[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65427-65429]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25837]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2013-0097]

Pipeline Safety: Reminder of Requirements for Liquefied Petroleum
Gas and Utility Liquefied Petroleum Gas Pipeline Systems

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA);
DOT.

ACTION: Notice; Correction of Advisory Bulletin.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA published an Advisory Bulletin in the Federal Register
on July 18, 2013, (78 FR 42889) reminding owners and operators of
liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and utility liquefied petroleum gas
(Utility LP-Gas) plants of their obligation to follow certain sections
of Part 192 in addition to the American National Standards Institute/
National Fire Protection Association (ANSI/NFPA) standards 58 or 59.
This document supersedes the July 18, 2013, Advisory Bulletin by
correcting a typographical error in the sixth bullet and removing the
exemption for small utility LP gas systems from Subpart N
(Qualification of Pipeline Personnel) from the bulleted list.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd DelVecchio by phone at 727-213-
1575 or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Mike Israni at 202-366-
4571 or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Information about PHMSA may be
found at http://phmsa.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    49 CFR 192.11 requires that each plant that supplies petroleum gas
by pipeline to a natural gas distribution system must meet the
requirements of Part 192 and ANSI/NFPA 58 and 59 (2004) (192.11(a)). It
also states that each pipeline system subject to Part 192 that
transports only petroleum gas or petroleum gas/air mixtures must meet
the requirements of Part 192 and of ANSI/NFPA 58 and 59 (192.11(b)).

Finally, the regulation lays out a primacy provision stating that in
the event of a conflict between the regulation and the standard, ANSI/
NFPA 58 and 59 prevail (192.11(c)). However, this primacy provision
does not excuse operators from following Part 192 requirements. For
instance, when ANSI/NFPA 58 or 59 (2004) does not address a specific
subject, then no conflict has occurred and the operator must follow
Part 192 requirements.
    At the time the primacy provision was added to the regulations in
1996, the standards took advantage of more current petroleum gas
transportation technology and safety practices. In a July 22, 2009, (74
FR 36139) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), PHMSA proposed changing
this primacy provision. PHMSA proposed changing this provision because
the new NFPA standards issued in 2008 had many conflicts with Part 192
and PHMSA had noticed that operators were misinterpreting Sec.
192.11(c). In response to the NPRM, commenters objected to the change
suggesting it would result in unanticipated safety consequences. PHMSA
did not take any action at the final rule stage but in the future,
PHMSA may undertake a rulemaking to address this issue. This Advisory
Bulletin serves to remind owners and operators of petroleum gas systems
that they must continue to comply with certain requirements of Part
192.

II. Advisory Bulletin (ADB-2013-03)

    To: Owners and Operators of LPG and Utility LP-Gas Plants.
    Subject: Applicability of Part 192 to Owners and Operators of LPG
and Utility LP-Gas Plants.
    Advisory: When ANSI/NFPA 58 or 59 (2004) does not address a
specific subject, then a conflict has not occurred and the operator
must follow Part 192 requirements. Part 192 covers areas that are not
addressed in ANSI/NFPA 58 or 59 (2004). These areas include:
     Inspection requirements for distribution mains (Sec. Sec.
192.305 and 192.307).
     Backfill requirements for installing pipe in a ditch
(Sec.  192.319).
     Underground pipe clearance requirements (Sec.  192.325).
     Valve requirements for service lines (Sec. Sec.  192.363
and 192.365).
     Continuing surveillance (Sec.  192.613).
     Public awareness (Sec.  192.616).
     Operator qualification (Subpart N)
     Distribution Pipeline Integrity Management (Subpart P).
    While not intended to be an exhaustive list, the following table
highlights various requirements of Part 192 that are not addressed by
ANSI/NFPA 58 and 59 (2004). Because ANSI/NPFA 58 and 59 (2004) do not
have specific language on these topics, there is no conflict and
therefore, Part 192 applies in these areas.

 Applicable Sections of Part 192 in Addition to the Requirements of NFPA
                            58 and 59 (2004)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Section                               Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Subpart G--General Construction Requirements for Transmission Lines and
                                  Mains
------------------------------------------------------------------------
192.305...........................  Inspection: General.
192.307...........................  Inspection of materials.
192.319...........................  Installation of pipe in a ditch.
192.323...........................  Casing.
192.325...........................  Underground clearance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subpart H--Customer Meters, Service Regulators, and Service Lines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
192.363...........................  Service lines: Valve requirements.
192.365...........................  Service lines: Location of valves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Subpart L--Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
192.613...........................  Continuing Surveillance.
192.614...........................  Damage Prevention Program.
192.615...........................  Emergency Plans.
192.616...........................  Public Awareness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Subpart N--Qualification of Pipeline Personnel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The entire Part 192 subpart would apply with the exception of Sec.
 192.805(h). NFPA 58 and 59 do not address any of the operator
 qualification and testing requirements. Therefore, owners and operators
 of LPG and Utility LP-Gas Plants would be required to meet the training
 requirements under the NFPA standard and the operator qualification and
 testing requirements under Part 192.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Subpart P--Distribution Pipeline Integrity Management (IM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Part 192 subpart would apply in its entirety; NFPA 58 does not
 address any requirements of this subpart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 25, 2013.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Policy and Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013-25837 Filed 10-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 15004]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6367]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Revision and Extension:
    Rule 203A-2(f); SEC File No. 270-501; OMB Control No. 3235-0559.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 203A-2(f),\1\ which is entitled ``Internet Investment
Advisers,'' exempts from the prohibition on Commission registration an
Internet investment adviser who provides investment advice to all of
its clients exclusively through computer software-based models or
applications, termed under the rule as ``interactive websites.'' These
advisers generally would not meet the statutory thresholds currently
set out in section 203A of the Advisers Act \2\ or the thresholds set
out in section 203A as amended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act (``Dodd-Frank Act'') beginning on July 21,
2011\3\--they do not manage $25 million or more in assets and do not
advise registered investment companies,\4\ or they manage between $25
million and $100 million in assets, do not advise registered investment
companies or business development companies, and are required to be
registered as investment advisers with the states in which they
maintain their principal offices and places of business and are subject
to examination as an adviser by such states.\5\ Eligibility under rule
203A-2(f) is conditioned on an adviser maintaining in an easily
accessible place, for a period of not less than five years from the
filing of Form ADV relying on the rule,\6\ a record demonstrating that
the adviser's advisory business has been conducted through an
interactive website in accordance with the rule.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 275.203A-2(f). Included in rule 203A-2(f) is a
limited exception to the interactive website requirement which
allows these advisers to provide investment advice to no more than
14 clients through other means on an annual basis. 17 CFR 275.203A-
2(f)(1)(i). The rule also precludes advisers in a control
relationship with the SEC-registered Internet adviser from
registering with the Commission under the common control exemption
provided by rule 203A-2(c) (17 CFR 275.203A-2(c)). 17 CFR 275.203A-
2(f)(1)(iii).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 80b-3a(a).
    \3\ Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 80b-3a(a).
    \5\ See section 410 of the Dodd-Frank Act. A mid-sized adviser
managing between $25 million and $100 million also will be permitted
to register with the Commission if it would be required to register
with 15 or more states. These amendments are effective on July 21,
2011.
    \6\ The five-year record retention period is a similar
recordkeeping retention period as imposed on all advisers under rule
204-2 of the Adviser Act. See rule 204-2 (17 CFR 275.204-2).
    \7\ 17 CFR 275.203A-2(f)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This record maintenance requirement is a ``collection of
information'' for PRA purposes. The Commission believes that
approximately 58 advisers are registered with the Commission under rule
203-2A(f), which involves a recordkeeping requirement manifesting in
approximately four burden hours per year per adviser and results in an
estimated 232 of total burden hours (4 x 58) for all advisers.
    This collection of information is mandatory, as it is used by
Commission staff in its examination and oversight program in order to
determine continued Commission registration eligibility for advisers
registered under this rule. Responses generally are kept confidential
pursuant to section 210(b) of the Advisers Act.\8\ Written comments are
invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The
accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of
information; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on respondents, including through the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions
submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 80b-10(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an
e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 15, 2011.
Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-6367 Filed 3-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 222 (Friday, November 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57723-57724]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25073]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG19-17-000.
    Applicants: Bridgewater Power Company, L.P.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Bridgewater Power Company, L.P.
    Filed Date: 11/8/18.
    Accession Number: 20181108-5164.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/18.

    Docket Numbers: EG19-18-000.
    Applicants: Peony Solar LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Peony Solar LLC.
    Filed Date: 11/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20181109-5026.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/18.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2231-001.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: DEC Revised Depreciation Rates
(Compliance Filing) to be effective 8/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 11/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20181109-5029.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-154-001.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Harry Allen
Interconnection Agreement to be effective 10/23/2018.
    Filed Date: 11/8/18.
    Accession Number: 20181108-5147.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-298-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Errata--Amendment to ISAs, SA Nos.
4682 & First Revised 4332; Queue No. AA1-139 to be effective 11/17/
2017.
    Filed Date: 11/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20181109-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-313-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. ALLETE,
Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-11-08 SA 3207 MP-GRE
ICA (Langola) to be effective 11/9/2018.
    Filed Date: 11/8/18.
    Accession Number: 20181108-5165.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-314-000.
    Applicants: Bridgewater Power Company, L.P.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Bridgewater Power Company,
L.P. Market Based Rates Tariff to be effective 1/8/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/8/18.
    Accession Number: 20181108-5166.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-315-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Unsecured credit scoring
model revisions to be effective 1/9/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20181109-5027.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-316-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ATSI submits IA SA No. 5132
to be effective 1/9/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20181109-5040.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-317-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.

    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule No. 115 EPE E
& P Agreement with EDF Renewables Development, Inc. to be effective 11/
10/2018.
    Filed Date: 11/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20181109-5041.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-319-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., ALLETE,
Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-11-10_SA 3209 MP-GRE
ICA (Brainerd) to be effective 11/10/2018.
    Filed Date: 11/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20181109-5069.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-320-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., ALLETE,
Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-11-09_SA 3208 MP-GRE T-
L IA (Taft) to be effective 11/10/2018.
    Filed Date: 11/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20181109-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-321-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: DEP-FBEMC (Rate Schedule No. 195)
Cancellation Filing to be effective 12/31/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20181109-5083.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-322-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: First Amended
Interconnection Agreement for the Bob Switch to be effective 11/10/
2018.
    Filed Date: 11/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20181109-5095.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-323-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to the OATT and OA
re Transmission Constraint Penalty Factors to be effective 2/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20181109-5099.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-324-000.
    Applicants: Central Maine Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: First Amendment to
Bilateral, Cost-Based Trans. Service Agreements (Eversource) to be
effective 1/9/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20181109-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-325-000.
    Applicants: Central Maine Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: First Amendment to
Bilateral, Cost-Based Trans. Service Agreements (NG) to be effective 1/
9/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20181109-5142.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-326-000.
    Applicants: Central Maine Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: First Amendment to
Bilateral, Cost-Based Trans. Service Agreements (Unitil) to be
effective 1/9/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20181109-5144.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-327-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: E&P Agreement for Gonzaga
Ridge Wind Farm to be effective 11/10/2018.
    Filed Date: 11/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20181109-5153.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/18.

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

    Dated: November 9, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-25073 Filed 11-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 15, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39014-39015]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14124]

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

 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 218

[Docket No. FRA-2014-0033, Notice No. 3]
RIN 2130-AC48

Train Crew Staffing

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public hearing and reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On March 15, 2016, FRA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) that would require establishing minimum requirements
for the size of train crew staffs depending on the type of operation.
FRA is announcing a public hearing to provide interested persons an
opportunity to provide oral comments on the proposal. FRA is also
announcing a reopening of the comment period for this proceeding to
allow time for interested parties to submit written comments in
response to

views or information provided at the public hearing.

DATES: A public hearing will be held on July 15, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. in
Washington, DC. The comment period for the proposed rule published on
March 15, 2016, (81 FR 13918) is open through June 15, 2016 (81 FR
30229). The comment period will reopen on July 15, 2016. Comments in
response to views or information provided at the public hearing must be
received by August 15, 2016.

ADDRESSES:
    Public Hearing. The public hearing will be held at the National
Housing Center of the National Association of Home Builders, 1201 15th
Street NW., Washington, DC 20005.
    Comments. You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FRA-
2014-0033 by any of the following methods:
     Online: Comments should be filed at the Federal
eRulemaking Portal, http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name, docket
name, and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for
this rulemaking (RIN 2130-AC48). Note that FRA will post all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading in
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document for Privacy Act
information about any submitted petitions, comments, or materials.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Joseph D. Riley, Railroad Safety
Specialist, Operating Practices, Operating Crew Certification, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Mail
Stop 25, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 493-
6318, or Mr. Alan H. Nagler, Senior Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Chief
Counsel, RCC-10, Mail Stop 10, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Interested parties are invited to present
oral statements and to offer information and views at the hearing. The
hearing will be informal and will be conducted by a representative FRA
designates under FRA's Rules of Practice (49 CFR 211.25). The hearing
will be a non-adversarial proceeding. Therefore, there will be no cross
examination of persons presenting statements or offering evidence. An
FRA representative will make an opening statement outlining the scope
of the hearing. After all initial statements are completed those
persons wishing to make a brief rebuttal will be given the opportunity
to do so in the same order in which the initial statements were made.
FRA will announce the additional procedures that are necessary to
conduct the hearing, at the hearing. The purpose of this hearing is to
receive oral comments in response to an NPRM that requested public
comment on a potential train crew staffing rulemaking. See 81 FR 13918,
March 15, 2016. FRA will add a transcript of the discussions to the
public docket in this proceeding.
    Public Participation Procedures. Any person wishing to make a
statement at the hearing should notify Mr. Riley by telephone, email,
or in writing, at least 5 working days before the date of the hearing
and submit three copies of the oral statement that he or she intends to
make at the proceeding. The notification should identify the party the
person represents, the particular subject(s) the person plans to
address, and the time requested. The notification should also provide
the participant's mailing address and other contact information. FRA
reserves the right to limit participation in the hearing of persons who
fail to provide such notification. FRA also reserves the right to limit
the duration of presentations if necessary to afford all persons with
the opportunity to speak.
    For information on facilities or services for persons with
disabilities, or to request special assistance at the hearing, contact
FRA Program Analyst, Mr. Kenton Kilgore, by telephone, email, or in
writing, at least 5 working days before the date of the hearing. Mr.
Kilgore's can be reached at Federal Railroad Administration, Office of
Railroad Safety, Mail Stop 25, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590;<PHONE_NUMBER>; or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Reopening of Comment Period. The comment period for the proposed
rule published on March 15, 2016, (81 FR 13918) is currently open
through June 15, 2016 (81 FR 30229). A public hearing is scheduled
after the close of this comment period. To accommodate the public
hearing and to afford interested parties the opportunity to submit
comments in response to views or information provided at the public
hearing, FRA will reopen the comment period for the proposed rule on
July 15, 2016. Comments in response to views or information provided at
the public hearing must be received by August 15, 2016.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of www.regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-14124 Filed 6-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


From:
French, Chuck<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Tuesday, August 1, 2023 4:21 PM
To:
Henry, JeannaR<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Boaggio, Katie<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Hansen, Amanda<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: Mon Valley - Any Updates - Coke Ovens Proposed rule signed

Hello Jeanna,

     Last night, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to update and strengthen emission standards for hazardous air pollutants such as benzene, mercury, lead and arsenic that are emitted by coke oven facilities. These proposed amendments would further reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants, also known as HAP, and improve accountability and compliance assurance at coke oven facilities.

     The proposed amendments would fulfill EPA's responsibility under the Clean Air Act to periodically review emission standards to reflect developments in pollution control technologies and techniques, and to establish standards for all types of hazardous air pollutants emitted by regulated facilities.  If finalized, the proposal would establish more protective standards for HAP leaks from doors and other sources at coke oven batteries; establish a fenceline monitoring requirement to ensure that coke oven batteries regularly monitor benzene levels near the facility and take appropriate corrective action if measurements at the fenceline exceed a particular level; and establish standards for currently unregulated pollutants.

     EPA will be taking public comment on the proposed amendments for 45 days after it is published in the Federal Register. Interested parties can download a copy of the NESHAP for Coke Ovens Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks proposed rule and fact sheet from EPA's website at the following address: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-pushing-quenching-and-battery-stacks-national-emission

      A copy of the proposed rule and fact sheet for the Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-batteries-national-emissions-standards-hazardous-air

Please share this news with your colleagues in Region 3 and ATSDR, etc...

Let us know if you have questions.

Thank You!
Chuck French, Group Leader
Metals and Inorganic Chemicals Group
Sector Policies & Programs Division
Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> (office),<PHONE_NUMBER> (cell)


discriminatory because the Exchange will apply the same fees to all
market participants that use the same respective connectivity options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ See Affiliated Exchange Fee Schedules, Logical Port Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed Logical Port fees are reasonable
as it is the same fee for Drop Ports and the first

five BOE/FIX Ports that is assessed for CMI and FIX Logins, which the
Exchange is eliminating in lieu of logical ports. Additionally, while
the proposed ports will be assessed the same monthly fees as current
CMI/FIX Login IDs, the proposed logical ports provide for significantly
more message traffic. Specifically, the proposed BOE/FIX Logical Ports
will provide for 3 times the amount of quoting \104\ capacity and
approximately 165 times order entry capacity. Similarly, the Exchange
believes the proposed BOE Bulk Port fees are reasonable because while
the fees are higher than the CMI and FIX Login Id fees and the proposed
Logical Port fees, BOE Bulk Ports offer significantly more bandwidth
capacity than both CMI and FIX Login Ids and Logical Ports.
Particularly, a single BOE Bulk Port offers 45 times the amount of
quoting bandwidth than CMI/FIX Login Ids \105\ and 5 times the amount
of quoting bandwidth than Logical Ports will offer. Additionally, the
Exchange believes that its fees for logical connectivity are
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory as they are
designed to ensure that firms that use the most capacity pay for that
capacity, rather than placing that burden on market participants that
have more modest needs. Although the Exchange charges a ``per port''
fee for logical connectivity, it notes that this fee is in effect a
capacity fee as each FIX, BOE or BOE Bulk port used for order/quote
entry supports a specified capacity (i.e., messages per second) in the
matching engine, and firms purchase additional logical ports when they
require more capacity due to their business needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ Based on the purchase of a single Market-Maker Trading
Permit or Bandwidth Packet.
    \105\ Based on the purchase of a single Market-Maker Trading
Permit or Bandwidth Packet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An obvious driver for a market participant's decision to purchase
multiple ports will be their desire to send or receive additional
levels of message traffic in some manner, either by increasing their
total amount of message capacity available, or by segregating order
flow for different trading desks and clients to avoid latency sensitive
applications from competing for a single thread of resources. For
example, a TPH may purchase one or more ports for its market making
business based on the amount of message traffic needed to support that
business, and then purchase separate ports for proprietary trading or
customer facing businesses so that those businesses have their own
distinct connection, allowing the firm to send multiple messages into
the Exchange's trading system in parallel rather than sequentially.
Some TPHs that provide direct market access to their customers may also
choose to purchase separate ports for different clients as a service
for latency sensitive customers that desire the lowest possible latency
to improve trading performance. Thus, while a smaller TPH that demands
more limited message traffic may connect through a service bureau or
other service provider, or may choose to purchase one or two logical
ports that are billed at a rate of $750 per month each, a larger market
participant with a substantial and diversified U.S. options business
may opt to purchase additional ports to support both the volume and
types of activity that they conduct on the Exchange. While the Exchange
has no way of predicting with certainty the amount or type of logical
ports market participants will in fact purchase post-migration, the
Exchange anticipated approximately 16% of TPHs to purchase one to two
logical ports, and approximately 22% of TPHs to not purchase any
logical ports. In December 2019, 13% of TPHs purchased one to two
logical ports and 27% have not purchased any logical ports. At the same
time, market participants that desire more total capacity due to their
business needs, or that wish to segregate order flow by purchasing
separate capacity allocations to reduce latency or for other
operational reasons, would be permitted to choose to purchase such
additional capacity at the same marginal cost. The Exchange believes
the proposal to assess an additional Logical and BOE Bulk port fee for
incremental usage per logical port is reasonable because the proposed
fees are modestly higher than the proposed Logical Port and BOE Bulk
fees and encourage users to mitigate message traffic as necessary. The
Exchange notes one of its Affiliated Exchanges has similar implied port
fees.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ See e.g., Cboe C2 Options Exchange Fees Schedule, Logical
Connectivity Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, the Exchange believes that the proposed BOE/FIX Logical
Port and BOE Bulk Port fees are appropriate as these fees would ensure
that market participants continue to pay for the amount of capacity
that they request, and the market participants that pay the most are
the ones that demand the most resources from the Exchange. The Exchange
also believes that its logical connectivity fees are 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.''
\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes waiving the FIX/BOE Logical Port fee for one
FIX Logical Port used to access PULSe and Silexx (for FLEX Trading) is
reasonable because it will allow all TPHs using PULSe and Silexx to
avoid having to pay a fee that they would otherwise have to pay. The
waiver is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because TPHs using
PULSe are already subject to a monthly fee for the PULSe Workstation,
which the Exchange views as inclusive of fees to access the Exchange.
Moreover, while PULSe users today do not require a FIX/CMI Login Id,
post-migration, due to changes to the connectivity infrastructure,
PULSe users will be required to maintain a FIX Logical Port and as such
incur a fee they previously would not have been subject to. Similarly,
the Exchange believes that the waiver for Silexx (for FLEX trading)
will encourage TPHs to transact business using FLEX Options using the
new Silexx System and encourage trading of FLEX Options. Additionally,
the Exchange notes that it currently waives the Login Id fees for Login
IDs used to access the CFLEX system.
    The Exchange believes its proposed fee for Purge Ports is
reasonable as it is also in line with the amount assessed for purge
ports offered by its Affiliated Exchanges, as well as other
exchanges.\108\ Moreover, the Exchange believes that offering purge
port functionality at the Exchange level promotes robust risk
management across the industry, and thereby facilitates investor
protection. Some market participants, and, in particular, larger firms,
could build similar risk functionality on their trading systems that
permit the flexible cancellation of orders entered on the Exchange.
Offering Exchange level protections however, ensures that such
functionality is widely available to all firms, including smaller firms
that may otherwise not be willing to incur the costs and development
work necessary to support their own customized mass cancel
functionality. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in
which exchanges offer connectivity and related services as a means to

facilitate the trading activities of TPHs and other participants. As
the proposed Purge Ports provide voluntary risk management
functionality, excessive fees would simply serve to reduce demand for
this optional product. The Exchange also believes that the proposed
Purge Port fees are not unfairly discriminatory because they will apply
uniformly to all TPHs that choose to use dedicated Purge Ports. The
proposed Purge Ports are completely voluntary and, as they relate
solely to optional risk management functionality, no TPH is required or
under any regulatory obligation to utilize them. The Exchange believes
that adopting separate fees for these ports ensures that the associated
costs are borne exclusively by TPHs that determine to use them based on
their business needs, including Market-Makers or similarly situated
market participants. Similar to Purge Ports, Spin and GRP Ports are
optional products that provide an alternative means for market
participants to receive multicast data and request and receive a
retransmission of such data. As such excessive fees would simply serve
to reduce demand for these products, which TPHs are under no regulatory
obligation to utilize. All TPHs that voluntarily select these service
options (i.e., Purge Ports, Spin Ports or GRP Ports) will be charged
the same amount for the same respective services. All TPHs have the
option to select any connectivity option, and there is no
differentiation among TPHs with regard to the fees charged for the
services offered by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ See Affiliated Exchange Fee Schedules, Logical Port Fees.
See also, Nasdaq ISE Pricing Schedule, Section 7(C). ISE charges a
fee of $1,100 per month for SQF Purge Ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Access Credits
    The Exchange believes the proposal to adopt credits for BOE Bulk
Ports is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
it provides an opportunity for TPHs to pay lower fees for logical
connectivity. The Exchange notes that the proposed credits are in lieu
of the current credits that Market-Makers are eligible to receive today
for Trading Permits fees. Although only Market-Makers may receive the
proposed BOE Bulk Port credits, Market-Makers are valuable market
participants that provide liquidity in the marketplace and incur costs
that other market participants do not incur. For example, Market-Makers
have a number of obligations, including quoting obligations and fees
associated with appointments that other market participants do not
have. The Exchange also believes that the proposals provide incremental
incentives for TPHs to strive for the higher tier levels, which provide
increasingly higher benefits for satisfying increasingly more stringent
criteria, including criteria to provide more liquidity to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes the value of the proposed credits is commensurate
with the difficulty to achieve the corresponding tier thresholds of
each program.
    First, the Exchange believes the proposed BOE Bulk Port fee credits
provided under AVP will incentivize the routing of orders to the
Exchange by TPHs that have both Market-Maker and agency operations, as
well as incent Market-Makers to continue to provide critical liquidity
notwithstanding the costs incurred with being a Market-Maker. More
specifically, in the options industry, many options orders are routed
by consolidators, which are firms that have both order router and
Market-Maker operations. The Exchange is aware not only of the
importance of providing credits on the order routing side in order to
encourage the submission of orders, but also of the operations costs on
the Market-Maker side. The Exchange believes the proposed change to AVP
continues to allow the Exchange to provide relief to the Market-Maker
side via the credits, albeit credits on BOE Bulk Port fees instead of
Trading Permit fees. Additionally, the proposed credits may incentivize
and attract more volume and liquidity to the Exchange, which will
benefit all Exchange participants through increased opportunities to
trade as well as enhancing price discovery. While the Exchange has no
way of predicting with certainty how many and which TPHs will satisfy
the required criteria to receive the credits, the Exchange had
anticipated approximately two TPHs (out of approximately 5 TPHs that
are eligible for AVP) to reach VIP Tiers 4 or 5 and consequently earn
the BOE Bulk Port fee credits for their respective Market-Maker
affiliate. For the month of October 2019, two TPHs received access
credits under Tier 5 and no TPHs received credits under Tier 4. The
Exchange notes that it believes its reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to no longer provider access credits for
Market-Makers whose affiliates achieve VIP Tiers 2 or 3 as the Exchange
has adopted another opportunity for all Market-Makers, not just Market-
Makers that are part of a consolidator, to receive credits on BOE Bulk
Port fees (i.e., credits available via the proposed Market-Maker Access
Credit Program). More specifically, limiting the credits under AVP to
the top two tiers enables the Exchange to provide further credits under
the new Market-Maker Access Credit Program. Furthermore, the Exchange
notes that it is not required to provide any credits at any tier level.
    The Exchange believes the proposed BOE Bulk Port fee credits
available for TPHs that reach certain Performance Tiers under the
Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale Adjustment Table is reasonable as the
credits provide for reduced connectivity costs for those Market-Makers
that reach the required thresholds. The Exchange believe it's
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to provide
credits to those Market-Makers that primarily provide and post
liquidity to the Exchange, as the Exchange wants to continue to
encourage Market-Makers with significant Make Rates to continue to
participate on the Exchange and add liquidity. Greater liquidity
benefits all market participants by providing more trading
opportunities and tighter spreads.
    Moreover, the Exchange notes that Market-Makers with a high Make
Rate percentage generally require higher amounts of capacity than other
Market-Makers. Particularly, Market-Makers with high Make Rates are
generally streaming significantly more quotes than those with lower
Make Rates. As such, Market-Makers with high Make Rates may incur more
costs than other Market-Makers as they may need to purchase multiple
BOE Bulk Ports in order to accommodate their capacity needs. The
Exchange believes the proposed credits for BOE Bulk Ports encourages
Market-Makers to continue to provide liquidity for the Exchange,
notwithstanding the costs incurred by purchasing multiple ports.
Particularly, the proposal is intended to mitigate the costs incurred
by traditional Market-Makers that focus on adding liquidity to the
Exchange (as opposed to those that provide and take, or just take).
While the Exchange cannot predict with certainty which Market-Makers
will reach Performance Tiers 4 and 5 each month, based on historical
performance it anticipated approximately 10 Market-Makers would achieve
Tiers 4 or 5. In October 2019, 12 Market-Makers achieved Tiers 4 or 5.
Lastly, the Exchange notes that it is common practice among options
exchanges to differentiate fees for adding liquidity and fees for
removing liquidity.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ See e.g., MIAX Options Fees Schedule, Section 1(a), Market
Maker Transaction Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bandwidth Packets and CMI CAS Server Fees
    The Exchange believes it's reasonable to eliminate Bandwidth Packet
fees and

the CMI CAS Server fee because TPHs will not pay fees for these
connectivity options and because Bandwidth Packets and CAS Servers have
been retired and rendered obsolete as part of the migration. The
Exchange believes that even though it will be discontinuing Bandwidth
Packets, the proposed incremental pricing for Logical Ports and BOE
Bulk Ports will continue to encourage users to mitigate message
traffic. The proposed change is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it will apply uniformly to all TPHs.
Access Fees
    The Exchange believes the restructuring of its Trading Permits is
reasonable in light of the changes to the Exchange's connectivity
infrastructure in connection with the migration and the resulting
separation of bandwidth allowance, logins and appointment costs from
each Trading Permit. The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable
to harmonize the Exchange's Trading Permit structure and corresponding
connectivity options to more closely align with the structures offered
at its Affiliated Exchanges once the Exchange is on a common platform
as its Affiliated Exchanges.\110\ The proposed Trading Permit structure
and corresponding fees are also in line with the structure and fees
provided by other exchanges. The proposed Trading Permit fees are also
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will
apply the same fees to all market participants that use the same type
and number of Trading Permits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ For example, the Exchange's affiliate, C2, similarly
provides for Trading Permits that are not tied to connectivity, and
similar physical and logical port options at similar pricings. See
Cboe C2 Options Exchange Fees Schedule. Physical connectivity and
logical connectivity are also not tied to any type of permits on the
Exchange's other options exchange affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to electronic Trading Permits, the Exchange notes that
TPHs previously requested multiple Trading Permits because of
bandwidth, login or appointment cost needs. As described above, in
connection with migration, bandwidth, logins and appointment costs are
no longer tied to Trading Permits or Bandwidth Packets and as such, the
need to hold multiple permits and/or Bandwidth Packets is obsolete. As
such, the Exchange believes the structure to require only one of each
type of applicable electronic Trading Permit is appropriate. Moreover,
the Exchange believes offering separate marketing making permits for
off-floor and on-floor Market-Makers provides for a cleaner, more
streamlined approach to trading permits and corresponding fees. Other
exchanges similarly provide separate and distinct fees for Market-
Makers that operate on-floor vs off-floor and their corresponding fees
are similar to those proposed by the Exchange.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ See e.g., PHLX Section 8A, Permit and Registration Fees.
See also, BOX Options Fee Schedule, Section IX Participant Fees;
NYSE American Options Fees Schedule, Section III(A) Monthly ATP Fees
and NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges, OTP Trading Participant
Rights. For similar Trading Floor Permits for Floor Market Makers,
Nasdaq PHLX charges $6,000; BOX charges up to $5,500 for 3
registered permits in addition to a $1,500 Participant Fee, NYSE
Arca charges up to $6,000; and NYSE American charges up to $8,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed fee for its MM EAP Trading
Permits is reasonable as it is the same fee it assess today for Market-
Maker Trading Permits (i.e., $5,000 per month per permit).
Additionally, the proposed fee is in line with, and in some cases even
lower than, the amounts assessed for similar access fees at other
exchanges, including its affiliate C2.\112\ The Exchange believes the
proposed EAP fee is also reasonable, and in line with the fees assessed
by other Exchanges for non-Market-Maker electronic access.\113\ The
Exchange notes that while the Trading Permit fee is increasing, TPHs
overall cost to access the Exchange may be reduced in light of the fact
that a TPH no longer must purchase multiple Trading Permits, Bandwidth
Packets and Login Ids in order to receive sufficient bandwidth and
logins to meet their respective business needs. To illustrate the value
of the new connectivity infrastructure, the Exchange notes that the
cost that would be incurred by a TPH today in order to receive the same
amount of order capacity that will be provided by a single Logical Port
post-migration (i.e., 5,000 orders per second), is approximately 98%
higher than the cost for the same capacity post-migration. The
following examples further demonstrate potential cost savings/value
added for an EAP holder with modest capacity needs and an EAP holder
with larger capacity needs:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ See e.g., Cboe C2 Options Exchange Fees Schedule. See
also, NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges, General Options and
Trading Permit (OTP) Fees, which assesses up to $6,000 per Market
Maker OTP and NYSE American Options Fee Schedule, Section III.
Monthly ATP Fees, which assess up to $8,000 per Market Maker ATP.
See also, PHLX Section 8A, Permit and Registration Fees, which
assesses up to $4,000 per Market Maker Permit.
    \113\ See e.g., PHLX Section 8A, Permit and Registration Fees,
which assesses up to $4,000 per Permit for all member and member
organizations other than Floor Specialists and Market Makers.

       TPH That Holds 1 EAP, no Bandwidth Packets and 1 CMI Login
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Current fee       Post-migration fee
                                    structure             structure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAP.........................  $1,600..............  $3,000.
CMI Login/Logical Port......  $750................  $750..
Bandwidth Packets...........  0...................  N/A.
Total Bandwidth Available...  30 orders/sec.......  5,000 orders/sec.
                             -------------------------------------------
    Total Cost..............  $2,350..............  $3,750.
    Total Cost per message..  $78.33/order/sec....  $0.75/order/sec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       TPH That Holds 1 EAP, 4 Bandwidth Packets and 15 CMI Logins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Current fee       Post-migration fee
                                    structure             structure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAP.........................  $1,600..............  $3,000.
CMI Login/Logical Port......  $11,250 ([email protected])....  $750.
Bandwidth Packets...........  $6,400 ([email protected]$1,600)...  N/A.
Total Bandwidth Available...  150 orders/sec......  5,000 orders/sec.
                             -------------------------------------------
    Total Cost..............  $19,250.............  $3,750.
    Total Cost per message..  $128.33/order/sec...  $0.75/order/sec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposal to adopt a new Clearing TPH
Permit is reasonable because it offers TPHs that only clear
transactions of TPHs a discount. Particularly, Clearing TPHs that also
submit orders electronically to the Exchange would purchase the
proposed EAP at $3,000 per permit. The Exchange believe it's reasonable
to provide a discount to Clearing TPHs that only clear transactions and
do not otherwise submit electronic orders to the Exchange. The Exchange
notes that another exchange similarly charges a separate fee for
clearing firms.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ See e.g., NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges, General
Options and Trading Permit (OTP) Fees and NYSE American Options Fee
Schedule, Section III. Monthly ATP Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed fee structure for on-floor
Market-Makers is reasonable as the fees are in line with those offered
at other Exchanges.\115\ The Exchange believes that the proposed fee
for MM Floor Permits as compared to MM EAPs is reasonable because it is
only modestly higher than MM EAPs and Floor MMs don't have other costs
that MM EAP holders have, such as MM EAP Appointment fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ See e.g., PHLX Section 8A, Permit and Registration Fees,
which assesses $6,000 per permit for Floor Specialists and Market
Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposed fees for Floor Broker Permits
are reasonable because the fees are similar to, and in some cases lower
than, the fees the Exchange currently assesses for such permits.
Specifically, based on the number of Trading Permits TPHs held upon
migration, 60% of TPHs that hold Floor Broker Trading Permits will pay
lower Trading Permit fees. Particularly, any Floor Broker holding ten
or less Floor Broker Trading Permits will pay lower fees under the
proposed tiers as compared to what they pay today. While the remaining
40% of TPHs holding Floor Broker Trading Permits (who each hold between
12-21 Floor Broker Trading Permits) will pay higher fees, the Exchange
notes the monthly increase is de minimis, ranging from an increase of
0.6%-2.72%.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ The Floor Brokers whose fees are increasing have each
committed to a minimum number of permits and therefore currently
receive the rates set forth in the current Floor Broker TP Sliding
Scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed ADV Discount is reasonable
because it provides an opportunity for Floor Brokers to pay lower FB
Trading Permit fees, similar to the current rebate program offered to
Floor Brokers. The Exchange notes that while the new ADV Discount
program includes only customer volume (``C'' origin code) as compared
to Customer and Professional Customer/Voluntary Professional, the
amount of Professional Customer/Voluntary Professional volume was de
minimis and the Exchange does not believe the absence of such volume
will have a significant impact.\117\ Additionally, the Exchange notes
that while the ADV requirements under the proposed ADV Discount program
are higher than are required under the current rebate program, the
proposed ADV Discount counts volume from all products towards the
thresholds as compared to the current rebate program which excludes
volume from Underlying Symbol List A (except RLG, RLV, RUI, and UKXM),
DJX, XSP, and subcabinet trades. Moreover, the ADV Discount is designed
to encourage the execution of orders in all classes via open outcry,
which may increase volume, which would benefit all market participants
(including Floor Brokers who do not hit the ADV thresholds) trading via
open outcry (and indeed, this increased volume could make it possible
for some Floor Brokers to hit the ADV thresholds). The Exchange
believes the proposed discounts are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because all Floor Brokers are eligible. While the
Exchange has no way of predicting with certainty how many and which
TPHs will satisfy the various thresholds under the ADV Discount, the
Exchange anticipated approximately 3 Floor Brokers to receive a rebate
under the program. In December 2019, 2 Floor Brokers received a rebate
under the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ Furthermore, post-migration the Exchange will not have
Voluntary Professionals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposed MM EAP Appointment fees are
reasonable in light of the Exchange's elimination of appointment costs
tied to Trading Permits. Other exchanges also offer a similar structure
with respect to fees for appointment classes.\118\ Additionally, the
proposed MM EAP Appointment fee structure results in approximately 36%
electronic MMs paying lower fees for trading permit and appointment
costs. For example, in order to have the ability to make electronic
markets in every class on the Exchange, a Market-Maker would need 1
Market-Maker Trading Permit and 37 Appointment Units post-migration.
Under, the current pricing structure, in order for a Market-Maker to
quote the entire universe of available classes, a Market-Maker would
need 33 Appointment Credits, thus necessitating 33 Market-Maker Trading
Permits. With respect to fees for Trading Permits and Appointment Unit
Fees, under the proposed pricing structure, the cost for a TPH wishing
to quote the entire universe of available classes is approximately 29%
less (if they are not eligible for the MM TP Sliding Scale) or
approximately 2% less (if they are eligible for the MM TP Sliding
Scale). To further demonstrate the potential cost savings/value added,
the Exchange is providing the following examples comparing current
Market-Maker connectivity and access fees to projected connectivity and
access fees for different scenarios. The Exchange notes that the below
examples not only compare Trading Permit and Appointment Unit costs,
but also the cost incurred for logical connectivity and bandwidth.
Particularly, the first example demonstrates the total minimum cost
that would be incurred today in order for a Market-Maker to have the
same amount of capacity as a Market-Maker post-migration that would
have only 1 MM EAP and 1 Logical Port (i.e., 15,000 quotes/3 sec). The
Exchange is also providing examples that demonstrate the costs of (i) a
Market-Maker with small capacity needs and appointment unit of 1.0 and
(ii) a Market-Maker with large capacity needs and appointment cost/unit
of 30.0:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ See e.g., PHLX Section 8. Membership Fees, B, Streaming
Quote Trader (``SQT'') Fees and C. Remote Market Maker Organization
(RMO) Fee.
    \119\ The maximum quoting bandwidth that may be applied to a
single Login Id is 80,000 quotes/3 sec.

       Market-Maker That Needs Capacity of 15,000/Quotes/3 Seconds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Current fee       Post-migration fee
                                    structure             structure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MM Permit/MM EAP............  $5,000..............  $5,000.
Appointment Unit Cost.......  N/A (1 appointment    $0 (1 appointment
                               cost).                unit).
CMI Login/Logical Port......  $750 \119\..........  $750.
Bandwidth Packets...........  $5,500 ([email protected]$2,750)...  N/A.
                             -------------------------------------------
    Total Bandwidth           15,000 quotes/3 sec.  15,000 quotes/3 sec.
     Available.

    Total Cost..............  $11,250.............  $5,750.
    Total Cost per message    $0.75/quote/3 sec...  $0.38/quote/3 sec.
     allowed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Market Maker That Needs Capacity of No More than 5,000 Quotes/3 Secs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Current fee       Post-migration fee
                                    structure             structure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MM Permit/MM EAP............  $5,000..............  $5,000.
Appointment Unit Cost.......  N/A (1 appointment    $0 (1 appointment
                               cost).                unit).
CMI Login/Logical Port......  $750................  $750.
Bandwidth Packets...........  0...................  N/A.
                             -------------------------------------------
    Total Bandwidth           5,000 quotes/3 sec..  15,000 quotes/3 sec.
     Available.
    Total Cost..............  $5,750..............  $5,750.
    Total Cost per message    $1.15/quote/3 sec...  $0.38/quote/3 sec.
     allowed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Market-Maker That Needs 30 Appointment Units and Capacity of 300,000
                              Quotes/3 Sec
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Current fee       Post-migration fee
                                    structure             structure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MM Permits/MM EAP...........  $105,000 (30 MM       $5,000.
                               Permits assumes
                               eligible for MM TP
                               Sliding Scale)
                               \120\.
Appointment Units Cost......  N/A (30 appointment   $95,500 (30
                               costs).               appointment units).
CMI Logins/BOE Bulk Port....  $3,000 ([email protected]$750)       $3,000 (2 BOE
                               \121\.                [email protected]$1,500).
Bandwidth Packets...........  $82,500([email protected]$2750)...  N/A.
                             -------------------------------------------
    Total Bandwidth           300,000 quotes/3 sec  * 450,000 quotes/3
     Available.                                      sec.
    Total Cost..............  $190,500............  $103,500.
    Total Cost per message    $0.63/quotes/3 sec..  $0.23/quote/3 sec.
     allowed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Possible performance degradation at 15,000 messages per second.

    The Exchange  believes its proposal to provide separate fees for
Tier Appointments for MM EAPs and MM Floor Permits as the Exchange will
be issuing separate Trading Permits for on-floor and off-floor market
making as discussed above. The proposal to eliminate the volume
threshold for the electronic SPX Tier Appointment fee is reasonable as
no TPHs in the past several months have electronically traded more than
1 SPX contract or less than 100 SPX contracts per month and therefore
will not be negatively impacted by the proposed change, and because it
aligns the electronic SPX Tier Appointment with the floor SPX Tier
Appointment, which has no volume threshold. The Exchange believes the
proposal to increase the electronic volume thresholds for VIX and RUT
are reasonable as those that do not regularly trade VIX or RUT in open-
outcry will continue to not be assessed the fee. In fact, any TPH that
executes more than 100 contracts but less than 1,000 in the respective
classes will no longer have to pay the proposed Tier Appointment fee.
As noted above, the Exchange is not proposing to change the amounts
assessed for each Tier Appointment Fee. The proposed change is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply
uniformly to all TPHs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ For simplicity of the comparison, this assumes no
appointments in SPX, VIX, RUT, XEO or OEX (which are not included in
the TP Sliding Scale).
    \121\ Given the bandwidth limit per Login Id of 80,000 quotes/3
sec, example assumes Market-Maker purchases minimum amount of Login
IDs to accommodate 300,000 quotes/3 sec.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trading Permit Holder Regulatory Fee
    The Exchange believes it's reasonable to eliminate the Trading
Permit Holder Regulatory fee because TPHs will not pay this fee and
because the Exchange is restructuring its Trading Permit structure. The
Exchange notes that although it will less closely be covering the costs
of regulating all TPHs and performing its regulatory responsibilities,
it still has sufficient funds to do so. The proposed change is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply
uniformly to all TPHs.
    The Exchange believes corresponding changes to eliminate obsolete
language in connection with the proposed changes described above and to
relocate and reorganize its fees in connection with the proposed
changes maintain clarity in the Fees Schedule and alleviate potential
confusion, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, protecting investors and the public interest.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    With respect to intra-market competition, the Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change would place certain market
participants at the Exchange at a relative disadvantage compared to
other market participants or affect the ability of such market
participants to compete. As stated above, the Exchange does not believe
its proposed pricing will impose a barrier to entry to smaller
participants and notes that its proposed connectivity pricing is
associated with relative usage of the various market participants. For
example, market participants with modest capacity needs can buy the
less expensive 1 Gb Physical Port and utilize only one Logical Port.
Moreover, the pricing for 1 Gb Physical Ports and FIX/BOE Logical Ports
are no different than are assessed today (i.e., $1,500 and $750 per
port, respectively), yet the capacity and access associated with each
is greatly increasing. While pricing may be

increased for larger capacity physical and logical ports, such options
provide far more capacity and are purchased by those that consume more
resources from the network. Accordingly, the proposed connectivity fees
do not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that
would impose a burden on competition; rather, the allocation reflects
the network resources consumed by the various size of market
participants--lowest bandwidth consuming members pay the least, and
highest bandwidth consuming members pays the most, particularly since
higher bandwidth consumption translates to higher costs to the
Exchange.
    The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change
will result in any burden on inter-market competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As
discussed in the Statutory Basis section above, options market
participants are not forced to connect to (or purchase market data
from) all options exchanges, as shown by the number of TPHs at Cboe and
shown by the fact that there are varying number of members across each
of Cboe's Affiliated Exchanges. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive environment, and as discussed above, its ability to price
access and connectivity is constrained by competition among exchanges
and third parties. As discussed, there are other options markets of
which market participants may connect to trade options. There is also a
possible range of alternative strategies, including routing to the
exchange through another participant or market center or accessing the
Exchange indirectly. For example, there are 15 other U.S. options
exchanges, which the Exchange must consider in its pricing discipline
in order to compete for market participants. In this competitive
environment, market participants are free to choose which competing
exchange or reseller to use to satisfy their business needs. As a
result, the Exchange believes this proposed rule change permits fair
competition among national securities exchanges. 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.

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 written 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 \122\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \123\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \123\ 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2020-064 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-2020-064. 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 such 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. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2020-064, and should be submitted
on or before August 3, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-14972 Filed 7-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27880-27882]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09383]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC23-78-000.
    Applicants: Casa Mesa Wind, LLC, Chaves County Solar, LLC, Langdon
Renewables, LLC, Live Oak Solar, LLC, New Mexico Wind, LLC, NextEra
Energy Montezuma II Wind, LLC, River Bend Solar, LLC, NEP US SellCo,
LLC, NEP US SellCo II, LLC, NextEra Energy Partners Acquisitions, LLC.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act of Casa Mesa Wind, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 4/25/23.
    Accession Number: 20230425-5335.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/23.

    Docket Numbers: EC23-79-000.
    Applicants: Newark Energy Center LLC.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act of Newark Energy Center, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 4/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230427-5243.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/23.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG23-136-000.
    Applicants: Elawan Pitts Dudik Solar, LLC.
    Description: Elawan Pitts Dudik Solar, LLC. submits Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 4/26/23.
    Accession Number: 20230426-5302.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/23.

    Docket Numbers: EG23-137-000.
    Applicants: Holtville BESS, LLC.
    Description: Holtville BESS, LLC submits Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 4/26/23.
    Accession Number: 20230426-5307.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/23.

    Docket Numbers: EG23-138-000.
    Applicants: Elawan Dileo Solar, LLC.
    Description: Elawan Dileo Solar, LLC submits Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 4/26/23.
    Accession Number: 20230426-5308.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/23.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1819-036; ER10-1817-027; ER10-1818-034; ER10-
1820-039.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation,
Public Service Company of Colorado, Southwestern Public Service
Company, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Northern States Power
Company, a Minnesota corporation, et al.
    Filed Date: 4/26/23.
    Accession Number: 20230426-5318.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1639-023.
    Applicants: Constellation Mystic Power, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing on Remand Order
to be effective 6/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 4/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230427-5311.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-982-001.
    Applicants: CPV Three Rivers, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Reactive Service Rate Schedule
Compliance Filing to be effective 4/1/2023.

    Filed Date: 4/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230427-5246.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1221-001.
    Applicants: Duquesne Light Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Duquesne Light Company submits
tariff filing per 35.17(b): Amendment Duquesne re Beaver Valley
Deactivation Trans Proj ER23-1221 to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 4/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230427-5216.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1222-001.
    Applicants: Duquesne Light Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Duquesne Light Company submits
tariff filing per 35.17(b): Amendment Duquesne re Dravosburg-Elrama Exp
Project ER23-1222 to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 4/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230427-5220.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1241-001; ER23-1517-001.
    Applicants: IP Oberon II, LLC, IP Oberon, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to April 13, 2023 IP Oberon, LLC et al.
tariff filings.
    Filed Date: 4/25/23.
    Accession Number: 20230425-5341.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1265-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to GDECS Phase 7--Docket
No. ER23-1265-000 to be effective 5/8/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230427-5291.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1721-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Annual Filing of Cost Factor
Updates--2023 to be effective 5/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230427-5004.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1722-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ISA, Original SA No. 6870;
Queue No. AD1-074/AD1-075/AD1-076 to be effective 3/30/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230427-5070.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1723-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Notice of Termination of Service Agreement No. 8 under
PacifiCorp's FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 6.
    Filed Date: 4/25/23.
    Accession Number: 20230425-5342.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1724-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren
Transmission Company of Illinois.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2023-
04-27_SA 4045 ATXI-Sikeston Construction Agreement to be effective 6/
27/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230427-5089.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1726-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: UFA, Rough Hat 2 (Q1799-
TOT979/SA299) to be effective 4/28/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230427-5113.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1727-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: UFA, Rough Hat Hybrid Solar
(Q1650-TOT949/SA298) to be effective 4/28/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230427-5116.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1728-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2023-04-27_Attachment X
Continuous Improvement filing to be effective 6/27/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230427-5148.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1729-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company,
Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Alabama Power Company
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Tri-State II Solar Project
(Solar & Battery) LGIA Filing to be effective 4/18/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230427-5199.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1730-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Q1 2023 Quarterly Filing of
City and County of San Francisco's WDT SA (SA 275) to be effective 3/
31/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230427-5221.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1731-000.
    Applicants: GSG 6, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Assignment, Co-Tenancy and
Shared Facilities Agreement with Waivers to be effective 4/28/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230427-5223.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1732-000.
    Applicants: Shady Oaks Wind 2, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Certificate of Concurrence &
Request for Waiver & Blanket Approval to be effective 4/28/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230427-5233.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1733-000.
    Applicants: SFE Energy Massachusetts, Inc.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Market-Based Rate Application
to be effective 6/27/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230427-5259.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1734-000.
    Applicants: SFE Energy, Inc.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Market-Based Rate Application
to be effective 6/27/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230427-5267.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/23.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH23-12-000.
    Applicants: Enbridge Inc.
    Description: Enbridge Inc. submits FERC-65A Notice of Change in
Fact to Waiver Notification.
    Filed Date: 4/26/23.
    Accession Number: 20230426-5322.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/23.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing

requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 27, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-09383 Filed 5-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48837-48838]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22840]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0949]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0106

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of
its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0106,
Unauthorized Entry into Cuban Territorial Waters; without change. Our
ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public.
Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting
comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 19,
2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2017-0949] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr Ave SE., Stop 7710, Washington, DC
20593-7710.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to
your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an
extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments
and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2017-0949], and
must be received by December 19, 2017.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Unauthorized Entry into Cuban Territorial Waters.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0106.
    Summary: The Coast Guard, pursuant to Presidential proclamation and
order of the Secretary of Homeland Security, is requiring U.S. vessels,
and vessels without nationality, less than 100 meters, located within
the internal waters or the 12 nautical mile territorial sea of the
United States, that thereafter enter Cuban territorial waters, to apply
for and receive a Coast Guard permit.
    Need: The information is collected to regulate departure from U.S.
territorial waters of U.S. vessels, and vessels without nationality and
entry thereafter into Cuban territorial waters. The need to regulate
this vessel traffic supports ongoing efforts to enforce the Cuban
embargo, which is designed to bring about an end to the current
government and a peaceful transition to democracy. Accordingly, only
applicants that demonstrate prior U.S. government approval for exports
to and transactions with Cuba will be issued a Coast Guard permit.
    The permit regulation requires that applicants hold United States
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and U.S.
Department of Treasury the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
licenses that permit exports to and transactions with Cuba. The USCG
permit process thus allows the agency to collect information from
applicants about their status vis-[agrave]-vis BIS and OFAC licenses
and monitor compliance with BIS and OFAC regulations. These two
agencies administer statutes and regulations that proscribe exports to
(BIS) and transactions with (OFAC) Cuba. Accordingly, in order to
assist BIS and OFAC in the enforcement of these license requirements,
as directed by the President and the Secretary of Homeland Security,
the Coast Guard is requiring certain U.S. vessels, and vessels without
nationality, to demonstrate that they hold these licenses before they
depart for Cuban waters.
    Forms: CG-3300, U.S. Coast Guard Application for Permit to Enter
Cuban Territorial Seas.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 01
hours to 351 hours a year due to the increase in applicants after the
normalization of relations with the Cuban government.

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

    Dated: October 16, 2017.
James D. Roppel,
U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Chief, Office of Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2017-22840 Filed 10-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 242 (Friday, December 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 79071]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31704]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending November
6, 2010

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of
Transportation under the Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation
Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1382 and 1384) and procedures governing
proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21
days after the filing of the application.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0275.
    Date Filed: November 4, 2010.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: Mail Vote 649--Resolution 010f. TC3 Within South East Asia
Special Passenger Amending Resolution 010f Fares between Chinese Taipel
and Viet Nam Memo 1411. Intended effective date: 15 November 2010.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2010-31704 Filed 12-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P