[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 31710]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12508]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP01-382-031.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Northern Natural Gas Company submits Carlton
Reimbursement Report under RP01-382.
    Filed Date: 6/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210601-5295.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-891-000.
    Applicants: WTG Hugoton, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: WTGH Address Change Filing
(July 1, 2021) to be effective 7/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20210608-5052.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-892-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Rate Schedule S-2 Flow Through
Refund Report OFO Penalty to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 6/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20210608-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/21/21.

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

    Dated: June 9, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-12508 Filed 6-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 159)]
[Notices]
[Page 51058]
[DOCID:fr18au10-98]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9190-9; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-0934]

The Effects of Mountaintop Mines and Valley Fills on Aquatic
Ecosystems of the Central Appalachian Coalfields and a Field-Based
Aquatic Life Benchmark for Conductivity in Central Appalachian Streams

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Extension of public comment period to September 3, 2010.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing an extension of the public comment period
for two related draft documents: (1) ``The Effects of Mountaintop Mines
and Valley Fills on Aquatic Ecosystems of the Central Appalachian
Coalfields'' (EPA/600/R-09/138A) and (2) ``A Field-based Aquatic Life
Benchmark for Conductivity in Central Appalachian Streams'' (EPA/600/R-
10/023A). We are specifically extending the comment period on these two
documents to give the public additional time to evaluate the data used
to derive a benchmark for conductivity. The original Federal Register
notice announcing the public comment period was published on April 12,
2010 (75 FR 18499). By following the link below, reviewers may download
the initial data and EPA's derivative data sets that were used to
calculate the conductivity benchmark. These reports were developed by
the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) within EPA's
Office of Research and Development as part of a set of actions taken by
EPA to further clarify and strengthen environmental permitting
requirements for Appalachian mountaintop removal and other surface coal
mining projects, in coordination with Federal and State regulatory
agencies (http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/guidance/mining.html).
    Both documents were reviewed by an independent Mountaintop Mining
Advisory Panel convened by EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) on July
21--23, 2010. The public comment period for the SAB meeting follows a
separate process and provides separate opportunities for all interested
parties to comment on the document. EPA intends to forward to the SAB
those comments received as of September 3, 2010, for consideration by
the SAB Panel as they finalize their report. When finalizing the draft
documents, EPA will consider the comments from the SAB review as well
as any significant public comments that it receives in accordance with
this notice.
    EPA released these draft documents for the purpose of pre-
dissemination peer review under applicable information quality
guidelines. The documents have not been formally disseminated by EPA.
They do not represent and should not be construed to represent a final
Agency policy or determination; however, the documents reflect EPA's
best interpretation of the available science. The draft documents are
available via the Internet on NCEA's home page under the Recent
Additions and Publications menus at http://www.epa.gov/ncea.

DATES: The public comment period began on April 12, 2010, and ends on
September 3, 2010. Technical comments should be in writing and must be
received by EPA by September 3, 2010.

ADDRESSES: The draft reports, ``The Effects of Mountaintop Mines and
Valley Fills on Aquatic Ecosystems of the Central Appalachian
Coalfields'' and ``A Field-based Aquatic Life Benchmark for
Conductivity in Central Appalachian Streams'' are available primarily
via the Internet on NCEA's home page under the Recent Additions and
Publications menus at http://www.epa.gov/ncea. A limited number of
paper copies are available; contact the EPA by telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>)
or facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>). If you are requesting a paper copy, please
provide your name, mailing address, and the document titles (1) ``The
Effects of Mountaintop Mines and Valley Fills on Aquatic Ecosystems of
the Central Appalachian Coalfields'' and (2) ``A Field-based Aquatic
Life Benchmark for Conductivity in Central Appalachian Streams.''
    Comments may be submitted electronically via http://
www.regulations.gov, by mail, by facsimile, or by hand delivery/
courier. Please follow the detailed instructions provided in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of Federal Register Notice (75 FR
30393).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on submitting comments
to the docket, please contact the Office of Environmental Information
Docket; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For technical information, please leave a message
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or send e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 12, 2010.
David A. Bussard,
Acting Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. 2010-20466 Filed 8-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30240-30241]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10707]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0101]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number 1625-0016

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension
of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0016,
Welding and Hot Work Permits; Posting of Warning Signs; without change.
Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public.
Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens
commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: You may submit comments to the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before
June 17, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Comments to the Coast Guard should be submitted using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Search for
docket number [USCG-2022-0101]. Written comments and recommendations to
OIRA for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30
days of publication of this notice to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Find this particular information collection by selecting
``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using
the search function.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: Commandant (CG-6P), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S.
Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave SE, Stop 7710, Washington,
DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy
Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions
on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an
application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a
Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains
information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's
likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity
of the Collection, and other important information describing the
Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments
will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this
Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2022-0101], and must be received by June 17,
2022.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments to the Coast Guard will
be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will
include any personal information you have provided. For more about
privacy and submissions to the Coast Guard in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020). For more about privacy and submissions to OIRA in
response to this document, see the https://www.reginfo.gov, comment-
submission web page. OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each
ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a
hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0016.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (87 FR 7849, February 10, 2022)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comments.
Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Welding and Hot Work Permits; Posting of Warning Signs.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0016.
    Summary: This information collection helps to ensure that
waterfront facilities and vessels are in compliance with safety
standards. A permit must be issued prior to welding or hot work at
certain waterfront facilities; and, the posting of warning signs is
required on certain facilities. The statutory authority is 46 U.S.C.
70034 (formerly 33 U.S.C. 1231) and chapter 701 of Title 46.
    Need: The information is needed to ensure safe operations on
certain waterfront facilities and vessels.
    Forms: CG-4201, Welding and Hot Work.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of certain waterfront facilities
and vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 435
hours to 497 hours a year, due to an increase in the estimated annual
number of responses.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. et seq.,
chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: May 13, 2022.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2022-10707 Filed 5-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 166 (Monday, August 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51795-51798]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20904]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD12-12-000]

Coordination Between Natural Gas and Electricity Markets

Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference

    As announced in the Notices issued on July 5, 2012 \1\ and July 17,
2012,\2\ the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff
will hold a technical conference on Tuesday, August 28, 2012, from 9
a.m. to approximately 5:30 p.m. local time to discuss gas-electric
coordination issues in the West region.\3\ The agenda and list of
roundtable participants for this conference is attached. This
conference is free of charge and open to the public. Commission members
may participate in the conference.
    The West region technical conference will be held at the following
venue: DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Portland, 1000 NE Multnomah Street,
Portland, OR, 97232, USA, Tel (reservations and other information): 1-
503-281-6111, 1-800-996-0510 (toll free).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Coordination between Natural Gas and Electricity Markets,
Docket No. AD12-12-000 (July 5, 2012) (Notice Of Technical
Conferences) (http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=13023450); 77 FR 41184 (July 12, 2012) (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-07-12/pdf/2012-16997.pdf).
    \2\ Coordination between Natural Gas and Electricity Markets,
Docket No. AD12-12-000 (July 17, 2012) (Supplemental Notice Of
Technical Conferences) (http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=13029403).
    \3\ As indicated in the July 5, 2012 notice, for purposes of
this technical conference, the West region includes the Western
Interconnection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you have not already done so, those who plan to attend the West
region technical conference are strongly encouraged to complete the
registration form located at: www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/nat-gas-elec-mkts-form.asp. There is no deadline to register to attend the
conference. The dress code for the conference will be business casual.
The agenda and roundtable participants for the remaining technical
conferences will be issued in supplemental notices at later dates.
    The West region technical conference will not be transcribed.
However, there will be a free audiocast of the conference. The
audiocast will allow persons to listen to the West region technical
conference, but not participate. Anyone with Internet access who
desires to listen to the West region conference can do so by navigating
to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and locating the West region
technical conference in the Calendar. The West region technical
conference will contain a link to its audiocast. The Capitol Connection
provides technical support for audiocasts and offers the option of
listening to the meeting via phone-bridge for a fee. If you have any
questions, visit www.CapitolConnection.org or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The audiocast will continue to be available on the Calendar
of Events on the Commission's Web site www.ferc.gov for three months
after the conference.
_____________________________________-

    Information on this and the other regional technical conferences
will also be posted on the Web site www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/electric-coord.asp, as well as the Calendar of Events on the
Commission's Web site www.ferc.gov. Changes to the agenda or list of
roundtable participants for the West region technical conference, if
any, will be posted on the Web site www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/electric-coord.asp prior to the conference.
    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 and the other regional technical
conferences, please contact: Pamela Silberstein, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,Washington, DC 20426, (202)
502-8938, Pamela.Silberstein@ferc.gov;Sarah McKinley, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202) 502-8004<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 20, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27AU12.000

Coordination Between Natural Gas and Electricity markets

Docket No. AD12-12-000

West Region--August 28, 2012, Portland, OR

Agenda

9-9:15 Welcome and Opening Remarks
9:15-9:45 Regional Energy Infrastructure Presentation (FERC staff)
9:45-12 First Roundtable Discussion: Gas-Electric Coordination and
Market Structures in the West

    The Western region consists of bilateral markets, trading hubs, and
the organized wholesale energy markets of the California ISO (CAISO),
and varying access to fuel supplies and natural gas storage across
several sub-regions. Public and non-public utilities may participate in
these markets. Commenters in the West stress the need for regional and
even sub-regional approaches to gas-electric coordination, in light of
the different market structures and mix of resources that co-exist. The
Commission anticipates that the differing perspectives of the Pacific
Northwest, Rocky Mountain, Desert Southwest, and California sub-regions
will be reflected in the discussion of gas-electric coordination topics
and challenges.
    Many within the Western region expect that a significant portion of
new generating capacity installed in the next ten years will use
natural gas as its primary fuel, which has raised concerns for some
regarding the sufficiency of pipeline capacity to accommodate this
growth in gas-fired generation. Approaches to addressing infrastructure
adequacy also vary across the region. Some commenters stress the need
for cost recovery mechanisms or other market enhancements that provide
incentives for appropriate fuel arrangements. Others emphasize
regionally-based approaches to determine whether this is demand for
additional pipeline capacity and services, or whether there are ways
the region can better deploy existing capacity to meet demand growth.
Some commenters suggest that the Commission has a role to play, in
terms of possible refinements to its blanket certificate process.
    While some pipelines offer flexible pipeline and storage services,
commenters suggest that more flexibility and additional nomination
opportunities are needed by operators of gas-fired generation in some
areas. Commenters differ on the impact of the mismatch in the
scheduling and delivery timelines between the gas and electric
industries, with some calling for greater harmonization between natural
gas trading and transportation nomination and scheduling timelines and
electricity trading and scheduling times within the West, and others
contending that the gas-electric mismatch presents no significant
challenges or that it is a longer-term issue.
    Roundtable participants are encouraged to be prepared to discuss
the following:
    1. Describe the policies and practices in your region that impact
the procurement of gas transportation and storage capacity purchases by
gas-fired generators. What changes do you expect, if any, as the use of
gas for electric generation increases? Salt River Project in its
comments suggests the possible development of a gas-sharing pool
similar to regional electric reserve sharing pools.\5\ Would this type
of development help to address the disincentives to long-term gas
supply and transportation contracting noted by the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC)? \6\ Some commenters state that the West
already engages in substantial outage and maintenance coordination
between the electric and pipeline industries. How, if at all, is the
resulting knowledge of pipeline conditions taken into account in
electric dispatch and pricing decisions, and how is the resulting
knowledge of electric system conditions taken into account in pipeline
operational decisions?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power
District March 30, 2012 Comments at 2.
    \6\ CPUC March 30, 2012 Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. How does your region approach the question of gas infrastructure
adequacy? Are there reforms to the organized wholesale electric market
rules that CAISO could consider as a possible means to allow a gas-
fired generator to recover the costs of contracting for gas
infrastructure expansion needed to serve electric markets in the
region? To what extent do bilateral contracts provide for the recovery
of such costs, both in CAISO and in the areas that do not have
organized markets? Commenters like Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (Puget
Sound Energy) suggest that the immediate need to add infrastructure
could be minimized by allowing pipeline capacity release for periods
longer than one year at greater than maximum tariff rate.\7\ What would
be the advantages and drawbacks to these proposals?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Puget Sound Energy March 30, 2012 Comments at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. What types of services offered by natural gas pipelines and
storage providers throughout the West would best meet the needs of gas-
fired generators in the region? Recognizing that some pipelines offer
additional nomination opportunities beyond the current standards, would
generators like to see additional operating flexibility in pipeline
services, and if so, what kind? For example, one commenter

recommends that the Commission encourage gas storage operators to offer
24-hour service and balancing services. Another described an
``intermittent gas'' product conceptually similar to conditional firm
electric transmission service.\8\ Would proposals like these address
generators' flexibility needs? Are these ideas feasible in the West,
and, if so, how could they be structured? What financial assurances
would gas pipelines and storage providers need to provide such
services?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power
District March 30, 2012 Comments at 2; MidAmerican Energy Holdings
Company March 30, 2012 Comments at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. How diverse (or consistent) are nomination, scheduling and
commitment practices across the region? How do the regions' utilities
and generators manage the mismatch between the scheduling and
commitment timelines on the electric side in local time and the NAESB
standard gas pipeline practices? Are there areas in the West where this
is more of a problem to generators than elsewhere? If so, can the gas
and electric market scheduling timelines be adjusted in a way that
improves matters for those regions where it is a problem?

12-1:30 Break
1:30-2:45 Second Roundtable Discussion: Communications/Coordination/
Information-Sharing

    Each of the sub-regions that make up the West has experienced
unexpected events that highlighted the need for improved communication
and coordination between electric and gas entities: For example,
Denver/the Rockies in December 2006; the Pacific Northwest in December
2009; California in September 2010; and the Southwest in February and
September 2011.\9\ Western commenters in this proceeding identified
possible improvements including enhanced communication during emergency
outages, coordination of maintenance outage scheduling, and FERC
clarification of allowed information sharing under existing rules,
particularly the Standards of Conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See ``Investigation of the Controlled Outages of February
18, 2006 by Public Service Company of Colorado,'' Docket No. 06I-
118EG, Initial Report to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission by
the Staff of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, July 7, 2006;
``Plugging Into Natural Gas,'' http://pnucc.org/sites/default/files/RidingNorthwestDec2009Event_0.pdf; http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/events/sanbruno.htm; ``Report on Outages and Curtailments During the
Southwest Cold Weather Event of February 1-5, 2011,'' http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/08-16-11-report.pdf; ``Arizona-
Southern California Outages on September 8, 2011,'' http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/04-27-2012-ferc-nerc-report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments suggest that improving communications protocols between
the gas and electric industry is one issue that may lend itself to more
immediate resolution than other gas-electric coordination issues. This
panel will discuss whether there are adequate communication protocols
among the various stakeholders to assure appropriate gas-electric
coordination and identify potential solutions to any issues.
    Roundtable participants are encouraged to be prepared to discuss
the following:
    1. How are coordination and information-sharing regarding both
emergency and planned outages handled by affected gas and electric
entities in the different regions? Are improvements needed? Several
entities in the Northwest stated that the gas and electric utility
planners in the Northwest have initiated regular meetings to address
resiliency in a coordinated manner.\10\ What kind of coordination
occurs and what kind of information is shared and with whom in
preparation for extreme events that simultaneously and significantly
affect both the gas and electric sectors. Are there any limitations on
communication that seem unnecessarily restrictive? Should entities
coordinate weather forecasts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Puget Sound Energy March 30, 2012 Comments at 6; Northwest
Gas Association, et al., March 29, 2012 Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The gas pipelines in California and the CAISO have worked to
improve their coordination of planned outages. What is the impact of
electric system outages upon the gas system, and vice versa? Are
further changes needed to allow for the coordination of planned
outages? Will the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty and Job
Creation Act of 2011 impose new requirements upon inter-industry
communication and coordination? If so, how are the industries planning
for those new requirements?
    3. Several commenters identified the nature of information that
currently is available and shared between gas and electric entities. Is
there additional information that needs to be shared that currently is
not being shared, and are all the relevant and necessary parties
included? Are the information-sharing mechanisms appropriate to the
circumstances? Are improvements needed and who should be responsible
for implementing improvements?
    4. Parties in the West region expect increased reliance on gas-
fired generators to result in greater daily fluctuations in gas usage
than have been experienced in the past. For example, the 2012
California Gas Report prepared by the California Gas and Electric
Utilities projects that there will be higher daily fluctuations in gas
usage in the future, associated with the increase in renewable
generation in the state.\11\ What changes in communications and real
time data sharing protocols will be needed to accommodate these
expected variations?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``2012 California Gas Report Prepared by the California Gas
and Electric Utilities,'' July 2012, at 11; http://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/documents/cgr/2012%20CGR_Final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Based on the experience in your region, what aspects of the FERC
Standards of Conduct (which govern the relationship between a
transmission provider and its marketing function) need to be clarified
or potentially revised to improve gas-electric communications and
coordination? For example, Puget Sound Energy recommends that the
Commission should clarify that the exception for a transmission
provider to disclose non-public transmission information with its
merchant function should not be limited solely to an emergency on the
transmission provider's system. Rather, Puget Sound Energy suggests
that the exception be broadened to include non-emergency situations to
prevent an emergency and also to permit communications to alleviate
emergencies on a nearby/regional transmission provider's system.\12\
Describe specific non-emergency situations to be covered by the
suggested clarification to the emergency exception to prohibited
communications. Although the Standards of Conduct do not restrict
transmission providers from communicating with each other, describe how
the Standards of Conduct prevent individuals managing resources on a
number of transmission systems in a region from conferring with each
other as suggested by Puget Sound Energy.

    \12\ Puget Sound Energy March 30, 2012 Comments at 12-13.

2:45-3 Break
3-4:30 Third Roundtable Discussion: Reliability

    The bulk electric system is typically planned, as required by the
mandatory reliability standards, to meet projected customer demands and
system performance criteria, even under single element contingency
conditions. Interstate natural gas pipelines are planned and expanded
to meet firm gas delivery contracts between the pipelines and one or
more shippers. As noted

above, almost all commenters from the West indicated they expect an
increased reliance on natural gas generation in the coming years, due
to economic and national policy factors. Commenters also expressed
concerns about the future reliability and interdependencies of the bulk
electric system and the interstate natural gas pipeline system as the
amount of natural gas-fired generation increases.
    Roundtable participants are encouraged to be prepared to discuss
the following:
    1. Is there a need for a minimum level of dependability in the fuel
supply for gas-fired generators? How would it be defined, who would
define it, and what would be the mechanism for accomplishing this? To
what extent is the dependability of fuel supply a required
specification in standardized contract documents for buying and selling
electricity? Should this be addressed regionally, and how can it be
addressed in the regions without organized markets? What role can or do
State Commissions play in defining or otherwise supporting requirements
for fuel dependability in all of the Western subregions?
    2. Several commenters express concern about whether there are
particular reliability concerns in areas that lack underground natural
gas storage. What tools are available to regions to manage gas-fired
generation swings and preserve reliability, in areas without gas
storage? What happens when there are events that impact pipeline
deliverability in those regions?
    3. To what extent do the regions in the West coordinate studies of
the natural gas and electric systems to analyze forecasted resource mix
and/or interdependency risks from curtailments or contingencies? Can
this be addressed through existing transmission planning processes or
are different processes needed?
    4. Commenters from California and the Northwest highlighted ongoing
coordination efforts that allowed participants from the natural gas and
electric industries, as well as state regulators, to assess emergency
response plans and provided a forum to discuss and implement
improvements.\13\ Are sufficient emergency coordination procedures in
place in the West? Are these procedures routinely tested through
functional exercises or simulations? Should all regions within the West
routinely conduct joint functional exercises?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., Northwest Industrial Gas Users March 30, 2012
Comments at 3; Northwest Gas Association, et al. March 29, 2012
Comments at 1.

4:30-5:30 General Discussion of Other Region-Specific Issues Affecting
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-Electric Coordination

    Electric markets in the West function differently in California,
the Pacific Northwest and in the rest of the Western Interconnect. To
the extent not discussed in the earlier roundtable discussions, we'll
discuss these differences as well as any specific issues of concern to
one or more of these sub-regions not touched on earlier.
    Roundtable Participants:

[rtarr8] Richard Adams, Executive Director, Pacific Northwest Utilities
Conference Committee
[rtarr8] Ed Brewer, Vice President, Commercial Operations, Williams--
Northwest Pipeline
[rtarr8] Will Brown, Director-Commercial, Kinder Morgan West Region
Pipelines
[rtarr8] Tina Burnett, Senior Energy Analyst, The Boeing Corporation
(on behalf of Process Gas Consumers Group)
[rtarr8] Stefan Byrd, Senior Vice President Commercial and Trading (on
behalf of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company) (representing the common
views of Pacific Corp Energy and Kern River Gas Transmission)
[rtarr8] Jan Caldwell, Manager, Marketing Services, Williams--Northwest
Pipeline
[rtarr8] Shelley Corman, Senior Vice President, Commercial &
Regulatory, Transwestern Pipeline Company
[rtarr8] John Dagg, Director of Gas Transmission and System Operations,
Southern California Gas Company and San Diego Gas & Electric
[rtarr8] Lynn Dahlberg, Director Marketing Services, Williams--
Northwest Pipeline
[rtarr8] Curtis Dallinger, Director, Gas Resource Planning, Xcel Energy
[rtarr8] Randy Friedman, Director, Gas Supply, Northwest Natural Gas
[rtarr8] Paul Goldstein, Managing Director, Sempra U.S. Gas & Power
[rtarr8] Roger Graham, Director Wholesale Marketing & Business
Development, Pacific Gas & Electric
[rtarr8] Steve Harper, Director Gas Supply, Avista Corp.
[rtarr8] Robert Hayes, Vice President of Physical Trading and
Operations, Calpine Corporation
[rtarr8] Tom Haymaker, Slice Manager, Clark Public Utilities
[rtarr8] Lee Hobbs, Senior Vice President, TransCanada US Pipelines
[rtarr8] Skip Horvath, President, Natural Gas Supply Association
[rtarr8] Kevin Johnson, Director, Gas Control, Kinder Morgan Western
Pipelines
[rtarr8] Dan Kirschner, Executive Director, Northwest Gas Association
[rtarr8] Ray Miller, Vice President, Pipeline Management, Kinder Morgan
Pipelines
[rtarr8] John Moura, Associate Director, Reliability Assessment, NERC
[rtarr8] Liam Noailles, Manager, Market Operations, Xcel Energy
[rtarr8] Kent Price, Senior Marketing Representative, Salt River
Project
[rtarr8] Pete Richards, Director, Operations, Gas Control &
Measurement, Williams--Northwest Pipeline
[rtarr8] Clay Riding, Director Natural Gas Resources, Puget Sound
Energy
[rtarr8] Andrew Soto, Senior Managing Counsel, American Gas Association
[rtarr8] Reuben Tavares, Electric Generation System Specialist,
California Energy Commission
[rtarr8] Justin Thompson, Director of Business Support, Arizona Public
Service Company
[rtarr8] William Tom, Senior Manager, Day-Ahead Operations, Pacific Gas
& Electric
[rtarr8] Gregory Van Pelt, External Affairs Manager, California ISO
[rtarr8] Craig Williams, Market Interface Manager, Western Electricity
Coordinating Council

[FR Doc. 2012-20904 Filed 8-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 248)]
[Notices]
[Page 79136-79137]
[DOCID:fr24de08-96]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2008-1217]

Area Maritime Security Committees (AMSCs); Nationwide

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Solicitation for membership.

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

SUMMARY: This notice requests individuals interested in serving on an
Area Maritime Security Committee in any Captain of the Port Zone,
nationwide, to submit their applications for membership to their local
Captain of the Port. These committees advise the Secretary of DHS,
through the Coast Guard, on matters relating to maritime security in
their geographic area.

DATES: Requests for membership should reach the applicable Captain of
the Port by January 21, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Applications for membership should be submitted to your
local Captain of the Port at the following address(s):

    SECTOR ANCHORAGE, 510 L STREET-SUITE 100, ANCHORAGE, AK 99501-1946,
POC: Jim Hubbard, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SECTOR BALTIMORE, 2401 HAWKINS POINT RD, BALTIMORE, MD 21226, POC:
Rick Sparacino, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SECTOR BOSTON, 427 COMMERCIAL ST, BOSTON, MA 02109, POC: Phillip
Smith, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SECTOR BUFFALO, 1 FUHRMANN BLVD, BUFFALO, NY 14203, POC: Timothy
Balunis, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SECTOR CHARLESTON, 196 TRADD ST, CHARLESTON, SC 29401, POC: James
Mahney, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SECTOR CORPUS CHRISTI, 8930 OCEAN DR., CORPUS CHRISTI, TX 78419,
POC: John Zarbock, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SECTOR DELAWARE BAY, 1 WASHINGTON AVE, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19147, POC:
Robert Ward, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SECTOR DETROIT, 110 MOUNT ELLIOTT ST, DETROIT, MI 48207, POC:
Matthew Hoppe, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    MARINE SAFETY UNIT DULUTH, 600 S LAKE AVE., DULUTH, MN 55802, POC:
Jared Angelle, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SECTOR GUAM, PSC 455 BOX 176, FPO, GU 96540, POC: LT Amy Wirts,
Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    CG SECTOR HAMPTON ROADS, 4000 COAST GUARD BOULEVARD, PORTSMOUTH, VA
23703, POC: Rodger Tomlinson, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> Ext. 2.
    SECTOR HONOLULU, 400 SAND ISLAND PARKWAY, HONOLULU, HI 96819, POC:
William Deluca, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SECTOR HOUSTON-GALVESTON, 9640 CLINTON DRIVE, HOUSTON, TX 77029,
POC: John Walker, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SECTOR JACKSONVILLE, 4200 OCEAN STREET, ALTANTIC BEACH, FL 32233,
POC: Thomas Taylor, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    USCG SECTOR JUNEAU, 2760 SHERWOOD LANE, SUITE 2A, JUNEAU, AK 99801-
8545, POC: Robert

Edwardson, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SECTOR KEY WEST, 100 TRUMBO POINT ANNEX, KEY WEST, FL 33040, POC:
LTJG Anna Dixon, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SECTOR LAKE MICHIGAN, 2420 S LINCOLN MEMORIAL DR, MILWAUKEE, WI
53207, POC: Thomas Lake, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SECTOR LONG ISLAND SOUND, 120 WOODWARD AVE, NEW HAVEN, CT 06512,
POC: Scot Graham, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SECTOR LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH, 1001 S. SEASIDE AVE., BLDG 20, SAN
PEDRO, CA 90731, POC: Chris Hogan, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SECTOR LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER, 2 AUCTION AVE., MEMPHIS,
TN 38105, POC: Keith Jones, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SECTOR MIAMI, 100 MACARTHUR CAUSEWAY, MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139, POC:
Frank Cesario, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SECTOR MOBILE, BLDG 101, BROOKLEY COMPLEX, MOBILE, AL 36615, POC:
Louie Atchison, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    MSU MORGAN CITY, 800 DAVID DR RM 232, MORGAN CITY, LA 70380, POC:
Joseph Pasqua, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SECTOR NEW ORLEANS, 1615 POYDRAS ST, NEW ORLEANS, LA 70112, POC:
Roy Ford, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SECTOR NEW YORK, 212 COAST GUARD DR, STATEN ISLAND, NY 10305, POC:
Frank Fiumano, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SECTOR NORTH CAROLINA/MSU WILMINGTON, 2301 E. FORT MACON RD,
ATLANTIC BEACH, NC 28512-5633, POC: David Morgan, Primary Phone: (252)
247-4519.
    SECTOR NORTHERN NEW ENGLAND, 259 HIGH STREET, SOUTH PORTLAND, ME
04106, POC: Arn Heggers, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SECTOR OHIO VALLEY, 600 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR PL RM 409-D,
LOUISVILLE, KY 40202-2242, POC: David Wuest, Primary Phone: (502)779-
5400.
    MSU PITTSBURGH, 100 FORBES AVE, STE 1150, PITTSBURGH, PA 15222,
POC: ENS Matthew DeFusco, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    MSU PORT ARTHUR /MSU LAKE CHARLES, 2901 TURTLE CREEK DRIVE, PORT
ARTHUR, TX 77642, POC: Robert Stegall, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SECTOR PORTLAND, 6767 N BASIN AVE, PORTLAND, OR 97217, POC: David
Maresh, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SECTOR SAN DIEGO, 2710 NORTH HARBOR DRIVE, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101,
POC: Rick Sorrell, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SECTOR SAN FRANCISCO, 1 YERBA BUENA ISLAND, SAN FRANCISCO, CA
94130, POC: Paul Martin, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SECTOR SAN JUAN, 5 CALLE LA PUNTILLA, SAN JUAN, PR 00901-
1800, POC: Victor Gonzalez, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SECTOR SAULT STE. MARIE, C/O COAST GUARD SECTOR, SAULT STE MARIE,
MI 49783, POC: Lane Putala, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    MSU SAVANNAH, 100 W. OGLETHORPE AVE STE 1017, SAVANNAH, GA 31401,
POC: LT Greg Reilly, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SECTOR SEATTLE, 1519 ALASKAN WAY S, SEATTLE, WA 98134, POC: Joseph
Dady, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SECTOR SOUTHEASTERN NEW ENGLAND, 1 LITTLE HARBOR ROAD, WOODS HOLE,
MA 02543-1099, POC: Peter Popko, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SECTOR ST PETERSBURG, 155 COLUMBIA DR, TAMPA, FL 33606, POC: Edmond
Morris, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> Ext. 8108.
    SECTOR UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER, 1222 SPRUCE ST, SUITE 7.103, ST
LOUIS, MO 63103, POC: Todd Epperson, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    MSU VALDEZ, PO BOX 486/105 CLIFTON DRIVE, VALDEZ, AK 99686, POC:
Jamie Schnider, Primary Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about submitting an
application or about a specific Area Maritime Security Committee
(AMSC), contact the point of contact listed above with that AMSC in the
ADDRESSES section. For general questions on AMSCs or this notice,
contact LT Brian Zekus, Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority

    Section 102 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of
2002 (Pub. L. 107-295) added section 70112 to Title 46 of the U.S.Code,
and authorized the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard
is operating to establish Area Maritime Security Advisory Committees
for any port area of the United States. (See 33 U.S.C. 1226; 46 U.S.C.;
33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.01; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1). The MTSA includes a provision exempting these AMSCs from the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-436, 86 Stat. 470 (5
U.S.C. App.).
    The AMSCs shall assist the Captain of the Port in the development,
review, update, and exercising of the Area Maritime Security (AMS) Plan
for their area of responsibility. Such matters may include, but are not
limited to: Identifying critical port infrastructure and operations;
identifying risks (threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences);
determining mitigation strategies and implementation methods;
developing strategies to facilitate the recovery of the marine
transportation system after a transportation security incident;
developing and describing the process to continually evaluate overall
port security by considering consequences and vulnerabilities, how they
may change over time, and what additional mitigation strategies can be
applied; and providing advice to, and assisting the COTP in developing
and maintaining the AMS Plan.

AMSC Membership

    Members of the AMSC should have at least 5 years of experience
related to maritime or port security operations. The local AMSCs have a
variance in members due to geographical and local factors. We are
seeking to fill vacancies with this solicitation. Applicants will be
required to pass an appropriate security background check prior to
appointment to the committee. Members' terms of office will be for 5
years; however, a member is eligible to serve additional terms of
office. Members will not receive any salary or other compensation for
their service on an AMSC. In support of the USCG policy on gender and
ethnic diversity, we encourage qualified women and members of minority
groups to apply.

Request for Applications

    Those seeking membership are not required to submit formal
applications to the local Captain of the Port, however, because we do
have an obligation to ensure that a specific number of members have the
prerequisite maritime security experience, we encourage the submission
of resumes highlighting experience in the maritime and security
industries.

    Dated: December 18, 2008.
M. P. O'Malley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Ports & Facility Activities.
[FR Doc. E8-30612 Filed 12-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 58 (Monday, March 26, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17362-17363]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7232]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0363; Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-8]

Proposed Modification of Class D and Class E Airspace and
Revocation of Class E Airspace; Bellingham, WA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify Class D and Class E airspace at
Bellingham, WA, to accommodate aircraft departing and arriving under
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) at Bellingham International Airport. This
action also would remove Class E airspace designated as an extension to
a Class D or E surface area at Bellingham International Airport. This
action, initiated by the biennial review of the Bellingham airspace
area, would enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at
the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 10, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-
0363; Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-8, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA 2011-0363 and Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-8) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2011-0363 and Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-8''. The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRM's

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class D airspace and Class E
airspace designated as surface area to meet current standards for IFR
departures and arrivals at Bellingham International Airport,
Bellingham, WA. This modification eliminates the need for Class E
airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or E surface area,
and, therefore, would be removed. This action, initiated by a biennial
review of the airspace, is necessary for the safety and management of
aircraft departing and arriving under IFR operations at the airport.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph
5000, 6002 and 6004, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9V, dated August
9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designation
listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order.
    The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a

regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This proposal is within the scope of that authority as
it modifies controlled airspace at Bellingham International Airport,
Bellingham, WA.
    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E. ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the
Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D airspace.

* * * * *

ANM WA D Bellingham, WA [Modified]

Bellingham International Airport, WA
    (Lat. 48[deg]47'34'' N., long. 122[deg]32'15'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,700 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of Bellingham International
Airport. This Class D airspace is effective during the dates and
times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective
date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the
Airport/Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace designated as surface areas.

* * * * *

ANM WA E2 Bellingham, WA [Modified]

Bellingham International Airport, WA
    (Lat. 48[deg]47'34'' N., long. 122[deg]32'15'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.1-
mile radius of Bellingham International Airport. This Class E
airspace is effective during the dates and times established in
advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will
thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility
Directory.

Paragraph 6004 Class E airspace areas designated as an extension to
Class D or Class E surface area.

* * * * *

ANM WA E4 Bellingham, WA [Removed]

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on March 19, 2012.
Vered Lovett,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2012-7232 Filed 3-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 17703]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07303]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Regulations 14D and 14E (Schedule 14D-9), OMB Control No. 3235-
0102, SEC File No. 270-114

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Regulation 14D (17 CFR 240.14d-1--240.14d-11) and Regulation 14E
(17 CFR 240.14e-1--240.14e-8) and related Schedule 14D-9 (17 CFR
240.14d-101) require information important to security holders in
deciding how to respond to tender offers. Schedule 14D-9 takes
approximately 260.56 hours per response to prepare and is filed by
approximately 169 companies annually. We estimate that 25% of the
260.56 hours per response (65.14 hours) is prepared by the company for
an annual reporting burden of 11,009 hours (65.14 hours per response x
169 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden
imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 6, 2017.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-07303 Filed 4-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 164 (Friday, August 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48260-48263]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18461]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92725; File No. SR-MIAX-2021-38]

Self-Regulatory Organizations: Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule To Adjust the Options
Regulatory Fee

August 23, 2021.
    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 August 12, 2021, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC
(``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') 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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') to adjust the Options Regulatory Fee
(``ORF'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings, at MIAX's principal
office, 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
    Currently, the Exchange assesses ORF in the amount of $0.0029 per
contract side. The Exchange proposes to reduce the amount of ORF from
$0.0029 per contract side to $0.0019 per contract side in order to help
ensure that revenue collected from the ORF, in combination with other
regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total
regulatory costs. The Exchange's proposed change to the ORF should
balance the Exchange's regulatory revenue against the anticipated
regulatory costs. The Exchange initially filed this proposal on July
30, 2021 (SR-MIAX-2021-36) and withdrew such filing on August 12, 2021.
The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective August 12,
2021.
Collection of ORF
    Currently, the Exchange assesses the per-contract ORF to each
Member \3\ for all options transactions, including Mini Options,
cleared or ultimately cleared by the Member, which are cleared by the
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') in the ``customer'' range,\4\
regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs. The ORF is
collected by OCC on behalf of the Exchange from either: (1) A Member
that was the ultimate clearing firm for the transaction; or (2) a non-
Member that was the ultimate clearing firm where a Member was the
executing clearing firm for the transaction. The Exchange uses reports
from OCC to determine the identity of the executing clearing firm and
ultimate clearing firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
    \4\ Exchange participants must record the appropriate account
origin code on all orders at the time of entry in order. The
Exchange represents that it has surveillances in place to verify
that Members mark orders with the correct account origin code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To illustrate how the Exchange assesses and collects ORF, the
Exchange provides the following set of examples. For a transaction that
is executed on the Exchange and the ORF is assessed, if there is no
change to the clearing account of the original transaction, then the
ORF is collected from the Member that is the executing clearing firm
for the transaction (the Exchange notes that, for purposes of the Fee
Schedule, when there is no change to the clearing account of the
original transaction, the executing clearing firm is deemed to be the
ultimate clearing firm). If there is a change to the clearing account
of the original transaction (i.e., the executing clearing firm ``gives-
up'' or ``CMTAs'' \5\ the transaction to another clearing firm), then
the ORF is collected from the clearing firm that ultimately clears the
transaction--the ``ultimate clearing firm.'' The ultimate clearing firm
may be either a Member or non-Member of the Exchange. If the
transaction is executed on an away exchange and the ORF is assessed,
then the ORF is collected from the ultimate clearing firm for the
transaction. Again, the ultimate clearing firm may be either a Member
or non-Member of the Exchange. The Exchange notes, however, that when
the transaction is executed on an away exchange, the Exchange does not
assess the ORF when neither the executing clearing firm nor the
ultimate clearing firm is a Member (even if a Member is ``given-up'' or
``CMTAed'' and then such Member subsequently ``gives-up'' or ``CMTAs''
the transaction to another non-Member via a CMTA reversal). Finally,
the Exchange does not assess the ORF on outbound linkage trades,
whether executed at the Exchange or an away exchange. ``Linkage
trades'' are tagged in the Exchange's system, so the Exchange can
readily tell them apart from other trades. A customer order routed to
another exchange results in two customer trades, one from the
originating exchange and one from the recipient exchange. Charging ORF
on both trades could result in double-billing of ORF for a single
customer order; thus, the Exchange does not assess ORF on outbound
linkage trades in a linkage scenario. This assessment practice is
identical to the assessment practice currently utilized by the
Exchange's affiliates, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX Pearl'') and MIAX
Emerald, LLC (``MIAX Emerald'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``CMTA'' or Clearing Member Trade Assignment is a form of
``give-up'' whereby the position will be assigned to a specific
clearing firm at OCC.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 85163 (February 15,
2019), 84 FR 5798 (February 22, 2019) (SR-PEARL-2019-01); 85251
(March 6, 2019), 84 FR 8931 (March 12, 2019) (SR-EMERALD-2019-01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a practical matter, when a transaction that is subject to the
ORF is not executed on the Exchange, the Exchange lacks the information
necessary to identify the order-entering member for that transaction.
There are a multitude of order-entering market participants throughout
the industry, and such participants can make changes to the market
centers to which they connect, including dropping their connection to
one market center and establishing themselves as participants

on another. For these reasons, it is not possible for the Exchange to
identify, and thus assess fees such as ORF, on order-entering
participants on away markets on a given trading day. Clearing members,
however, are distinguished from order-entering participants because
they remain identified to the Exchange on information the Exchange
receives from OCC regardless of the identity of the order-entering
participant, their location, and the market center on which they
execute transactions. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is more
efficient for the operation of the Exchange and for the marketplace as
a whole to collect the ORF from clearing members.
ORF Revenue and Monitoring of ORF
    The Exchange monitors the amount of revenue collected from the ORF
to ensure that it, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines,
does not exceed regulatory costs. In determining whether an expense is
considered a regulatory cost, the Exchange reviews all costs and makes
determinations if there is a nexus between the expense and a regulatory
function. The Exchange notes that fines collected by the Exchange in
connection with a disciplinary matter offset ORF.
    As discussed below, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to
charge the ORF only to transactions that clear as customer at the OCC.
The Exchange believes that its broad regulatory responsibilities with
respect to a Member's activities supports applying the ORF to
transactions cleared but not executed by a Member. The Exchange's
regulatory responsibilities are the same regardless of whether a Member
enters a transaction or clears a transaction executed on its behalf.
The Exchange regularly reviews all such activities, including
performing surveillance for position limit violations, manipulation,
front-running, contrary exercise advice violations and insider trading.
These activities span across multiple exchanges.
    Revenue generated from ORF, when combined with all of the
Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, is designed to recover a
material portion of the regulatory costs to the Exchange of the
supervision and regulation of Members' customer options business
including performing routine surveillances, investigations,
examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking,
interpretive, and enforcement activities. Regulatory costs include
direct regulatory expenses and certain indirect expenses in support of
the regulatory function. The direct expenses include in-house and third
party service provider costs to support the day-to-day regulatory work
such as surveillances, investigations and examinations. The indirect
expenses include support from such areas as the Office of the General
Counsel, technology, and internal audit. Indirect expenses are
estimated to be approximately 48% of the total regulatory costs for
2021. Thus, direct expenses are estimated to be approximately 52% of
total regulatory costs for 2021. The Exchange notes that its estimated
direct and indirect expense percentages are in the range and similar to
those at other options exchanges.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 91418 (March 26,
2021), 86 FR 17254 (April 1, 2021) (SR-Phlx-2021-16) (reducing the
Nasdaq PHLX LLC ORF and estimating direct expenses at 58% and
indirect expenses at 42%); 91420 (March 26, 2021), 86 FR 17223
(April 1, 2021) (SR-ISE-2021-04) (reducing the Nasdaq ISE, LLC ORF
and estimating direct expenses at 58% and indirect expenses at 42%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to
the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of its members,
including performing routine surveillances, investigations,
examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking,
interpretive, and enforcement activities.
Proposal
    Based on the Exchange's most recent review, the Exchange proposes
to reduce the amount of ORF that will be collected by the Exchange from
$0.0029 per contract side to $0.0019 per contract side. The Exchange
issued an Options Regulatory Fee Announcement on July 2, 2021,
indicating the proposed rate change for August 1, 2021.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/circular-files/MIAX_Options_RC_2021_36.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed decrease is based on recent options volumes, which
included an increase in retail investors. With respect to options
volume, the Exchange, and the options industry as a whole, experienced
a significant increase between 2020 and 2021. For example, total
options contract volumes in April, May and June 2021 were 29.7%, 32.7%
and 25.6% higher than the total options contract volumes in April, May
and June 2020, respectively.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See data from OCC at: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210504005178/en/OCC-April-2021-Total-Volume-Up-29.7-Percent-from-a-Year-Ago, https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210602005174/en/OCC-May-2021-Total-Volume-Up-32.7-Percent-from-a-Year-Ago, and https://apnews.com/press-release/business-wire/778385e696f4407590cc6ff9cb64db03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There can be no assurance that the Exchange's final costs for 2021
will not differ materially from these expectations, nor can the
Exchange predict with certainty whether options volume will remain at
the current level going forward. The Exchange notes however, that when
combined with regulatory fees and fines, the revenue being generated
utilizing the current ORF rate may result in revenue that will run in
excess of the Exchange's estimated regulatory costs for the year.\10\
Particularly, as noted above, the options market has seen a substantial
increase in volume throughout 2020 and 2021, due in large part to the
extreme volatility in the marketplace as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic. This unprecedented spike in volatility resulted in
significantly higher volume than was originally projected by the
Exchange (thereby resulting in substantially higher ORF revenue than
projected). The Exchange therefore proposes to decrease the ORF in
order to ensure it does not exceed its regulatory costs for the year.
Particularly, the Exchange believes that decreasing the ORF when
combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines,
would allow the Exchange to continue covering a material portion of its
regulatory costs, while lessening the potential for generating excess
revenue that may otherwise occur using the current rate.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange notes that notwithstanding the potential
excess ORF revenue the Exchange anticipates it would collect
utilizing the current rate, it would not use such revenue for non-
regulatory purposes.
    \11\ The Exchange notes that its regulatory responsibilities
with respect to Member compliance with options sales practice rules
have been allocated to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(``FINRA'') under a 17d-2 Agreement. The ORF is not designed to
cover the cost of options sales practice regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue
collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other
regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total
regulatory costs. The Exchange will continue to monitor MIAX regulatory
costs and revenues at a minimum on a semi-annual basis. If the Exchange
determines regulatory revenues exceed or are insufficient to cover a
material portion of its regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the
ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. The Exchange
will notify Members of adjustments to the ORF via regulatory circular
at least 30 days prior to the effective date of the change.
    In connection with this filing, the Exchange notes that its
affiliates, MIAX Pearl and MIAX Emerald, will also be adjusting the ORF
fees that each of those exchanges charge.

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \12\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \13\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities. The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \14\ in that it is
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the
public interest and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes the proposed fee change is reasonable because
customer transactions will be subject to a lower ORF fee than the
current rate. Moreover, the proposed reduction is necessary in order
for the Exchange to not collect revenue in excess of its anticipated
regulatory costs, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines,
which is consistent with the Exchange's practices.
    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs of
supervising and regulating Members' customer options business including
performing routine surveillances and investigations, as well as policy,
rulemaking, interpretive and enforcement activities. The Exchange will
monitor the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it,
in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not
exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. The Exchange has designed
the ORF to generate revenues that, when combined with all of the
Exchange's other regulatory fees, will be less than or equal to the
Exchange's regulatory costs, which is consistent with the Commission's
view that regulatory fees be used for regulatory purposes and not to
support the Exchange's business side. In this regard, the Exchange
believes that the proposed decrease to the fee is reasonable.
    The Exchange believes that continuing to limit changes to the ORF
to twice a year on specific dates with advance notice is reasonable
because it gives participants certainty on the timing of changes, if
any, and better enables them to properly account for ORF charges among
their customers. The Exchange believes that continuing to limit changes
to the ORF to twice a year on specific dates is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it will apply in the same manner to all
Members that are subject to the ORF and provide them with additional
advance notice of changes to that fee.
    The Exchange believes that collecting the ORF from non-Members when
such non-Members ultimately clear the transaction (that is, when the
non-Member is the ``ultimate clearing firm'' for a transaction in which
a Member was assessed the ORF) is an equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other
persons using its facilities. The Exchange notes that there is a
material distinction between ``assessing'' the ORF and ``collecting''
the ORF. The ORF is only assessed to a Member with respect to a
particular transaction in which it is either the executing clearing
firm or ultimate clearing firm. The Exchange does not assess the ORF to
non-Members. Once, however, the ORF is assessed to a Member for a
particular transaction, the ORF may be collected from the Member or a
non-Member, depending on how the transaction is cleared at OCC. If
there was no change to the clearing account of the original
transaction, the ORF would be collected from the Member. If there was a
change to the clearing account of the original transaction and a non-
Member becomes the ultimate clearing firm for that transaction, then
the ORF will be collected from that non-Member. The Exchange believes
that this collection practice continues to be reasonable and
appropriate, and was originally instituted for the benefit of clearing
firms that desired to have the ORF be collected from the clearing firm
that ultimately clears the transaction.
    The Exchange designed the ORF so that revenue generated from the
ORF, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not
exceed regulatory costs, which is consistent with the view of the
Commission that regulatory fees be used for regulatory purposes and not
to support the Exchange's business operations. As discussed above,
however, after review of its regulatory costs and regulatory revenues,
which includes revenues from ORF and other regulatory fees and fines,
the Exchange determined that absent a reduction in ORF, it may be
collecting revenue in excess of its regulatory costs. Indeed, the
Exchange notes that when taking into account the recent options volume,
which included an increase in customer options transactions, it
estimates the ORF will generate revenues that may cover more than the
approximated Exchange's projected regulatory costs. Moreover, when
coupled with the Exchange's other regulatory fees and revenues, the
Exchange estimates ORF to generate over 100% of the Exchange's
projected regulatory costs. As such, the Exchange believes it is
reasonable and appropriate to decrease the ORF amount from $0.0029 to
$0.0019 per contract side.
    The Exchange also believes the proposed fee change is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory in that it is charged to all Members on all
their transactions that clear in the customer range at the OCC,\15\
with an exception.\16\ The Exchange believes the ORF ensures fairness
by assessing higher fees to those members that require more Exchange
regulatory services based on the amount of customer options business
they conduct. Regulating customer trading activity is much more labor
intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and technical
resources than regulating non-customer trading activity, which tends to
be more automated and less labor-intensive. For example, there are
costs associated with main office and branch office examinations (e.g.,
staff expenses), as well as investigations into customer complaints and
the terminations of registered persons. As a result, the costs
associated with administering the customer component of the Exchange's
overall regulatory program are materially higher than the costs
associated with administering the non-customer component (e.g., member
proprietary transactions) of its regulatory program. Moreover, the
Exchange notes that it has broad regulatory responsibilities with
respect to activities of its Members, irrespective of where their
transactions take place. Many of the Exchange's surveillance programs
for customer trading activity may require the Exchange to look at
activity across all markets, such as reviews related to position limit
violations and manipulation. Indeed,

the Exchange cannot effectively review for such conduct without looking
at and evaluating activity regardless of where it transpires. In
addition to its own surveillance programs, the Exchange also works with
other SROs and exchanges on intermarket surveillance related issues.
Through its participation in the Intermarket Surveillance Group
(``ISG'') \17\ the Exchange shares information and coordinates
inquiries and investigations with other exchanges designed to address
potential intermarket manipulation and trading abuses. Accordingly,
there is a strong nexus between the ORF and the Exchange's regulatory
activities with respect to customer trading activity of its Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ If the OCC clearing member is an Exchange Member, ORF is
assessed and collected on all cleared customer contracts (after
adjustment for CMTA); and if the OCC clearing member is not an
Exchange Member, ORF is collected only on the cleared customer
contracts executed at the Exchange, taking into account any CMTA
instructions which may result in collecting the ORF from a non-
Member.
    \16\ When a transaction is executed on an away exchange, the
Exchange does not assess the ORF when neither the executing clearing
firm nor the ultimate clearing firm is a Member (even if a Member is
``given-up'' or ``CMTAed'' and then such Member subsequently
``gives-up'' or ``CMTAs'' the transaction to another non-Member via
a CMTA reversal).
    \17\ ISG is an industry organization formed in 1983 to
coordinate intermarket surveillance among the SROs by cooperatively
sharing regulatory information pursuant to a written agreement
between the parties. The goal of the ISG's information sharing is to
coordinate regulatory efforts to address potential intermarket
trading abuses and manipulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. This proposal does not create
an unnecessary or inappropriate intra-market burden on competition
because the ORF applies to all customer activity, thereby raising
regulatory revenue to offset regulatory expenses. It also supplements
the regulatory revenue derived from non-customer activity. The Exchange
notes, however, the proposed change is not designed to address any
competitive issues. Indeed, this proposal does not create an
unnecessary or inappropriate inter-market burden on competition because
it is a regulatory fee that supports regulation in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The Exchange is obligated to ensure that the
amount of regulatory revenue collected from the ORF, in combination
with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory
costs.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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)(ii) of the Act,\18\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \19\ 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 shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-MIAX-2021-38 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 No. SR-MIAX-2021-38. 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 No. SR-MIAX-2021-38, and should be submitted on or
before September 17, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-18461 Filed 8-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58074-58075]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22860]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OGC-2020-0520; FRL-9142-01-OGC]

Proposed Stipulated Partial Settlement Agreement, Endangered
Species Act Claims

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed stipulated partial settlement agreement;
request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Administrator's October 16, 2017, Directive Promoting Transparency and
Public Participation in Consent Decrees and Settlement Agreements,
notice is hereby given of a proposed stipulated partial settlement
agreement in the case of Natural Resources Defense Council v. Wheeler,
et al., in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia (1:17-CV-02034). The Plaintiff filed its original case on
October 3, 2017, alleging that EPA violated the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) by failing to consult on the effects to listed species of certain
pesticide product registrations containing one of three pesticide
active ingredients--acetamiprid (Claim One), dinotefuran (Claim Two),
and imidacloprid (Claim Three). EPA and the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) are proposing to resolve this case through a stipulated
partial settlement agreement. Defendant-Intervenor takes no position on
this agreement.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed stipulated partial settlement
agreement must be received by November 19, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OGC-2020-0520, online at https://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred
method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
number for this action. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Additional Information
about Commenting on the Proposed Settlement Agreement'' heading under
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Out of an
abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA
Docket Center and Reading Room are closed to the public, with limited
exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket
Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service via
email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public to submit comments
via https://www.regulations.gov, as there may be a delay in processing
mail and faxes. Hand-deliveries and couriers may be received by
scheduled appointment only. For further information on EPA Docket
Center services and the current status, please visit us online at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the CDC, local area health departments, and our federal partners
so that we can respond rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Knorr, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances Law Office MC-2333A, Office of General Counsel, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining a Copy of the Proposed Settlement Agreement

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2020-0520) contains a copy of the proposed settlement
agreement.

    The electronic version of the public docket for this action
contains a copy of the proposed settlement agreement and is available
through https://www.regulations.gov. You may use https://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index
listing of the contents of the official public docket, and access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once
in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then
select ``search.''

II. Additional Information About the Proposed Settlement Agreement

    On October 3, 2017, Plaintiff (a non-governmental environmental
organization) filed a complaint in the United States District Court in
the District of Columbia asserting three claims against EPA for
allegedly violating section 7(a)(2) of the ESA by failing to initiate
and reinitiate consultation with the Services. Specifically, Plaintiffs
alleged that the EPA failed to consult on the effects to listed species
of 95 pesticide product registrations containing one of three pesticide
active ingredients--acetamiprid (Claim One), dinotefuran (Claim Two),
and imidacloprid (Claim Three). The Court approved, in February 2018, a
stipulation of partial dismissal of many products, leaving 59 pesticide
product registrations at issue. In January 2021, Plaintiff and EPA
reached a stipulated partial settlement agreement in this case where
EPA agreed to complete ESA section 7(a)(2) effects determination,
compiled into a biological evaluation, for imidacloprid by June 30,
2022, and, as appropriate, request initiation of any ESA section
7(a)(2) consultation with the Services.
    After the entry of the stipulated partial settlement agreement for
imidacloprid, the parties filed summary judgment motions and cross
motions on the remaining claims. Shortly after these filings, the
parties began settlement discussions on these remaining claims. The
stipulated partial settlement agreement for which EPA is taking comment
addresses these two claims. Specially, Paragraph 1 of the stipulated
partial settlement agreement states that EPA will by October 2024
complete effects determinations and request initiation of any necessary
ESA consultation pursuant to 50 CFR part 402 regarding the potential
effects of acetamiprid and dinotefuran on any and all listed species
and designated critical habitat.
    Consistent with current practice, the agreement would also include
statements of EPA's intent to take certain actions in addition to the
deadlines associated with specific biological evaluations, including:
(1) To complete the draft biological evaluations no later than one year
prior to the deadline for the final biological evaluations, as well as
to provide notice and a 60-day opportunity for public comment on any
such draft, and (2) conduct the effects determinations on a nationwide-
scale. Defendant-Intervenor takes no position on this agreement.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed stipulated partial settlement agreement from persons who are
not named as parties to the litigation in question. EPA or the
Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed
stipulated partial settlement agreement if the comments disclose facts
or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate,
improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the ESA
or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Unless EPA
or the Department of Justice determines that consent should be
withdrawn, the terms of the proposed stipulation and stipulated notice
of dismissal will be affirmed.

III. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Settlement
Agreement

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2020-
0520, via https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from this docket. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. For additional information about submitting information
identified as CBI, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Note that written
comments containing CBI and submitted by mail may be delayed and
deliveries or couriers will be received by scheduled appointment only.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment. This ensures that you
can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to
contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your
comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of
a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the
official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public
docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.
    Use of the https://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments
to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.
The electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
    Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.

Christopher E. Kaczmarek,
Acting Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2021-22860 Filed 10-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P