[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24481-24482]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9781]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC12-93-000.
    Applicants: AES Eastern Energy, LP, AES Somerset, LLC, AES CAYUGA
LLC, Somerset Cayuga Holding Company, Inc.

    Description: Section 203 Joint Application of AES Eastern Energy,
L.P., AES Somerset, LLC, AES Cayuga, LLC and Somerset Cayuga Holding
Company, Inc.
    Filed Date: 4/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120413-5308.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/12.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1338-001.
    Applicants: Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Triennial Market-Based Rate Update Supplemental Filing
of Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company, Inc.
    Filed Date: 4/16/12.
    Accession Number: 20120416-5296.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1174-001.
    Applicants: Cross Border Energy LLC.
    Description: Baseline Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 11/
21/2009.
    Filed Date: 4/17/12.
    Accession Number: 20120417-5075.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1527-000.
    Applicants: ETC Endure Energy LLC.
    Description: ETC Endure Energy LLC submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Normal Filing to be effective 2/29/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/17/12.
    Accession Number: 20120417-5096.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1552-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Revisions to Attachments H and T to Implement Balanced
Portfolio Transfers to be effective 6/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/16/12.
    Accession Number: 20120416-5180.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1553-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: SGIA and Service Agreement SCE-TDBU with
SCE-PPD, PPD-SPVP 027 (I-210-3) Project to be effective 4/18/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/17/12.
    Accession Number: 20120417-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/12.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following open access
transmission tariff filings:

    Docket Numbers: OA07-37-005.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: Report of Louisville Gas and Electric Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 4/17/12.
    Accession Number: 20120417-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: OA08-111-004.
    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company.
    Description: Annual Informational Filing on Operational Penalty
Assessments and Distributions as Required by Order Nos. 890 and 890-A
of Portland General Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 4/17/12.
    Accession Number: 20120417-5088.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: OA12-4-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Public Service Company of Colorado Annual Report of
Penalty Assessments and Distributions in Accordance with Order Nos. 890
and 890-A.
    Filed Date: 4/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120413-5311.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/12.

    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: April 17, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-9781 Filed 4-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 192)]
[Notices]
[Page 61549-61550]
[DOCID:fr05oc10-153]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63000; File No. SR-CBOE-2010-089]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Modify the Fee Schedule for the CBOE Stock
Exchange

September 28, 2010.
    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 September 22, 2010, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change
as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify the Fees Schedule for its CBOE
Stock Exchange (``CBSX''). The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at
the Exchange's principal office, 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
    On August 23, 2010, the Commission published an immediately
effective rule filing to modify the transaction fees for 24 securities
currently traded on CBSX (the following symbols: BAC, C, DXD, EMC, EWJ,
F, FAX, FAZ, GE, INTC, MOT, MSFT, MU, NOK, Q, QID, S, SIRI, SKF, T,
TWM, UNG, UWM, XLF).\3\ On September 9, 2010, the Commission published
an immediately effective rule filing to modify the transaction fees for
51 more securities currently traded on CBSX (the following symbols: AA,
AMAT, AMD, BGZ, BP, BSX, CMCSA, COCO, CSCO, CX, DELL, DUK, EBAY, EEM,
EWT, FAS, FLEX, HBAN, IYR, MDT, MGM, IYR, MDT, MGM, NLY, NVDA, NWSA,
ORCL, PFE, QCOM, QQQQ, SBUX, SH, SLV, SMH, SSO, SYMC, TBT, TSM, TXN,
UCO, USO, VALE, VWO, WFC, XHB, XLB, XLK, XLP, XLU, XLV, XLY, XRX,
YHOO).\4\ The Exchange now proposes to add 50 more securities to that
list of securities (the following symbols: ARNA, ATML, BKC, BRCD, CIM,
DOW, DRYS, EFA, EWZ, FITB, FXI, GBG, GDX, GLD, GLW, HPQ, IDIX, IWM,
JPM, KEY, LVLT, LVS, MFE, MO, MRVL, ONNN, PBR, PCBC, QLD, RF, RFMD,
RIMM, RRI, RSCR, SDS, SNDK, SPLS, SPY, TEVA, TLT, TNA, TZA, UYG, VXX,
VZ, X, XLE, XLI, XOM, XRT).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-62758 (August 23,
2010), 75 FR 166 (August 27, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-075).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-62878 (September
9, 2010), 75 FR 179 (September 16, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-079).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For those securities already approved for the new transaction fees
as well as those that would be added by this proposed rule change,
assuming their prices do not drop below $1, the takers of liquidity
will receive a $0.0014 per share rebate, and makers of liquidity

will incur a $0.0018 charge. The new pricing strategy is designed to
incent order routing behavior that selects CBSX as the first
destination. By offering customers a significant rebate to ``remove''
liquidity, the Exchange will offer overall economic benefits far above
those received at other markets.
    The proposed rule change also moves the list of securities subject
to these rates from the chart of rates into footnotes, as the expanded
list had made the chart cumbersome. The changes will take effect on
October 1, 2010.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\5\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) \6\ of the Act in particular, in that
it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among CBOE members and other persons
using its facilities.

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

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE 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.

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

    The proposed rule change is designated by the Exchange as
establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge, thereby
qualifying for effectiveness on filing pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) \7\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
\8\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2010-089 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2010-089. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. 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-CBOE-2010-089 and should be
submitted on or before October 26, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-24894 Filed 10-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: September 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 187)]
[Notices]
[Page 56657]
[DOCID:fr28se05-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP02-361-054]

Gulfstream Natural Gas System, L.L.C.; Notice of Negotiated Rate

September 21, 2005.
    Take notice that on September 15, 2005, Gulfstream Natural Gas
System, L.L.C. (Gulfstream) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, First Revised Sheet Nos. 8.01d and
8.01e, as well as Original Sheet Nos. 8.01s, 8.01t, and 8.01u,
reflecting an effective date of September 15, 2005.
    Gulfstream states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all
affected customers and interested state commissions.
    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 and 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 in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing a protest must serve copy of
that document on all the parties to the 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 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 e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5271 Filed 9-27-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 38264]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16407]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Form 8-A, OMB Control No. 3235-0056, SEC File No. 270-54.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Form 8-A (17 CFR 249.208a) is a registration statement used to
register a class of securities under Section 12(b) or Section 12(g) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l(b) and 78l(g))
(``Exchange Act''). Section 12(a) (15 U.S.C. 78l(a)) of the Exchange
Act makes it unlawful for any member, broker, or dealer to effect any
transaction in any security (other than an exempted security) on a
national securities exchange unless such security has been registered
under the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). Exchange Act Section
12(b) establishes the registration procedures. Exchange Act Section
12(g) requires an issuer that is not a bank or bank holding company to
register a class of equity securities (other than exempted securities)
within 120 days after its fiscal year end if, on the last day of its
fiscal year, the issuer has total assets of more than $10 million and
the class of equity securities is ``held of record'' by either (i)
2,000 persons, or (ii) 500 persons who are not accredited investors. An
issuer that is a bank or a bank holding company, must register a class
of equity securities (other than exempted securities) within 120 days
after the last day of its first fiscal year ended after the effective
date of the JOBS Act if, on the last day of its fiscal year, the issuer
has total assets of more than $10 million and the class of equity
securities is ``held of record'' by 2,000 or more persons. Form 8-A
takes approximately 3 hours to prepare and is filed by approximately
951 respondents for a total annual reporting burden of 2,853 hours (3
hours per response x 951 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden
imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comment to Pamela C. Dyson, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 29, 2015.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-16407 Filed 7-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 180)]
[Notices]
[Page 47942-47943]
[DOCID:fr18se09-63]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-0114; FRL-8959-5]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Questionnaire for Drinking Water
Utilities Participating in Emerging Contaminant Sampling Program (New);
EPA ICR No. 2346.01 OMB Control No. 2080--NEW

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)(44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request for a new collection.
The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the nature of the
information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 19,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2009-0114, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention:
Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan T. Glassmeyer, Ph.D.,
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
National Exposure Research Laboratory, 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr, MS
564, Cincinnati, OH 45268; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number
513-569-7757; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On April 8, 2009 (74 FR 15965), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received three comments during the
comment period, which are addressed in the ICR. Any additional comments
on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this
notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-0114, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Research and
Development Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Research and
Development Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Questionnaire for Drinking Water Utilities Participating in
Emerging Contaminant Sampling Program (New).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2346.01, OMB Control No. 2080-NEW.
    ICR Status: This ICR is for a new information collection activity.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: Improvements in analytical chemistry instrumentation have
allowed scientists to detect trace amounts of chemicals that are
commonly used in homes in the environment. These so-called ``emerging
contaminants'' are chemicals, such as pharmaceuticals, personal care
products, detergents and even endogenous hormones, which are either
excreted from or washed off the body, and enter the wastewater
treatment system. Wastewater treatment is not designed to specifically
remove these chemicals, so a portion of the chemicals remain in
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluents. WWTP effluents are
commonly released into surface waters. Natural processes such as
photolysis, sorption, volatilization, degradation, and simple dilution
further attenuate the concentrations of emerging contaminants. However,
if a Drinking Water Treatment Plant (DWTP) intake is located downstream
of a WWTP effluent outfall, there is a potential for these chemicals to
be present in finished drinking water.
    The USEPA's Office of Research and Development, in collaboration
with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), is conducting a sampling
program at up to 50 DWTPs to determine the presence of these emerging
contaminants in both the source water and finished drinking water. To
better interpret the results of the sampling program, detailed
information concerning the operation of the DWTP at the time of
sampling is required. This information can only be gathered through a
questionnaire that is completed concurrent to the collection event. The
questionnaire will collect information on the following:
     The population served by the DWTP;
     The source water, potential sources of pollution and
current hydraulic conditions;
     Detailed treatment steps used by the DWTP, including
parameters such as pumpage at sampling, disinfectants used, and
distribution system information;
     Detailed water quality parameters at the time of sampling.
    The DWTPs involved in this project will ship samples of their
source water and finished water to the USEPA and USGS laboratories. All
sampling supplies and paid shipping vouchers will be provided to the
DWTPs. The samples will be analyzed by the USEPA and USGS for a suite
of approximately 200 emerging chemical and microbial contaminants. A
detailed listing of the analytes, as well as the methods to be used can
be found in public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2009-0114.

    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 20
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Drinking Water Treatment Plants
(DWTPs) participating in a EPA/USGS sampling program.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 50.
    Frequency of Response: Once.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 1,000.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $29,735, includes $250 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: Because this is a new ICR, there is no
burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR
Burdens.

    Dated: September 15, 2009.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. E9-22569 Filed 9-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 178 (Friday, September 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 56768]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22373]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity
and Foreign Air Carrier Permits

    Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B
(formerly Subpart Q) during the Week Ending August 31, 2013. The
following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B
(formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers,
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2013-0164.
    Date Filed: August 29, 2013.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: September 19, 2013.
    Description: Application of United Airlines, Inc. requesting a
certificate of public convenience and necessity and an exemption
authorizing it to provide scheduled foreign air transportation of
persons, property, and mail between San Francisco and Chengdu, People's
Republic of China, beginning on June 11, 2014.

Barbara J. Hairston,
Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Federal Register
Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2013-22373 Filed 9-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 155 (Friday, August 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47897-47898]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19613]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67602; File No. SR-ISE-2012-52]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Allow
Competitive Market Makers To Use Their Membership Points To Enter
Multiple Quotes in an Options Class

August 6, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On June 6, 2012, International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``Exchange'' or ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to allow Competitive Market
Makers (``CMMs'') to use their membership points to enter multiple
quotes in an options class. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on June 25, 2012.\3\ The Commission
received no comment letters on the proposed rule change. This order
approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67216 (June 19,
2012), 77 FR 37944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange's structure of CMM appointments allows market makers
flexibility in choosing the options classes to which they are
appointed.\4\ On a quarterly basis, the Exchange assigns point values
to options classes based on their percentage of overall industry volume
(not including exclusively traded index options).\5\ A CMM is allowed
to seek appointments to options classes that total twenty points for
the first CMM trading right owned or leased by a member, and ten points
for each subsequent CMM trading right owned or leased by the same
member.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 65534 (October 12,
2011), 76 FR 64417 (October 18, 2011)(SR-ISE-2011-58); and 65100
(Aug. 11, 2011), 76 FR 51075 (Aug. 17, 2011).
    \5\ See ISE Rule 802(c)(1).
    \6\ CMMs can select the options classes to which they seek
appointment, but the Exchange retains the authority to make such
appointments and to remove appointments from CMMs based on their
performance. See ISE Rule 802(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt .03 of the Supplementary Material to
Rule 802 (Appointment of Market Makers) to allow CMMs to seek
appointment to options classes in which it or an affiliated market
maker holds a CMM or Primary Market Maker appointment. Thus, the
proposed rule would allow CMMs to use their membership points to enter
multiple quotes in an options class, provided that such Member has
sufficient CMM points for each such appointment. The Exchange states
that the quoting requirements for CMMs would be applicable to each set
of quotes that the CMM enters, and CMMs will not be permitted to
aggregate multiple quotes in an options class in order to meet the
quoting requirements under ISE rules.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\7\
Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ which requires, among other things, that
the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal allows CMMs to seek appointment to options classes in
which it or an affiliated market maker holds a CMM or Primary Market
Maker appointment. The Commission believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act. The Commission notes that the proposal should
allow CMMs more flexibility in using their membership points. The
proposal may also promote

competition by increasing the number of competitive quotes in options
classes traded on the Exchange. Moreover, the Commission notes that
according to the ISE, each set of CMM quotes will have independent
quoting obligations, and thus CMMs cannot aggregate multiple quotes in
an options class to meet its quoting requirements under the ISE rules.
The Exchange will run surveillance on each set of quotes for compliance
with the quoting obligations of market makers, ISE Rules, and the
Exchange Act.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Telephone conversation between Katherine Simmons
(``Katherine Simmons''), Deputy General Counsel, ISE, and John C.
Roeser, Assistant Director, and David A. Garcia, Attorney-Advisor,
Division of Trading and Markets (``Division''), Commission, on June
21, 2012; Telephone conversation between Katherine Simmons and Susie
Cho, Special Counsel, Division, Commission, on July 23, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ISE-2012-52), be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-19613 Filed 8-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66649-66656]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23443]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM16-21-000]

Modifications to Commission Requirements for Review of
Transactions Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Market-
Based Rate Applications Under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry.

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

SUMMARY: In this Notice of Inquiry, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) seeks to explore whether, and if so, how, the
Commission should revise its current approach to identifying and
assessing market power in the context of transactions under section 203
of the Federal Power Act (FPA) and applications under section 205 of
the FPA for market-based rate authority for wholesale sales of electric
energy, capacity and ancillary services by public utilities. In
addition, the Commission seeks comment related to its scope of review
under section 203 of the FPA, including revisions to blanket
authorizations.

DATES: Comments are due November 28, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the
following ways:
     Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents
created electronically using word processing software should be filed
in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned
format.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically
may mail or hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment
Procedures Section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Melissa Nimit (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426<PHONE_NUMBER>
Amery Por[eacute] (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426<PHONE_NUMBER>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    1. In this Notice of Inquiry (NOI), the Commission seeks to explore
whether, and if so, how, the Commission should revise its current
approach to identifying and assessing market power in the context of
transactions under section 203 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) \1\ and
applications under section 205 of the FPA \2\ for market-based rate
authority for wholesale sales of electric energy, capacity and
ancillary services by public utilities. In addition, the Commission
seeks comment related to its scope of review under section 203 of the
FPA, including revisions to blanket authorizations. Of particular
interest is whether the Commission should: (1) Establish a simplified
analysis for certain section 203 transactions that are unlikely to
raise market power concerns; (2) add a supply curve analysis to section
203 evaluations; (3) improve the Commission's single pivotal supplier
analysis in reviewing market-based rate applications, and add a similar
pivotal supplier analysis to section 203 evaluations; (4) add a market
share analysis to review of section 203 transactions; (5) modify how
capacity associated with long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs)
should be attributed in section 203 transactions; and (6) require
submission of applicant merger-related documents. In addition, the
Commission seeks comment related to its scope of review under section
203, including whether there are existing blanket authorizations that
may be overly broad or otherwise no longer appropriate, and whether
there are classes of transactions for which further blanket
authorizations or form of expedited review would be appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824b.
    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 824d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

A. Section 203

    2. Section 203(a)(4) of the FPA requires the Commission to approve
a proposed disposition, consolidation, acquisition, or change in
control if it finds that the proposed transaction will be consistent
with the public interest.\3\ The Commission's analysis of whether a
proposed transaction is consistent with the public interest generally
involves consideration of three factors: (1) The effect on competition;
(2) the effect on rates; and (3) the effect on regulation.\4\

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 added the requirement that the Commission
find that the proposed transaction ``will not result in cross-
subsidization of a non-utility associate company or the pledge or
encumbrance of utility assets for the benefit of an associate company,
unless the Commission determines that the cross-subsidization, pledge,
or encumbrance will be consistent with the public interest.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 16 U.S.C. 824b(a)(4).
    \4\ Inquiry Concerning the Commission's Merger Policy Under the
Federal Power Act: Policy Statement, Order No. 592, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,044 (1996) (1996 Merger Policy Statement),
reconsideration denied, Order No. 592-A, 79 FERC ] 61,321 (1997).
See also FPA Section 203 Supplemental Policy Statement, FERC Stats.
& Regs. ] 31,253 (2007), order on clarification and reconsideration,
122 FERC ] 61,157 (2008).
    \5\ Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58, 1289, 119
Stat. 594, 982-83 (2005) (EPAct 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. To analyze whether a proposed transaction will have an adverse
effect on competition, the Commission adopted the 1992 Department of
Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Horizontal Merger
Guidelines (1992 Guidelines) \6\ and its five-step framework,\7\ as
well as an analytic screen (Competitive Analysis Screen), based on the
1992 Guidelines, to identify transactions that would not harm
competition.\8\ The components of the Competitive Analysis Screen are
as follows: (1) Identify the relevant products; (2) for the purpose of
determining the size of the geographic market, identify customers who
may be affected by the merger; (3) for the purpose of determining the
size of the geographic market, identify potential suppliers to each
identified customer (which includes a delivered price test analysis,
consideration of transmission capability, and a check against actual
trade data); and (4) analyze market concentration using the Herfindahl-
Hirschman Index (HHI) thresholds from the 1992 Guidelines.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 1992 Horizontal Merger Guidelines, 57 FR 41552 (Apr. 2,
1992) (1992 Guidelines).
    \7\ 1996 Merger Policy Statement, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,044
at 30,118. The five steps are: (1) Defining the markets; (2)
evaluating whether the extent of concentration of the market raise
concerns about potential adverse competitive effects; (3) assessing
whether entry could counteract such concerns; (4) assessing any
efficiency gains that cannot otherwise be gauged; and (5) assessing
whether either party to the merger would fail without the merger,
causing its assets to exit the market.
    \8\ We note that in 2010, the DOJ and FTC again issued
Horizontal Merger Guidelines (2010 Guidelines), which replaced the
1992 Guidelines and explained several changes to the analysis set
forth in the 1992 Guidelines. Specifically, among other things, the
2010 Guidelines (1) raise the HHI thresholds used to classify a
market as unconcentrated, moderately concentrated, or highly
concentrated; and (2) place less emphasis on market definition and
the use of a prescribed formula for considering the effects of a
merger. The Commission sought comment on whether the Commission
should revise its approach for examining horizontal market power
when analyzing proposed mergers or other transactions under section
203 of the FPA and when analyzing market-based rate filings under
section 205 of the FPA to reflect the 2010 Guidelines. However, the
Commission ultimately decided to retain its existing approaches to
analyzing horizontal market power under section 203 of the FPA and
in its analysis of electric market-based rates under section 205 of
the FPA. Analysis of Horizontal Market Power under the Federal Power
Act, 138 FERC ] 61,109 (2012).
    \9\ Id. at 30,119-20, 30,128-37. Specifically, the 1992
Guidelines address three ranges of market concentration: (1) An
unconcentrated post-merger market--if the post-merger HHI is below
1000, regardless of the change in HHI the merger is unlikely to have
adverse competitive effects; (2) a moderately concentrated post-
merger market--if the post-merger HHI ranges from 1000 to 1800 and
the change in HHI is greater than 100, the merger potentially raises
significant competitive concerns; and (3) a highly concentrated
post-merger market--if the post-merger HHI exceeds 1800 and the
change in the HHI exceeds 50, the merger potentially raises
significant competitive concerns; if the change in HHI exceeds 100,
it is presumed that the merger is likely to create or enhance market
power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. There are two ways that an applicant may demonstrate that the
proposed transaction will not have an adverse effect on competition.
First, the applicant may explain how the transaction does not result in
any increase in the amount of generation capacity owned or controlled
collectively by it and its affiliates in the relevant geographic
markets.\10\ Second, an applicant may explain how the transaction
results in a de minimis change in its market power.\11\ An applicant
that is not able to rely on either of the above is required to submit a
Competitive Analysis Screen, which includes a delivered price test.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 18 CFR 33.3(a)(2).
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ 18 CFR 33.3(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Although the Commission's regulations require applicants to
``[i]dentify and define all wholesale electricity products sold by the
merging entities during the two years prior to the date of the
application, including, but not limited to, non-firm energy, short-term
capacity (or firm energy), long-term capacity (a contractual commitment
of more than one year), and ancillary services (specifically spinning
reserves, non-spinning reserves, and imbalance energy, identified and
defined separately),'' \13\ the delivered price tests analyses filed
with the Commission often focus on only the short-term energy market,
with far less detail and attention given to the other relevant
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 18 CFR 33.3(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. The delivered price test primarily determines the scope, or
size, of the relevant geographic market by identifying potential
suppliers, incorporating transmission availability and prices, and
determining the effects of a transaction on concentration.\14\ The
Commission first adopted the delivered price test in 1996 for section
203 filings as part of its response to ``dramatic and continuing
changes in the electric power industry'' to ``ensure that future
mergers are consistent with the competitive goals of the Energy Policy
Act of 1992 (EPAct).'' \15\ Subsequent case law and policy statements
have provided further guidance but have not materially modified the
delivered price test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 1996 Merger Policy Statement, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,044 at 30,118-19.
    \15\ Id. at 30,110-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Section 205

    7. Section 205 of the FPA requires that all rates charged by public
utilities for the interstate transmission or sale of electric energy be
just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential.\16\
The Commission allows sales of electric energy, capacity, and ancillary
services at market-based rates if the applicant and its affiliates show
that they do not have, or have adequately mitigated, horizontal and
vertical market power.\17\ The Commission adopted two indicative
screens, the wholesale market share screen and the pivotal supplier
screen, for purposes of determining whether a seller may be granted
market-based rate authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 16 U.S.C. 824d(a).
    \17\ Market-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy,
Capacity and Ancillary Services by Public Utilities, Order No. 697,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,252, at PP 1, 4, clarified, 121 FERC ]
61,260 (2007), order on reh'g, Order No. 697-A, FERC Stats. & Regs.
] 31,268, clarified, 124 FERC ] 61,055, order on reh'g, Order No.
697-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,285 (2008), order on reh'g, Order
No. 697-C, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,291 (2009), order on reh'g,
Order No. 697-D, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,305 (2010), aff'd sub nom.
Montana Consumer Counsel v. FERC, 659 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2011),
cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 26 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. The wholesale market share screen measures whether a seller has
a dominant position in the market by analyzing the number of megawatts
(MW) of uncommitted capacity it owns or controls, relative to the
uncommitted capacity of the entire market.\18\ A seller whose share of
the relevant market is less than 20 percent during all seasons passes
the market share screen.\19\ The Commission stated that the use of such
a conservative threshold at the indicative screen stage of a proceeding
is warranted because the indicative screens are meant to identify those
sellers that raise no horizontal market power concerns, as well as
those that

require further examination.\20\ The Commission reasoned that a 20
percent threshold for the wholesale market share screen achieved the
proper balance between identifying sellers that may present market
power concerns, while avoiding the risk of ``false positives'' and
imposing undue regulatory burdens on sellers.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,252 at P 43.
    \19\ Id. PP 43-44, 80, 89.
    \20\ Id. PP 13, 62. Sellers are allowed to use simplifying
assumptions in preparing their indicative screens, such as not
considering competing imports into the relevant market.
Additionally, sellers may be excused from filing screens if, for
instance, they represent that the full output of all of the capacity
they and their affiliates own in the relevant market and all first-
tier markets is fully committed under long-term contracts to
unaffiliated entities.
    \21\ Id. P 91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. The pivotal supplier screen evaluates the seller's potential to
exercise market power based on the seller's uncommitted capacity at the
time of annual peak demand in the relevant market.\22\ Sellers are
required to identify the wholesale load, which is calculated by taking
the difference between the annual peak load and the average of the
daily native load peaks during the month in which the annual peak
occurs. The pivotal supplier analysis deducts the wholesale load from
the total uncommitted supply in the market to calculate the net
uncommitted supply available to compete at wholesale. A seller
satisfies the pivotal supplier screen if wholesale load is less than
uncommitted capacity from the seller's competing suppliers in the
relevant market (wholesale load can be served without any of the
seller's capacity participating in the market).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id. P 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. With respect to sales of energy, capacity, energy imbalance
service, generation imbalance service, and primary frequency response
service, the Commission has established rebuttable presumptions that a
seller lacks market power if the screens above are passed. In addition,
there is a rebuttable presumption that a seller lacks market power in
the provision of operating reserve services if the seller passes the
above screens and makes an additional showing that the scheduling
practices in its region supports the delivery of operating reserve
resources from one balancing authority area to another. For each of
these products, a seller is rebuttably presumed to have market power if
it does not pass one of the screens.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 18 CFR 35.37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Request for Comments

    11. As part of ensuring that the Commission meets its statutory
obligations, the Commission, on occasion, engages in public inquiry to
gauge whether there is a need to add, modify or eliminate certain
requirements. Here, the Commission is interested in obtaining comment
on harmonizing its analysis of transactions under section 203 and its
market-based rate analysis under section 205, streamlining the process
for certain applicants that submit section 203 filings, and obtaining
additional information from applicants that may help better inform the
Commission's analyses. Specifically, the Commission is undertaking a
review of its approach to identifying and assessing market power in the
context of both its review of transactions under section 203 and
applications under section 205 for market-based rate authority and
whether the Commission's analyses of market power under section 203 and
of market-based rate applications are effective at identifying the
potential for the exercise of market power, and if not, what
improvements can be made. The Commission has identified several
potential improvements in how it analyzes section 203 and market-based
rate applications on which it seeks comment, which include harmonizing
the Commission's analysis of transactions under section 203 and its
market-based rate analysis under section 205, considering additional
information in the Commission's market power analysis (such as a supply
curve analysis, pivotal supplier analysis, market share analysis, and
applicant merger-related documents), and potentially clarifying what
would qualify as a de minimus transaction in section 203 filings. The
Commission notes there are a number of areas where the Commission's
section 203 and market-based rate market power analyses differ.\24\
Some of these differences are appropriate, but others may not be. Thus,
in considering whether and how to implement any changes to the market
power analyses in the Commission's review of section 203 transactions
and market-based rate applications, the Commission is interested in
whether increased harmonization of the two analyses is warranted and
feasible. The Commission also seeks comment on whether several
additional types of analyses that have not been required previously
could aid the Commission's review of a proposed transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ For example, the Commission recently addressed the question
of the appropriate analysis for ancillary services in the section
205 market-based rate context, but did not make any corresponding
finding in the section 203 context. Nonetheless, we seek comment
broadly in this NOI. See Third-Party Provision of Ancillary
Services; Accounting and Financial Reporting for Electric Storage
Technologies, Order No. 784, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,349 (2013),
order on clarification, Order No. 784-A, 146 FERC ] 61,114 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. As described below, the Commission seeks comment on whether,
and if so, how, the Commission should revise its approach for examining
horizontal market power in transactions under sections 203 and 205 for
wholesale sales of electric energy, capacity and ancillary services by
public utilities in six specific areas: (1) Whether, and if so, how, to
more precisely define de minimis in the context of the section 203
effect on competition prong and whether to develop a specific test for
determining when a proposed transaction meets that definition such that
a full Competitive Analysis Screen is unnecessary; (2) whether to add a
requirement that applicants provide a supply curve analysis for their
effect on competition demonstration under section 203; (3) whether
there is a need for modifications to the Commission's existing pivotal
supplier analysis in reviewing a market-based rate application and
whether adding a pivotal supplier analysis to an applicant's effect on
competition demonstration under section 203 would help detect market
power issues; (4) whether adding a market share analysis to an
applicant's effect on competition demonstration under section 203 would
help detect market power issues; (5) whether to specify how capacity
covered by a long-term firm PPA should be attributed in the section 203
Competitive Analysis Screen; and (6) whether to adopt a requirement for
section 203 applicants to submit certain merger-related documents. In
addition, the Commission seeks comment on several additional questions
regarding the section 203 analysis beyond market power issues related
to its scope of review, including whether there are existing blanket
authorizations under section 203 that may be overly-broad or otherwise
no longer appropriate, and whether there are classes of transactions
for which further blanket authorizations or form of expedited review
would be appropriate.

A. Simplified De Minimis Analysis

    13. The Commission seeks comment on whether, and if so, how, to
more precisely define de minimis in the context of reviewing a section
203 application. The Commission seeks comment on whether a threshold is
appropriate to determine whether a transaction's impact can be
determined to be de minimis, and if so, how that threshold should be
calculated.

    14. Commission regulations require a Competitive Analysis Screen,
which includes a delivered price test, for section 203 applications
that involve an impact on horizontal competition. A Competitive
Analysis Screen is not needed if the applicant affirmatively
demonstrates that the merging entities do not currently conduct
business in the same geographic market or that the extent of business
transactions among the merging entities in the same geographic market
is de minimis, and no intervenor has alleged that one of the merging
entities is a perceived potential competitor in the same geographic
market as the other.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 18 CFR 33.3(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. The Commission has not defined de minimis nor identified a
threshold that it would consider sufficient to meet this requirement,
but has accepted various representations made by applicants regarding
the issue. Applicants often make representations that their
transaction's effect on horizontal competition is de minimis because
their combined share of post-transaction installed capacity in the
relevant geographic market will be relatively small. In other cases,
applicants have claimed that their transaction's effect on horizontal
competition is de minimis even where an applicant's post-transaction
market share is large but the increase in an applicant's post-
transaction installed capacity is relatively small. Additionally, some
applicants have provided a simplistic calculation to demonstrate the
change in HHI, based on the installed capacity of the parties to the
transaction compared to the market size, referred to as a ``2ab
analysis.'' The ``2ab analysis'' is used to demonstrate that the
overlap is de minimis and thus a delivered price test is not needed.
    16. In light of the various representations made by applicants
regarding whether a proposed transaction's effect on horizontal
competition is de minimis, the Commission seeks comment on whether it
should establish a specific threshold to determine whether a
transaction's impact can be determined to be de minimis and, if so, how
that threshold should be calculated. The following are possible
preliminary steps that a de minimis analysis could include to arrive at
a market share: (1) Identify the default relevant geographic market as
the balancing authority area (BAA) or regional transmission
organization/independent system operator (RTO/ISO) market (or
submarket, if known or appropriate); (2) identify the default product
market as installed capacity, or identify the actual transactions in
the relevant geographic market; and (3) calculate the existing (i.e.,
pre-transaction) market shares of the two transacting parties in the
default relevant geographic market, where the results of that
calculation would be measured against a specific threshold, such that
if the product of the pre-transaction market shares is less than the
threshold, the Commission would not require a full Competitive Analysis
Screen. The Commission seeks comment both on this method as well as on
alternative methods for determining whether a proposed transaction's
effect on horizontal competition is de minimis, and on what an
appropriate specific threshold may be.
    17. Further, as explained above, while some applicants have
contended that their section 203 transaction would only have a de
minimis effect on horizontal competition, applicants have also argued
that they either do not need to provide a market power study or,
alternatively, that the ``2ab analysis'' sufficiently demonstrates the
transaction does not impact horizontal market power. The Commission
seeks comments regarding whether the ``2ab analysis'' may lead to false
results in situations where the proposed transaction is a partial
acquisition of a competitor in the same market. The majority of section
203 applications where the applicants' market presence overlaps are for
partial acquisitions. In instances where both entities will continue to
exist post-merger--albeit with different portfolios of assets--relying
on the algebraically simple ``2ab analysis'' may be inappropriate
because the resulting market shares of the post-transaction competitors
have changed and therefore the squared market shares caused by the
transaction do not produce the same mathematical result as when two
firms merge.
    18. Thus, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should
continue to accept the use of the current ``2ab analysis,'' whether the
``2ab analysis'' is useful for some types of transactions but not
others, or whether the Commission should develop an alternative
abbreviated test to assess whether a transaction would result in an
adverse effect on horizontal competition.

B. Serial De Minimis Mergers

    19. Serial acquisitions have the potential to result in an
applicant with a larger market share incrementally acquiring additional
capacity such that each proposed transaction individually would not
require a full Competitive Analysis Screen, but taken as a whole would
require a more in depth examination. That is, a particular entity could
be a serial acquirer and amass market power from a number of small
incremental transactions. As such, the Commission requests comment on
whether it should incorporate consideration of incremental acquisitions
into its competition analysis as well as into its analysis of whether a
proposed transaction is de minimis. The Commission also seeks comment
on alternative methods for determining how to address incremental
acquisitions.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Below, the Commission asks questions about whether it
should be concerned about incremental acquisitions of generating
capacity that cumulatively over time could lead to market power, but
where no individual transaction raised a competitive concern. This
concern is sometimes referred to as the ``serial merger theory.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Supply Curve Analysis

    20. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the existing
section 203 horizontal market power analysis could be strengthened by
incorporating a supply curve analysis. A supply curve analysis overlays
a demand curve and a supply curve in order to assess whether a merged
company has the ability and incentive to exercise market power by
withholding output from marginal units (i.e., ability units) to raise
prices in order to benefit its baseload units (i.e., incentive units)
and increase its total profits.\27\ The supply curve is constructed
using generation dispatch costs from the market.\28\ The ability to
withhold output depends on the amount of marginal capacity that would
be controlled by the merged firm, and the incentive to withhold output
depends on the amount of inframarginal capacity that could benefit from
higher prices. In contrast, the delivered price test examines aggregate
MW of capacity in the relevant geographic area(s), not the structure of
capacity (i.e., not the number of units in the baseload, intermediate,
and peaking segments by ownership). A supply curve analysis can be used
to calculate the responsiveness of prices to a reduction in supply for
the market price calculated for each season/load, and establish a
threshold that indicates the market may be subject to price movement
through unilateral action. The results of this analysis could

indicate that an entity may have both the ability and incentive to
raise the market price. In addition, a supply curve analysis would
enable the Commission to identify situations that typical HHI analyses
do not capture, including situations where mergers that result in
changes in market concentration below the thresholds that merit further
scrutiny from an HHI perspective may still have the ability and
incentive to raise prices above competitive levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ A supply curve analysis considers the relevant portion of
the market supply curve elasticity for most hours of the year which
provides information regarding applicants' incentive to withhold
output. See, e.g., Commonwealth Edison Co., 91 FERC ] 61,036, at
61,133 n.42 (2000).
    \28\ A properly constructed delivered price test incorporates
the dispatch costs for the available generation in the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. Currently, a supply curve analysis is not explicitly required
by the Commission's regulations although it can be submitted by some
applicants as alternative evidence.\29\ The Commission requests comment
on whether requiring a supply curve analysis for each section 203
application that must submit a Competitive Analysis Screen, in addition
to current components of the Competitive Analysis Screen, would
strengthen the horizontal market power analysis. If so, the Commission
seeks comment as to what information it should require and what metrics
it should evaluate, as part of such supply curve analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ In Order No. 642, the Commission clarified that applicants
with screen failures could address market conditions beyond the
change in HHI ``such as [with an analysis of] demand and supply
elasticity, ease of entry and market rules, as well as technical
conditions, such as the types of generation involved.'' Revised
Filing Requirements Under Part 33 of the Commission's Regulations,
Order No. 642, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,111, at 31,897 (2000), order
on reh'g, Order No. 642-A, 94 FERC ] 61,289 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Pivotal Supplier Analysis

    22. The Commission uses a pivotal supplier analysis as an
indicative screen and for the delivered price test aspect of its
assessment of whether an applicant seeking market-based rate authority
under FPA section 205 has market power. The Commission is interested in
receiving comment on its current use of the pivotal supplier test in
the context of market-based rates, whether adding a pivotal supplier
test in the Commission's FPA section 203 analysis would provide
valuable information to assess whether a party to the transaction is
pivotal prior to the transaction, whether the transaction would render
the party pivotal, and whether the degree to which a party to the
transaction is pivotal is enhanced by the transaction.
    23. Specifically, the Commission requests comment on whether the
current pivotal supplier analysis applied in market-based rate cases
works effectively for purposes of analyzing market power and whether
any improvements may be made to the current analysis. In particular,
the Commission seeks comment on whether the wholesale load proxy is an
effective metric in examining whether a supplier is pivotal in the
study area. The wholesale load proxy used in the current pivotal
supplier analysis uses the study area's annual peak load (i.e., needle
peak) less the proxy for native load obligation (i.e., the average of
the daily peak native load during the month in which the annual peak
load day occurs).
    24. The Commission notes that, in practice, market-based rate
sellers rarely fail the pivotal supplier screen. In many cases, the
results of the pivotal supplier analysis indicate that the study area's
wholesale load can be met solely by remote suppliers, a result that is
unlikely in practice. Moreover, the Commission intended that the
indicative screens would serve as a conservative threshold.\30\
However, with experience this does not seem to be the case. Thus, the
Commission requests comment on whether modifying the existing pivotal
supplier analysis by replacing the current wholesale load proxy with
the study area's annual peak load (i.e., peak load not reduced by the
proxy for native load obligation) would improve the accuracy and
usefulness of the indicative screen and whether such a modification
would result in a more realistic analysis of whether a supplier is
pivotal. The Commission welcomes additional comments on the use of and
modifications to pivotal supplier screens in the context of the
Commissions' review of an applicant's request for market-based rate
authorizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See generally Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,252.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. The Commission also notes that using a more conservative screen
such as the study area's peak load may trigger ``false positives'' that
put additional burdens on sellers to rebut the presumption of market
power and require additional analysis. As a result, the Commission
seeks comment on the magnitude of the additional burden and whether
that burden is outweighed by the benefits of adopting a modified
pivotal supplier screen to provide a more accurate analysis.
    26. As noted above, the Commission is interested in the use of an
appropriately constructed pivotal supplier screen in the context of its
review of applications under FPA section 203. The Commission seeks
comment on whether adding a pivotal supplier analysis to its review of
a section 203 application would enhance the Commission's analysis of
section 203 transactions. Because the Commission's review of a section
203 application focuses on whether a proposed transaction will have an
adverse effect on competition rather than whether there is a dominant
market participant, the Commission also requests comment on whether a
pivotal supplier analysis for a section 203 application should be
different from that used for the Commission's review of a market-based
rate application, and if so, how it should be adjusted. While pivotal
supplier tests are usually applied to analysis of energy-only markets,
the Commission notes that these analyses could be applied to capacity
and ancillary service markets in both the sections 203 and 205
contexts. Adding a pivotal supplier test to the Commission's review of
a section 203 application could make the Commission's analysis more
effective because it would take into account the ability to meet
demand, in addition to supply conditions, in screening for potential
market power. While the available economic capacity measure \31\ in the
delivered price test deducts for native load obligations, market
conditions may be such that the residual supply is many times greater
than any market demand outside of native load obligations. Conversely,
in more concentrated markets, a pivotal supplier analysis provides
important information about the ability to exercise market power
because small changes in supply could lead to large changes in price.
For example, adjustments could include a determination of whether a
transaction would create a pivotal supplier where there was none or
whether an existing pivotal supplier is pivotal in a greater number of
hours. This information may help to answer questions from a slightly
different perspective than pure market concentration analysis as
measured by the delivered price test, such as how a transaction would
result in an increase of market power or whether market demand is low
enough as compared to existing supply such that a large HHI change does
not necessarily create the ability to withhold output and competing
supply can serve the peak load.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 1996 Merger Policy Statement, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,044
at 30,132.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. Finally, the Commission seeks comments on how to interpret the
results if it incorporates a pivotal supplier analysis into its section
203 analysis. In particular, should the Commission factor into its
determination whether a proposed transaction causes an applicant to
become pivotal? If the applicant is

already pivotal, should the Commission require mitigation to alleviate
any enhancement in an applicant's status as a pivotal supplier that
results from the transaction?

E. Market Share Analysis

    28. The Commission's section 203 analysis focuses primarily on
changes in market concentration arising from a proposed
transaction.\32\ The Commission's section 203 analysis is a forward-
looking analysis of the effect of the proposed transaction, and it
focuses largely on concentration of the market and not an examination
of market share changes or accumulation of market share over time. As a
consequence, the section 203 analysis may not include complete
information about an applicant's overall presence in a market.
Therefore, the Commission seeks comment on the potential benefits of
expanding its section 203 analysis to include an examination of market
share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Tucson Elec. Power Co., 149 FERC ] 61,056, at P 30 (2014)
(the Commission will consider evidence of anticompetitive effects
other than increases in HHI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. Unlike the pivotal supplier analysis, discussed above, that
focuses on the size of the applicant relative to the maximum capacity
needed to serve load, a market share analysis focuses on the size of
the applicant relative to all other suppliers in the market.\33\ An
overall market share screen in the section 203 context would enable the
Commission to determine if a seller has obtained a significant share in
a specific market either through a series of transactions or a
combination of transactions and construction, allowing for the
accumulation of market power without one particular transaction
triggering concerns. The Commission seeks comment on whether there is a
specific market share above which market power concerns would arise in
a section 203 review. For example, in evaluating applications for
market-based rate authority, the Commission applies a 20 percent market
share threshold in determining whether an application raises market
power concerns.\34\ The Commission seeks comment on whether a market
share threshold is appropriate in its review of section 203
applications and, if so, what that threshold should be. The Commission
seeks further comment on whether market share analyses should be
applied to capacity and ancillary service markets, in addition to
energy markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The Commission's existing delivered price test analysis
requirement in the implementing regulations of the FPA section 203
program incorporate individual market shares; therefore, we believe
market share information is readily available for most applicants to
be able to complete a market share analysis.
    \34\ See Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,252 at PP 89-
93.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the market share
threshold, or an alternative analysis, would adequately address
concerns that an entity has accumulated a dominant position in a market
over time through a series of acquisitions, i.e., the serial merger
theory. Such an alternative analysis could consider changes in market
concentration resulting from an entity's past mergers and acquisitions
over a certain time period. For example, the Commission could establish
a threshold where, if an entity proposes to acquire another entity (or
its generation assets) and that acquiring entity has made other
acquisitions that have cumulatively increased its market share by 10
percent or more over the previous five years, the newest acquisition
would not be considered de minimis and would require a complete
horizontal competitive analysis.

F. Capacity Associated With Power Purchase Agreements

    31. The Commission is interested in whether it should alter the way
in which it accounts for capacity associated with long-term firm PPAs
\35\ in the Commission's review of a section 203 application.
Currently, if a purchasing utility entered into a long-term firm PPA
for the output of a generating facility before filing a section 203
application to acquire that same facility, the Commission has generally
considered the generation capacity of that facility to be attributed to
the purchasing utility's pre-acquisition market share. Because the
capacity of the facility is already attributed to the purchaser, the
acquisition of the facility will not increase the purchaser's market
share under the Commission's screens. Therefore, the transaction would
be considered to have no adverse effect on competition.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The Commission has defined a long-term PPA to be one that
has a contract term of one year or longer. Refinements to Policies
and Procedures for Market-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of
Electric Energy, Capacity and Ancillary Services by Public
Utilities, Order No. 816, 80 FR 67056 (Oct. 30, 2015), FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,374, at P 143 (2015), order on reh'g and clarification,
Order No. 816-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,382 (2016).
    \36\ The Commission recently clarified that market-based rate
applications must attribute a long-term firm PPA to the purchaser
when the PPA has an associated long-term transmission reservation.
Order No. 816, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,374 at P 138.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. While the current approach of attributing the capacity of the
facility to the purchaser is appropriate in the context of the market-
based rate market power analysis, in the section 203 context the change
in market concentration may extend beyond the terms of the PPA. For
example, if a transaction conveys ownership over a generation facility
where a PPA is expiring in two years, the transaction may prevent
competitive supply from reentering the market. In the Commission's
review of a section 203 application, the impact of a proposed
transaction on horizontal competition is assessed when the section 203
filing is made seeking authorization of the acquisition. However, a
market power analysis is not conducted upon the expiration of the
contract. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should use
alternative methodologies in its review of a section 203 application to
account for the capacity associated with long-term firm PPAs to
increase the accuracy of its market power analyses with respect to such
PPAs. For example, where a section 203 applicant seeks approval to
purchase a generating facility from which it already purchases the
output under a long-term firm PPA, that applicant could be asked to
provide a delivered price test analysis showing the HHI impacts under
two different scenarios: (1) With the capacity attributed solely to the
current facility owner; and (2) with the capacity attributed solely to
the applicant proposing to acquire the facility. Alternatively, the
Commission could attribute a facility's capacity to the facility owner
only under certain circumstances, including: (1) If the term of the PPA
began one year or less prior to the filing of the section 203
application; (2) if the PPA expires prior to the end of the study
period used in the applicant's delivered price test analysis; \37\ or
(3) if the facility is external to the purchaser's BAA but does not
have firm transmission service to the purchaser's BAA. Applicants with
long-term firm PPAs could also be required to justify in a detailed
manner why the capacity in question should be attributed to the
facility purchaser. The Commission seeks comments on these proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Merger analysis should be as forward looking as
practicable, typically a delivered price test will study projected
market conditions on a forward-looking basis after the proposed
transaction is expected to close. See Order No. 642, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,111 at 31,887.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Applicant Merger-Related Documents

    33. As part of the Commission's assessment regarding whether we
should revise aspects of our review of section 203 applications, the
Commission requests comment on whether, for transactions that require a
full Competitive Analysis Screen, it

should require the submission of additional documentation that may
assist the Commission's review of certain proposed transactions.
Specifically, the Commission understands that applicants submit to DOJ
and/or FTC consultant reports and other internal reports that assess
the competitive effects of the merger. The Commission seeks comment
regarding whether the Commission should require applicants to submit as
part of their section 203 application these consultant reports and
internal reports (merger-related documents) required by DOJ and/or FTC.
The Commission would continue to rely on the Competitive Analysis
Screen to make its determination, but we believe these merger-related
documents could be useful in the Commission's understanding of an
applicant's Competitive Analysis Screen by providing additional
information regarding, for example, the relevant geographic market
definition or anticipated unit retirements.
    34. We recognize that imposing a new requirement regarding the
submission of such merger-related documents could impose a burden on
applicants or raise other concerns. However, we do not anticipate that
the burden of requiring submission of these merger-related documents
would be significant because applicants already are required to submit
such documents to other federal governmental agencies reviewing the
competitive effects of the proposed transaction. In addition, we
recognize that there could be concerns regarding the commercially
sensitive nature of these merger-related documents, and how such
documents would be protected once submitted to the Commission. The
Commission seeks comments on this proposal, including the likely costs
and benefits of including the merger-related documents in its
processing of section 203 applications and the confidentiality concerns
that this proposal may raise.

H. Blanket Authorizations

    35. EPAct 2005 \38\ revised the scope of transactions subject to
the Commission's review under section 203. Among other things, the
amended section 203 codified the Commission's review authority to
include authority over certain holding company mergers and
acquisitions,\39\ as well as certain public utility acquisitions of
generating facilities.\40\ In Order No. 669,\41\ the Commission
promulgated regulations adopting certain modifications to 18 CFR part
33 and section 2.26 to implement the amended section 203 and, in so
doing, granted blanket authorizations for certain types of
transactions, including foreign utility acquisitions by holding
companies, intra-holding company system financing and cash management
arrangements, certain internal corporate reorganizations, and certain
investments in transmitting utilities and electric utility companies.
Under these blanket authorizations, even though the transaction may be
jurisdictional under section 203, no application or prior Commission
authorization is needed prior to completing the transaction although
some have reporting requirements and other conditions.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ EPAct 2005, Public Law 109-58, 1289, 119 Stat. 594, 982-83.
    \39\ 16 U.S.C. 824b(a)(2).
    \40\ 16 U.S.C. 824b(a)(1)(D).
    \41\ Transactions Subject to FPA Section 203, Order No. 669,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,200 (2005), order on reh'g, Order No. 669-
A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,214, order on reh'g, Order No. 669-B,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,225 (2006).
    \42\ See 18 CFR 33.1(c)(1)(i)-(ii), (c)(2), (c)(5), (c)(10),
(c)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. In Order No. 708,\43\ the Commission established five
additional blanket authorizations. Four of these blanket authorizations
apply to transactions in which a public utility seeks to transfer its
outstanding voting securities to another holding company that has
already been granted blanket authorization under various provisions of
section 33.1(c).\44\ The fifth blanket authorization applies to the
acquisition or disposition of a jurisdictional contract where: (1)
Neither the acquirer nor transferor has captive customers or owns or
provides transmission service over jurisdictional transmission
facilities; (2) the contract does not convey control over the operation
of a generation or transmission facility; (3) the parties to the
transaction are neither affiliates nor associate companies; and (4) the
acquirer is a public utility.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Blanket Authorization Under FPA Section 203, Order No. 708,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,265, order on reh'g, Order No. 708-A, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,273 (2008), order on reh'g, Order No. 708-B,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,290 (2009).
    \44\ 18 CFR 33.1(c)(12)-(15).
    \45\ 18 CFR 33.1(c)(16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. As discussed above, since these blanket authorizations were
granted, industry has undergone substantial change including continued
market development and expansion of RTOs/ISOs, consolidation among
utilities, such that the conditions that gave rise to the blanket
authorizations currently in effect may no longer be appropriate. For
example, it may no longer be appropriate to grant blanket
authorizations to holding companies that only hold exempt wholesale
generators, as is granted in 18 CFR 33.1(c)(8), as exempt wholesale
generators now make up a significant portion of supply and any
transaction involving these generators could affect wholesale rates by
impacting competition. In light of these changes and others, the
Commission seeks comment on whether there are existing blanket
authorizations under section 203 that are no longer appropriate.
    38. Industry change has also led to an evolution in the types of
transactions that are submitted to the Commission for section 203
approval but which may not give rise to the competitive concerns
considered when analyzing whether a transaction is consistent with the
public interest. Such transactions include the disposition of
securities with limited rights to governance of the public utility, as
well as transfers of pieces of the transmission system that are
consolidated into the existing transmission network of a public
utility. Many applications submitted under section 203 present no
concerns and are found to be consistent with the public interest and
are approved by the Commission without condition. The Commission seeks
comment on whether there are classes of transactions that share
characteristics for which further blanket authorizations would be
appropriate, and whether specific reporting requirements would also be
appropriate in certain cases.

I. Transactions Subject to Only Section 203(a)(1)(B)

    39. As discussed above, in EPAct 2005, Congress revised the scope
of the Commission's jurisdiction under section 203. For certain types
of transactions, Congress established a ``minimum threshold'' of $10
million for requiring Commission approval.\46\ In contrast, under
section 203(a)(1)(B) a public utility requires Commission authorization
before it ``merge[s] or consolidate[s], directly or indirectly'' its
jurisdictional facilities with those of another person with no minimum
dollar threshold. Based on the plain language of the statute, the
Commission has not established a minimum threshold for transactions
under section 203(a)(1)(B).\47\ Accordingly, there are

scenarios in which transfers of low-value equipment require Commission
review. These transactions account for a large percentage of the
section 203 filings submitted to the Commission,\48\ and many of them
do not raise concerns under the Commission's public interest analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 16 U.S.C. 824b(a)(1)(A), (C), (D).
    \47\ In Order No. 669, the Commission stated:
    While Congress included a $10 million threshold for amended
subsections 203(a)(1)(A), (C), (D), and 203(a)(2) (dispositions of
jurisdictional facilities; acquisitions of securities of public
utilities; purchase of existing generation facilities; holding
company acquisitions), Congress clearly did not adopt a monetary
threshold for mergers and consolidations in amended subsection
203(a)(1)(B).
    Order No. 669, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,200 at P 32.
    \48\ For example, in Fiscal Year 2015, the Commission received
216 applications for approval under section 203. Approximately 20
percent of those applications were filed only under section
203(a)(1)(B) and fell below the $10 million threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40. As noted above, the Commission has granted blanket
authorizations for certain jurisdictional transactions. The Commission
believes there may be certain other categories of transactions for
which abbreviated filing requirements may be appropriate. Thus, the
Commission seeks comment on whether there are categories of proposed
transactions that are jurisdictional only under section 203(a)(1)(B)
that, by their nature, do not require the same level of scrutiny by the
Commission. One such category of proposed transactions could include
those below a minimum dollar threshold. Such a threshold would be
distinct from the threshold for the Commission to review a section 203
transaction, and would establish a benchmark for identifying
transactions under section 203(a)(1)(B) that are jurisdictional but
that would not require the same level of scrutiny by the Commission.
    41. If such categories can be identified, the Commission seeks
comment on ideas for facilitating expeditious processing of those
transactions, consistent with the Commission's obligations under the
FPA. The Commission offers, as an example, the adoption of abbreviated
filing requirements for those transactions under section 203(a)(1)(B)
that fall within certain categories. These abbreviated filing
requirements could include: (a) A request for partial waiver that sets
forth the requirements for which waiver is sought; and (b) a
certification by the applicants that the proposed transaction does not
raise concerns under the Commission's analysis of whether a transaction
is consistent with the public interest (i.e., the transaction will have
no adverse effect on competition, rates, or regulation, and will not
result in cross-subsidization). The Commission seeks comment on
alternative methods as well.

III. Comment Procedures

    42. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and issues proposed in this notice, including any related
matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss.
Comments are due November 28, 2016. Comments must refer to Docket No.
RM16-21-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization
they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments.
    43. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
    44. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    45. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

IV. Document Availability

    46. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington DC 20426.
    47. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
    48. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    By direction of the Commission.

    Issued: September 22, 2016
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-23443 Filed 9-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P