[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67638-67639]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27508]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC13-2-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-729); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the
currently approved information collection, FERC-729 (Electric
Transmission Facilities).

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due January 14,
2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC13-2-
000) by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web Site:http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-729 (Electric Transmission Facilities).
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0238.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-729 information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: This information collection implements the Commission's
mandates under EPAct 2005 Section 1221 which authorizes the Commission
to issue permits under FPA Section 216(b) for electric transmission
facilities and the Commission's delegated responsibility to coordinate
all other federal authorizations under FPA Section 216(h). The related
FERC regulations seek to develop a timely review process for siting of
proposed electric transmission facilities. The regulations provide for
(among other things) an extensive pre-application process that will
facilitate maximum participation from all interested entities and
individuals to provide them with a reasonable opportunity to present
their views and recommendations, with respect to the need for and
impact of the facilities, early in the planning stages of the proposed
facilities as required under FPA Section 216(d).
    Additionally, FERC has the authority to issue a permit to construct
electric transmission facilities if a state has withheld approval for
more than a year or has conditioned its approval in such a manner that
it will not significantly reduce transmission congestion or is not
economically feasible.\1\ FERC envisions that, under certain
circumstances, the Commission's review of the proposed facilities may
take place after one year of the state's review. Under Section
50.6(e)(3) the Commission will not accept applications until one year
after the state's review and then from applicants who can demonstrate
that a state may withhold or condition approval of proposed facilities
to such an extent that the facilities will not be constructed.\2\ In
cases where FERC's jurisdiction rests on FPA section 216(b)(1)(C),\3\
the pre-filing process should not commence until one year after the
relevant State applications have been filed. This will give states one
full year to process an application without any intervening Federal
proceedings, including both the pre-filing and application processes.
Once that year is complete, an applicant may seek to commence FERC's
pre-filing process. Thereafter, once the pre-filing process is
complete, the applicant may submit its application for a construction
permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FPA section 216(b)(1)(C).
    \2\ However, the Commission will not issue a permit authorizing
construction of the proposed facilities until, among other things,
it finds that the state has, in fact, withheld approval for more
than a year or had so conditioned its approval.
    \3\ In all other instances (i.e. where the state does not have
jurisdiction to act or otherwise to consider interstate benefits, or
the applicant does not qualify to apply for a permit with the State
because it does not serve end use customers in the State), the pre-
filing process may be commenced at any time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type of Respondents: Electric transmission facilities.
    Estimate of Annual Burden:\4\ The Commission estimates the total
Public Reporting Burden for this information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission defines burden as the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain,
retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal
agency. For further explanation of what is included in the
information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal
Regulations 1320.3.

                                   FERC-729--Electric Transmission Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Number of                      Average  burden
            Number of respondents              responses  per  Total number of     hours  per    Estimated total
                                                 respondent       responses         response      annual burden
(A)                                                      (B)        (A)x(B)=(C)            (D)                (C)x(D)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................................               1                1            9,600            9,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is
$662,492.31 [9,600 hours / 2,080 \5\ hours per year = 4.61538 *
$143,540 = $662,492.31].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 2080 hours/year = 40 hours/week * 52 weeks/year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: November 6, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-27508 Filed 11-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 149 (Friday, August 2, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37862-37863]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16461]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No.: 2660-030]

Notice of Technical Meeting; Woodland Pulp, LLC

    a. Project Name and Number: Forest City Project No. 2660.
    b. Project location: The project is located on the East Branch of
the St. Croix River in Washington and Aroostook counties, Maine.
    c. Project licensee: Woodland Pulp, LLC.
    d. FERC Contact: Michael Calloway,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    e. Date, Time, and Location of Technical Meeting: Take notice that
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will convene a
staff-led technical meeting in the above-referenced proceeding on
August 28, 2019 at 3:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The technical
meeting will be held at the East Grand High School cafeteria located at
31 Houlton Road Danforth, ME.
    f. Purpose of technical meeting: The purpose of the meeting is
limited to gathering new technical information concerning the following
three items: (1) Whether there are alternative modes of project
operation that could demonstrably lower the project's impact on
downstream generation; (2) whether there are methods for implementing
license requirements in an economically efficient manner; and (3)
whether there are decommissioning plans that would meet the needs of
stakeholders. The purpose of the meeting is not to discuss legal
issues.
    The technical meeting will be in the form of a panel discussion.
The following participants have been invited to appear on the panel:
Woodland Pulp, LLC; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services
Maine Field Office; Maine Department of Environmental Protection; and
the Maine Department Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.
    Following the conclusion of the panel discussion, the public will
have an opportunity to comment. All previous comments filed with the
Commission are on record and will be considered in this proceeding.
Therefore it will not be necessary to repeat previous statements.
    g. Staff request that panelists come prepared to discuss the
following topics:
    (1) The impacts of operation of the Forest City Project as proposed
under the modified operations and maintenance agreement and the effect
it would have on downstream power generation, including ways to produce
evidence supporting any reduction in downstream generation benefits.
    (2) Whether there are methods for complying with the project's
existing operational requirements that could improve project economic
efficiency.
    (3) Strategies that would ensure the protection of fish passage,
recreational interests, and public access while

maintaining compliance with the project license.
    (4) Possible alternatives regarding the licensee's proposal to
surrender the license while addressing dam safety, recreation,
navigation, and migratory fish.
    h. The technical meeting will be transcribed by a court reporter
and the transcript will be placed in the public record of this
proceeding.

    Dated: July 26, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-16461 Filed 8-1-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 33 (Friday, February 17, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10238-10240]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03377]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0698]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; San Diego Fleet Week Veterans Day Boat
Parade; San Diego Bay, San Diego, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending its special local regulations for
recurring marine parades, regattas, and other events in Southern
California Annual Marine Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port
Zone. This final rule will add one new recurring special local
regulation for the San Diego Fleet Week Veterans Day Boat Parade. This
action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable
waters during the annual event, and will restrict vessel traffic in the
designated areas during the event unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port Sector San Diego or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective March 20, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0698 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Shera Kim, Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On August 11, 2022, The San Diego Fleet Week Foundation notified
the Coast Guard that it will be hosting the San Diego Fleet Week
Veterans Day Boat Parade annually on a single day during the month of
November. The regulated area would cover all navigable waters of San
Diego Bay, beginning at Shelter Island, proceeding northeast to Harbor
Island, proceeding southeast along the shoreline to Tenth Avenue Marine
Terminal, crossing the Federal navigable channel prior to the Coronado
Bridge, then northwest along the shoreline of Coronado Island to the
Coronado Ferry Landing.
    In response, on August 31, 2022, the Coast Guard published a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Special Local Regulation; San
Diego Fleet Week Veterans Day Boat Parade; San Diego Bay, San Diego,
CA'' (87 FR 53700). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited
comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this annual
marine event. During the comment period that ended October 3, 2022, we
received zero comments.
    The event is expected to draw a high concentration of vessels to
the San Diego Bay area along the proposed parade route. Traditionally,
the San Diego Bay area serves as a major thoroughfare for commercial
traffic, naval operations, ferry routes, and a number of other
recreational uses. The Coast Guard is establishing this special local
regulation to minimize impacts on this congested waterway. This
regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of individuals, property,
and the marine environment on the navigable waters of San Diego Bay
during this event.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70041 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector San
Diego (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the
San Diego Fleet Week Veterans Day Boat Parade annually on a weekend
during the month of November will present a safety of life concern on
navigable waters. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of life
on the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after
the scheduled event.
    For the reasons stated above, we are issuing this rule.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published
August 31, 2022. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this
rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
    This rule establishes a special local regulation annually on a
weekend in November. The special local regulation will cover all
navigable waters of San Diego Bay, beginning at Shelter Island,
proceeding northeast to Harbor Island, proceeding southeast along the
shoreline to Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal, crossing the Federal
navigable channel prior to the Coronado Bridge, then northwest along
the shoreline of Coronado Island to the Coronado Ferry Landing. No
vessel or person will be permitted to enter the special local
regulation without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the special local regulation. Vessel traffic
would be able to safely transit around this special local regulation,
which would impact a small-designated area of the San Diego Bay.
Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners
via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the areas, and the rule would allow
vessels to seek permission to enter the areas.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and

operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental
jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard
received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this
rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
special local regulation may be small entities, for the reasons stated
in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
special local regulation that would prohibit persons and vessels from
transiting the regulated area during the parade. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1
of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of
Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. In Sec.  100.1101, amend table 1 by adding an entry for ``17. San
Diego Fleet Week Veterans Day Boat Parade'' to read as follows:

Sec.  100.1101   Southern California Annual Marine Events for the San
Diego Captain of the Port Zone.

* * * * *

                       Table 1 to Sec.   100.1101
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            17. San Diego Fleet Week Veterans Day Boat Parade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor...........................  San Diego Fleet Week Foundation.
Event Description.................  SS Boat parade.
Date..............................  One weekend in November.
Location..........................  San Diego Bay, CA.
Regulated Area....................  All waters of San Diego Bay, from
                                     surface to bottom, beginning at
                                     Shelter Island, proceeding
                                     northeast to Harbor Island,
                                     proceeding southeast along the
                                     shoreline to Tenth Avenue Marine
                                     Terminal, crossing the Federal
                                     navigable channel prior to the
                                     Coronado Bridge, then northwest
                                     along the shoreline of Coronado
                                     Island to the Coronado Ferry
                                     Landing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: November 7, 2022.
J.W. Spitler,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector San Diego.

    Editorial note: This document was received for publication by
the Office of the Federal Register on February 14, 2023.
[FR Doc. 2023-03377 Filed 2-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: May 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 85)]
[Notices]
[Page 26152-26153]
[DOCID:fr03my06-116]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53727; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-37]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Amend CBOE Rule 8.4 Relating to Remote Market-Maker
Appointments

April 26, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 12, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed
rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE proposes to amend CBOE Rule 8.4 relating to Remote Market-
Maker appointments. The text of the proposed rule change is available
at the Office of the Secretary, CBOE and at the Commission.

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 purpose of this rule change is to amend CBOE Rule 8.4 relating
to Remote Market-Maker (``RMM'') appointments. CBOE Rule 8.4 provides
that RMMs will have a Virtual Trading Crowd (``VTC'') Appointment,
which confers the right to quote electronically in a certain number of
products selected from various ``Tiers''. There are five Tiers (Tiers
A, B, C, D, and E) that are structured according to trading volume
statistics, and an ``A+'' Tier which consists of five option classes--
options on Standard & Poor's Depositary Receipts, options on the
Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock, options on Diamonds, reduced value
options on the Standard & Poor's 500 Stock Index, and options based on
The Dow Jones Industrial Average. CBOE Rule 8.4(d) assigns
``appointment costs'' to Hybrid 2.0 Classes based on the Tier in which
they are located, and an RMM may select for each Exchange membership it
owns or leases any combination of products trading on the Hybrid 2.0
Platform whose aggregate ``appointment cost'' does not exceed 1.0.
    CBOE proposes to make the following changes to the Tiers. CBOE
proposes to remove from the A+ Tier reduced value options on the
Standard & Poor's 500 Stock Index (XSP). Going forward, XSP options
would fall within one of the remaining Tiers A through E depending on
its trading volume. As a result of this change, the appointment cost
for XSP options would be reduced from .25 to the appointment cost for
whichever Tier (A through E) it is assigned.
    CBOE also proposes to make two changes to the non-A+ Tiers. First,
CBOE proposes to lower the appointment costs for Tiers B, C, D, and E
as follows (the costs for Tiers A and A+ remain the same):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Existing         New
                   Tiers                      appointment    appointment
                                                  cost          cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B..........................................          .0667           .05
C..........................................          .05             .04
D..........................................          .04             .02
E..........................................          .033            .01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE believes that the above new appointment costs for Tiers B, C,
D, and E, are more appropriate for each of these four Tiers which would
effectively lower an RMM's cost to access CBOE's marketplace and
receive an appointment in multiple Hybrid 2.0 Classes. Moreover, these
revised appointment costs are more competitive with the access costs at
other options exchanges to hold an appointment as a market-maker in
multiple option classes.
    Second, CBOE proposes to amend the composition of the five non-A+
Tiers, in connection with CBOE's determination to increase the total
number of option classes traded on the Hybrid 2.0 Platform from
approximately 605 to 905. When CBOE launched its RMM program in March
2005, it initially designated as Hybrid 2.0 Classes the 602 most
actively traded, multiply listed option classes. CBOE also advised its
members that it may designate additional classes as Hybrid 2.0 Classes
as conditions warrant. Increasing the total number of Hybrid 2.0
Classes to 905 would increase competition and liquidity in these option
classes by allowing RMMs to have an appointment in them, and would
provide RMMs with additional trading opportunities.
    As noted above, Tiers A through E are structured according to
trading volume statistics, with Tier A consisting of the 20% most
actively-traded Hybrid 2.0 Classes over the preceding three calendar
months, (excluding ``A+'' Tier products), Tier B consisting of the next
20% most actively-traded products, etc., through Tier E, which consists
of the 20% least actively-traded Hybrid 2.0 Classes. Currently, there
are approximately 605 option classes traded on the Hybrid 2.0 Platform.
Tiers A through E thus each consist of approximately 120 Hybrid 2.0
Classes.
    CBOE proposes to amend the composition of Tiers A through E as
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Tiers         Current tier composition      New tier composition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A................  20% Most Active Hybrid 2.0  Hybrid 2.0 Classes 1-60.
                    Classes (Classes 1-120).
B................  Next 20% Most Active        Hybrid 2.0 Classes 61-
                    Hybrid 2.0 Classes          120.
                    (Classes 121-240).
C................  Next 20% Most Active        Hybrid 2.0 Classes 121-
                    Hybrid 2.0 Classes          345.
                    (Classes 241-360).
D................  Next 20% Most Active        Hybrid 2.0 Classes 346-
                    Hybrid 2.0 Classes          570.
                    (Classes 361-480).
E................  Next 20% Most Active        All Remaining Hybrid 2.0
                    Hybrid 2.0 Classes          Classes.\5\
                    (Classes 481-600).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE believes that these new Tier compositions more accurately
reflect the appropriate appointment costs for the classes located in
them, based on the average daily trading volume for these classes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a
national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of
Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\7\ which requires that the rules of an exchange be designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ CBOE will publish periodically to its members via
Information Circular the total number of option classes traded on
the Hybrid 2.0 Platform.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \8\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4
\9\ thereunder because it does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; (iii) become operative for 30 days
from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate; and the Exchange has given the Commission
written notice of its intention to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to filing. At any time within 60 days of
the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily
abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) of the Act,\10\ the proposal does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of its filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that
the Commission waive the 30-day operative date, so that the proposal
may take effect upon filing. The proposal lowers the appointment costs
for Tiers B, C, D, and E, and changes the composition of the five non-
A+ Tiers to reflect the designation of additional Hybrid 2.0 classes.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not raise any
new regulatory issues and promotes competition by reducing the access
costs of trading in multiple options classes as an RMM. The Commission
agrees and, consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, has determined to waive the 30-day operative date so that the
proposal may take effect upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CBOE-2006-37 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2006-37. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2006-37 and should be
submitted on or before May 24, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-6659 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


ETHANOL INDUSTRY PROFILE

September 30, 2006

Prepared for

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

U.S. EPA

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Prepared by

ICF International

9300 Lee Highway

Fairfax, VA  22031

	ETHANOL INDUSTRY PROFILE

This profile of the ethanol industry was prepared to provide background
and context for the ICF report, “Effects of Market Structure on the
Performance of the RIN market.”

In the summer of 2006, the ethanol market in the United States was in a
state of almost explosive growth in production capacity, with the supply
chain downstream of the production sources in flux as the infrastructure
for ethanol blending into motor gasoline continues to evolve.

Overview

The ethanol supply chain in the United States involves a unique
collaboration of agricultural, transportation, and oil business entities
that are in the process of altering the transportation fuel supply
chain. This change is taking place in part due to government
intervention and in part due to economic fundamentals.

Ethanol production is growing rapidly as new ethanol plants are being
built and made operational throughout the Midwest and (to some extent)
in other regions.  Demand for ethanol in fuels had originally been
primarily in the Midwest, but has expanded into California (2004) and
New York and Connecticut (2004) reformulated fuel markets as use of MTBE
(Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) was banned in those states. In 2006, the
use of MTBE in other reformulated gasoline markets has been radically
reduced as refiners elected to use ethanol instead of MTBE to mitigate
liability issues related to MTBE.

The ethanol supply chain originates at farms in the Midwest where corn
production is sold to ethanol producers from a region surrounding the
ethanol plant. The ethanol production is sold to blenders (usually
refiners and/or blending companies) by ethanol Marketing companies.
These companies in some cases own production facilities, and in some
cases act as “marketing arms” of the producing companies  The
marketers will often market ethanol from multiple plants to oil
companies and blenders.

Ethanol historically moved from production sites into local Midwest
markets either by truck or railcar, with purchasers/blenders taking
advantage of the 51 cpg blending credit and generally low ethanol prices
vs, gasoline. With the emerging ethanol demand in California and the
East Coast, ethanol production capability began a rapid rise, and a
method to efficiently move larger quantities of ethanol to market
developed. Railroads and ethanol marketers developed “Unit Trains,”
or dedicated “rolling” movement of ethanol from Midwest locations
into the Southern California, Albany, New York, and Sewaren, N.J.
markets. These unit trains are capable of moving 65-100 railcars at a
time, picking up ethanol at multiple Midwest locations and moving to
blending markets.

In 2006, most Refiners have opted to completely eliminate the use of
MTBE in reformulated gasoline markets due to the potential liability
issues. In order to continue to market gasoline that fully meets
reformulated gasoline specifications, refiners are replacing MTBE with
ethanol, and marketing a 10% ethanol blend in reformulated markets.
These “new” ethanol demand markets are primarily Dallas/Houston in
Texas, Mid-Atlantic (New Jersey through Virginia), and New England.  The
additional spike in ethanol demand from these new markets (almost a 50%
increase in demand) has stretched production capacity and distribution
capability. Refiners and blenders are working with marketers, railroads,
importers and terminal operators to insure a reliable supply chain into
the ultimate blending terminals. At the same time ethanol prices have
risen to very high levels for spot (non-term or one-time delivery)
product due to the constraints in the system.

Once the MTBE phase-out has been accomplished and new ethanol capacity
better aligns with demand, ethanol prices are likely to fall somewhat.
The ability of ethanol to continue to penetrate the fossil-fuel based
gasoline supply will be contingent upon the economics to blend ethanol
in more conventional gasoline markets, and the willingness of refiners
and blenders to market E10, E85 or other ethanol blends in areas not
mandated by Federal or State legislation.

This document examines the key components of the ethanol supply chain
from Producers to Refiners to provide a perspective on each component
toward the ethanol credit proposals under consideration. The report
looks at these sectors in both a current view and also a forward view to
the extent ICF can determine this.

Section 1:  Ethanol Production

Industry

The current (July 1, 2006) ethanol production capability in the United
States is 4.8 Billion gallons per year (bgy) as reported by the
Renewable Fuels Association (RFA). The RFA tracks ethanol production
facilities that are operational, and also identifies ethanol production
facilities that are under construction. Attachment 1 shows the
facilities that RFA is reporting as operational and under construction
as of July 1, 2006.  Operating capacity is 4.8 bgy and capacity under
construction is 2.1 bgy. It is expected that by the end of 2007,
essentially all the capacity under construction will be complete and
operational, with total U.S. ethanol production capacity at about 7.0
bgy by January, 2008.

In addition to these facilities, ICF has identified an additional 8.4
bgy of ethanol production plants that have been announced or are in
planning stages, with start up advertised in the 2007-2009 timeframe
(See Attachment 2). These additional production sites are in various
stages of development, but in our judgment it is highly unlikely that
all of these plants will be built, or will be built in the timeframe
indicated. In some cases these initiatives may still need to resolve
issues such as a specific location, grain supply, or permits.  To
provide a forecast beyond 2007, ICF is assuming that the additional
capacity gained in 2008 will be 2.0 bgy, and then an additional 1.5 bgy
in each of the years from 2009 through 2012. Feedback from some industry
participants indicate that 1.5 bgy of annual new construction is about
as much as can be effectively built, and we have shown a higher number
in 2008 to reflect the specific planned projects of ADM in that
timeframe.

RFA’s identification of ethanol capacity as including all currently
operational plants plus all plants currently under construction is a
sound approach to a “reliable” capacity outlook.  For the purposes
of this study, however, ICF believes it is reasonable to include the
projects identified in the planning stages, since the overall economics
of the ethanol market vs. corn would appear to foster a very favorable
environment for funding new projects, subject to industry growth
constraints estimated above.

Exhibit 1-1 shows the historical and projected growth in U.S. ethanol
plant capacity based on existing, under construction, and planned
ethanol plants. We have assumed that the “planned” projects all
become operational after January 1, 2008, with capacity gains of 2.0 bgy
in 2008, and 1.5 bgy thereafter as described above. On this basis, U.S.
ethanol production capacity will exceed the 2012 Renewable Fuels
Standard (RFS) requirement of 7.5 bgy sometime in early 2008, and be at
a 15 bgy level by the start of 2012.

Exhibit 1-1: Current and Future U.S. Ethanol Production Capacity

Sources:  Renewable Fuels Association:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/locations/"
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/locations/

                  Ethanol Industry News Announcements on Capacity
Increases

This ethanol production capacity is roughly one million barrels per day,
or about 12% of current U.S. gasoline demands.

The overall trend in the development of U.S. ethanol plant construction
has some striking changes. The average size of an ethanol plant in the
U.S. has steadily grown with the expansion of national ethanol plant
capacity. Exhibit 1-2 shows that the average size of an ethanol plant
has grown from 34 mgy in 1999 to 48 mgy currently. The average size of
new plants under construction is almost 60 mgy, and the average size of
new plants in the planning stage is about 60 mgy, with many sites at the
100 mgy capacity. Exhibit 1-3 shows a comparison of the number of
ethanol plants in various size ranges from 2002 to current. This exhibit
clearly shows the growth in both the number of ethanol plants and the
shift to a much higher ethanol plant size in the U.S. market. The
implications of the larger plant size on the market will primarily
emerge in market cycles where ethanol price is low. Plants with higher
volume will have lower fixed costs per gallon of production, and
therefore be better able to profitably weather market cycles than the
smaller plants.

Exhibit 1-2: Average Ethanol Plant Size

Source:  Renewable Fuels Association:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/locations/"
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/locations/

Exhibit 1-3 Ethanol Plant Capacity Distribution

Source:  Renewable Fuels Association:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/locations/"
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/locations/

At the same time, the ethanol producers continue to rely almost
exclusively on corn as a feedstock, with almost all the capacity under
construction coming from corn. In addition, the geography of U.S.
ethanol production is not materially changing, with production
increasingly focused on the U.S. Midwest (PADD 2) through January 1,
2008.  Exhibit 1-4 shows a map of the U.S. with existing, under
construction, and planned projects identified. Note that PADD 2 remains
the core production area, although there is a widening of the production
“belt” from Iowa/Minnesota into Nebraska, Illinois, Ohio, etc prior
to 2008. This is basically the migration of the Iowa/Minnesota ethanol
plant “model” into other corn-producing markets.

In this exhibit, there is a clear trend in projects being planned
(yellow triangles) for development in other PADD’s. These plants under
development or planning indicate a movement away from PADD 2 sourcing
into regional sourcing closer to gasoline markets. ICF has not reviewed
these specific project proposals within the scope of this assignment,
however, we expect that the developers are planning to utilize local
corn or other economic feedstock as a raw material. The potential for
these projects to actually be implemented may depend on the developers
ability to persuade investors that reliable raw material supply is
available, and that land, permitting, and byproduct markets are also
viable.

Exhibit 1-5 shows the same information on a capacity basis with columns
for current (July 2006) and forecast (2012) assuming all planned
projects are completed and operational at that time.  While PADD 2
production continues to significantly grow beyond the base
Iowa/Minnesota core, it is clear that other PADDs are aggressively
looking at production facilities.

Exhibit 1-4: Existing, Under Construction, and Planned Ethanol
Production Facilities

Source: Renewable Fuels Association:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/locations/"
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/locations/

            www.impact-net.org/LinkedDocs/
Ethanol%20Production%20Package.xls

Exhibit 1-5: Ethanol Current and Future Production Capacity (mmgy)

Source: Renewable Fuels Association:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/locations/"
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/locations/

            www.impact-net.org/LinkedDocs/
Ethanol%20Production%20Package.xls

ICF also examined the historical ethanol production information as
published by the EIA and compared it with the ethanol capacity
information. Exhibit 1-6 shows that the ethanol production capacity
utilization has increased from the mid-80’s in 1999-2002 to the
95-100% utilization level in 2003 to current. While it is likely that
the actual capacity on an ethanol plant may exceed the “nameplate”
capacity, it is clear that the ethanol industry has been operating for
the past few years at a pace that is pushing the maximum utilization of
the current ethanol plant capacity.

Exhibit 1-6: U.S. Ethanol Producers’ Utilization

Source: Renewable Fuels Association

Specific Producers

The significant transitions noted above will result in a number of
changes in the makeup of the ethanol producers in the U.S. Exhibit 1-7
shows a listing of the ten largest ethanol producers as of January 1,
2006, 2008 and 2009. ICF has assumed that essentially all of the
existing capacity and capacity under construction (as reported by RFA)
will be operational by January 1, 2008. Capacity growth beyond 2008 is
based on information gleaned by ICF on announcements of planned new
capacity.

Exhibit 1-7: Top U.S. Ethanol Producers

Source: Renewable Fuels Association:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/locations/"
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/locations/

            www.impact-net.org/LinkedDocs/
Ethanol%20Production%20Package.xls

Clearly, the largest producer is ADM (Archer Daniels Midland), with over
20% of current production. After ADM, there are a number of producers
adding new plants. Based on plants under construction (operational by
2008) and those in the planning stage, it appears that several producers
will become more prominent, but still lag well behind ADM in production
capacity. These producers include U.S. BioEnergy, VeraSun, ASAlliance
BioFuels, Aventine, Beemer and others. The ten largest producers account
for about 41% of the total U.S. ethanol production by 2008. ADM’s
market share of production will decrease from current levels, but then
increase after 2008 as their new 500 mgy capacity (two locations)
becomes operational.

Looking at the top 4 firms in each time frame, the production share
declines from 34% to 29% on January 1 2008 to 28% in 2009.  Based on
this outlook, ICF believes that the ethanol production industry has a
relatively low exposure to domination by one or small number of
producers.  Conclusions in the FTC report issued in December, 2005 were
similar.

That being said, many other industries, including the oil industry, have
undergone periods of acquisition and mergers. The same overall drivers
behind those mergers apply also to ethanol producers. Mergers would
achieve lower overheads, centralized plant support, aggregated raw
material procurement processes, etc. We believe it is likely that this
will be seen in the ethanol production market over the next few years.

Ethanol Imports

In 2005, the United States imported roughly 110 million gallons of
ethanol, or 302 thousand gallons per day.  This volume was roughly 2-3%
of the total ethanol demand in the U.S. in 2005. The sources of the
majority of these imports were South and Central American countries as
shown in the table below.  The lone exception was Canada, which
accounted for 2% of imports.

Exhibit 1-8: 2005 Ethanol Imports by Source Country

			     Source: EIA Company Level Imports Data

The Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI), which falls under the umbrella of
the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), allows duty-free
imports of ethanol to the United States.  Therefore, in 2005, Jamaica,
El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Trinidad & Tobago sent imports to the
United States on a duty-free basis.  As part of the CBI, these countries
are required to meet certain requirements in terms of percent ethanol
produced from local feedstock and adhere to caps on imports from
specific countries.  Alternatively, these countries can reprocess
hydrous ethanol from Brazil in a dehydration plant and import duty free
up to 7% of U.S. ethanol demands. Imports directly from Brazil on the
other hand are administered a 54 cpg tariff which in effect offsets the
51 cpg gallon tax credit received for blending ethanol into gasoline.
CBI countries and Brazil accounted for 98% of the U.S. ethanol imports
in 2005.

Twelve companies imported ethanol in 2005, with the four largest
accounting for approximately 70% of the total volume imported as shown
in the table below.  It should be noted that companies importing ethanol
do not necessarily blend the ethanol themselves.  According to 2005 EIA
data, only BP, Chevron, Shell and Conoco import and also blend ethanol.

Exhibit 1-9: 2005 Ethanol Imports by Importing Country

		   Source: EIA Company Level Imports Data

The table below shows a PADD-level breakdown of the imports by importing
company.  The majority of imports are going into PADD 5, with Hogan and
Cargill constituting a major portion of those PADD 5 imports.  BP,
Vitol, and Northville account for the majority of imports into PADDs
1-4.

Exhibit 1-10:  2005 Ethanol Imports by Importing Company PADD
Distribution

	     Source: EIA Company Level Imports Data

Importers of ethanol, similar to producers, will be owners of renewable
credits under the proposed program.

Section 2:  Ethanol Marketing

The demand for ethanol in the U.S. is met by the sales of domestically
produced ethanol, and the sales of ethanol imported from other
countries. For 2005, domestically produced ethanol totaled 4.0 bgy and
imported ethanol was 0.3 bgy. The domestic ethanol is marketed by a core
group of large ethanol marketers. Some of the marketers have their own
production facilities, and others either buy ethanol from producers and
market the ethanol, or they have marketing agreements with producers to
market ethanol for a fee. Some ethanol plants are co-operatives, in
which several farmers may supply corn, and a marketer will provide a
common price for the ethanol to the co-operative members.

The large number of new ethanol plants being constructed in many cases
have an ethanol marketing agreement either in place or being negotiated
with a marketer. In some cases large producers appear to be moving to
market their own product (for example, VeraSun will market on their own
in 2007 rather than through Aventine), however we believe that most new
production locations will move their product through the large marketing
companies.

Since many of the ethanol marketing companies are not public, ICF has
used existing information developed by EPA, as well as follow-up
conversations with key ethanol marketers and the RFA website to develop
a view of the ethanol marketers’ current sales levels and forward
outlook. Exhibit 2-1 shows the results of this analysis, in terms of
U.S. ethanol marketers based on total volume sold (including any own
production) currently, and then by year end 2007.

Exhibit 2-1: Current Ethanol Marketing Volume by Marketing Company

Source:  www.impact-net.org/LinkedDocs/
Ethanol%20Production%20Package.xls

Exhibit 2-2: Estimated January 2008 Marketing Volume by Marketing
Company

In developing changes in marketing volumes from July 2006 to the end of
2007, ICF included known changes (e.g. VeraSun) along with identified
new marketing alliances from projects currently under construction. The
new marketing alliances included in the  total are shown in Exhibit 2-3.
Though not all new plants have announced marketing partners at this
point, it seems clear that many are utilizing some of the current major
marketing companies.

Exhibit 2-3: Ethanol Plants Currently Under Construction

Source: Renewable Fuels Association:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/locations/"
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/locations/

            www.impact-net.org/LinkedDocs/
Ethanol%20Production%20Package.xls

The customers who are buying ethanol in the market tend to be major
refiners. They are buying ethanol for their own needs to blend gasoline
for sales to consumers. In some cases at their own terminals, and in
some cases at terminals where they have leased tankage, they are also
buying ethanol to re-sell to other marketers who load product at that
location. This is an efficient means of managing ethanol supply without
requiring every gasoline marketer to maintain their own ethanol
inventory. Several marketers contacted indicated that 80-85% of their
ethanol sales were to major refiners.

The contracts for ethanol sales to refiners tend to be primarily on a
term basis, with some spot sales to balance refiner system needs. From
discussions with several marketers, the term sales appear to be of
relatively short duration (3-6 months) and can be based on several
pricing mechanisms. Typically, fixed price transactions, prices tied to
a Platt’s ethanol posting, or prices tied to a Platt’s unleaded
gasoline posting are the benchmark, with differentials (basis) to the
benchmark determined by market conditions, locations, etc.

The balance of ethanol sales from marketers are to large distributor
companies (Quik Trip, Sheetz, and others) and major pipeline and
terminal operators. The pipeline and terminal operators are buying
ethanol to resell to shippers and customers who use their terminals as
an added service.

Ethanol Logistics and Demand:

The logistics and geography of ethanol in the U.S. is important to the
effective growth and development of the ethanol marketplace. The ethanol
industry supply chain begins with a gathering process of feedstock
(primarily corn) into a local plant for processing. The size and
location of ethanol plants is influenced by the economics of gathering
corn and bringing it to the site. In general, it would be grossly
non-optimal to build a grain-based ethanol plant in a location removed
from feedstock.

Once ethanol is produced, it is gathered by marketers and moved to
customers through several distribution channels. Exhibit 2-4 shows the
primary ethanol flow from PADD 2 production sources into the
marketplace. The grey lines convey the primary flow in 2005, and the
green lines indicate the additional demand markets added in 2006 based
on the MTBE elimination and Hawaii’s ethanol mandate (beginning April,
2006).

Exhibit 2-4:  U.S. Ethanol Flows and Supply

Ethanol demands in the Midwest region are typically supplied from the
plants to marketing terminals by either truck or railcar movements. The
railcar movements are typically single railcars of ethanol.

Ethanol is supplied to California primarily via a rail car unit train
operated by Burlington Northern railroad. The unit train picks up
ethanol at multiple Midwest locations and travels to the Lomita Rail
Terminal near Los Angeles. The unit train carries about 2.8 million
gallons of ethanol in up to 100 rail cars. Product is pipelined from the
terminal into Shell-owned tankage for movement by truck into the Los
Angeles and California gasoline terminal system for blending into
gasoline.

Ethanol has been supplied into the New York and Connecticut markets to
replace MTBE in reformulated gasoline since those states banned MTBE in
2004. Most of this ethanol moves on unit trains from the Midwest into
Albany, New York and Sewaren, New Jersey terminal storage through a
process similar to the California movements. The railroads used are CSX
into Albany and Norfolk Southern into Sewaren. Product can be moved by
either truck or barge into other New York and Connecticut terminals.

With the elimination of MTBE in gasoline by the major oil companies in
2006, mid-Atlantic and New England states which had areas mandated for
reformulated gasoline are converting to ethanol-blended gasoline In most
cases, ethanol into these terminals is being delivered from Albany and
Sewaren terminals via either barges or trucks as required.

The Dallas and Houston markets are also undergoing a similar “MTBE”
phase-out transition. There have been logistics issues with railcar
congestion in this market, inhibiting ethanol blending. Additional
ethanol receiving tankage is being constructed by CSX railroad, but the
state of the supply reliability is still developing.

Exhibit 2-5 shows an ethanol supply/demand balance for 2005, and an
estimated supply/demand balance for a 2006 end-of-the-year scenario in
which the MTBE phase out has been completed, and new ethanol production
capacity has been made operational.

Exhibit 2-5: 2005 and 2006 Estimated U.S. Ethanol Supply and Demand, bgy

This analysis shows that the total ethanol demand by the end of 2006
will be almost 45% above 2005 average demand. Imports have increased to
enable the higher demand levels, and ICF has identified about a 1.5 bgy
increase in ethanol production capacity will be onstream by year end
2006.

Industry contacts (refiners, blenders and marketers) seem to agree that
the logistics and supply situation is suffering some birthing pains as
these new markets are added. In general though there is optimism that
the process will mature, tankage will be re-deployed into ethanol
service as needed, and a routine pattern of supply will evolve.

ICF notes that the existing marketplace will likely improve logistically
to accommodate today’s demand for ethanol and “get over” the MTBE
phase-out. Longer term, the new ethanol production being developed will
need to move into the market. It will be important to the goal of
meeting the Renewable Fuel Standard that the incremental ethanol
production gets into the marketplace efficiently. The phase-out of MTBE
is driving the current rapid additional use of ethanol in gasoline in
new market areas. The future ability of marketers to penetrate other new
markets (e.g., Atlanta) will depend more on economics, and logistics
costs may be an important decision factor for refiners and blenders
looking to decide whether or not to sell gasoline in markets currently
selling conventional (i.e., non-reformulated markets).

At current ethanol prices (about $4.00/gallon in the spot market), it is
unlikely that refiners or blenders will further expand gasoline sales
containing ethanol. However, as new production begins to exceed demand
levels, ethanol prices are likely to fall and make ethanol more viable
on an economic basis. The independent marketers and blenders are likely
to take a leading role in pushing new markets for ethanol penetration.
If sales significantly lag demand, it is possible that state legislators
will consider actions to mandate ethanol usage.

Section 3:  Refiners & Blenders

Refiners

As noted earlier, major refiners directly purchase over 80% of the
ethanol from ethanol marketers. Under the proposed terms of the RFS,
refiners who produce gasoline, and parties who import gasoline are
considered obligated parties required to own a determined percentage of
gasoline produced or imported as renewable credits. Hence these parties
determine the “demand” for renewable credits.

Gasoline Production

U.S. gasoline production in 2004 and 2005 averaged about 8.25 million
barrels per day, and gasoline imports (net finished and blendstocks)
averaged 1.0 million barrels per day. In gallons, production is 126 bgy,
and imports 15 bgy (versus 2005 U.S. ethanol production of 4.1 bgy
according to RFA). The U.S. gasoline production in 2004 and 2005
included about 0.3 million barrels per day of MTBE, which is essentially
being completely phased out in 2006.

The major gasoline producers in the U.S. can be identified from studying
published refinery capacity data, 10-K reports, and other trade
publications. In most cases 10-K reports do not identify actual U.S.
gasoline production for the company. ICF’s approach to estimate the
largest gasoline producers was to identify the refiner’s published
crude capacity, and average industry utilization (both as reported to
EIA), and estimate actual gasoline yield on crude (i.e., the fraction of
the crude oil that is transformed into gasoline). The gasoline yield on
crude for the U.S. in total is published by the EIA as part of the
Petroleum Supply Annual, and this yield has averaged about 53% of crude
capacity over the past two years.

ICF used this information, and made some adjustments based on ICF’s
knowledge of specific refiners operational configurations (include
production of petrochemicals, processing of non-crude feedstocks, etc)
and estimated the largest gasoline producers in 2005 (See Exhibit 3-1).
In addition, U.S. refiners have announced a number of refinery expansion
projects in the past year. Most of these will become operational in the
2009-2010 timeframe. Based on these announcements, ICF estimated changes
in refinery gasoline production over the 2005 to 2012 period, and
forecast refiner gasoline production for 2012. These forecasts are also
reflected on Exhibit 3-2. Note that the 2012 forecasts assume the
complete elimination of MTBE from the gasoline pool by the end of 2006.

Exhibit 3-1: 2005 Gasoline Refinery Production (Includes MTBE)

		     Source:  Company SEC 10-K filings, Annual Reports, and ICF
assumptions.

Exhibit 3-2:  Estimated 2012 Gasoline Refinery Production

		       Source:  Company SEC 10-K filings, Annual Reports, and ICF
assumptions.

Based on this information, ICF anticipates that the gasoline production
from the top ten refiners will increase from 8.2 to 8.7 million barrels
per day over the period. Barring mergers or divestments, the composition
of the top ten is not likely to change, with Valero and ConocoPhillips
having the largest gasoline production.

Based on this outlook, it appears that the obligation for purchasing
ethanol credits will remain spread across a number of large refiners,
with no significant change in concentration of production occurring. It
is worth noting, however, that the four largest gasoline producers hold
about 48% of the U.S. refinery gasoline production capacity (a much
higher percentage than the four largest ethanol producers).

Imports

Exhibit 3-3 shows the top ten companies who imported gasoline in 2004
and 2005.

Exhibit 3-3: Top Gasoline Importing Companies

	   Source: EIA Company Level Imports Data

The import list includes some major refiners and trading companies. The
list is fairly stable in both 2004 and 2005 in terms of both importers
and the relative volumes. Many of the trading companies sell the
gasoline being imported either directly on discharge or (for components)
after blending to finished gasoline. Regardless, the trading company as
importer of record will be the entity obligated to purchase RINs to meet
the RFS.

The list of importers in Exhibit 3-3 is combined with the top ten
gasoline producers in 2005 (Exhibit 3-1) to identify the top ten
“obligated parties” as defined in the ethanol credit program being
proposed. This list is shown in Exhibit 3-4 below.

Exhibit 3-4: Top Gasoline Producers/Importers

	               Source:  Company SEC 10-K filings, Annual Reports, ICF
assumptions, and EIA                     		Company Level Imports Data

Based on this assessment, the major purchasers of RINs will be Valero,
ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and BP. The total volume percentage of
gasoline supply (production plus imports) for these four companies in
2005 was 48% of the total gasoline supply. Each company, however, may
have very different system operations which would affect their strategy
for dealing with ethanol and RIN management.

For example, both Valero and ConocoPhillips have a low level of actual
retail and wholesale marketing sales compared to actual gasoline
production. They sell a percentage of their gasoline production into the
spot market on a bulk basis (meaning into pipelines or barges to other
companies). Hence their need for physical supply of ethanol may be less
than for some others. Other companies may not market heavily in the
regions where reformulated gasoline predominates, and they may have less
need for physical ethanol supply than others. A specific analysis of
each companies’ current ethanol blending requirements is outside the
study scope, but it is clear that there will be a number of companies
that are “short” RINs due to high production volumes and low system
ethanol demand, and there will be other companies with the reverse
position, i.e., companies that are long “RINs” due to high ethanol
purchase needs and relatively lower gasoline production. (Note that this
assumes that the purchaser of ethanol for blending obtains the RIN as
proposed).

As noted, importers of gasoline or gasoline blendstocks will also be
obligated parties, even if they are simply bringing the gasoline into
the U.S. to be blended into finished gasoline by other parties. These
importers (such as Vitol, Glencore, etc) will be required to purchase
RINs to meet the annual RFS requirement for the imported gasoline. These
parties, as well as the U.S. refining parties who are producing gasoline
will establish the total “demand” for RINs.

Non-Refining Blenders

The non-refiner blenders tend to be smaller entities in the ethanol
supply chain. These companies can be marketer/blenders such as Sheetz,
Quiktrip, etc, or they can be pipeline companies that purchase and store
ethanol at their loading terminals for parties who ship and load RBOB
product through those terminals.

Access to information on the amount of ethanol used by these parties is
very limited, and particularly so now as the Mid Atlantic, New England
and Texas markets are in flux. However, these parties play some very key
roles. Marketer/Blenders, for example, often are the first participants
to see a market change evolving and can launch ethanol based sales in
new markets somewhat easier than refiners.

There do not appear to be any large concentrations of marketer/blenders
who could influence the RIN values. Pipeline companies who purchase
ethanol for re-sale at terminals may need to consider the implications
of RIN ownership on their rate structure and legal exposure.

Section 4: Outlook

The analysis of the ethanol supply chain should be considered in the
context of the overall U.S. gasoline supply and demand. The prevailing
outlook from the above information indicates the following trends will
emerge:

Ethanol production will grow markedly over the next several years as
plants currently under construction are completed, and new projects in
planning begin construction. Incremental ethanol production capacity by
January 2012 may be as much as 13.5 bgy, or 9 bgy above January, 2006
capacity (this is a supply increase of almost 600 MB/D ethanol).

Refinery capacity increases currently being planned and in engineering
are expected to add about an additional 500 MB/D gasoline supply by
January 1, 2012, even recognizing the elimination of MTBE from the
refinery production volumes in 2006.

The addition of more gasoline supply from refiners and ethanol
facilities will provide more U.S. sourced supply. The added volume will
potentially decrease imports depending on the ultimate growth in U.S.
gasoline demand over the period.

The timing of the production increases, ethanol infrastructure
development and expected continued market price volatility will likely
mean that spread between ethanol price and gasoline will continue to
exhibit wide variation.

Periods of weak markets for ethanol versus gasoline may stimulate
legislators to mandate ethanol usage in non-reformulated markets to
assure U.S. ethanol producers remain viable economically and that
home-based energy supply continues to grow.

If demand growth is kept in check due to conservation efforts, and
Europe continues to move surplus gasoline into the U.S. market, U.S.
refining margins are likely to come under periods of significant
pressure.

The net result is that the gasoline transportation marketplace is likely
to be in a state of significant flux over the next 5 to 6 years.

Attachment 2

  The RFS target of 7.5 bgy is specified in the 2005 Energy Policy Act

 A terminal is a facility with multiple storage tanks for fuels products
owned and maintained by oil companies or pipeline operators. In most
cases terminals also have facilities to load product onto trucks for
delivery to service stations. The terminals must receive ethanol from
barge, railcar, or truck to be able to blend into gasoline blendstocks
to provide quality gasoline to service stations.

 A “term” basis refers to an agreement over a period of time, as in
50,000 gallons of ethanol per month for 6 months at a market agreed
price, or a price indexed to a marker such as Platt’s NY ethanol cargo
price.

 Blendstocks are gasoline blending components which do not meet finished
gasoline specifications, but when blended with other components of
different chemical composition, can meet U.S. gasoline specifications.
Examples are reformate, alkylate, and isomerate.

 Retail sales are sales through company owned and operated stations;
wholesale sales are sales to dealers (delivered by the oil company), and
sales to independent distributors from a terminal loading rack.

 PAGE

 PAGE   1

 PAGE

 PAGE   28

.4 bgy

Legend:

Grey Arrows:  Pre-2006 demand flows.

Green Arrows: New 2006 demand flows.

Red Arrows: Supply imports.

Grey Circles: Supply centers.

   PADD 1

    Supply:

    .1 bgy

2.8 bgy (PADD 2 demand)

   PADD 2

    Supply:

    5.4 bgy

1.1 bgy

.5 bgy

.4 bgy

.2 bgy

.1 bgy

.9 bgy

.4 bgy

PADD 4

PADD 5

PADD 1

PADD 3

PADD 2


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 19 (Monday, February 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7777-7778]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02021]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0111]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of an Approved
Information Collection: Practices of Household Goods Brokers

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
and approval.

DATES: Please send your comments by March 3, 2021. OMB must receive
your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Monique Riddick, Commercial
Enforcement and Investigations Division, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, West
Building, 6th Floor, MC-ECC, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590-0001. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    As a result of Title IV, Subtitle B of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59) and a petition for rulemaking from the
American Moving and Storage Association,\1\ FMCSA amended then-existing
regulations for brokers in a final rule titled, ``Brokers of Household
Goods Transportation by Motor Vehicles,'' (75 FR 72987, Nov. 29, 2010).
The 2010 rule revised 49 CFR part 371 by providing additional consumer
protection responsibilities for brokers of Household Goods (HHG).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As of August 8, 2020, the American Moving and Storage
Association (AMSA) announced AMSA will join the American Trucking
Associations (ATA) as the Moving & Storage Conference. Retrieved
January 1, 2021 from: https://www.moving.org/amsa-to-become-conference-of-american-trucking-associations/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 4212 of SAFETEA-LU directs the Secretary to require HHG
brokers to provide potential shippers with information throughout the
various stages of their interaction. The below summarizes the
information collection required of the HHG broker at the various
interaction stages between the HHG broker and shippers as laid out by
49 CFR part 371, subpart B.

I. First Phase: ``Prospecting''

    When HHG shippers are looking to procure HHG brokers' services,
brokers must collect the following information and display it on their
websites and solicitation materials:
     Their physical address (49 CFR 371.107(a));
     Their U.S. DOT number(s) and MC number (49 CFR
371.107(b));
     A statement indicating that they will not transport the
shipper's goods but will only arrange for goods to be transported by a
registered motor carrier (49 CFR 371.107(c));
     If brokers choose to publish rates on their websites or
solicitation materials, the broker must also publish a statement that
the rates are based on a motor carrier's publicly available rates (49
CFR 371.107(d));
     If brokers choose to publish a list of motor carriers with
whom they work, the list must only be a list of motor carriers with
whom brokers have agreements (49 CFR 371.107(e)); and
     Brokers must publish information regarding their
cancellation policies, including information on deposits and refunds
(49 CFR 371.117(a)).

II. Second Phase: ``Contact''

    When HHG shippers make reasonable requests seeking additional
information

about broker services, the HHG brokers must collect the following
information and distribute it to HHG shippers:
    1. A list of motor carriers with whom it has agreements (49 CFR
371.109(a)); and
    2. A statement indicating the broker is not a motor carrier and
that the broker is only arranging transportation of the shipper's goods
(49 CFR 371.109(b)).

III. Third Phase: ``Estimate''

    When HHG shippers request estimates, the HHG brokers must collect
the following information and distribute it to HHG shippers and/or
store the information received:
    1. FMCSA's published information materials: (1) ``Ready to Move?--
Tips for a Successful Interstate Move'' and (2) ``Your Rights and
Responsibilities When you Move'' (49 CFR 371.111(a)(1),(a)(2), &
(a)(3));
    2. A document signed by the shipper, showing he/she received
FMCSA's published information material (49 CFR 371.111(c));
    3. A written estimate based on the motor carrier's physical survey
of household items (49 CFR 371.113(a)), with estimates based on
published motor carrier rates (49 CFR 371.113(b));
    4. If applicable, the shipper must sign a ``Waiver'' receipt,
showing he/she has waived his/her right to a physical survey of his/her
household items by the motor carrier. The HHG broker must collect the
``Waiver'' receipt and store the record (49 CFR 371.113(b)).

IV. Fourth Phase: ``Agreement''

    Should the shipper find the shipping estimate and broker services
reasonable and wish to contract the broker's services, the two parties
must enter into an agreement. At this point, it is standard practice
for shippers to pay either a deposit or make full payment. However,
before collecting any payment, the broker must collect the following
information and distribute it to the HHG shipper:
     An agreement document with required specifications as laid
out by 49 CFR 371.115; and
     An agreement document which highlights the broker's and/or
motor carrier's refund policy for cancellation of agreements (49 CFR
371.117(a)).
    The information provided in phases I, II, III, and IV supports the
requirements of 49 CFR part 371, subpart B, and the Department's
secondary mission to support HHG consumer protection.
    The complete collection of information required by the referenced
final rule assists HHG shippers in their business dealings with
interstate HHG brokers. The information collected is used by
prospective HHG shippers to make informed decisions about contracts,
services ordered, executed, and settled. The HHG broker is often the
earliest contact for individual HHG shippers in an interstate moving
transaction; therefore, it makes sense for HHG brokers to provide HHG
shippers with consumer protection information.
    FMCSA revises the total annual burden to 72,808 hours. This is a
2,723 annual burden hour increase from the currently approved 70,085
annual burden estimate. This increase is due to the following: (1) The
previous iteration did not account for the time brokers use to complete
a ``waiver'' should shippers choose to waive their rights to a physical
survey, if applicable to a shipper, as required by 49 CFR
371.113(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3); (2) the previous iteration did not
clarify a reproducible frequency formula used to calculate the number
of times brokers collect information and submit information to
shippers. To produce a reproducible frequency formula, the updated
information collection introduced the concept of ``phases,'' which
created a frequency number based on business interactions between
brokers and shippers as explained above; and (3) FMCSA's records
indicate the number of household goods brokers increased from 543
brokers to 652 brokers.
    In addition to the above, an adjustment was made to this ICR
revision from the previous ICR renewal with regards to the annual
hourly burden estimate for broker ``transaction records''(49 CFR
371.3). The annual hourly burden was removed from this ICR revision
because the burden is for the collection of information that the broker
would ordinarily record for other standard business practices such as
tax purposes. As a result, the associated annual hourly burden estimate
is removed. The previous ICR accounted 32,580 annual burden hours \2\
for ``transaction records,'' while this ICR revises the annual burden
to 0 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ FMCSA derived the annual hourly burden by applying the
following formula: Time spent on shipper transaction record keeping
per day x number of work days x the number of brokers. The
calculation was 15 minutes per day x 240 workdays x 543 brokers,
which resulted in an annual burden of 32,580 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: Practices of Household Goods Brokers.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0048.
    Type of Request: Revision of currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Brokers of Household Goods.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 652.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 500,084 responses.
    Expiration Date: January 31, 2021.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 72,808 hours.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the FMCSA to perform its functions; (2) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information.

    Issued under the authority delegated in 49 CFR part 1.87.
Thomas P. Keane,
Associate Administrator, Office of Research and Registration.
[FR Doc. 2021-02021 Filed 1-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P