[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55469-55470]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22756]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No.; FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2007-28695]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
13 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals
from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective September 27, 2011. Comments must be
received on or before October 7, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-2007-27897;
FMCSA-2007-28695, using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 13 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 13 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:

Dean N. Brown
Matthew R. Floyd
Christian L. Gremillion
Frank D. Konwinski, Jr.
Paul G. Mathes
Kenneth D. Perkins
Terry W. Pope
Daniel T. Rhodes
Frederick G. Robbins
Stephen E. Shields
Ricky J. Siebels
Don S. Williams
Robert L. Williams, Jr.

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) By
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and
(b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise
physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual
provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the
medical examiner at the time of the annual

medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on
his/her person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be
valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption
will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 13 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (70 FR 17504; 70 FR 30997; 72 FR 27624; 72 FR 39879; 72 FR
46261; 72 FR 52419; 72 FR 54972; 74 FR 18437; 74 FR 41971; 74 FR
43223). Each of these 13 applicants has requested renewal of the
exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the standard specified at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a
review of each record of safety while driving with the respective
vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant
continues to meet the vision exemption standards. These factors provide
an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to
drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that
extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two
years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing
without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by October 7, 2011.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and if needed, evaluating,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 13 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each
case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received
to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That
information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register
publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

    Issued on: August 29, 2011.
 Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator Office of Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-22756 Filed 9-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 199 (Thursday, October 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 62065]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26182]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER15-1344-001; ER15-1344-002; ER15-1387-001]

PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Potomac
Electric Power Company; Notice of Technical Conference

    By order dated September 15, 2015,\1\ the Commission directed staff
to convene a technical conference regarding PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.'s (PJM) filing, in Docket Nos. ER15-1344-001 and ER15-1344-002,
related to cost responsibility assignments for 61 baseline upgrades
included in the recent update to the PJM Regional Transmission
Expansion Plan (RTEP), and regarding requests for rehearing, submitted
in Docket No. ER15-1387-001, related to the PJM Transmission Owners'
proposal to change the cost allocation methodology for reliability
projects selected in the RTEP solely to address local transmission
owner planning criteria. The technical conference will explore issues
related to PJM's application of its Order No. 1000-compliant
transmission planning process \2\ to local transmission facilities,
including, but not limited to, the process PJM and the PJM Transmission
Owners use to identify local transmission needs and to solicit proposed
solutions to identified local transmission needs (such as opening
proposal windows),\3\ and the process PJM uses to determine whether a
transmission solution to an identified local transmission need should
be selected in the regional transmission plan for purposes of cost
allocation as the more efficient or cost-effective transmission
solution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 152 FERC ] 61,197 (2015).
    \2\ Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by Transmission
Owning and Operating Public Utilities, Order No. 1000, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,323 (2011), order on reh'g, Order No. 1000-A, 139 FERC ]
61,132, order on reh'g, Order No. 1000-B, 141 FERC ] 61,044 (2012),
aff'd sub nom. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth. v. FERC, 762 F.3d 41 (D.C. Cir.
2014).
    \3\ As discussed in the order establishing the technical
conference, Dominion Resources Services' revisions to its individual
transmission planning criteria will not be discussed at the
technical conference. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 152 FERC ] 61,197
at P15 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that such conference will be held on November 12, 2015,
at the Commission's headquarters at 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426 between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) in Hearing
Room 7. Additional information regarding the conference program will be
provided in a subsequent supplemental notice of technical conference.
    The technical conference will be led by Commission staff. The
conference is open to the public. Pre-registration through the
Commission's Web site (https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/11-12-15-form.asp) is encouraged but not required.
    The technical conference will not be transcribed. However, there
will be a free audio cast of the conference. Anyone wishing to listen
to the meeting should send an email to Sarah McKinley at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by November 3, 2015, to request call-in
information. Please reference ``call information for ER15-1344/1387
technical conference'' in the subject line of the email. The call-in
information will be provided prior to the meeting. Persons listening to
the technical conference may participate by submitting questions,
either prior to or during the technical conference, by emailing
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY); or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this technical conference, please
contact Katherine Scott,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
regarding Docket Nos. ER15-1344-001 and ER15-1344-002; Nicole Buell,
202-502-6846<EMAIL_ADDRESS>regarding Docket No. ER15-1387-
001; or Sarah McKinley,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
regarding logistical issues.

    Dated: October 8, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-26182 Filed 10-14-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64059-64060]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25126]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 15012-000]

FreedomWorks, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On October 16, 2019,\1\ FreedomWorks, LLC, filed an application for
a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Ulysses Pumped Storage
Hydropower Project to be located in Grant County, West Virginia. The
sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit
holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FreedomWorks, LLC, revised its application on October 17,
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new
upper reservoir with a surface area of 1,042 acres and a storage
capacity of 141,000 acre-feet at a surface elevation of approximately
2,960 feet above mean sea level (msl) created by constructing new dams
with roller compacted concrete or earth and rock excavated from nearby
mine site reclamation; (2) a new lower reservoir with a surface area of
1,139 acres and a storage capacity of 141,000 acre-feet at a surface
elevation of 1,280 feet msl created by constructing new dams with
roller compacted concrete or earth and rock excavated from nearby mine
site reclamation; (3) three new 36,960-foot-long, 24-foot-diameter
penstocks connecting the upper reservoir and lower reservoir; (4) a new
800-foot-long, 50-foot-wide, 25-foot-high powerhouse containing eight
turbine-generator units with a total rated capacity of 4,000 megawatts;
(5) a new transmission line connecting the powerhouse to a nearby
electric grid interconnection point with options to evaluate multiple
grid

interconnection locations; and (6) appurtenant facilities. Initial fill
and make-up water for the upper reservoir would come from groundwater
inputs and the Stoney River, and the water for the lower reservoir
would come from groundwater inputs and North Fork Patterson Creek. The
proposed project would have an annual generation of approximately
17,520,000 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Tim Williamson, FreedomWorks, LLC, 525 Wren
Lane, Harpers Ferry, WV 25425; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Monir Chowdhury; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-15012-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-15012) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: November 14, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-25126 Filed 11-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 171)]
[Notices]
[Page 51460-51462]
[DOCID:fr03se08-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

August 26, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER06-733-005.
    Applicants: Midland Cogeneration Venture Limited Partnership.
    Description: Midland Cogeneration Venture Limited Partnership
submits revised market-based rate tariff sheets pursuant to the
Commission's order authorizing the sale of ancillary services, etc.
    Filed Date: 08/21/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080822-0304.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 11, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-796-002.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: ITC Midwest LLC et al. submits proposed revisions to
the Midwest ISO Open Access Transmission, etc. revised to show an
effective date of 12/20/07.
    Filed Date: 08/22/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080825-0221.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 12, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1096-006.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: Addendum to Compliance Electric Refund Report of 1/3/
08.
    Filed Date: 08/21/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080821-5098.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 11, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1098-002.
    Applicants: National Grid Generation LLC.
    Description: National Grid Generation LLC submits clean and
redlined tariff sheets in response to the Commission's Letter Order of
7/22/08.
    Filed Date: 08/21/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080822-0306.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 11, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1167-001.
    Applicants: Kansas City Power & Light Company.
    Description: Kansas City Power & Light Co. submits a compliance
filing re the revised and restated amendatory agreement No. 1 to the
Municipal Participation Agreement, etc.
    Filed Date: 08/22/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080822-0309.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 12, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1202-001.
    Applicants: Huntrise Energy Fund LLC.
    Description: Huntrise Energy Fund LLC submits a request for
additional information and tariff amendments.
    Filed Date: 08/19/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080821-0112.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 9, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1262-001; ER08-1263-001; ER08-1268-001, ER00-
2687-009; ER08-1270-001; ER04-53-008; ER08-1271-001; ER04-8-006.
    Applicants: Ameren Energy Generating Company, Ameren Energy
Marketing Company, Union Electric Company, AmerenEnergy Resources
Generating Company, AmerenEnergy Medina Valley Cogen, L.L.C.
    Description: Ameren Energy Generation Company et al. submit
revisions to their market-based rate tariffs in order to allow each to
sell ancillary services into Ancillary Services Markets.
    Filed Date: 08/21/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080822-0303.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 11, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1398-000.
    Applicants: Smoky Hills Wind Project II, LLC.
    Description: Smoky Hills Wind Project II, LLC submits an
application for order Accepting Market-Based Rate Tariff, Granting
Waivers and Blanket Authority.
    Filed Date: 08/19/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080821-0111.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 9, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1422-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits a
filing to revise the day-ahead market process to improve efficiency of
resource commitment etc.
    Filed Date: 08/18/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080821-0105.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 8, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1423-000.

    Applicants: PHI, Potomac Electric Power Company, Delmarva Power &
Light Company, Atlantic City Electric Company.
    Description: Pepco Holdings, Inc. submits request for authorization
to implement certain rate incentives for its Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway
Project.
    Filed Date: 08/18/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080822-0043.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 8, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1424-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits a Network Operating Agreement with
PacifiCorp Energy.
    Filed Date: 08/19/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080821-0117.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 9, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1425-000.
    Applicants: ML Partnership, LLC.
    Description: ML Partnership, LLC submits a petition for application
for acceptance of initial rate tariff, waivers and blanket authority.
    Filed Date: 08/19/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080821-0115.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 9, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1426-000.
    Applicants: Green Mountain Power Corporation, Central Vermont
Public Service Corp.
    Description: Green Mountain Power Corp. submits Notices of
Cancellation of a Transmission Service Agreement with Central Vermont
Public Service Corp.
    Filed Date: 08/19/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080821-0116.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 9, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1427-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits an executed
interconnection service agreement.
    Filed Date: 08/18/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080821-0110.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 8, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1428-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Public Service Company of New Mexico submits Contract
TS-08-0042 with Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association.
    Filed Date: 08/19/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080821-0109.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 9, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1429-000.
    Applicants: Freedom Partners, LLC.
    Description: Freedom Energy submits a notice of cancellation.
    Filed Date: 08/18/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080821-0108.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 8, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1430-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits an executed
interconnection service agreement.
    Filed Date: 08/18/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080821-0107.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 8, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1431-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits a letter
agreement between SCE and City of Industry.
    Filed Date: 08/20/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080821-0131.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 10, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1432-000.
    Applicants: MS Solar Solutions Corp.
    Description: MS Solar Solutions Corp. submits a notice of
succession.
    Filed Date: 08/20/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080821-0132.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 10, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1433-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc. and New England Power
    Description: ISO New England Inc. et al. submit revised tariff
sheets and supporting testimony of Peter Harris, Manager of Outage
Coordination for the ISO.
    Filed Date: 08/20/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080821-0133.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 10, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1434-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation.
    Description: American Electric Power System submits Ninth Revised
Sheet 252 to Third Revised FERC Electric 6 of the AEP Operating
Companies correcting a typographical error.
    Filed Date: 08/20/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080821-0040.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 10, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1435-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc.
submits proposed revisions to Section 43.7.2 Load Switching Under State
Programs and Other Transactions etc.
    Filed Date: 08/21/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080822-0307.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 11, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1436-000.
    Applicants: Connecticut Light & Power Company, Northeast Utilities
Service Company.
    Description: Connecticut Light and Power Company submits a revised
Interconnection Agreement by and between CL&P and Capital District
Energy Center Associates, designated as First Revised Service Agreement
67.
    Filed Date: 08/21/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080822-0308.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 11, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER99-2948-015; ER00-2918-014; ER00-2917-014; ER05-
261-007; ER01-556-013; ER01-1654-016; ER02-2567-014; ER05-728-007;
ER04-485-011; ER07-247-006; ER07-245-006; ER07-244-006.
    Applicants: Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Constellation Power
Source Generation, Inc., Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc.,
Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc. Handsome Lake Energy, LLC,
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Constellation NewEnergy, Inc.,
Constellation Energy Commodities Group Maine, LLC, R.E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant, LLC, Raven One, LLC, Raven Two, LLC, Raven Three, LLC.
    Description: Constellation MBR Entities submits their joint market-
power analysis update for the Northeast region and certain amendments
to their market based rate tariff in Compliance with Order 697.
    Filed Date: 08/18/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080821-0118.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 8, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following open access
transmission tariff filings:
    Docket Numbers: OA07-28-003.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Order No. 890 Compliance Filing re Avista Corp.
    Filed Date: 08/21/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080821-5031.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 11, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: OA07-35-002.
    Applicants: Cleco Power LLC.
    Description: Cleco Power LLC submits its Operational Penalties
Annual Compliance report concerning Cleco's penalty assessment and
distributions since the 7/13/07 effective date of the Order 890 OATT.
    Filed Date: 08/18/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080821-0130.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 8, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: OA08-125-000.

    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: NorthWestern Corporation's Informational Filing of
Operational Penalty Assessments and Distributions as Required by Order
Nos. 890 and 890-A.
    Filed Date: 08/18/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080818-5140.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 8, 2008.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-20267 Filed 9-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 135 (Tuesday, July 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 42378]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15161]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-2153-000]

Sanford Airport Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Sanford Airport Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 28, 2020.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 8, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-15161 Filed 7-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Subpart W

Meeting Documentation: Interstate Natural Gas Association of America  07/22/10

Date	Staff Contact Information (Name, email, phone #)	Name of Organization (Attach list of all attendees names and emails if possible) 	Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, reporting requirements, etc.)	Written Comments Provided?

Did they also submit to Docket?	Date sent to EPA- CCD

07/22/10

Roger Fernandez

Lisa Beal

INGAA

INGAA simply went over their official comments that they submitted to the docket.  	Written comments were submitted to the docket.

June 10, 2010


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 98 (Friday, May 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31935-31936]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11894]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP16-361-000]

Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on April 29, 2016, Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC
(Columbia Gulf), 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2400, Houston, Texas 77056,
filed in Docket No. CP16-361-000 an application pursuant to sections
7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's
regulations requesting authorization to construct and operate the Gulf
XPress Project, all as more fully set forth in the application which is
on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing
is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room
or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to
Matthew J. Agen, Senior Counsel, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 5151
San Felipe, Suite 2400, Houston, Texas 77056 at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Specifically Columbia Gulf proposes to construct and operate seven
new compressor stations and add compression to an existing compressor
station, as well as other appurtenant facilities located in Kentucky,
Tennessee, and Mississippi. The project will provide approximately
860,000 dekatherms per day of additional capacity for firm
transportation service. Columbia Gas is proposing incremental rates for
transportation service on the facilities proposed for construction
herein. Columbia Gulf is proposing to establish incremental rates for
transportation service on the facilities proposed for construction
herein. The cost of the project will be approximately $674 million.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9),
within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of
Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 3, 2016.

    Dated: May 13, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-11894 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8325-8329]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02602]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96793; File No. SR-CBOE-2023-008]

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

February 2, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 20, 2023, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to modify the fee
for the SPX (and SPXW) Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment Fee.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee change, among
other changes, on June 1, 2022 (SR-CBOE-2022-026). On June 10, 2022,
the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR-CBOE-2022-029. On
August 5, 2022, the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR-
CBOE-2022-042. On September 26, 2022, the Exchange withdrew that
filing and submitted SR-CBOE-2022-050 to address the proposed fee
change relating to the SPX/SPXW Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment
Fee. On November 23, 2022, the Exchange advised of its intent to
withdraw that filing and submitted SR-CBOE-2022-060. On January 20,
2023, the Exchange withdrew SR-CBOE-2022-060 and submitted this
filing. No comment letters were received in connection with any of
the foregoing rule filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of background, Exchange Rule 5.50(g)(2) provides that the
Exchange may establish one or more types of tier appointments and
Exchange Rule 5.50(g)(2)(B) provides such tier appointments are subject
to such fees and charges the Exchange may establish. In 2010, the
Exchange established the SPX Tier Appointment and adopted an initial
fee of $3,000 per Market-Maker trading permit, per month.\4\ The SPX
(and SPXW) Tier Appointment fee for Floor Market-Makers currently
applies to any Market-Maker that executes any contracts in SPX and/or
SPXW on the trading floor.\5\ The Exchange now seeks to increase the
fee for the SPX/SPXW Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment from $3,000
per Market-Maker Floor Trading Permit to $5,000 per Market-Maker Floor
Trading Permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62386 (June 25,
2010), 75 FR 38566 (July 2, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-060).
    \5\ The Exchange notes that the fee is not assessed to a Market-
Maker Floor Permit Holder who only executes SPX (including SPXW)
options transactions as part of multi-class broad-based index spread
transactions. See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Market-Maker Tier
Appointment Fees, Notes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the proposed change, the Exchange also proposes
to update Footnote 24 in the Fees Schedule, as well as remove the
reference to Footnote 24 in the Market-Maker Tier Appointment Fee
Table. By way of background, in June 2020, the Exchange adopted
Footnote 24 to describe pricing changes that would apply for the
duration of time the Exchange trading floor was being operated in a
modified manner in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic.\6\ Among
other changes, Footnote 24 provided that the monthly fee for the SPX/
SPXW Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment Fee was to be increased to
$5,000 per Trading Permit from $3,000 per Trading Permit. As the
Exchange now proposes to maintain the $5,000 rate on a permanent basis
(i.e., regardless of whether the Exchange is operating in a modified
state due to COVID-19 pandemic), the Exchange proposes to eliminate the
reference to the SPX/SPXW Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment Fee in
Footnote 24.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89189 (June 30,
2020), 85 FR 40344 (July 6, 2020) (SR-CBOE-2020-058).
    \7\ The Exchange notes that since its transition to a new
trading floor facility on June 6, 2022, it has not been operating in
a modified manner. As such Footnote 24 (i.e., the modified fee
changes it describes) does not currently apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\8\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed

to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment. The SEC
Division of Trading and Markets' Fee Guidance provides that in
determining whether a proposed fee is constrained by significant
competitive forces, the Commission will consider whether there are
reasonable substitutes for the product or service that is the subject
of a proposed fee.\11\ As described in further detail below, the
Exchange believes substitutable products are in fact available to
market participants, including in the Over-the-Counter (OTC) markets.
Indeed, there are currently 16 registered options exchanges that trade
options, with a 17th options exchange expected to launch in 2023. Based
on publicly available information, no single options exchange has more
than 17% of the market share as of January 19, 2023.\12\ Further, low
barriers to entry mean that new exchanges may rapidly and inexpensively
enter the market and offer additional substitute platforms to further
compete with the Exchange and the products it offers, including
exclusively listed products as discussed further below. For example,
there are 3 exchanges that have been added in the U.S. options markets
in the last 5 years (i.e., Nasdaq MRX, LLC, MIAX Pearl, LLC, and MIAX
Emerald LLC) and one additional options exchange that is expected to
launch in 2023 (i.e., MEMX LLC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Chairman Jay Clayton, Statement on Division of Trading
and Markets Staff Fee Guidance, June 12, 2019.
    \12\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market Volume Summary
(January 19, 2023), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that competition in the marketplace
constrains the ability of exchanges to charge supracompetitive fees for
access to its products exclusive to that market (``proprietary
products''). Notably, just as there is no regulatory requirement to
become a member of any one options exchange, there is also no
regulatory requirement for any market participant to participate on the
Exchange in any particular capacity nor trade any particular product.
Additionally, there is no requirement that any Exchange create or
indefinitely maintain any particular product.\13\ The Exchange also
highlights that market participants may trade an exchange's proprietary
products through a third-party without directly or indirectly
connecting to the exchange. Further, market participants, including
Market-Makers, may trade the Exchange's products, including proprietary
products, on or off the Exchange's trading floor (i.e., all products
are available both electronically and via open outcry on the Exchange's
trading floor). Indeed, market participants are not obligated to trade
on the Exchange's trading floor and therefore a market participant,
including Market-Makers, can choose to trade a product electronically
instead of on the Exchange's trading floor at any time and for any
reason, including due to an assessment of the reasonableness of fees
charged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ If an option class is open for trading on another national
securities exchange, the Exchange may delist such option class
immediately. For proprietary products, the Exchange may determine to
not open for trading any additional series in that option class; may
restrict series with open interest to closing transactions, provided
that, opening transactions by Market-Makers executed to accommodate
closing transactions of other market participants and opening
transactions by TPH organizations to facilitate the closing
transactions of public customers executed as crosses pursuant to and
in accordance with Rule 6.74(b) or (d) may be permitted; and may
delist the option class when all series within that class have
expired. See Cboe Rule 4.4, Interpretations and Policies .11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, market participants may trade any options product,
including proprietary products, in the unregulated Over-the-Counter
(OTC) markets for which there is no requirement for fees related to
those markets to be public. Given the benefits offered by trading
options on a listed exchange, such as increased market transparency and
heightened contra-party creditworthiness due to the role of the Options
Clearing Corporation as issuer and guarantor, the Exchange generally
seeks to incentivize market participants to trade options on an
exchange, which further constrains fees that an Exchange may assess.
Market participants may also access other exchanges to trade other
similar or competing proprietary or multi-listed products. Alternative
products to the Exchange's proprietary products may include other
options products, including options on ETFs or options futures, as well
as particular ETFs or futures. Particularly, exclusively listed SPX
options (i.e., a proprietary product) may compete with the following
products traded on other markets: multiply-listed SPY options (options
on the ETF), E-mini S&P 500 Options (options on futures), and E-Mini
S&P 500 futures (futures on index). Indeed, as a practical matter,
investors utilize SPX and SPY options and their respective underlying
instruments and futures to gain exposure to the same benchmark index:
the S&P 500.
    Notably, the Commission itself has affirmed that notwithstanding
the exclusive nature of SPX options, alternatives to this product exist
in the marketplace. Particularly, in approving SPXPM (the PM-settled
S&P 500 cash settled contract) on its affiliate exchange Cboe C2
Exchange, Inc. (which product was later transferred to the Exchange),
the Commission stated that it ``recognizes the potential impact on
competition resulting from the inability of other options exchanges to
list and trade SPXPM. In acting on this proposal, however, the
Commission has balanced the potentially negative competitive effects
with the countervailing positive competitive effects of C2's proposal.
The Commission believes that the availability of SPXPM on the C2
exchange will enhance competition by providing investors with an
additional investment vehicle, in a fully-electronic trading
environment, through which investors can gain and hedge exposure to the
S&P 500 stocks. Further, this product could offer a competitive
alternative to other existing investment products that seek to allow
investors to gain broad market exposure. Also, we note that it is
possible for other exchanges to develop or license the use of a new or
different index to compete with the S&P 500 index and seek Commission
approval to list and trade options on such index.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65256 (September 2,
2011), 76 FR 55969 (September 9, 2011) (SR-C2-2011-008). The
Exchanges notes SPXPM was later transferred to the Exchange, where
it currently remains listed. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
68888 (February 8, 2013), 78 FR 10668 (February 14, 2013) (SR-CBOE-
2012-120).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The economic equivalence of SPX and SPY options was further
acknowledged and cited as a basis for the elimination of position
limits for SPY options across the industry not long after the
Commission's findings above in 2011.\15\ Moreover, other exchanges have
acknowledged that SPY options are considered to be an economic
equivalent to SPX options.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67936
(September 27, 2012), 77 FR 60491 (October 3, 2012) (SR-BOX-2012-
013). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67999 (October 5,
2012), 77 FR 62295 (October 12, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-122).
    \16\ NYSE Euronext, on behalf of its subsidiary options
exchanges, NYSE Arca Inc. and NYSE Amex LLC, commented on a Nasdaq
OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') proposal to increase the position limits for
SPY options, noting ``. . . when a contract that is considered by
many to be economically equivalent to SPY options--namely SPX
options . . .'' See (http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-phlx-2011-58/phlx201158-1.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, in connection with a previous proposed amendment to
the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail
(``CAT

NMS Plan''),\17\ the Commission again discussed the existence of
competition in the marketplace generally, and particularly for
exchanges with unique business models. Similar to, and consistent with,
its findings in approving SPXPM, the Commission recognized that while
some exchanges may have a unique business model that is not currently
offered by competitors, a competitor could create similar business
models if demand were adequate, and if a competitor did not do so, the
Commission believes it would be likely that new entrants would do so if
the exchange with that unique business model was otherwise
profitable.\18\ Accordingly, although the Exchange may have proprietary
products not offered by other competitors, not unlike unique business
models, a competitor could create similar products to an existing
proprietary product if demand were adequate. As an illustration of this
point, MIAX created its exclusive product SPIKES specifically to
compete against VIX options, another product exclusive to the
Exchange.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86901 (September 9,
2019), 84 FR 48458 (September 13, 2019) (File No. S7-13-19).
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ MIAX has described SPIKES options as ``designed
specifically to compete head-to-head against Cboe's proprietary
VIX[supreg] product.'' See MIAX Press Release, SPIKES Options
Launched on MIAX, February 21, 2019, available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/press_release-files/MIAX_Press_Release_02212019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, if a market participant views the Exchange's
proprietary products, including SPX and SPXW, as more or less
attractive than the competition they can switch between similar
products. As such, the Exchange is subject to competition and does not
possess anti-competitive pricing power, even with its offering of
proprietary products such as SPX.
    The Exchange also believes the proposed fee is reasonable as the
Exchange believes it remains commensurate with the value of operating
as a Market-Maker on the Exchange's trading floor in the SPX pit. For
example, the Exchange recently transitioned from its previous trading
floor, which it had occupied since the 1980s, to a brand new, modern
and upgraded trading floor facility. The Exchange believes customers
continue to find value in open outcry trading and rely on the floor for
price discovery and the deep liquidity provided by floor Market-Makers.
The build out of a new modern trading floor reflects the Exchange's
commitment to open outcry trading and focus on providing the best
possible trading experience for its customers, including Market-Makers.
For example, the new trading floor provides a state-of-the-art
environment and technology and more efficient use of physical space,
which the Exchange believes better reflects and supports the current
trading environment. The Exchange also believes the new infrastructure
provides a cost-effective, streamlined, and modernized approach to
floor connectivity. For example, the new trading floor has more than
330 individual kiosks, equipped with top-of-the-line technology, that
enable floor participants to plug in and use their devices with greater
ease and flexibility. It also provides floor Market-Makers with more
space and increased capacity to support additional floor-based traders
on the trading floor.
    Indeed, notwithstanding the proposed fee change, Market-Maker
presence on the new trading floor in SPX and SPXW has increased.
Particularly, as of December 30, 2022, there are 12 additional Market-
Makers trading SPX and SPXW on the trading floor as compared to May
2022 (which was the month prior to the proposed fee change being
implemented on a permanent basis and transition to the new trading
floor).\20\ Further, in June 2022, the month in which the proposed fee
change took effect on the new trading floor on a permanent basis, there
were 5 additional Market-Makers trading SPX and SPXW on the trading
Floor as compared to May 2022. Further, as of December 30, 2022, there
are 4 additional Market-Makers trading SPX and SPXW on the trading
floor as compared to March 2020, which was the last month the Exchange
assessed $3,000 for the SPX and SPXW Floor Market Maker Tier
Appointment fee. The Exchange believes the increasing SPX and SPXW
Market-Maker presence on the trading floor since the last time the
Exchange assessed $3,000 for the SPX and SPXW Floor Market Maker Tier
Appointment fee (i.e., March 2020) and since the time the current
proposal was submitted (i.e., June 2020) speaks not only to the value
Market-Makers find in participating as a Market-Maker in SPX and SPXW
on the (new and improved) trading floor, but also to the reasonableness
of the fee. Moreover, as established above, if a Market-Maker viewed
trading SPX and SPXW as less attractive than competitive products,
including those described above, they can switch between such similar
products and choose not to remain as a Market-Maker trading SPX and SPX
on the trading floor. As such, the Exchange is subject to competition
and does not possess anti-competitive pricing power, even with its
offering of proprietary products such as SPX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ As noted above, the Exchange has been assessing $5,000 for
the SPX and SPXW Floor Market Maker Tier Appointment fee since June
2020 as the Exchange was operating in a modified state until its
transition to the new trading floor in June 2022, at which time the
Exchange submitted this proposal to make such increase permanent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, as noted above, market participants are not obligated to
trade on the Exchange's trading floor and therefore a market
participant, including Market-Makers, can choose to trade a product
electronically instead of on the Exchange's trading floor at any time
and for any reason, including due to an assessment of the
reasonableness of fees charged. In particular, SPX and SPXW open outcry
volume currently accounts for only approximately 26% of total SPX and
SPXW volume (i.e., approximately 74% is traded electronically).
Accordingly, Market-Makers may also choose to trade SPX and SPXW
electronically should they deem fees associated with trading on the
trading floor as unreasonable, further demonstrating that the Exchange
is constrained from imposing unreasonable and supracompetitive fees.
    The Exchange finally believes its proposal to increase the SPX (and
SPXW) Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment fee is reasonable because the
proposed amount is not significantly higher than was previously
assessed (and is the same amount that has been assessed under Footnote
24 for the last two years). Additionally, the Exchange believes its
proposal to increase the fee is reasonable as the fee amount has not
been increased since it was adopted over 12 years ago in July 2010.\21\
Particularly, since its adoption 12 years ago, there has been notable
inflation. Indeed, the dollar has had an average inflation rate of 2.6%
per year between 2010 and today, producing a cumulative price increase
of approximately 37% inflation since 2010, when the SPX and SPXW Floor
Market-Maker Tier Appointment was first adopted.\22\ Additionally, for
nearly ten years, Market-Makers were only subject to the original rate
that was adopted in 2010 (i.e., $3,000) notwithstanding an average
inflation rate of 2.64% per year. The Exchange acknowledges its
proposed fee exceeds 37%. However, the Exchange believes such increase
is reasonable given many Market-Makers for nearly 10 years did not have
to pay increased fees notwithstanding yearly inflation. For

example, by not increasing the fee each year to correspond to the
average per year inflation rate of 2.6%, Market-Makers trading SPX on
the trading floor since 2011 through 2020 (when then Exchange
originally increased the fee due to the COVID-19 pandemic) have saved
nearly $10,000. The Exchange therefore believes that proposing a fee in
excess of the cumulative 37% inflation rate is still reasonable,
especially when considered in conjunction with all of the additional
and further rationale discussed above. The Exchange is also unaware of
any standard that suggests any fee proposal that exceeds a yearly or
cumulative inflation rate is unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62386 (June 25,
2010), 75 FR 38566 (July 2, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-060).
    \22\ See https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/2010?amount=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change is also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory as it applies to all Market-Makers that trade SPX on the
trading floor uniformly. The Exchange believes it's reasonable
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to increase the SPX/SPXW
floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment fee and not the SPX/SPXW electronic
Market-Maker Tier Appointment fee, as Floor Market-Makers are not
subject to other costs that electronic Market-Makers are subject to.
For example, while all Floor Market-Makers automatically have an
appointment to trade open outcry in all classes traded on the Exchange
and at no additional cost per appointment, electronic Market-Makers
must select an appointment in a class (such as SPX) to make markets
electronically and such appointments are subject to fees under the
Market-Maker Electronic Appointments Sliding Scale.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Cboe Options Rules 5.50(a) and (e). See also Cboe
Options Fees Schedule, Market-Maker EAP Appointments Sliding Scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed changes
would be applied in the same manner to all Floor Market-Makers that
trade SPX (and/or SPXW). As noted above, the Exchange believes it's
reasonable to increase the SPX/SPWX Tier Appointment Fee for only Floor
Market-Makers only as opposed to electronic Market-Makers, because
electronic Market-Makers are subject to costs Floor Market-Makers are
not, such as the fees under Market-Maker EAP Appointments Sliding
Scale.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the
proposed rule changes apply only to a fee relating to a product
exclusively listed on the Exchange. Additionally, the Exchange operates
in a highly competitive market. In addition to Cboe Options, TPHs have
numerous alternative venues that they may participate on (which, as
described above, list products that compete with SPX options) and
direct their order flow, including 15 other options exchanges (four of
which also maintain physical trading floors), as well as off-exchange
venues, where competitive products are available for trading. Based on
publicly available information, no single options exchange has more
than 17% of the market share of executed volume of options trades.\24\
Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the
execution of option order flow. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly
expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention
in determining prices, products, and services in the securities
markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted
the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues
and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system
``has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its
broader forms that are most important to investors and listed
companies.'' \25\ The fact that this market is competitive has also
long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers' . . . .''.\26\ Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its
proposed changes to the incentive programs impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Options Market Volume Summary
by Month (January 19, 2023), available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_share/.
    \25\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \26\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \27\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \28\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \28\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please
include File Number SR-CBOE-2023-008 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-2023-008. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will

post all comments on the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do
not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
CBOE-2023-008 and should be submitted on or before March 1, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-02602 Filed 2-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 145 (Monday, July 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 45549]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18133]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4126-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2013-0001]

Iowa; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Iowa (FEMA-4126-DR), dated July 2, 2013, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: July 2, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated July 2, 2013, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of
Iowa resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding during
the period of May 19 to June 14, 2013, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such
a major disaster exists in the State of Iowa.
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to
allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you
find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative
expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated
areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Direct Federal
assistance is authorized. Consistent with the requirement that
Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under
the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent
of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the
Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects
that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing
percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot
Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to Section 428 of
the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration to
the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Joe M. Girot, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Iowa have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

Appanoose, Benton, Buchanan, Buena Vista, Butler, Cherokee,
Chickasaw, Clay, Clayton, Crawford, Davis, Delaware, Des Moines,
Fayette, Floyd, Franklin, Greene,
Grundy, Hardin, Henry, Ida, Iowa, Jasper, Johnson, Jones, Keokuk,
Lee, Linn, Louisa, Lyon, Mahaska, Marshall, Mitchell, Monona,
Monroe, O'Brien, Palo Alto, Plymouth, Poweshiek, Sac, Sioux, Story,
Tama, Wapello, Webster, Winnebago, and Wright Counties for Public
Assistance. Direct federal assistance is authorized.
All counties within the State of Iowa are eligible to apply for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-18133 Filed 7-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: November 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 71640-71641]
[DOCID:fr25no08-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PL09-2-000]

Material Changes in Facts That Require Notifications Under
Commission Regulations Under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of
2005; Order Clarifying Requirement To Notify Commission of Material
Changes in Facts Under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005
and Allowing 45-Day Filing Period for Updated Notifications

Issued November 20, 2008.

Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G.
Kelly; Marc Spitzer; Philip D. Moeller; and Jon Wellinghoff.

    1. The Commission's regulations under the Public Utility Holding
Company Act of 2005 (PUHCA 2005) \1\ currently require persons that
meet the definition of a holding company set forth at 18 CFR 366.1
(2008) to notify the Commission of their status as a holding company no
later than 30 days after they become a holding company.\2\ The
Commission's PUHCA 2005 regulations also provide exemptions from or
waivers of requirements that apply to holding companies.\3\ The
companies that receive certain of these exemptions or waivers are
required to notify the Commission of material changes in facts that may
affect the exemption or waiver.\4\ It has come to the Commission's
attention that we may not have provided sufficient clarity regarding an
aspect of the scope of this filing requirement and the purpose of this
order is to clarify and provide guidance on certain filings that need
to be made under this regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 42 U.S.C. 16451 et seq. (2006).
    \2\ 18 CFR 366.4(a)(1) (2008).
    \3\ Id. Sec.  366.3.
    \4\ Id. Sec.  366.4(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The exemptions in question apply to a number of entities,
including certain passive investors and certain utility operating
companies, as well as to certain classes of transactions. Qualifying
entities or classes of transactions are exempt from the requirements
concerning access to books and records found at section 366.2, as well
as the accounting, record-retention, and reporting requirements of
sections 366.21, 366.22, and 366.23 of the Commission's regulations.\5\
To receive one or more of these exemptions, a person must file an
exemption notification with the Commission, i.e., FERC-65A. The
exemption is deemed granted if the Commission does not take action on
the notification within 60 days.\6\ Persons that do not qualify for an
exemption under the regulations may petition for a declaratory order
granting one.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id. Sec.  366.3(b).
    \6\ Id. Sec.  366.4(b)(1).
    \7\ Id. Sec.  366.4(b)(3); accord id. Sec.  366.3(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The waivers in question apply to holding companies that have
single-state holding company systems, as defined in section 366.3(c)(1)
of the Commission's regulations, as well as investors in independent
transmission-only companies and holding companies with 100 MW of
generation or less that is used for their own load or sales to
affiliated end users.\8\ Qualifying entities receive a waiver of the
accounting, record-retention, and reporting requirements found in
sections 366.21, 366.22 and 366.23 of the Commission's regulations.\9\
To receive one or more of these waivers, a person must file a waiver
notification with the Commission, i.e., FERC-65B. The waiver is deemed
granted if the Commission does not take action on the notification
within 60 days.\10\ Persons that do not qualify for a waiver under the
regulations may petition for a declaratory order granting one.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id. Sec.  366.3(c).
    \9\ Id. Sec.  366.4(c).
    \10\ Id. Sec.  366.4(c)(1).
    \11\ Id. Sec.  366.4(c)(2); accord id. Sec.  366.3(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. The Commission's regulations specify that if there is any
material change in facts that may affect an exemption or waiver of the
type described above, the person that received the exemption or waiver
must notify the Commission of the change within 30 days of the material
change. At that time the person must (i) submit a new FERC-65A, FERC-
65B, or petition for declaratory order; (ii) file a written explanation
why the material change in facts does not affect the exemption or
waiver; or (iii) notify the Commission that it no longer seeks to
maintain its exemption or waiver.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id. Sec.  366.4(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The Commission's regulations require only notification of those
material changes in facts that may affect an exemption or waiver, but
they do not otherwise state when a notification is required. The
Commission wishes to clarify one type of change in facts that should in
all cases be the subject of a notification. If a holding company that
has previously filed an exemption or waiver notification, i.e., FERC-
65A or FERC-65B, or that has received an exemption or waiver through a
declaratory order, becomes a holding company with respect to an
additional public-utility company or holding company of any public-
utility company (i.e., obtains the power to vote 10 percent or greater
of the voting securities of an additional company), that holding
company should file with the Commission a notification of material
change in facts that describes the additional public-utility company or
holding company of any public-utility company and otherwise complies
with the requirements of section 366.4(d)(1) of the Commission's
regulations by selecting one of the three possible courses of action
set forth in that section. This filing should be made whether or not a
change has occurred with respect to the basis on which the exemption or
waiver was granted.\13\ We

note that the FERC-65 filing requirements are intended, in part, to
serve an informational purpose,\14\ and the addition of a new
subsidiary company that is a public-utility company or holding company
of a public-utility company represents a material fact that should be
reported to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For example, if a holding company received an exemption
from the PUHCA 2005 regulations on the basis of its status as a
passive investor of the type identified in 18 CFR 366.3(b)(2)(i), it
should notify the Commission whenever it acquires as a passive
investor interests in an additional public-utility company or
holding company that, upon acquisition, becomes a ``subsidiary
company,'' as defined in 18 CFR 366.1, of the passive investor. This
filing should be made even if the holding company continues to
qualify for an exemption as a passive investor.
    \14\ Id. Sec.  366.4(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Because not all holding companies may have been interpreting the
Commission's regulations to require such filings where the basis on
which their exemption or waiver was granted has not changed, and
because the Commission has not previously clarified this requirement
for notifications of material changes in fact, we will allow all such
companies to file within 45 days of the date of publication of this
order in the Federal Register a notification of change in material
facts which updates the Commission on any investments of 10 percent or
more of the voting securities of a public-utility company or holding
company of a public-utility company since the time the exemption or
waiver was granted. The Secretary is directed to publish a copy of this
order in the Federal Register.

    By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-27985 Filed 11-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 119 (Thursday, June 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37216-37217]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14727]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2305-036]

Sabine River Authority of Texas and Sabine River Authority, State
of Louisiana; Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Toledo Bend Hydroelectric Project

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC)
regulations contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (18 CFR
part 380 [FERC Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897]), the Office of Energy
Projects has reviewed the application for license for the Toledo Bend
Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2305) and has prepared a draft
environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project.
    The existing project is located on the Sabine River between river
mile (RM) 147 and RM 279, affecting lands and

waters in Panola, Shelby, Sabine, and Newton Counties, Texas, and De
Soto, Sabine, and Vernon Parishes, Louisiana. The project occupies
lands within the Sabine National Forest in Texas and the Indian Mounds
Wilderness Area, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture--
Forest Service.
    The draft EIS contains staff's analysis of the applicants'
proposals and the alternatives for relicensing the Toledo Bend Project.
The draft EIS documents the views of governmental agencies, non-
governmental organizations, affected Indian tribes, the public, the
license applicants, and Commission staff.
    A copy of the draft EIS is available for review at the Commission
or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov,
using the ``e-Library'' link. Enter the docket number, excluding the
last three digits, to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at (866)208-
3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    All comments must be filed by August 5, 2013, and should reference
Project No. 2305-036. Comments may be filed electronically via the
Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp)
under the ``eFiling'' link. For a simpler method of submitting text
only comments, click on ``Quick Comment.'' For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support. Although the Commission strongly
encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To
paper-file, mail an original and five copies to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Anyone may intervene in this proceeding based on this draft EIS (18
CFR 380.10). You must file your request to intervene as specified
above.\1\ You do not need intervenor status to have your comments
considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Interventions may also be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing
comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commission staff will hold two public meetings for the purpose of
receiving comments on the draft EIS. The daytime meeting will focus on
resource agency, Indian tribes, and non-governmental organization
comments, while the evening meeting is primarily for receiving input
from the public. All interested individuals and entities will be
invited to attend one or both of the public meetings. A notice
detailing the exact date, time, and location of the public meetings
will be forthcoming.
    For further information, please contact Alan Mitchnick at (202)
502-6074 or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 14, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-14727 Filed 6-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 22 (Monday, February 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 6244]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02251]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday,
February 5, 2014 at 3:00 p.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002.
    The subject matter of the Open Meeting will be:
     The Commission will consider whether to approve the 2014
budget of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and will
consider the related annual accounting support fee for the Board under
Section 109 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
     The Commission will consider whether to adopt rules
revising the disclosure, reporting, and offering process for asset-
backed securities. The revisions would require asset-backed issuers to
provide enhanced disclosures including information for certain asset
classes about each asset in the underlying pool in a standardized,
tagged format and revise the shelf offering process and eligibility
criteria for asset-backed securities.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Dated: January 29, 2014.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-02251 Filed 1-30-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P