[Federal Register: February 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 27)]
[Notices]
[Page 6903-6904]
[DOCID:fr11fe09-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0664]

Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of
Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory
Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on March 18, 2009, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m.

    Location: Marriott Conference Centers, UMUC Inn and Conference
Center, 3501 University Blvd. East, Adelphi, MD. The hotel telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Contact Person: Elaine Ferguson, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research (HFD-21), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane,
(for express delivery, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1093), Rockville, MD
20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information
Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area), code
3014512533. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information
on this meeting. A notice in the Federal Register about last minute
modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee
meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely
notice. Therefore, you should always check the agency's Web site and
call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn
about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: The committee will discuss new drug application (NDA) 22-
425, dronedarone 400 milligrams oral tablets, Sanofi Aventis, for the
proposed indication in patients with a history of, or current atrial
fibrillation or atrial flutter, for the reduction of the risk of
cardiovascular hospitalization or death. FDA intends to make background
material available to the public no later than 2 business days before
the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its
Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made
publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting,
and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the
meeting. Background material is available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/
dockets/ac/acmenu.htm, click on the year 2008 and scroll down to the
appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
March 4, 2009. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
approximately between 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. Those desiring to make formal
oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief
statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish
to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an
indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation
on or before February 24, 2009. Time allotted for each presentation may
be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater
than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public
hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers
for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will
notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by February
25, 2009.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Elaine Ferguson at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/oc/advisory/
default.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee
meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: February 4, 2009.
Randall W. Lutter,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-2862 Filed 2-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 172 (Friday, September 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53513-53514]
[FR Doc No: 2015-22064]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9927-86-OEI]

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision
Approval, State of Hawaii

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of Hawaii's
request to revise/modify certain of its EPA-authorized programs to
allow electronic reporting.

DATES: EPA's approval is effective September 4, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop
2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-
1175<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR.
CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory
alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure
that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper
counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local
government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving,
electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to
EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA
approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on
consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the
state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic
reporting. Additionally, Sec.  3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3,
subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and
modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option
of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures
available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An
application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the
state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to
implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered
by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems
that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.
    On July 23, 2015, the Hawaii Department of Health (HI DOH)
submitted an application titled ``State & Local Emissions Inventory''
for revisions/modifications to its EPA-approved programs under title 40
CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed HI DOH's request to
revise/modify its EPA-authorized programs and, based on this review,
EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of
authorized program revisions/modifications set out in 40 CFR part 3,
subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's
decision to approve Hawaii's request to revise/modify its following
EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR
parts 51, and 70 is being published in the Federal Register:

    Part 52--Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; and
    Part 70--State Operating Permit Programs.
    HI DOH was notified of EPA's determination to approve its
application with respect to the authorized programs listed above.

Matthew Leopard,
Director, Office of Information Collection.
[FR Doc. 2015-22064 Filed 9-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66088-66091]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20809]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98451; File No. SR-Phlx-2023-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Order Granting
Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To
Make Permanent Certain P.M.-Settled Pilots

September 20, 2023.

I. Introduction

    On February 23, 2023, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
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
make permanent the pilot program to permit the listing and trading of
options based on 1/100 the value of the Nasdaq-100 Index (``Nasdaq-
100'') and the Exchange's nonstandard expirations pilot program
(collectively, the ``Programs''). The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on March 2, 2023.\3\ On
April 7, 2023, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the
Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the
proposed rule change, disapprove the

proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove the proposed rule change.\5\ On May 11, 2023, the Exchange
filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change (``Amendment No.
1'').\6\ On May 31, 2023, the Commission instituted proceedings to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change and
published Amendment No. 1 for notice and comment.\7\ On August 28,
2023, the Commission designated a longer period for Commission action
on proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.\8\ The Commission
did not receive any comment letters and is approving the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96980 (February 24,
2023), 88 FR 13161 (``Notice'').
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97260, 88 FR 22498
(April 13, 2023). The Commission designated May 31, 2023, as the
date by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove,
the proposed rule change.
    \6\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange inserts two footnotes and
amends a sentence in order to further clarify parts of the empirical
analysis performed by the Exchange. Amendment No. 1 is available at:
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-phlx-2023-07/srphlx202307.htm.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97624, 88 FR 37107
(June 6, 2023).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98232, 88 FR 60525
(September 1, 2023). The Commission designated October 28, 2023, as
the date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    When cash-settled \9\ index options were first introduced in the
1980s, they generally utilized closing-price settlement procedures
(i.e., p.m. settlement).\10\ The Commission became concerned with the
impact of p.m.-settled, cash-settled index options on the underlying
cash equities markets, and in particular, added market volatility and
sharp price movements near the close on expiration days.\11\ These
concerns were heightened during the ``triple-witching'' hour on the
third Friday of March, June, September, and December when index
options, index futures, and options on index futures expired
concurrently.\12\ Academic research at the time provided at least some
evidence suggesting that futures and options expirations contributed to
excess volatility and reversals around the close on those days.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The seller of a ``cash-settled'' index option pays out the
cash value of the applicable index on expiration or exercise. A
``physical delivery'' option, like equity and ETF options, involves
the transfer of the underlying asset rather than cash. See
Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options, available at:
https://www.theocc.com/Company-Information/Documents-and-Archives/Options-Disclosure-Document.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65256 (September 2,
2011), 76 FR 55969, at 55972 (September 9, 2011) (SR-C2-2011-008)
(Order approving proposed rule change to establish a pilot program
to list and trade SPXPM options on the C2 Options Exchange,
Incorporated) (``C2 SPXPM Approval'').
    \11\ See id.
    \12\ See id.
    \13\ See Securities and Exchange Commission, Division of
Economic Risk and Analysis, Memorandum dated February 2, 2021 on
Cornerstone Analysis of PM Cash-Settled Index Option Pilots
(September 16, 2020) (``Pilot Memo'') at 5, available at: https://www.sec.gov/files/Analysis_of_PM_Cash_Settled_Index_Option_Pilots.pdf (citing, among
other papers, Stoll, Hans R., and Robert E. Whaley, ``Expiration day
effects of index options and futures,'' Monograph Series in Finance
and Economics, no. 3 (1986)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the concerns with p.m. settlement and to help
ameliorate the price effects associated with expirations of p.m.-
settled, cash-settled index products, in 1987, the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission approved a proposed rule change by the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange (``CME'') to provide for a.m. settlement \14\ for
index futures, including futures on the S&P 500 Index.\15\ The
Commission subsequently approved a proposed rule change by Cboe Options
Exchange (``Cboe Options'') to list and trade a.m.-settled options on
the S&P 500 Index.\16\ In 1992, the Commission approved Cboe Options'
proposal to transition all of its European-style cash-settled options
on the S&P 500 Index to a.m. settlement.\17\ However, in 1993, the
Commission approved a proposed rule change allowing Cboe Options to
list p.m.-settled options on certain broad-based indexes, including the
S&P 500, expiring at the end of each calendar quarter (since approved
as permanent).\18\ Starting in 2006, the Commission approved a number
of proposals, on a pilot basis, permitting Cboe Options to introduce
other index options with p.m.-settlement. These include p.m.-settled
index options expiring weekly (other than the third Friday) and at the
end of each month,\19\ as well as p.m.-settled S&P 500 Index options
and Mini-S&P 500 Index options expiring on the third Friday of the
month.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The exercise settlement value for an a.m.-settled index
option is determined by reference to the reported level of the index
as derived from the opening prices of the component securities on
the business day before expiration.
    \15\ See Proposed Amendments Relating to the Standard and Poor's
500, the Standard and Poor's 100 and the Standard Poor's OTC Stock
Price Index Futures Contract, 51 FR 47053 (December 30, 1986)
(notice of proposed rule change from the CME). See also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 24367 (April 17, 1987), 52 FR 13890 (April
27, 1987) (SR-CBOE-87-11) (noting that the CME moved the S&P 500
futures contract's settlement value to opening prices on the
delivery date).
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 24367 (April 17,
1987), 52 FR 13890 (April 27, 1987) (SR-CBOE-87-11).
    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 30944 (July 21,
1992), 57 FR 33376 (July 28, 1992) (SR-CBOE-92-09). The Commission
also approved proposals by other options markets to transfer most of
their cash-settled index products to a.m. settlement. See, e.g.,
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 25804 (June 15, 1988), 53 FR
23475 (June 22, 1988) (SR-NYSE-87-11 and 88-04).
    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 31800 (February 1,
1993), 58 FR 7274 (February 5, 1993) (SR-CBOE-92-13). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54123 (July 11, 2006), 71 FR
40558 (July 17, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2006-65); and 60164 (June 23, 2009),
74 FR 31333 (June 30, 2009) (SR-CBOE-2009-029).
    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62911 (September
14, 2010), 75 FR 57539 (September 21, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2009-075);
76529 (November 30, 2015), 80 FR 75695 (December 3, 2015) (SR-CBOE-
2015-106); and 78531 (August 10, 2016), 81 FR 54643 (August 16,
2016) (SR-CBOE-2016-046).
    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 68888 (February 8,
2013), 78 FR 10668 (February 14, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2012-120); and 70087
(July 31, 2013), 78 FR 47809 (August 6, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-055).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently, other exchanges, including Phlx, sought to permit the
listing and trading of p.m.-settled options on certain broad-based
indices. In December 2017, the Commission approved Phlx's nonstandard
expirations pilot program on a pilot basis (``Nonstandard Pilot'').\21\
In April 2021, the Commission approved Phlx's pilot to permit the
listing and trading of options based on 1/100 the value of the Nasdaq-
100 (``XND'' or ``XND options'') on a pilot basis (``XND Pilot'').\22\
In the course of approving both Programs, the Commission reiterated its
concern about the potential impact on the market at expiration for the
underlying component stocks for a p.m.-settled, cash-settled index
option.\23\ However, the Commission also recognized the potential
impact was unclear.\24\ The

Commission approved the Programs on a pilot basis to allow the Exchange
and the Commission to monitor for and assess any potential for adverse
market effects.\25\ In order to facilitate this assessment, the
Exchange committed to provide the Commission with data and analysis for
each pilot \26\ and to make such data publicly available.\27\ In
addition to the Exchange's data and analysis, Cornerstone Research also
conducted an analysis at the direction of Staff from the Commission's
Division of Economic and Risk Analysis. The analysis utilizes the level
of expiring p.m.-settled index options open interest and the measures
of volatility and price reversals for the corresponding index futures,
the underlying cash index, and index component securities in the
minutes leading up to and immediately following the market close to
study the effects of pilot programs allowing p.m.-settled index
options. The Pilot Memo is discussed in more detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82341 (December 15,
2017), 82 FR 60651 (December 21, 2017) (SR-Phlx-2017-79)
(``Nonstandard Approval Order''). The Commission subsequently
approved proposed rule changes to amend the Nonstandard Pilot to
allow the Exchange to also list p.m.-settled options with Tuesday
and Thursday expirations on the Nasdaq-100 and the Nasdaq-100 Micro
Index. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 95391 (July 29,
2022), 87 FR 47797 (August 4, 2022) (SR-Phlx-2022-22); and 96411
(November 30, 2022), 87 FR 74688 (December 6, 2022) (SR-Phlx-2022-
38).
    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91524 (April 9,
2021), 86 FR 19909 (April 15, 2021) (SR-Phlx-2021-07) (``XND
Approval Order'').
    \23\ See Nonstandard Approval Order, 82 FR at 60653 and XND
Approval Order 86 FR at 19911. See also Securities Exchange Act
Release Nos. 64599 (June 3, 2011), 76 FR 33798, 33801-02 (June 9,
2011) (order instituting proceedings to determine whether to approve
or disapprove a proposed rule change to allow the listing and
trading of SPXPM options); C2 SPXPM Approval, 76 FR at 55972-76; and
68888 (February 8, 2013), 78 FR 10668, 10669 (February 14, 2013)
(order approving the listing and trading of SPXPM on Cboe Options).
    \24\ See XND Approval Order, 86 FR at 19909.
    \25\ See XND Approval Order, 86 FR at 19911 and Nonstandard
Approval Order, 82 FR at 60653.
    \26\ See XND Approval Order, 86 FR at 19910-19911 and
Nonstandard Approval Order, 82 FR at 60652-60653.
    \27\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 84835
(December 17, 2018), 83 FR 65773, at 65773-74 (December 21, 2018)
(SR-Phlx-2018-80) (stating the Exchange will make public on its
website any data and analysis it submits to the Commission under the
Nonstandard Pilot); and 93447 (October 28, 2021) 86 FR 60719, at
60720 (November 3, 2021) (SR-Phlx-2021-66) (stating the Exchange
makes public on its website data and analysis previously submitted
to the Commission under the XND Pilot and committing to make public
any data or analyses submitted in the future).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Description of the Proposal, as Modified by Amendment No. 1

    The Exchange proposes to make permanent the Nonstandard Pilot and
the XND pilot. The Nonstandard Pilot permits the Exchange to open p.m.-
settled options on broad-based indexes that expire (1) on the last day
of the trading month (``EOM expirations'') and (2) on any Monday,
Wednesday, or Friday (other than the third Friday-of-the-month or days
that coincide with an EOM expiration) and, with respect to options on
the Nasdaq-100 (``NDX'' or ``NDX options'') and XND options, any
Tuesday or Thursday (other than days that coincide with the third
Friday-of-the-month or an EOM expiration). The XND Pilot permits the
listing of XND options, which are European-style and cash-settled, and
have a contract multiplier of 100. The contract specifications for XND
options mirror those of the NDX options contract listed on the
Exchange, except that XND options are based on 1/100 of the value of
the Nasdaq-100, and are p.m.-settled pursuant to Options 4A, Section
12(a)(5) of the Phlx Rules.
    The Nonstandard Pilot was extended on multiple occasions, including
recently, and is set to expire on November 6, 2023.\28\ Similarly, the
XND Pilot was extended on multiple occasions and is set to expire on
November 6, 2023.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97385 (April 26,
2023), 88 FR 27549, at 27549-27550 (May 2, 2023) (SR-Phlx-2023-13)
(``Programs Extension'').
    \29\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states it has provided pilot data to the Commission
with respect to the Programs, pursuant to the Nonstandard Approval
Order and the XND Approval order.\30\ The Exchange also states it
provides ongoing monthly data in addition to the data provided in the
Notice.\31\ Now, the Exchange proposes to make the Programs permanent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Notice, 88 FR at 13175. The Exchange has made public on
its website data and analyses previously submitted to the Commission
under the Programs. See http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=currentregulatory.
    \31\ See Programs Extension, 88 FR at 27549-27550.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\32\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent
with section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\33\ which requires, among other
things, that the Exchange's rules 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. In its proposal
to make the Programs permanent, the Exchange addressed market capacity
around the market close and provided an empirical assessment of the
impact of its p.m.-settled index options on options market quality.
Each of these elements is discussed in greater detail below. As stated
above, no comments were received on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 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).
    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market Impact Considerations

    The Exchange's analysis presents data that the introduction of
p.m.-settlement is correlated with an increase in options trading tied
to the Nasdaq-100.\34\ The data shows an increase in trading volume and
notional open interest for NDX and XND options during the sample
period.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Notice, 88 FR at 13167.
    \35\ See id. at 13163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to reviewing the data and analysis provided by the
Exchange, the Commission reviewed the analysis in the Pilot Memo, which
evaluates whether higher levels of expiring open interest in p.m.-
settled index options results in increased volatility and price
reversals around the close. The Pilot Memo shows that the market share
for p.m.-settled options, in particular options on S&P 500 Index, has
grown substantially since 2007.\36\ The Pilot Memo examines whether and
to what extent expiring open interest in p.m.-settled index options is
empirically related with the tendency of the corresponding index
futures, the underlying index, or index components to experience
increased transitory volatility and price reversals around the time of
market close on expiration dates. The Pilot Memo concludes that,
although expiring p.m.-settled index option open interest may have a
statistically significant relationship with volatility and price
reversals of the underlying index, index futures, and index component
securities around the market close, the magnitude of the effect is
economically very small.\37\ For example, the largest settlement event
that occurred during the time period studied in the Pilot Memo (a
settlement of $100.4 billion of notional on December 29, 2017) had an
estimated impact on the futures price of only approximately 0.02% (a
predicted impact of $0.54 relative to a closing futures price of
$2,677).\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Pilot Memo at 2. The Pilot Memo also examined options
on the Russell 2000 Index and the Nasdaq-100. However, during the
time period covered by the study (2007-2018), the markets for both
a.m.- and p.m.-settled options on these indexes were very small
compared to the size of that for S&P 500 Index options. In addition,
because p.m.-settled NDX options were only introduced in 2018, the
number of observations for NDX options was much smaller than for
other indexes. See id. at 4.
    \37\ See id. at 3.
    \38\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to analyze the effect of a very large increase in
settlement volume for Nasdaq-100 p.m.-settled options contracts, the
Exchange uses the estimated regression coefficients in the Pilot Memo
to estimate the change in the volatility of index futures prices when
settlement volume increased from

the 25th percentile to the 75th percentile.\39\ For both the S&P 500
Index and the Nasdaq-100, the Exchange estimates the relative impact
would be small for both indexes.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Notice, 88 FR at 13173-13174.
    \40\ See id. at 13174.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also provides additional analysis on market capacity
around the market close.\41\ Specifically, the Exchange presents data
that the closing auction volume on the equity market have become much
larger than the opening auction, which may indicate that there is
sufficient liquidity in closing auctions to absorb liquidity demand
associated with p.m.-settlement of NDX and XND options.\42\ In
addition, the Exchange states that the liquidity available at or around
the close would be able to mitigate any excess volatility created by
the options settlement at the market close.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See id.
    \42\ See id.
    \43\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange represents that it has sufficient systems
capacity to handle p.m.-settled options on broad-based indexes with
nonstandard expirations dates and has not encountered any issues or
adverse market effects as a result of listing them.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Notice, 88 FR at 13176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market Quality Considerations

    The Exchange also completed an analysis intended to evaluate
whether the Programs impacted the quality of the NDX options market.
Specifically, the Exchange presents findings on three market
characteristics: trading volume, open interest, and spreads. The
Exchange concludes that there is no evidence that NDX and XND options
contracts, which are p.m.-settled, would result in reduced trading
activity or degradation in market quality of the a.m.-settled index
options.\45\ The Exchange notes within its analysis that it seems
unlikely that the introduction of XND option contracts had a
significant impact on the market quality of the full-sized NDX option
contracts.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See id.
    \46\ The Exchange states that given that the size of the market
(measured in volume) for XND options volume is small compared to
that of other p.m.-settled NDX options, the Exchange believes the
introduction of XND option contracts is unlikely to adversely impact
the market quality of a.m.-settled NDX options. See Amendment No. 1,
supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange observed a consistent decrease in relative
quoted spread from 2017 to 2022 for NDX options.\47\ When the Exchange
compared the spread trend of NDX monthly contracts to that of QQQ
monthly contracts, the Exchange states that the results suggest that
there is gradual decrease in both the NDX monthly contracts spread and
the QQQ contracts spread during the sample period.\48\ The Exchange
uses duration weighted relative quoted spread as a measure of the cost
of trading and examines whether the introduction of p.m.-settled index
options results in any deterioration of spreads for am-settled NDX
options.\49\ The Exchange finds a consistent decrease in the relative
quoted spread is prevalent from 2017 to 2022 and no obvious change in
the trend following the introduction of p.m.-settled index options.\50\
The analysis also considered whether the move from a.m. settlement to
p.m. settlement for Friday weekly expirations (other than third-Friday-
of-the-month) led to changes in spreads for those contracts.\51\ The
sample timeframe was from July 2017 through August 2018.\52\ The
relative quoted spread decreased during first part of 2018 and increase
in May and June 2018; however, it remained comparable to the 2017
average.\53\ Overall, the Exchange observes no evidence of
deterioration of spreads associated with the introduction of p.m.-
settled NDX options.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See Notice, 88 FR at 13171.
    \48\ See id. at 13171-13172, 13175-13176.
    \49\ See id. at 13169-13170.
    \50\ See id.
    \51\ See id.
    \52\ See id. at 13170-13173. The Exchange used a regression
analysis to test whether the spread of NDX contracts changed after
the introduction of p.m.-settled index options. See Notice, 88 FR at
13171. The regression model is meant to study the effect of the
introduction of Friday p.m.-settled NDX options expirations (on all
but the third Friday of the month) that occurred in January 2018.
See Amendment No. 1, supra note 6.
    \53\ See Notice, 88 FR at 13173.
    \54\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the evidence contained in the
Exchange's filing, the Exchange's pilot data and reports, and the Pilot
Memo analysis demonstrate that the Programs have benefitted investors
and other market participants by providing more flexible trading and
hedging opportunities while also having no disruptive impact on the
market. The market for p.m.-settled options has grown in size over the
course of the Programs, and analysis of the pilot data did not identify
any significant economic impact on the underlying component securities
surrounding the close as a result of expiring p.m.-settled options nor
did it indicate a deterioration in market quality (as measured by
relative quoted spreads) for an existing product when a new p.m.-
settled expiration was introduced. Further, significant changes in
closing procedures in the decades since index options moved to a.m.
settlement may also serve to mitigate the potential impact of p.m.-
settled index options on the underlying cash markets.
    Accordingly, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the
Act \55\ and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\56\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2023-07), as modified
by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-20809 Filed 9-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21762-21763]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8692]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-1432-000]

ReEnergy Livermore Falls LLC; Supplemental Notice That Revised
Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
ReEnergy Livermore Falls LLC's tariff revision filing, noting that such
filing includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part
34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 25, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the

Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 5, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-8692 Filed 4-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


1 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 2, 2004 SUBJECT: Lubricity of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel FROM: Melanie Taylor and Brad Nelson, Alpha Gamma Technologies, Inc.

TO: Sims Roy, EPA OAQPS ESD Combustion Group The purpose of this memorandum is to document information on the issue of the lubricity of ultra low sulfur diesel ( ULSD) fuel. Information in the May 2004 EPA final rule for nonroad diesel engines indicates that sulfur is a natural lubricant and when it is removed from the diesel fuel, the fuel loses some of its lubricity. This will have an effect on rotary and distributor type pumps used in light and medium duty diesel engines because they are completely fuel lubricated ( no crankcase oil). Here is an excerpt from the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the final nonroad diesel engine rule:

" Engine manufacturers depend on diesel fuel lubricity properties to lubricate and protect moving parts within fuel pumps and injection systems for reliable performance. Unit injector systems and in line pumps, commonly used in diesel engines, are actuated by cams lubricated with crankcase oil, and have minimal sensitivity to fuel lubricity. However, rotary and distributor type pumps, commonly used in light and medium duty diesel engines, are completely fuel lubricated, resulting in high sensitivity to fuel lubricity."

There were a few comments on the proposed nonroad diesel engine rule regarding the need for EPA to regulate the lubricity of ULSD. However, many of the oil companies do not want this regulated. For now EPA is letting the marketplace designate what the lubricity of the fuel should be. The Engine Manufacturers Association has set some performance requirements for the lubricity of ULSD ( 3100 g  ASTM D 6078, 450 um  ASTM 6079). Several oil companies are advertising the 3100 ULSD fuel; the companies that are meeting this lubricity requirement are adding additives to the fuel to achieve that lubricity, such biodiesel additives.

For the final nonroad diesel engine rule, EPA estimated that all diesel fuel meeting a 15 ppm sulfur standard will use lubricity additives at a cost of 0.2 cents per gallon. They estimated that the cost of additional lubricity additives for the affected 500 ppm diesel 2 fuel is 0.01 cents per gallon. The cost is lower for 500 ppm fuel because the vast majority of 500 ppm diesel fuel does not require the use of lubricity additives.

It was also estimated for the final nonroad diesel engine rule that reducing the sulfur in diesel fuel would reduce engine wear and oil degradation. The largest impact will be increasing the interval between oil changes. The savings per gallon is calculated to be about 3 cents. Therefore the positive impact on engine wear would outweigh the cost for lubricity additives.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 159 (Thursday, August 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40761-40762]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17651]

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

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: EC18-133-000.
    Applicants: Union Electric Company, TG High Prairie, LLC.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act of Union Electric Company, Inc., et al.
    Filed Date: 8/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180809-5035.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: EC18-134-000.
    Applicants: Boulder Solar III, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act of Boulder Solar III, LLC.
    Filed Date: 8/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180809-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: EC18-135-000.
    Applicants: 64KT 8me LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, et al. of 64KT 8me LLC.
    Filed Date: 8/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180809-5146.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: EC18-136-000.
    Applicants: JERA Power Compass, LLC, Dighton Power, LLC, Marco DM
Holdings, L.L.C., Marcus Hook Energy, L.P., Marcus Hook 50, L.P.,
Milford Power, LLC.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act, et al. of JERA Power Compass, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 8/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180809-5148.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/18.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2194-000.
    Applicants: Fox Creek Farm Solar, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Baseline new to be effective
9/7/2018.
    Filed Date: 8/10/18.
    Accession Number: 20180810-5003.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2195-000.
    Applicants: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SCPSA Interconnection
Agreement to be effective 8/10/2018.
    Filed Date: 8/10/18.
    Accession Number: 20180810-5053.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2196-000.
    Applicants: The Potomac Edison Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Potomac Edison submits a
Construction Agreement, Service Agreement No. 4799 to be effective 10/
10/2018.
    Filed Date: 8/10/18.
    Accession Number: 20180810-5060.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2197-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Clean-up to OATT, Schedule
12--Appendix A (PSEG) to be effective 1/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 8/10/18.
    Accession Number: 20180810-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2198-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., ALLETE,
Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-08-10_SA 3146 Minnesota
Power-GRE (Knife Falls) T-L Interconnection Agrmt to be effective 9/1/
2018.
    Filed Date: 8/10/18.
    Accession Number: 20180810-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/18.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES18-55-000.
    Applicants: Citizens Sycamore-Penasquitos Transmission LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 204 of the
Federal Power Act of Citizens Sycamore-Penasquitos Transmission LLC.
    Filed Date: 8/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180809-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by

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

    Dated: August 10, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-17651 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 146 (Tuesday, August 3, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41801-41802]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16354]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 423

[FRL 8794-04-OW]

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam
Electric Power Generating Point Source Category.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of rulemaking initiative.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with President Biden's Executive Order 13990,
Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to
Tackle the Climate Crisis (January 25, 2021), the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) announces its decision to undertake a
rulemaking that will propose to revise the Steam Electric Power
Generating Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards. As part of
the rulemaking process, EPA will determine whether more stringent
limitations and standards are appropriate and consistent with the
technology-forcing statutory scheme and the goals of the Clean Water
Act. EPA intends to sign the notice of proposed rulemaking for public
comment in the Fall of 2022.

DATES: August 3, 2021.

ADDRESSES: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460;

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Benware, Engineering and
Analysis Division, Office of Water, (4303T), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, 1200; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Among its core provisions, the Clean Water
Act (CWA) prohibits the discharge of pollutants from a point source to
waters of the U.S., except as authorized under the CWA. Under section
402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1342, discharges may be authorized through a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The CWA
establishes a dual approach for these permits: (1) Technology-based
controls that establish a floor of performance for all dischargers, and
(2) water quality-based effluent limitations, where the technology-
based effluent limitations are insufficient to meet applicable water
quality standards (WQS). As the basis for the technology-based
controls, the CWA authorizes EPA to establish national technology-based
effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) and new source performance
standards (NSPS) for discharges into waters of the United States from
categories of point sources (such as industrial, commercial, and public
sources). For discharges to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs),
sections 301, 306 and 307 of the CWA call for establishment of
pretreatment standards, which are analogous to effluent limitations,
which directly apply to new and existing sources.
    Clean Water Act section 301(b)(2)(A) requires that, by March 31,
1989, existing discharges of toxic and non-conventional pollutants must
be limited based on ``best available technology economically achievable
. . . which will result in reasonable further progress toward the
national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants, as
determined in accordance with regulations issued . . . pursuant to
section 304(b)(2) of the Act.'' Furthermore, such limitations ``shall
require the elimination of discharges of all pollutants if the
Administrator finds . . . that such elimination is technologically and
economically achievable'' for the industry, ``as determined in
accordance with regulations issued . . . pursuant to section
304(b)(2).'' Section 304(b)(2) provides that ``[f]actors relating to
the assessment of best available technology shall take into account the
age of equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, the
engineering aspect of the application of various types of control
techniques, process changes, the cost of achieving such effluent
reduction, non-water quality environmental impact (including energy
requirements), and such other factors as the Administrator deems
appropriate.'' The Agency is afforded considerable discretion in how to
weigh these factors in making the ultimate decision as to what
constitutes ``best available technology economically Achievable.'' See,
e.g., Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1045 (DC Cir. 1978).
    In September 2015, EPA finalized a rule revising the regulations
for the Steam Electric Power Generating point source category 80 FR
67838 (Nov. 3, 2015). This 2015 rule set limits on the levels of toxic
metals in wastewater that can be discharged from power plants.
Subsequent to the promulgation of the 2015 rule, the Agency received
two

petitions for administrative reconsideration. In response, EPA agreed
to reconsider the Effluent Guidelines for two wastestreams (flue gas
desulfurization and bottom ash transport water) and the Steam Electric
Reconsideration Rule was published in October 2020.
    On January 20, 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order 13990
directing federal agencies to review rules issued in the prior four
years that are, or may be, inconsistent with the policy stated in the
Order. 86 FR 7037. The Order provides that ``[i]t is, therefore, the
policy of my Administration to listen to the science; to improve public
health and protect our environment; to ensure access to clean air and
water; to limit exposure to dangerous chemicals and pesticides; to hold
polluters accountable, including those who disproportionately harm
communities of color and low-income communities; to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions; to bolster resilience to the impacts of climate change;
to restore and expand our national treasures and monuments; and to
prioritize both environmental justice and the creation of the well-
paying union jobs necessary to deliver on these goals.'' Id. at 7037,
Section 1. The Order ``directs all executive departments and agencies
(agencies) to immediately review and, as appropriate and consistent
with applicable law, take action to address the promulgation of Federal
regulations and other actions during the last 4 years that conflict
with these important national objectives, and to immediately commence
work to confront the climate crisis.'' Id. ``For any such actions
identified by the agencies, the heads of agencies shall, as appropriate
and consistent with applicable law, consider suspending, revising, or
rescinding the agency actions.'' Id. at 7037, Section 2(a). The 2020
Steam Electric Reconsideration Rule was identified for review under the
Executive Order. See Fact Sheet: List of Agency Actions for Review,
available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/20/fact-sheet-list-of-agency-actions-for-review/ (last
visited on April 26, 2021).
    EPA has completed its review of the 2020 Steam Electric
Reconsideration Rule under Executive Order 13990 and has decided to
initiate a notice-and-comment rulemaking in which the Agency will
determine whether more stringent limitations and standards are
appropriate consistent with the technology-forcing statutory scheme and
the goals of the Clean Water Act.
    EPA's review found that much of the 2015 steam electric rule
remains in place--leading to better control of water pollution from
power plants than required by the previously applicable rules. The 2015
rule also had the effect of reducing the cost of controls (e.g.,
biological treatment systems and membrane treatment systems), which are
now being utilized by the power sector. While the Agency undertakes
this new rulemaking, facilities will continue to be subject to the
requirements of the 2015 Rule, as amended by the 2020 Rule, which are
currently effective. As a result, the pollutant reductions accomplished
by the existing Rules will occur while the Agency engages in rulemaking
to consider more stringent requirements.
    EPA's review under Executive Order 13990 also found that membrane
treatment systems continue to rapidly advance as an effective option
for treating a wide variety of industrial wastewater. EPA expects this
technology to continue to advance, and EPA will evaluate whether this
technology should serve as the basis for the ``best available
technology economically achievable'' under the Clean Water Act to
control discharges of pollutants found in flue gas desulfurization
wastewater discharges as part of the new rulemaking, in addition to
considering whether revisions to the 2020 Rule's requirements
applicable to bottom ash transport water and the three subcategories,
which are afforded less stringent limits than those otherwise
applicable under the Rule, may be warranted.
    EPA expects permitting authorities to continue to implement the
current regulations while the Agency undertakes a new rulemaking. EPA
will determine whether more stringent limitations than those in the
2020 Rule appropriately reflect ``best available technology
economically achievable.'' EPA will undertake this rulemaking in
accordance with the requirements specified in the Administrative
Procedures Act and the Clean Water Act, as required by law.

Radhika Fox,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-16354 Filed 7-30-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 146 (Tuesday, July 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36910-36911]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16113]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-487-000]

Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization: Columbia Gas
Transmission, LLC

    Take notice that on July 12, 2019, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC
(Columbia Gas), 700 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in
Docket No. CP19-487-000 a prior notice request pursuant to sections
157.205, and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural
Gas Act for authorization to abandon three injection/withdrawal wells
and associated pipelines and appurtenances, located in its Brinker
Storage Field in Columbiana County, Ohio. Columbia proposes to abandon
these facilities under authorities granted by its blanket certificate
issued in Docket No. CP83-76, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection.
    The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov
using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Sorana
Linder, Director, Modernization & Certificates, Columbia Gas
Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas
77002-2700, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the EA

for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public
record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list and will be
notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental
review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve
copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party
commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other
parties or issued by the Commission and will not have the right to seek
court review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 3 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426.

    Dated: July 22, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-16113 Filed 7-29-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P