV
in Non-Customer orders from March 2015 baseline equal to or greater
than 0.15%; and (ii) an ADAV in NBMM, Firm, BD, and JBO orders equal to
or greater than 0.30% of average TCV. The additional rebate per
contract will still only apply to an order that establishes a new NBBO.
    In addition to the changes described above, the Exchange proposes
to modify footnote 8 to explicitly state that the tiered rebates under
such footnote are applicable to fee code NF. Although fee code NF in
the Fee Codes and Associated Fees table properly refers to footnote 8,
all other footnotes on the fee schedule also cross-reference back to
applicable fee codes at the beginning of the footnote. The Exchange
proposes to make this addition to footnote 8 to

ensure consistency with other footnotes and avoid potential confusion.
Non-Customer Penny Pilot Take Volume Tiers
    The Exchange currently offers a total of six Non-Customer Penny
Pilot Take Volume Tiers that provide discounted fees for Non-Customer
orders in Penny Pilot Securities that remove liquidity from BZX Options
under fee code PP. The Exchange proposes various changes to these
tiers, including reducing the total number to three tiers and modifying
these remaining tiers, as set forth below.
     The Exchange proposes to delete Non-Customer Volume Tiers
2 and 3 as well as the Non-Customer Step-Up Take Volume Tier.
     The Exchange currently charges $0.49 per contract for
Members that qualify for Non-Customer Volume Tier 1, which requires
that a Member has an ADV equal to or greater than 1.00% of average TCV.
The Exchange proposes increasing the requirement necessary to qualify
for Non-Customer Volume Tier 1 to require that a Member has an ADV
equal to or greater than 1.50% of average TCV.
     The Exchange currently charges $0.45 per contract for
Members that qualify for Non-Customer Volume Tier 4, which requires
that a Member has an ADAV in Customer orders equal to or greater than
0.80% of average TCV. The Exchange proposes to maintain this
requirement but also to add a requirement that a Member has an ADAV in
Market Maker orders equal to or greater than 0.40% of average TCV. The
Exchange also proposes to increase the fee per contract for Members
that qualify for this tier to $0.47 per contract. In connection with
the deleted tiers noted above, the Exchange proposes to rename current
Non-Customer Take Volume Tier 4 as Non-Customer Take Volume Tier 2.
     The Exchange currently charges $0.43 per contract for
Members that qualify for Non-Customer Volume Tier 5, which requires
that a Member has an ADAV in Customer orders equal to or greater than
2.00% of average TCV. The Exchange proposes to decrease this
requirement to require that a Member has an ADAV in Customer orders
equal to or greater than 1.80% of average TCV. The Exchange also
proposes to increase the fee per contract for Members that qualify for
this tier to $0.46 per contract. In connection with the deleted tiers
noted above, the Exchange proposes to rename current Non-Customer Take
Volume Tier 5 as Non-Customer Take Volume Tier 3.
Other Changes
    The Exchange also proposes to amend the Standard Rates table, which
summarizes the range of fees at the beginning of the fee schedule, in
order to reflect the changes proposed above. The Exchange also proposes
to adopt a definition of Non-Customer order, which would apply to any
transaction that is not a Customer order. Though the Exchange believes
that this has always been understood as the meaning is clear from the
term itself, the Exchange believes that adding the explicit definition
will promote consistency with other defined terms and avoid potential
confusion. In addition, the Exchange proposes to consistently
capitalize the term Non-Customer throughout the fee schedule.
Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its Fee
Schedule effective immediately.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\21\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\22\ in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels to be
excessive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained above, the Exchange generally attempts to approximate
the cost of routing to other options exchanges, including other
applicable costs to the Exchange for routing. The Exchange believes
that a pricing model based on approximate Routing Costs is a
reasonable, fair and equitable approach to pricing. Specifically, the
Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt routing fees to EDGX
Options is fair, equitable and reasonable because the fees are
generally an approximation of the anticipated cost to the Exchange for
routing orders to EDGX Options. The Exchange notes that routing through
the Exchange is voluntary. The Exchange also believes that the proposed
fee structure for orders routed to and executed at EDGX Options is fair
and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory in that it applies
equally to all Members.
    Volume-based rebates and fees such as the ones currently maintained
on BZX Options have been widely adopted by equities and options
exchanges and are equitable because they are open to all Members on an
equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are
reasonably related to the value to an exchange's market quality
associated with higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels
of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns, and introduction of
higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery processes.
    As explained above, the Exchange is proposing various modifications
to the Exchange's tiered pricing structure that are intended to
contribute to the continued growth of the Exchange. The proposed new
Customer Penny Pilot Add Tiers are intended to incentivize Members to
send additional volume, particularly Customer orders, to the Exchange.
Similarly, the proposed new step-up tiers for the Non-Customer Add
Volume Tiers, as well as the alignment of the criteria for NBBO Setter
Tier 3 with such tiers, is intended to incentivize Members to send
additional orders, particularly Non-Customer orders, to the Exchange.
Finally, the elimination of Customer Cross-Asset Add Tier 2 and the
proposed changes to the Non-Customer Penny Pilot Take Volume Tiers,
including the proposed deletion of three tiers and the proposed
increase to fees, are intended to allow the Exchange to continue to
expand pricing incentives to promote the growth of the Exchange. The
changes are also intended to incentivize additional volume by
increasing qualifying criteria for the existing tiers, requiring more
participation by Members to continue to receive reduced rates pursuant
to such tiers.
    The Exchange believes that these changes are reasonable, fair and
equitable and non-discriminatory, for the reasons set forth with
respect to volume-based pricing generally and because such changes will
either incentivize participants to further contribute to market quality
on the Exchange or will allow the Exchange to earn additional revenue
that can be used to offset the addition of new pricing incentives. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed fees and rebates remain
consistent with pricing previously offered by the Exchange as well as
competitors of the Exchange and do not represent a significant
departure

from the Exchange's general pricing structure.
    The Exchange believes that the additional clarifying changes and
corrections proposed in this filing are reasonable, fair and equitable
and non-discriminatory because each is intended to improve the
understandability of the Exchange's fee schedule and to avoid
confusion.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that any of the proposed changes to the Exchange's tiered pricing
structure burden competition, but instead, that they enhance
competition as they are intended to increase the competitiveness of BZX
Options by offering new pricing incentives or modifying and eliminating
pricing incentives in order to provide such incentives. Also, the
Exchange believes that the increase to certain thresholds necessary to
meet tiers offered by the Exchange contributes to rather than burdens
competition, as such changes are intended to incentivize participants
to increase their participation on the Exchange. Similarly, the
introduction of new tiers is intended to provide incentives to Members
to encourage them to enter orders to BZX Options, and thus is again
intended to enhance competition.
    Similarly, the Exchange does not believe that its proposed pricing
for routing to EDGX Options burdens competition, as such rates are
intended to approximate the cost of routing to EDGX Options. As stated
above, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels to be excessive or providers
of routing services if they deem routing fee levels to be excessive.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \23\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\24\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal 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 No. SR-BATS-2015-98 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2015-98. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing will also 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-BATS-2015-98 and should be
submitted on or before December 8, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-29231 Filed 11-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


March 3, 2004 Honorable Donald L. Carcieri Governor of Rhode Island State House Executive Chambers Providence, RI 02903 Dear Governor Carcieri:

Thank you for your letter forwarding Rhode Island= s recommendations on air quality designations for the national health based standards for fine particles. We received your letter on February 18, 2004.

Your letter is an important step toward providing citizens in your state with critical information about air pollution levels in their community. We intend to carefully review the recommendations and work with the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management in determining final designations. The EPA must make its final official designation decisions for fine particles by December 31, 2004.

We look forward to working with Rhode Island in the coming months on designations for the fine particle standards. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me or Tim Williamson, Acting Manager of the Air Quality Planning Unit, at 617 918 1099.

Sincerely,

Robert W. Varney Regional Administrator cc: Frederick J. Vincent, Interim Director, RI DEM Stephen Majkut, OAR, RI DEM


[Federal Register: October 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 192)]
[Notices]
[Page 51288-51289]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket Nos. FDA-2009-M-0033, FDA-2009-M-0016, FDA-2009-M-0034, FDA-
2009-M-0049, FDA-2009-M-0071, FDA-2009-M-0127, FDA-2009-M-0128, FDA-
2009-M-0135, FDA-2009-M-0159]

Medical Devices; Availability of Safety and Effectiveness
Summaries for Premarket Approval Applications

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a list of
premarket approval applications (PMAs) that have been approved. This
list is intended to inform the public of the availability of safety and
effectiveness summaries of approved PMAs through the Internet and the
agency's Division of Dockets Management.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for copies of summaries of safety
and effectiveness data to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305),
Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville,
MD 20852. Please cite the appropriate docket number as listed in table
1 of this document when submitting a written request. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the
summaries of safety and effectiveness.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Wolanski, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health (HFZ-402), Food and Drug Administration, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 1650, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-
796-6570.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of January 30, 1998 (63 FR 4571), FDA
published a final rule that revised 21 CFR 814.44(d) and 814.45(d) to
discontinue individual publication of PMA approvals and denials in the
Federal Register. Instead, the agency now posts this information on the
Internet on FDA's home page at http://www.fda.gov. FDA believes that
this procedure expedites public notification of these actions because
announcements can be placed on the Internet more quickly than they can
be published in the Federal Register, and FDA believes that the
Internet is accessible to more people than the Federal Register.
    In accordance with section 515(d)(4) and (e)(2) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360e(d)(4) and
(e)(2)), notification of an order approving, denying, or withdrawing
approval of a PMA will continue to include a notice of opportunity to
request review of the order under section 515(g) of the act. The 30-day
period for requesting reconsideration of an FDA action under Sec.
10.33(b) (21 CFR 10.33(b)) for notices announcing approval of a PMA
begins on the day the notice is placed on the

Internet. Section 10.33(b) provides that FDA may, for good cause,
extend this 30-day period. Reconsideration of a denial or withdrawal of
approval of a PMA may be sought only by the applicant; in these cases,
the 30-day period will begin when the applicant is notified by FDA in
writing of its decision.
    The regulations provide that FDA publish a quarterly list of
available safety and effectiveness summaries of PMA approvals and
denials that were announced during that quarter. The following is a
list of approved PMAs for which summaries of safety and effectiveness
were placed on the Internet from January 1, 2009, through March 31,
2009. There were no denial actions during this period. The list
provides the manufacturer's name, the product's generic name or the
trade name, and the approval date.

 Table 1.--List of Safety and Effectiveness Summaries for Approved PMAs
       Made Available From January 1, 2009, through March 31, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Approval
PMA No.  Docket No.      Applicant          Trade Name          Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P060030              Roche Molecular   Cobas ampliprep/     October 30,
FDA-2009-M-0033       Systems, Inc.     cobas taqman HFC     2008
                                        test
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P950009 (S8)         BD Diagnostics    BD focal point gs    December 3,
FDA-2009-M-0016                         imaging system       2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P080010              Advanced Medical  Tecnis multifocal    January 16,
FDA-2009-M-0034       Optics, Inc.      foldable posterior   2009
                                        chamber
                                        intraocular lens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P080021              Advanced Vision   xact foldable        February 2,
FDA-2009-M-0049       Science, Inc.     hydrophobic          2009
                                        acrylic UV light
                                        absorbing
                                        posterior chamber
                                        IOL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P030031 (S11)        Biosense          Navistar & Celsius   February 6,
FDA-2009-M-0071       Webster, Inc.     thermo cool          2009
                                        catheters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P070014              Bard Peripheral   lifestent flexstar   February 13,
FDA-2009-M-0127       Vascular, Inc.    & flexstar XL        2009
                                        vascular stent
                                        system
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P940015 (S12)        Genzyme Corp.     Synvisc-One          February 26,
FDA-2009-M-0128                                              2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P070005              Synthemed Corp.   Repel-cv             March 6,
FDA-2009-M-0135                         bioresorbable        2009
                                        adhesion barrier
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P080002              The Female        FC2 female condom    March 10,
FDA-2009-M-0159       Health Co.                             2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the documents at
http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pmapage.html.

    Dated: September 24, 2009.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Acting Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
[FR Doc. E9-23962 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: August 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 160)]
[Notices]
[Page 47800]
[DOCID:fr18au06-78]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. TS06-11-000]

Wabash Valley Power Association; Notice of Filing

August 1, 2006.
    Take notice that on July 26, 2006, Wabash Valley Power Association
(Wabash Valley) filed a request for exemption from Part 358.1(c) of the
Commission's Regulations under Order No. 2004, standards of conduct
requirements.
    Wabash Valley states copies of the filing were served upon the
public utility commissions in Illinois Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and
Missouri.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 25, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-13808 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 61595]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24823]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL13-4-000]

Southern Illinois Power Cooperative; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on October 1, 2012, Southern Illinois Power
Cooperative filed its Revised and Superseding Proposed Revenue
Requirement for reactive supply service under Midwest Independent
Transmission System Operator, Inc. Tariff Schedule 2.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 22, 2012.

    Dated: October 2, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-24823 Filed 10-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57564-57565]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22949]

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

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: ER12-162-004; ER11-3876-006; ER11-2044-007; ER10-
2611-004.
    Applicants: Bishop Hill Energy II LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Bishop Hill Energy II
LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 9/10/12.
    Accession Number: 20120910-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2600-000.
    Applicants: American Illuminating Company, LLC.
    Description: Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization to be
effective 11/5/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/7/12.
    Accession Number: 20120907-5205.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/28/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2601-000.
    Applicants: Rayonier Performance Fibers, LLC.
    Description: Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization to be
effective 9/8/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/7/12.
    Accession Number: 20120907-5207.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/28/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2602-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Petition for Waiver of Tariff Provisions of Southwest
Power Pool, Inc.
    Filed Date: 9/7/12.
    Accession Number: 20120907-5240.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/28/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2603-000.
    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.
    Description: TEP SRSG Agreement-Addition of Star West to be
effective 5/17/2011.
    Filed Date: 9/10/12.
    Accession Number: 20120910-5108.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2604-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: NITSA among PJM and SEPA as PJM Service Agreement No.
3341 to be effective 9/17/2010.
    Filed Date: 9/10/12.
    Accession Number: 20120910-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2605-000.
    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.
    Description: TEP SRSG Agreement--Addition of Mesquite Power to be
effective 12/28/2011.
    Filed Date: 9/10/12.
    Accession Number: 20120910-5116.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2606-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance Filing per 7/11/2012 Order in EL12-50-000
to be effective 7/11/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/10/12.
    Accession Number: 20120910-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2606-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance Filing per 7/11/2012 Order in EL12-50-000
(sections eff 7/18/2012) to be effective 7/18/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/10/12.
    Accession Number: 20120910-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2607-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc..
    Description: Submission of Notice of Cancellation--1906R1 MEAN
NITSA NOA to be effective 7/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/10/12.
    Accession Number: 20120910-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/1/12.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings

must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 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: September 10, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-22949 Filed 9-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P