[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 30, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18425-18427]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06634]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94512; File No. SR-CBOE-2022-011]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Fees Schedule

March 24, 2022.
    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 March 14, 2022, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') 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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to adopt fees for
Certification Logical Port fees, effective March 1, 2022.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on
March 1, 2022 (SR-CBOE-2022-007). On March 14, 2022, the Exchange
withdrew that filing and submitted this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of background, the Exchange offers a variety of logical
ports, which provide users with the ability within the Exchange's
System to accomplish a specific function through a connection, such as
order entry, data receipt or access to information. Specifically, the
Exchange offers BOE and FIX Logical Ports,\4\ BOE Bulk Logical
Ports,\5\ Drop Logical Ports,\6\ Purge Ports,\7\ GRP Ports and
Multicast PITCH/Top Spin Server Ports.\8\ For each type of the
aforementioned logical ports that are used in the production
environment, the Exchange also offers corresponding ports which provide
Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'') and non-TPHs access to the Exchange's
certification environment to test proprietary systems and applications
(i.e., ``Certification Logical Ports''). The certification environment
facilitates testing using replicas of the Exchange's production
environment process configurations which provide for a robust and
realistic testing experience. For example, the certification
environment allows unlimited firm-level testing of order types, order
entry, order management, order throughput, acknowledgements, risk
settings, mass cancelations, and purge requests. Historically, the
Exchange has not assessed fees for Certification Logical Ports. The
Exchange now proposes to establish a monthly fee for Certification
Logical Ports. Particularly, the Exchange proposes to adopt a monthly
fee of $250 per Certification Logical Port. However, the Exchange notes
that it will continue to offer free of charge one Certification Logical
Port per logical port type offered in the production environment (i.e.,
BOE, FIX, BOE Bulk, Drop Logical, Purge, GRP and Multicast PITCH/Top
Spin Server Ports) to each TPH or non-TPH, as applicable. Any
additional Certification Logical Ports will be assessed $250 per month
per port.\9\ The Exchange notes that purchasing additional
Certification Logical Ports is voluntary and not required in order to
participate in the production environment, including live production
trading on the Exchange. Additionally, TPHs and non-TPHs are not
required to purchase any particular production logical port in order to
receive a corresponding Certification Logical Port free of charge.\10\
Further, the Exchange also notes that other exchanges similarly

assess fees related to their respective testing environments.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ BOE or FIX Logical Ports provide users the ability to enter
order/quotes.
    \5\ BOE Bulk Ports provide users with the ability to submit
single and bulk order messages to enter, modify, or cancel orders
designated as Post Only Orders with a Time-in-Force of Day or GTD
with an expiration time on that trading day.
    \6\ Drop Logical Ports grants users the ability to receive and/
or send drop copies.
    \7\ Purge Ports allow users to submit a cancelation for all open
orders, or a subset thereof, across multiple sessions under the same
Executing Firm ID (``EFID'').
    \8\ Spin Ports and GRP Ports are used to request and receive a
retransmission of data from the Exchange's Multicast PITCH/Top data
feeds.
    \9\ For example, if a TPH maintains 3 FIX Certification Logical
Ports, 1 Purge Certification Logical Port, and 1 set of Multicast
PITCH Spin Server Certification Logical Port, the TPH will be
assessed $500 per month for Certification Logical Port Fees (i.e., 1
FIX, 1 Purge and 1 set of Multicast PITCH Spin Server Certification
Logical Ports x $0 and 2 FIX Certification Logical Ports x $250).
    \10\ For example, a TPH may obtain a Certification Purge Port
free of charge, even if that TPH has not otherwise purchased a Purge
Port for the live production environment. Certification Logical
Ports are not automatically enabled for each User, but rather must
be proactively requested by users.
    \11\ See e.g., Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, Equity 7, Pricing
Schedule, Section 130. See also MIAX Options Exchange Fee Schedule,
Section 4, Testing and Certification Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchange does not intend to prorate Certification
Logical Ports for the first month of service and intends to make this
clear in the notes section under the Logical Connectivity Fees section
of the Fees Schedule.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\12\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \13\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\14\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Exchange's certification environment provides a
robust and realistic testing experience using a replica of the
Exchange's production environment process configurations. This
environment enables market participants to manage risk more effectively
through testing software development changes in certification prior to
implementing them in the live trading environment, thereby reducing the
likelihood of a potentially disruptive system failure in the live
trading environment, which has the potential to affect all market
participants. As such, the Exchange believes it's reasonable to adopt a
Certification Logical Port fee as it better enables the Exchange to
continue to maintain and improve its testing environment, which the
Exchange believes serves to improve live production trading on the
Exchange. The Exchange also believes the proposed Certification Logical
Port fee is reasonable because while such ports will no longer be
completely free, TPHs and non-TPHs will continue to be entitled to
receive free of charge one Certification Logical Port for each type of
logical port that is currently offered in the production environment.
Notably, the Exchange believes one Certification Logical Port per
logical port type will be sufficient for most users and indeed
anticipates that the majority of users will not purchase additional
Certification Logical Ports. More specifically, while the Exchange has
no way of predicting with certainty the impact of the proposed changes,
it anticipates approximately 41% of Users to be assessed fees for
Certification Logical Ports (i.e., request Certification Ports in
excess of the Certification Logical Ports provided free of charge). For
those users who wish to obtain additional Certification Logical Ports
based on their respective business needs, they are able to do so for a
modest fee. Indeed, the proposed fee is lower than the fees assessed
for the corresponding logical ports used in the Exchange's production
environment.\15\ Additionally, the Exchange notes other exchanges
similarly assess fees relating to their respective testing
environments.\16\ Further, the decision to purchase additional ports is
optional and no market participant is required or under any regulatory
obligation to purchase excess Certification Logical Ports in order to
access the Exchange's certification environment.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Logical Connectivity Fees.
    \16\ See e.g., Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, Equity 7, Pricing
Schedule, Section 130. See also MIAX Options Exchange Fee Schedule,
Section 4, Testing and Certification Fees.
    \17\ Although many Users use Certification Logical Ports on a
daily basis, the Exchange notes frequency of use of Certification
Logical Ports varies by User and depends on a User's business needs.
To the extent a User purchases additional Certification Logical
Ports and its respective needs change or it determines it no longer
wishes to maintain excess Certification Logical Ports, the User is
free to cancel such ports for the following month(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed fee is also equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all market
participants that choose to obtain additional Certification Logical
Ports. The Exchange also believes the proposed fee is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is designed to
encourage market participants to be efficient with their respective
Certification Logical Port usage. Without some sort of fee for its
Certification Logical Ports, the Exchange believes that TPHs and non-
TPHs may be less efficient in testing their systems, potentially
resulting in excessive time and resources being consumed by the
Exchange in supporting testing and certifying TPHs and non-TPHs to the
detriment of all market participants as Exchange resources are diverted
away from other trading operations. Additionally, similar to its
production environment, the Exchange's certification environment does
not have unlimited system capacity to support unlimited testing. As
such, the proposed fee structure also ensures that firms that use the
most capacity pay for that capacity, rather than placing that burden on
market participants that have more modest needs. The Exchange lastly
believes that its proposed fee is aligned with the goals of the
Commission in facilitating a competitive market for all firms that
trade on the Exchange and of ensuring that critical market
infrastructure has ``levels of capacity, integrity, resiliency,
availability, and security adequate to maintain their operational
capability and promote the maintenance of fair and orderly markets.''
\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73639 (November 19,
2014), 79 FR 72251 (December 5, 2014) (File No. S7-01-13)
(Regulation SCI Adopting Release).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intramarket or intermarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The
Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on intramarket competition because as the proposed change
applies uniformly to all market participants. Additionally, the
Exchange does not believe that the proposed fee creates an undue burden
on competition because the Exchange will continue to offer free of
charge one Certification Logical Port per each logical port type
offered in the production environment. Although the Exchange now
proposes to charge users for additional Certification Logical Ports,
the Exchange believes without some sort of fee assessed for excess
Certification Logical Ports, TPHs and non-TPHs may be less efficient in
testing their systems, potentially resulting in excessive time and
resources being consumed by the Exchange and also potentially impacting
the certification environment's capacity

thresholds. The proposed fee structure therefore would ensure that
market participants that pay the proposed fee are the ones that demand
the most resources from the Exchange. Also as discussed, the purchase
of additional ports is optional and based on the business needs of each
market participant. Moreover, such market participants will continue to
benefit from access to the certification environment, which the
Exchange believes provides a robust and realistic testing experience
via a replica of the production environment.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly,
the proposed change applies only to the Exchange's certification
environment. Additionally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market. TPHs have numerous alternative venues that
they may participate on and direct their order flow, including 15 other
options exchanges, as well as off-exchange venues, where competitive
products are available for trading. Indeed, participants can readily
choose to send their orders to other exchanges, and, additionally off-
exchange venues, if they deem overall fee levels at those other venues
to be more favorable. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed
its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in
determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets.
Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the
importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and,
also, recognized that current regulation of the market system ``has
been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its
broader forms that are most important to investors and listed
companies.'' \19\ The fact that this market is competitive has also
long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, '[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] 'no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because 'no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers' . . . .''.\20\ Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its
proposed fee change imposes any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \20\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \21\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \22\
thereunder. 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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2022-011 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2022-011. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-CBOE-2022-011 and should be submitted on or before April
20, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-06634 Filed 3-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Appendix A.3: Statistical methods used in farm worker monitoring data
Several different inferential statistical methods were applied in the analysis of the monitoring data from the Youth in Agriculture exposure monitoring studies.
 If the sample size in either of the age groups was not too small (i.e., less than 5 samples), and the samples were independent (i.e., they are not correlated), then a "two independent sample t test" was used to compare the exposure between child and adult workers. One of the assumptions of the t test is that samples follow a normal distribution.

 Besides the independent sample t-test, the "Wilcoxon rank sum test" was also applied to compare exposure between child and adult workers. The Wilcoxon rank sum test is used when samples are independent, and it is a non-parametric alternative of two independent sample t test. Non-parametric tests do not assume the samples to follow a particular probability distribution. In this analysis, if the samples were independent and the sample size was small (i.e. less than five in any one of the age groups), then only a non-parametric test was used.

 If there were repeated measurements from the same worker in same crop-pesticide scenario over multiple days, then a "mixed model" was used to account for the correlated observations. Then, a comparison of the least square means between the children and adult age groups was performed within the framework of mixed model. A description of statistical methods is provided below.
Two independent sample t test:
A two independent sample t-test is designed to compare means of same variable between two groups. The underlying assumption of the independent sample t-test is that samples follow normal distribution and they are independent and identically distributed. Exposure usually follows a log-normal distribution. Therefore, exposure was log transformed before conducting the t-test. In the analysis of the Youth in Agriculture monitoring data, the mean of the log transformed rate between the group of children farm workers and the group of adult farm workers were compared. It tests whether the difference in the means is 0. In the analysis, the `TTEST' procedure in SAS software was used to conduct two independent sample t-test. A detail discussions on `TTEST' procedure in SAS can be found here http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/sas/output/ttest.htm.
`PROC TTEST' currently implements two different methods for computing the standard error of the difference of the means. The method of computing the standard error is based on the assumption regarding the variances of the two groups. If the assumption of equal variance of the two populations is not unreasonable, then pooled variance estimator, is used. When the variances are not assumed to be equal, then the Satterthwaite's method is used. The pooled estimator of variance is a weighted average of the two sample variances, with more weight given to the larger sample and is defined to be:
                      s = ((n1-1)s1+(n2-1)s2)/(n1+n2-2)
where s1 and s2 are the sample variances and n1 and n2 are the sample sizes for the two groups; this is called pooled variance. The standard error of the mean of the difference is the pooled variance adjusted by the sample sizes. It is defined to be the square root of the product of pooled variance and (1/n1+1/n2). Satterthwaite is an alternative to the pooled-variance t test and is used when the assumption that the two populations have equal variances seems unreasonable. It provides a t statistic that asymptotically (that is, as the sample sizes become large) approaches a t distribution, allowing for an approximate t test to be calculated when the population variances are not equal.
The p-value is the two-tailed probability computed using the t distribution. It is the probability of observing a t-value of equal or greater absolute value under the null hypothesis. All statistical tests are conducted at significance level of 0.05. If the p-value is less than the pre-specified alpha level, 0.05, we will conclude that the difference is statistically significant.
For details documentation regarding the t-test in SAS please see the link http://support.sas.com/documentation/cdl/en/statug/63033/HTML/default/viewer.htm#ttest_toc.htm
Two factor analysis of variance method was also performed to see whether any other factor, such as gender, is significant besides age group in analysis of exposure rate. If it is significant then a difference of least square means between age groups (children vs. adult), adjusting for the effect of gender, was estimated from the model.
Wilcoxon rank sum test:
Wilcoxon Rank Sum test is the non-parametric alternative of two sample t test. Non parametric tests do not assume a particular probability distribution. It is generally based on ranking or order statistics. Non parametric tests make less stringent demands on the data. They require fewer assumptions. The underlying assumption for the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test is that samples are independent of each other. The tests statistic is based on the sum of the ranks assigned to the observed data from each population when the combined sample is ranked from smallest to largest.
JMP and SAS softwares were used to conduct Wilcoxon Rank Sum test to compare exposure rates between child and adult farm workers. In the JMP output, a sum of the rank score for each level is reported which is denoted by score sum. "Expected score" is the expected score under the null hypothesis that there is no difference in class level. "Score mean records" means rank score for each level. (Mean-Mean0)/Sd0 is the standardized score where Mean0 is the expected score under the null hypothesis and Sd0 is the standard deviation of the score sum expected under null hypothesis; null hypothesis is that the group means or medians are in the same location across groups. S indicates the sum of the rank scores. Z gives the test statistic under normal approximation. A two sided p value for the normal approximation test is also reported. When a sample size is small, a p value from exact Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was also calculated using SAS `npar1way' procedure. All statistical tests are conducted at significance level of 0.05. If the p-value is less than the pre-specified alpha level, 0.05, we will conclude that the difference is statistically significant.  Please see the link below to know more details of Wilcoxon test in JMP: http://www.jmp.com/support/help/Nonparametric.shtml
Repeated Measures Mixed Model:
In several studies the same subjects (i.e. farm workers) were in the same crop-pesticide scenario and were monitored for multiple days. The observations from the same subject for multiple days are correlated and not independent. A mixed model was used to account for the correlated observations within subject. Mixed procedure (known as `proc mixed') in SAS provides flexible environment to model repeated measures data.  Different types of covariance and correlation structure are available within `PROC MIXED' to model residual error. AIC criterion is used to select appropriate correlation structure of the error term. Measurements made on different subjects are still assumed to be independent. To fit the model in PROC MIXED, the REPEATED statement is used to specify the repeated measures factor, the subject variable identifying observations that are to be correlated, and a covariance or correlation structure. Age group (adult vs children), day and covariates are used as fixed effects in the model. Day is the repeated measures factor. Dependent variable is the log of the exposure rate. After selection of appropriate correlation structure, inferences about the fixed effects can be obtained by performing hypothesis tests and constructing relevant confidence intervals. The LSMEANS statements in PROC MIXED are tailored to this purpose; they have the advantage that all standard error estimates account for the estimated correlation structure. In our analysis LSMEANS statement was used to test the hypothesis whether there is a difference in exposure rate between adult and child age groups. Least square means is referred to as marginal means. In an analysis of covariance model, they are the group means after having controlled for a covariate. The selected output from SAS includes an estimate of the difference of least square means between adult and child age groups, p value, as well as confidence interval. For details of the `proc mixed' repeated measure see the link:  http://support.sas.com/documentation/cdl/en/statug/63347/HTML/default/viewer.htm#statug_mixed_sect034.htm
All statistical tests are conducted at significance level of 0.05.


[Federal Register: July 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 131)]
[Notices]
[Page 38871-38872]
[DOCID:fr10jy06-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-402-000]

Mardi Gras Pipeline, L.L.C.; Notice of Application

June 30, 2006.
    Take notice that on June 21, 2006, Mardi Gras Pipeline, L.L.C.
(Mardi Gras), 226 E. Gibson Street, Covington, Louisiana 70433, filed
with the Commission an application under section 7 (c) of the Natural
Gas Act to obtain a limited jurisdictional certificate to allow for the
continued service to a single interstate gas transportation customer,
and for a determination that Mardi Gras may otherwise operate its
system as a non-jurisdictional gathering facility. This filing is
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site 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, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding the petition should be directed to John S.
Burge, Mardi Gras Pipeline, L.L.C., P.O. Box 974 Covington, LA 70434-
0974, and Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or you
may contact Robert Christin, Van Ness Feldman, P.C., 1050 Thomas
Jefferson Street, NW., Suite 700 Washington, DC 20007, and Tel.: (202)
298-1987 or Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission
and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.

    Comment Date: July 21, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-10688 Filed 7-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P