[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 73 (Monday, April 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16417-16419]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07809]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83027; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2018-009]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related
to Transaction Fees for Use on Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.'s Equity
Platform

April 10, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 29, 2018, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-Members of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rules
15.1(a) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See
Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.markets.cboe.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, 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 parts
of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule applicable to its
equities trading platform (``EDGX Equities'') to modify the enhanced
rebate provided pursuant to the Investor Depth Tier under footnote 1.
The Exchange currently offers nine Add Volume Tiers under footnote 4
[sic], which provide enhanced rebates ranging from of $0.0025 to
$0.0033 per share for qualifying orders which yield fee codes B,\6\
V,\7\ Y,\8\ 3 \9\ and 4.\10\ The Exchange proposes to modify the
criteria necessary to achieve the Investor Depth Tier as described
below. Currently, under the Investor Depth Tier a Member may be
provided an enhanced rebate of $0.0033 per share where that Member: (i)
Adds an ADV \11\ greater than or equal to 0.12% of the TCV; \12\ (ii)
has an ``added liquidity'' as a percentage of ``added plus removed
liquidity'' greater than or equal to 85%; and (iii) adds an ADV greater
than or equal to 400,000 shares as non-displayed orders that yield fee
code HA,\13\ HI,\14\ and/or MM.\15\ The Exchange now proposes to
decrease the enhanced rebate provided by the Investor Depth Tier from
$0.0033 per share to $0.0031 per share. The Exchange does not propose
to amend the Investor Depth Tier's required criteria or to make any
other changes to the other tiers under footnote 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Fee code B is appended to displayed orders which add
liquidity to Tape B and is provided a rebate of $0.0020 per share.
See the Exchange's fee schedule available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/.
    \7\ Fee code V is appended to displayed orders which add
liquidity to Tape A and is provided a rebate of $0.0020 per share.
Id.
    \8\ Fee code Y is appended to displayed orders which add
liquidity to Tape C and is provided a rebate of $0.0020 per share.
Id.
    \9\ Fee code 3 is appended to displayed orders which add
liquidity to Tape A or C during the post-market or pre-market
sessions and is provided a rebate of $0.0020 per share. Id.
    \10\ Fee code 4 is appended to displayed orders which add
liquidity to Tape B during the post-market or pre-market sessions
and is provided a rebate of $0.0020 per share. Id.
    \11\ ``ADV'' means average daily volume calculated as the number
of shares added to, removed from, or routed by, the Exchange, or any
combination or subset thereof, per day. ADV is calculated on a
monthly basis. Id.
    \12\ ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the
volume reported by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a
consolidated transaction reporting plan for the month for which the
fees apply. See the Exchange's fee schedule available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/.
    \13\ Fee code HA is appended to non-displayed orders which add
liquidity on the Exchange and are provided an enhanced rebate of
$0.0015 for securities priced at or above $1.00, and $0.0003 [sic]
for securities priced below $1.00. Id.
    \14\ Fee code HI is appended to non-displayed orders which
receive price improvement and add liquidity on the Exchange and are
neither charged a fee nor provided a rebate. Id.
    \15\ Fee code MM is appended to non-displayed orders which add
liquidity on the Exchange using Mid-Point Peg and are provided an
enhanced rebate of $0.0015 for securities priced at or above $1.00,
and $0.0003 [sic] for securities priced below $1.00. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the proposed reduction of the Investor Tier's enhanced
rebate, the Exchange also proposes to no longer make the rebate provide
by the tier available to orders that yield fee code ZA. Fee code ZA is
appended to Retail Orders that add liquidity and are provided a rebate
of $0.0032 per share.\16\ Due to the Investor Tier's rebate now
proposed to be lower than the rebate provided to orders that yield fee
code ZA, it is no longer necessary to make available the Investor
Tier's rebate to fee code ZA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to implement the above change to its fee
schedule on April 2, 2018.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\17\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\18\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange also notes that it operates in a highly-
competitive market in which market participants can readily direct
order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular
venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The proposed
rule changes reflect a competitive pricing structure designed to
incentivize market participants to direct their order flow to the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed modifications to the tiered
pricing structure are reasonable, fair and equitable, and non-
discriminatory. The Exchange believes the reduced rebate for the
Investor Depth Tier represents is reasonable and equitable because it
is intended to reflect the difficulty in achieving the tier's required
criteria. The Exchange notes that in June 2017, it eased the first
prong of the tier's required by requiring the Member add an ADV greater
than or equal to 0.12% of the TCV, rather than 0.15% as previously
required.\19\ At that time, the Exchange did not make a corresponding
change to the tier's rebate and now proposes to reduce the rebate to
reflect the difficulty in achieving the tier's required criteria. The
Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants may readily send order flow to many competing venues if
they deem fees at the Exchange to be excessive or incentives provided
to be insufficient. The proposed structure remains intended to attract
order flow to the Exchange by offering market participants a
competitive pricing structure. The Exchange believes it is reasonable
to offer and incrementally modify incentives intended to help to
contribute to the growth of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80977 (June 20,
2017), 82 FR 28924 (June 26, 2017) (SR-BatsEDGX-2017-30).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Volume-based pricing such as that proposed herein have been widely
adopted by exchanges, including the Exchange, and are equitable because
they are open to all Members on an equal basis and provide additional
benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to: (i) The value to
an exchange's market quality; (ii) associated higher levels of market
activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provisions and/or growth
patterns; and (iii) introduction of higher volumes of orders into the
price and volume discovery processes.

(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. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed change to the Exchange's tiered pricing structure
burdens competition because it is designed to amend the rebate to
reasonably reflect the tier's required criteria. The Exchange notes
that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they
deem fee structures to be unreasonable or excessive. The Exchange does
not believe the proposed amendments would burden intramarket
competition

as they would be available to all Members uniformly.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \20\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\21\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2018-009 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2018-009. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2018-009 and should be
submitted on or before May 7, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-07809 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 213 (Monday, November 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76203-76205]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24485]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

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

    Docket Numbers: EG24-22-000.
    Applicants: CPV Stagecoach Solar, LLC.
    Description: CPV Stagecoach Solar, LLC submits Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 10/31/23.
    Accession Number: 20231031-5050.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: EG24-23-000.
    Applicants: Faraday Interconnection LLC.
    Description: Faraday Interconnection LLC submits Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 10/31/23.
    Accession Number: 20231031-5116.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: EG24-24-000.
    Applicants: Faraday Solar B LLC.
    Description: Faraday Solar B LLC submits Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 10/31/23.
    Accession Number: 20231031-5117.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/23.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2029-009; ER10-2596-013; ER12-2200-009.
    Applicants: Mehoopany Wind Energy LLC, Fowler Ridge II Wind Farm
LLC, Cedar Creek II, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Cedar Creek II, LLC, et
al.
    Filed Date: 10/31/23.
    Accession Number: 20231031-5196.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2449-004; ER21-628-004.
    Applicants: Harry Allen Solar Energy LLC, Boulder Solar II, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Boulder Solar II, LLC,
et al.
    Filed Date: 10/31/23.
    Accession Number: 20231031-5197.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1575-010; ER10-2488-027; ER13-1586-022; ER14-
2871-021; ER15-463-020; ER15-621-020; ER15-622-020; ER16-72-016; ER16-
182-016; ER16-902-013; ER17-47-013; ER17-48-014; ER18-47-013; ER18-
2240-009; ER18-2241-009; ER19-427-009; ER19-1660-009; ER19-1662-009;
ER19-1667-009; ER20-71-009; ER20-72-009; ER20-75-009; ER20-76-011;
ER20-77-009; ER20-79-009; ER21-1368-005; ER21-1369-006; ER21-1371-006;
ER21-1373-007; ER21-1376-007; ER21-2782-006; ER22-149-006; ER22-1439-
006; ER22-1440-006; ER22-1441-006; ER22-1442-004; ER22-2419-002; ER22-
2420-002; ER23-562-003; ER23-1048-002; ER23-2001-002.
    Applicants: Sagebrush ESS II, LLC, Lockhart ESS, LLC, TGP Energy
Management II, LLC, Lockhart Solar PV II, LLC, Lockhart Solar PV, LLC,
EdSan 1B Group 3, LLC, EdSan 1B Group 2, LLC, EdSan 1B Group 1 Sanborn,
LLC, EdSan 1B Group 1 Edwards, LLC, Sagebrush Line, LLC, Sagebrush ESS,
LLC, ES 1A Group 3 Opco, LLC, ES 1A Group 2 Opco, LLC, Edwards Sanborn
Storage II, LLC, Edwards Sanborn Storage I, LLC, Valley Center ESS,
LLC, Voyager Wind IV Expansion, LLC, Painted Hills Wind Holdings, LLC,
Tehachapi Plains Wind, LLC, Oasis Alta, LLC, Coachella Wind Holdings,
LLC, Coachella Hills Wind, LLC, Terra-Gen VG Wind, LLC, Mojave 16/17/18
LLC, Mojave 3/4/5 LLC,LUZ Solar Partners IX, Ltd., Garnet Wind, LLC,
Yavi Energy, LLC, Voyager Wind II, LLC, Terra-Gen Mojave Windfarms,
LLC, DifWind Farms LTD VI, Voyager Wind I, LLC, Cameron Ridge II, LLC,
San Gorgonio Westwinds II--Windustries, LLC, Ridgetop Energy, LLC,
Pacific Crest Power, LLC, San Gorgonio Westwinds II, LLC, Cameron
Ridge, LLC, TGP Energy Management, LLC, Oasis Power Partners, LLC, Alta
Oak Realty, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Alta Oak
Realty, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 10/31/23.
    Accession Number: 20231031-5206.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-391-008; ER21-2557-003; ER22-2662-003; ER22-
2663-003; ER22-2664-003; ER23-1275-001; ER23-1276-001; ER23-1277-001.
    Applicants: Aron Energy Prepay 23 LLC, Aron Energy Prepay 22 LLC,
Aron Energy Prepay 21 LLC, Aron Energy Prepay 16 LLC, Aron Energy
Prepay 15 LLC, Aron Energy Prepay 14 LLC, Aron Energy Prepay 5 LLC, J.
Aron & Company LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of J. Aron &
Company LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 10/31/23.
    Accession Number: 20231031-5213.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2419-003; ER22-2420-003.
    Applicants: Lockhart Solar PV II, LLC, Lockhart Solar PV, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Lockhart
Solar PV, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 10/31/23.
    Accession Number: 20231031-5208.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2562-001.
    Applicants: Merelec USA LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Per Deficiency Letter (ER23-2562) to
be effective 10/3/2023.
    Filed Date: 10/31/23.
    Accession Number: 20231031-5177.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-257-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: NorthWestern Corporation
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: NorthWestern Corp--Name
Change to NorthWestern Energy Public Service Corp. to be effective 1/1/
2024.
    Filed Date: 10/31/23.
    Accession Number: 20231031-5072.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-258-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: TMCR termination--Amending
Appendix XI to be effective 1/1/2024.
    Filed Date: 10/31/23.
    Accession Number: 20231031-5076.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-259-000.
    Applicants: Startrans IO, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Startrans IO, LLC TRBAA 2024
Update to be effective 1/1/2024.
    Filed Date: 10/31/23.
    Accession Number: 20231031-5089.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-260-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
Dairyland Power Cooperative.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2023-
10-31_DPC Incentive Rate Request to be effective 1/1/2024.
    Filed Date: 10/31/23.
    Accession Number: 20231031-5120.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-261-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: NYISO 205: EPC Agreement for
CY2017 LI System Deliverability Upgrade (SA2776) to be effective 10/17/
2023.
    Filed Date: 10/31/23.
    Accession Number: 20231031-5123.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-262-000.
    Applicants: Mustang Hills, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Notice of Non-Mat. Change in
Status & MBR Tariff Revisions to be effective 12/31/2023.
    Filed Date: 10/31/23.
    Accession Number: 20231031-5129.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-263-000.
    Applicants: BE-Pine 1 LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Normal filing 2023 to be
effective 11/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 10/31/23.
    Accession Number: 20231031-5130.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-264-000.
    Applicants: DesertLink, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: DesertLink LLC Annual TRBAA Filing
to be effective 1/1/2024.
    Filed Date: 10/31/23.
    Accession Number: 20231031-5134.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-265-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Attachment W to
Update Index of Grandfathered Agreements to be effective 1/1/2024.
    Filed Date: 10/31/23.
    Accession Number: 20231031-5168.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-266-000.

    Applicants: Solar of Alamosa LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Market-Based Rate Application
to be effective 11/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 10/31/23.
    Accession Number: 20231031-5175.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-267-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: DEC-DESC Orangeburg Dynamic
Transfer Agmt RS No. 618 to be effective 1/1/2024.
    Filed Date: 10/31/23.
    Accession Number: 20231031-5190.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-268-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: FPL OATT Updated Stated Rate
for NITS & P-to-P Trans Service on FPL Pen FL Sys to be effective 1/1/
2024.
    Filed Date: 10/31/23.
    Accession Number: 20231031-5192.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/23.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a
complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with
Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211,
385.214, or 385.206) 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>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: October 31, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-24485 Filed 11-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 43)]
[Notices]
[Page 9983-9985]
[DOCID:fr06mr07-91]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55367; File No. 4-529]

Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Pursuant to
Rule 17d-2; Order Approving and Declaring Effective a Plan for the
Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Between the International
Securities Exchange, LLC and the National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.

February 27, 2007.
    Notice is hereby given that the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') has issued an Order, pursuant to Sections 17(d) \1\
and 11A(a)(3)(B) \2\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),
granting approval and declaring effective an amended and restated plan
for the allocation of regulatory responsibilities (``Plan'') that was
filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act \3\ by the International
Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'') and the National Association of
Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'') (together with ISE, the
``Parties'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(3)(B).
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55057 (January 8,
2007), 72 FR 2040 (January 17, 2007) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, NASD shall assume, in addition to the regulatory
responsibility it has under the Act, the regulatory responsibilities
allocated to it under the Plan. At the same time, ISE is relieved of
those regulatory responsibilities allocated to NASD under the Plan.

I. Introduction

    Section 19(g)(1) of the Act,\5\ among other things, requires every
self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') registered as either a national
securities exchange or registered securities association to examine
for, and enforce compliance by, its members and persons associated with
its members with the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the
SRO's own rules, unless the SRO is relieved of this responsibility
pursuant to Section 17(d) \6\ or 19(g)(2) \7\ of the Act. Section
17(d)(1) of the Act \8\ was intended, in part, to eliminate unnecessary
multiple examinations and regulatory duplication for those broker-
dealers that maintain memberships in more than one SRO (``common
members'').\9\ With respect to a common member, Section 17(d)(1)
authorizes the Commission, by rule or order, to relieve an SRO of the
responsibility to receive regulatory reports, to examine for and
enforce compliance with applicable statutes, rules, and regulations, or
to perform other specified regulatory functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(1).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(2).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d)(1).
    \9\ See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to Accompany S.
249, S. Rep. No. 94-75, 94th Cong., 1st Session 32 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules:
Rule 17d-1 \10\ and Rule 17d-2 \11\ under the Act. Rule 17d-2 permits
SROs to propose joint plans for the allocation of regulatory
responsibilities, other than financial responsibility rules, with
respect to their common members. Under paragraph (c) of Rule 17d-2, the
Commission may declare such a plan effective if, after providing for
notice and comment, it determines that the plan is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors,
to foster cooperation and coordination among the SROs, to remove
impediments to, and foster the development of, a national market system
and a national clearance and settlement system, and is in conformity
with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act. Upon
effectiveness of a plan filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2, an SRO is
relieved of those regulatory responsibilities for common members that
are allocated by the plan to another SRO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17d-1. Rule 17d-1 authorizes the Commission to
name a single SRO as the designated examining authority (``DEA'') to
examine common members for compliance with the financial
responsibility requirements imposed by the Act, or by Commission or
SRO rules.
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 17, 2007, the Commission published notice of the Plan
filed by ISE and NASD.\12\ The Commission received no comments on the
Plan. The Plan is intended to replace and supersede the current 17d-2
plan between NASD and ISE and all prior amendments thereto in their
entirety,\13\ and is intended to

reduce regulatory duplication for firms that are common members of ISE
and NASD. The text of the Plan allocates regulatory responsibilities
among the Parties with respect to common members. Included in the Plan
is an attachment (the ``ISE Certification of Common Rules,'' referred
to herein as the ``Certification'') that lists every ISE rule and
federal securities law and rule and regulation thereunder for which,
under the Plan, NASD would bear responsibility for examining, and
enforcing compliance by, common members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Notice, supra note 4.
    \13\ The Parties currently operate pursuant to a 17d-2 plan in
which NASD has assumed certain inspection, examination, and
enforcement responsibility for common members with respect to
certain applicable laws, rules, and regulations (the ``current NASD-
ISE 17d-2 plan''). See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 42668
(April 11, 2000), 65 FR 21048 (April 19, 2000) (File No. 4-431)
(notice of filing); 42815 (May 23, 2000), 65 FR 34762 (May 31, 2000)
(File No. 4-431) (approval order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed Plan is consistent with the
factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act \14\ and Rule 17d-2(c)
thereunder \15\ in that the proposed Plan is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest and for the protection of investors, fosters
cooperation and coordination among SROs, and removes impediments to and
fosters the development of the national market system. In particular,
the Commission believes that the proposed Plan could reduce unnecessary
regulatory duplication by allocating to NASD certain responsibilities
for common members that would otherwise be performed by both ISE and
NASD. Accordingly, the proposed Plan promotes efficiency by reducing
costs to common members. Furthermore, because ISE and NASD will
coordinate their regulatory functions in accordance with the Plan, the
Plan should promote investor protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, under the Plan, ISE and NASD have
allocated regulatory responsibility for all ISE rules that are
substantially similar to NASD rules in that ISE's rule would not
require NASD to develop one or more new examination standards, modules,
procedures, or criteria in order to analyze the application of the
rule, or a dual member's activity, conduct, or output in relation to
such rule (``Common Rules''). These Common Rules are specifically
listed in the Certification. In addition, under the Plan, the NASD
would assume regulatory responsibility for any provisions of the
federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are set forth in the Certification.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ As proposed currently, however, there are no federal
securities rules listed on the Certification. Therefore, at present,
ISE has not been relieved of any regulatory responsibilities,
pursuant to the Plan, for any provisions of the federal securities
laws and the rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan further provides that NASD shall not assume regulatory
responsibility, and ISE will retain full responsibility, for: (1)
Surveillance and enforcement with respect to trading activities or
practices involving ISE's own marketplace; (2) registration pursuant to
ISE's applicable rules of associated persons (i.e., registration rules
that are not Common Rules); (3) ISE's duties as a DEA under Rule 17d-1
of the Act;\17\ and (4) any rules of ISE that do not qualify as Common
Rules, except that NASD shall be responsible for such rules with
respect to any ISE member that operates as a facility, acts as an
outbound router for ISE, and is a member of NASD (``Router
Member'').\18\ Apparent violations of any ISE rules by any Router
Member will be processed by NASD, and NASD will conduct any enforcement
proceedings. The effect of these provisions is that regulatory
oversight and enforcement responsibilities for any Router Member will
be vested with NASD. These provisions should help avoid any potential
conflicts of interest that could arise if ISE was primarily responsible
for regulating its affiliated outbound router.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.17d-1.
    \18\ Currently, ISE Route LLC is the only Router Member.
    \19\ In a separate proposed rule change relating to the adoption
of rules to govern its electronic trading system for equities, ISE
represented that it would enter into a 17d-2 agreement with NASD to
delegate to NASD all regulatory oversight and enforcement
responsibilities with respect to the ISE's outbound routing facility
pursuant to applicable laws (i.e., the Plan). See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 54528 (September 28, 2006), 71 FR 58650,
58654 (October 4, 2006) (SR-ISE-2006-48).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Plan, ISE will perform a review of the
Certification, at least annually, or more frequently if required by
changes in either the rules of ISE or NASD, to add ISE rules not
included on the then-current list of Common Rules that are
substantially similar to NASD rules (i.e., new rules that qualify as
Common Rules or existing rules that have been amended so that they now
qualify as Common Rules); delete ISE rules included in the then-current
list of Common Rules that are no longer substantially similar to NASD
rules (i.e., amended rules that cease to be Common Rules); and confirm
that the remaining rules on the list of Common Rules continue to be ISE
rules that are substantially similar to NASD rules. NASD will then
confirm in writing whether the rules listed in any updated list are
Common Rules as defined in the Plan. Under the Plan, ISE will also
provide NASD with a current list of dual members and shall update the
list no less frequently than once each quarter.
    The Commission is hereby declaring effective and approving a plan
that, among other things, allocates regulatory responsibility to NASD
for the oversight and enforcement of all ISE rules that are
substantially similar to the rules of NASD for common members of ISE
and NASD. Therefore, modifications to the Certification need not be
filed with the Commission as an amendment to the Plan, provided that
the Parties are only adding to, deleting from, or confirming changes to
ISE rules in the Certification in conformance with the definition of
Common Rules provided in the Plan. However, should ISE or NASD decide
to add an ISE rule to the Certification that is not substantially
similar to an NASD rule; delete an ISE rule from the Certification that
is substantially similar to an NASD rule; or leave on the Certification
an ISE rule that is no longer substantially similar to an NASD rule,
then such a change would constitute an amendment to the Plan, which
must be filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act
and noticed for public comment.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The Commission also notes that the addition to (or eventual
deletion from) the Certification of any federal securities laws,
rules, and regulations for which NASD would bear responsibility
under the Plan for examining, and enforcing compliance by, common
members, would constitute an amendment to the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan also permits ISE and NASD to terminate the Plan, subject
to notice, for various reasons. The Commission notes, however, that
while the Plan permits the Parties to terminate the Plan, the Parties
cannot by themselves reallocate the regulatory responsibilities set
forth in the Plan, since Rule 17d-2 under the Act requires that any
allocation or re-allocation of regulatory responsibilities be filed
with the Commission.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The Commission notes that paragraphs 4 and 13 of the Plan
reflect the fact that NASD's responsibilities under the Plan will
continue in effect until the Commission approves the termination of
the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    This Order gives effect to the Plan filed with the Commission in
File No. 4-529. The Parties shall notify all members affected by the
Plan of their rights and obligations under the Plan.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Sections 17(d) and
11A(a)(3)(B) of the Act, that the Plan in File No. 4-529, between ISE
and NASD, filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act, is approved and
declared effective.

    It is therefore ordered that ISE is relieved of those
responsibilities allocated to the NASD under the Plan in File No. 4-
529.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(34).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-3837 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: January 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 19)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 5095-5097]
[DOCID:fr29ja08-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[USCG-2008-0005]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Potomac and Anacostia Rivers, Washington, DC and
Arlington and Fairfax Counties, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone,
encompassing certain waters of the Potomac River and Anacostia River,
for the 2008 State of the Union Address. This action is necessary to
safeguard the public and high-ranking public officials from terrorist
acts or incidents. This rule prohibits vessels and people from entering
the security zone and requires vessels and persons in the security zone
to depart the security zone, unless specifically exempt under the
provisions in this rule or granted specific permission from the Coast
Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8 a.m. on January 28, 2008, through
8 a.m. on January 29, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0005 and are available online
at http://www.regulations.gov. They are also available for inspection or

copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald L. Houck, Waterways Management
Division, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this
regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3), the Coast Guard finds
that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM and for making this
rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal
Register. It would be contrary to public interest to delay the
effective date of this rule.
    The Department of Homeland Security designated the 2008 State of
the Union Address a National Special Security Event (NSSE). The Coast
Guard is establishing this security zone to support the United States
Secret Service, the designated lead federal agency for an NSSE, in
their efforts to coordinate security operations and establish a secure
environment for this highly visible and publicized event.
    The measures contemplated by the rule are intended to protect the
public and high-ranking public officials by preventing waterborne acts
of terrorism, which terrorists have demonstrated a capability to carry
out. Immediate action is needed to defend against and deter these
terrorist acts.

Background and Purpose

    The ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq have made it
prudent for U.S.

ports and waterways to be on a higher state of alert because the al
Qaeda organization and other similar organizations have declared an
ongoing intention to conduct armed attacks on U.S. interests worldwide.
Due to increased awarness that future terrorist attacks are possible,
the Coast Guard, as lead federal agency for maritime homeland security,
has determined that the Coast Guard Captain of the Port must have the
means to be aware of, deter, detect, intercept, and respond to
asymmetric threats, acts of aggression, and attacks by terrorists on
the American homeland while still maintaining our freedoms and
sustaining the flow of commerce. This security zone is part of a
comprehensive port security regime designed to safeguard human life,
vessels, and waterfront facilities against sabotage or terrorist
attacks.
    The Captain of the Port Baltimore is establishing a security zone
to address the aforementioned security concerns and to take steps to
prevent the catastrophic impact that a terrorist attack against a
gathering of high-ranking United States officials at or near the U.S.
Capitol Building would have. This temporary security zone of 24-hour
duration is necessary to provide for the security of high-ranking
United States officials and the public at large.

Discussion of the Rule

    The 2008 State of the Union Address is scheduled for the evening of
January 28 in Washington, D.C. This temporary security zone applies to
all waters of the Potomac River, from the Woodrow Wilson Memorial
Bridge upstream to the Key Bridge, including the waters of the
Anacostia River downstream from the Highway 50 Bridge to the confluence
with the Potomac River, including the waters of the Georgetown Channel
Tidal Basin. This rule is effective from 8 a.m. on January 28, 2008,
through 8 a.m. on January 29, 2008.
    Vessels underway at the time this security zone is implemented must
immediately proceed out of the zone. We will issue written and
broadcast Notices to Mariners to further publicize the security zone
and any revisions to the zone.
    Except for Public vessels and vessels at berth, mooring or at
anchor, this rule temporarily requires all vessels in the designated
security zone as defined by this rule to depart the security zone.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. There is little seasonal vessel traffic
associated with recreational boating and commercial fishing during the
effective period, and vessels may seek permission from the Captain of
the Port Baltimore to enter and transit the zone.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: the owners of operators of vessels intending to
operate, transit or anchor on the Potomac River, from the Woodrow
Wilson Memorial Bridge upstream to the Key Bridge, including the waters
of the Anacostia River downstream from the Highway 50 Bridge to the
confluence with the Potomac River, including the waters of the
Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin, from 8 a.m. on January 28, 2008 through
8 a.m. on January 29, 2008. This security zone will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
due to a lack of seasonal vessel traffic associated with recreational
boating and commercial fishing during the effective period. Also,
vessels may seek permission from the Captain of the Port Baltimore to
enter and transit the zone.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them. Small businesses may send comments on the actions
of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance
with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions
annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If
you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-
888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate
against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on Sate or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D
and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a
categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction.
Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental
documentation. This rule establishes a security zone.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, an
``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a ``Categorical Exclusion
Determination'' are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Vessels, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T05-001 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-001  Security Zone; Potomac and Anacostia Rivers,
Washington, DC and Arlington and Fairfax Counties, VA

    (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, designated
representative means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore,
Maryland, and any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port Baltimore to act as
a designated representative on his behalf.
    (b) Location. The following area is a security zone: All waters of
the Potomac river, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded by the Woodrow
Wilson Memorial Bridge upstream to the Key Bridge, and all waters of
the Anacostia River, from shoreline to shoreline, downstream from the
Highway 50 Bridge to the confluence with the Potomac River, including
the waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin.
    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations governing security
zones found in Sec.  165.33 of this part apply to the security zone
described in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (2) Entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Baltimore or his designated representative. Except
for Public vessels and vessels at berth, mooring or at anchor, all
vessels in this zone must depart the security zone.
    (3) Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone must
first obtain authorization from the Captain of the Port Baltimore. To
seek permission to transit the area, the Captain of the Port Baltimore
can be contacted at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Coast Guard
vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on Marine Band Radio,
VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard
vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of
a vessel shall proceed as directed. If permission is granted, all
persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of
the Port Baltimore and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to
maintain a safe course while within the zone.
    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
    (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8 a.m.
on January 28, 2008, through 8 a.m. on January 29, 2008.

    Dated: January 10, 2008.
Brian D. Kelley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland.
[FR Doc. 08-387 Filed 1-24-08; 4:42 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-M


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 247 (Thursday, December 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66693-66694]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27958]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Docket Nos. CP18-102-000;CP18-103-000]

Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the
Proposed Cheyenne Connector, LLC Cheyenne Connector Pipeline and
Rockies Express Pipeline LLC Cheyenne Hub Enhancement Projects

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the
Cheyenne Connector Pipeline Project and the Cheyenne Hub Enhancement
Project, proposed respectively by Cheyenne Connector, LLC and Rockies
Express Pipeline LLC (Rockies Express) in the above-referenced docket.
The applicants request authorization to construct approximately 71
miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline, five new meter and regulating
stations, and one new compressor station, as described further below.
All proposed facilities would be in Weld County, Colorado.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Cheyenne Connector Pipeline and
Cheyenne Hub Enhancement Projects in accordance with the requirements
of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff
concludes that approval of the proposed projects, with appropriate
mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    The Cheyenne Connector Pipeline Project includes the following
facilities:
     Approximately 71 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline with
ancillary facilities including three mainline valves; and
     five associated meter and regulating stations.
    The Cheyenne Hub Enhancement Project includes the following
facilities:
     One new approximately 32,100 horsepower compressor
station;
     enhancements to modify Rockies Express' existing Cheyenne
Hub interconnect facilities, including installation of pipe, valves,
fittings, filters, and ancillary equipment; and
     ancillary facilities constructed at Rockies Express'
existing Cheyenne Hub pursuant to 18 CFR 2.55(a), consisting of station
piping, vibration reducing equipment, compressor and electrical
buildings, valves, and gas cooling equipment.
    The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability for the
EA to federal, state, and local government representatives and
agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups;
Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other
interested individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the
projects' areas. The EA is only available in electronic format. It may
be viewed and downloaded from the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on the
Environmental Documents page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis.asp). In addition, the EA may be accessed by using the
eLibrary link on the FERC's website. Click on the eLibrary link
(https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp), click on General
Search, and enter the docket number in the ``Docket Number'' field,
excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP18-102 or CP18-103). Be sure
you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
should focus on the EA's disclosure and discussion of potential
environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid
or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the
more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the
opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on
these projects, it is important that we receive your comments in
Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 17, 2019.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the
eFiling feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(CP18-102-000 and/or CP18-103-000) with your submission: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a
motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Motions to intervene are more
fully described at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or
judicial review of the Commission's decision. The Commission may grant
affected landowners and others with environmental concerns intervenor
status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and
direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can adequately
represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you
intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your
comments considered.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link
also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: December 18, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-27958 Filed 12-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


The commenter noted that EPA's discussion of the risk based exemptions was contained in a preamble section entitled, " Can We Achieve the Goals of the Proposed Rule in a Less Costly Manner," which strongly suggests that EPA's motivation for considering these risk based approaches is consideration of cost. The commenter cited 111 prior EPA documentation and stated that EPA in the past has rejected the notion that cost should influence MACT determination, and this prior, consistently applied interpretation better serves the purposes of section 112.

The commenter argued that subcategorizing to set a nocontrol MACT floor is the same as refusing to set a MACT standard because the benefits would be negligible, which is unlawful.

The commenter also stated that section 112( c)( 9)( B)( i) does not authorize EPA to delist subcategories. According to the commenter, section 112( c)( 9)( B) contains two subsections: subsection ( i)

refers only to categories, and subsection ( ii) refers to both categories and subcategories. The commenter argued that the absence of the term " subcategories" in section 112( c)( 9)( B)( i) indicates a Congressional choice not to permit the Administrator to delist subcategories of sources under section 112( c)( 9)( B). The commenter stated that this is consistent with Congress' decision to require a higher standard to delist categories that emit carcinogens. According to the commenter, the section 112( c)( 9)( B)( ii) requirement of less than one in a million lifetime cancer risk for the most exposed individual is a 112 higher and more specific standard than the standard for other HAP.

To the contrary, two commenters stated that EPA has ample authority under sections 112( c)( 1) and 112( c)( 9) to create and delist low risk categories or subcategories.

According to the commenters, section 112( c)( 1) provides the Administrator with significant flexibility to create categories and subcategories as needed to implement section 112. One commenter stated that there is nothing in the statute that limits the criteria the Administrator can use in establishing categories and subcategories. The commenter added that there is also nothing in the history of EPA's interpretation of section 112( c) that precludes subcategorization based on risk. In addition, EPA has stated that emission characteristics are factors to be considered when defining categories.

The commenter stated that application of statutory authority to exclude sources from regulation under section 112( d)( 3) is also supported by relevant case law, e. g., in the Vinyl Chloride case. ( NRDC v. EPA, 824 F. 2D 1126 ( D. C. Cir. 1987)) According to the commenter, the court in that case established a range of acceptable level of risk in establishing limits under prior language in 113 section 112, and the establishment of an acceptable level of risk could be used to create a low risk subcategory that could be delisted. The commenter stated that technological or operational differences among sources may also help discriminate between low risk and high risk sources. The commenter stated that effective use of section 112( c)( 1) authority to create risk based subcategories would significantly improve the costeffectiveness of the section 112 program without undermining its role in protecting public health and the environment.

Both commenters noted that section 112( c)( 9)( B)

provides EPA with broad authority to remove from MACT applicability those categories and subcategories of facilities whose HAP emissions are sufficiently low as to demonstrate a cancer risk less than one in a million to the most exposed individual in the population ( for nonthreshold carcinogens) and no adverse environmental or public health effect ( for threshold HAP). ( The commenter asserted that Congress used the terms category and subcategory interchangeably, indicating that either one can be delisted.) One commenter suggested that sources able to demonstrate a basis for inclusion in the delisted 114 category on a case by case basis would then be exempted from the MACT, subject to possible federally enforceable conditions designed by EPA. The commenter stated that the new category could include the following: all low risk facilities, facilities producing wood products found to pose no expected risk to human health ( i. e., fiberboard,

medium density fiberboard and plywood), facilities with acrolein emissions below a certain threshold, or facilities selected on the basis of some other risk criterion. The commenter suggested that the low risk category be included in the final rule and delisted within 6 months following publication of the final rule. The delisting notices would designate health benchmarks and facilities would be required to submit evidence ( e. g.,

tiered dispersion modeling) demonstrating that their emissions result in exposures that fall below the benchmarks. Following delisting of the category, an affected source could apply to EPA for a determination that it qualifies for inclusion in the low risk category.

After evaluating the source's petition, EPA would issue a written determination of applicability based on the petition that would be binding on the permitting authority ( unless the petition was found to contain significant 115 errors or omissions) and appealable by the affected source or interested parties. The EPA could require all facilities that qualify for inclusion in the delisted category to comply with federally enforceable conditions,

similar to the conditions established in permits for " synthetic minor" sources ( e. g., limits on potential to emit, production limits).

The commenter also responded to objections regarding the subcategorization and delisting of low risk facilities. The commenter stated that the contrasting of the terms " category" and " subcategory" offered a distinction that in no way limited EPA's authority to delist low risk facilities. According to the commenter,

the argument that EPA cannot create subcategories based on risk is contradicted by the statutory language, which expressly states that the categories and subcategories EPA creates under section 112 need not match those created under section 111. Furthermore, prior EPA statements do nothing to detract from EPA's broad discretion to establish categories and subcategories. The subcategorization factors previously discussed by EPA justify subcategorization based on risk. The authority cited by one commenter does not establish that EPA's 116 discretion to alter subcategorization is limited in any way, and even if it were, EPA is not bound by any prior position. The arguments that EPA may not delist subcategories for carcinogens ( or sources emitting carcinogens) rest on a formalistic distinction that EPA previously has rejected as meaningless, and that, at any rate, can be remedied with a simple recasting of a subcategory as a category. The commenter stated that doing so is undisputedly within EPA's authority.

Three commenters addressed the issue of subcategorizing PCWP facilities based on characteristics other than risk. One commenter stated that the only option that appears consistent with the CAA, does not create excessive work for State and local agencies, and may be able to be based on science, is the subcategorization and delisting approach. However, the commenter added that the subcategories should be based on equipment or fuel use, not risk. The commenter stated that a subcategory based on site specific risk creates a circular definition and does not make sense. The commenter also stated that subcategory delisting should occur before the compliance date so that facilities don't put off compliance in the hope or anticipation of 117 delisting.

The second commenter stated that EPA requested comment on the establishment of PCWP subcategories ostensibly based on physical and operational characteristics, but in reality based on risk. According to the commenter, this indirect approach is just a variation on the approach ( direct reliance on risk) that EPA itself notes would disrupt and weaken establishment of MACT floors, and is accordingly unlawful. The commenter stated that, even if these approaches were lawful, to the extent that EPA's proposal could be read to suggest that facilities could be allowed to become part of the allegedly low risk subcategory in the future without additional EPA rulemaking, this too would be unlawful.

According to the commenter, section 112( c)( 9) provides the EPA Administrator alone the authority to make delisting determinations, and such authority may not be delegated to other government authorities or private parties. The commenter stated that EPA's proposal suggests an approach entirely backward from the statute   allowing sources to demonstrate after the fact that they belong in a subcategory that has been delisted under section 112( c)( 9), when the statute requires that EPA determine 118 that no source in the category emits cancer causing HAP above specified levels, or that no source in the category or subcategory emit non carcinogenic HAP above specified levels, by the time EPA establishes the standard. The commenter stated that EPA has provided no explanation of how the suggested approaches would be lawful or workable.

The third commenter indicated that low risk is an adequate and appropriate criterion for categorization.

The commenter disagreed that EPA should create and delist categories on a technology basis when the intent is delisting of low risk facilities. The commenter believed that seeking a technology based surrogate for risk is unnecessary within the statutory framework. The commenter noted that the Congressional intent was " to avoid regulatory costs which would be without public health benefit." ( S. Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong., 1st. Sess. 175 6 ( 1990)) Nevertheless, the commenter described some technology based criteria that they believed could be used to develop low risk groups of PCWP facilities.

Four commenters addressed the impact that creation of a low risk subcategory under CAA section 112( c)( 9) could have on the establishment of MACT floors for the PCWP category. Two commenters argued that such 119 subcategorization would have a negative effect. One commenter stated that this situation provided a valid reason for EPA not to mix risk based and technology based standards development. The commenter added that EPA also did not address how the " once in, always in" policy would apply in such a situation. The other commenter stated that this situation was another compelling reason why the suggested section 112( c)( 9) subcategorization approach was unlawful and arbitrary. The commenter stated that the flaw was so obvious, inherent, and contrary to the MACT floor provisions of section 112 and its legislative history, that it proves the undoing of the suggested section 112( c)( 9) exemption. According to the commenter,

EPA cannot simultaneously exercise its source category delisting authority consistent with section 112( c)( 9),

establish appropriate MACT floors under section 112( d),

and establish subcategory exemptions in the manner suggested by EPA, because the latter approach contravenes both section 112( c)( 9) and the section 112( d)

floorsetting process. The commenter stated that section 112' s major source thresholds and statutory deadlines make clear that sources meeting MACT by the time EPA is required to issue MACT standards must install MACT controls and may 120 not subsequently throw them off or be relieved from meeting the MACT level standards. While the section 112( f) residual risk process allows EPA to establish more stringent emissions standards, there is nothing in the CAA that suggests EPA possesses authority to relax promulgated MACT standards.

The third commenter indicated that dilution of the MACT floor would not occur if low risk category delisting occurred as follows: ( 1) propose low risk category with final PCWP rule, ( 2) promulgate low risk category 6 months after proposal, and ( 3) delist facilities prior to MACT compliance deadline. If EPA issued the final PCWP rule   thereby setting the MACT floor   before it allowed affected sources to apply for inclusion in the low risk category to be delisted, then every affected source would be considered in the establishment of the MACT floor. Thus,

as a result of this timing, the MACT floor could not be diluted because no sources would be exempted from MACT before the MACT floor is set.

The fourth commenter believed that a MACT floor reevaluation would be appropriate and would further ensure that only facilities posing significant risk are required to install expensive controls. 121 Response: We believe that establishing a " low risk"

PCWP subcategory under CAA section 112( c)( 1) and deleting that subcategory under CAA section 112( c)( 9) best balances Congress' dual concerns that categories and subcategories of major sources of HAP be subject to technology based ( and possible future risk based) emission standards, but that undue burdens not be placed on groups of sources within the PCWP source category whose HAP emissions are demonstrated to present little risk to public health and the environment. We do not contend that the CAA specifically directs us to establish categories and subcategories of HAP sources based on risk, and we recognize that, at the time of the 1990 CAA Amendments,

Congress may have assumed that we would generally base categories and subcategories on the traditional technological, process, output, and product factors that had been considered under CAA section 111. However, when properly considered, it becomes apparent that Congress did not intend the unduly restrictive   and consequently overregulatory   reading of the CAA that some commenters urge regarding low risk PCWP facilities.

Numerous CAA section 112 provisions evidence Congress' intent that we be able to find that sources, 122 such as those in the PCWP category whose HAP emissions are below identified risk levels, should not necessarily be subject to MACT. These provisions, together with other indications of Congressional intent regarding the goals of section 112, must all be considered in determining whether we may base a PCWP subcategory on risk and delist that group of sources, without requiring additional HAP regulation that would be redundant for purposes of meeting Congress' risk based goals.

While it is true that CAA section 112( c)( 1) provides that "[ t] o the extent practicable, the categories and subcategories listed under this subsection shall be consistent with the list of source categories established pursuant to section 111 and part C[,]" the provision also states that "[ n] othing in the preceding sentence limits the Administrator's authority to establish subcategories under this section, as appropriate." Therefore, by its plain terms, section 112( c)( 1) does not preclude basing subcategories on criteria other than those traditionally used under section 111 before 1990, or those used after 1990 for sections 111 and 112. Moreover, while after 1990 we have principally used the traditional criteria to define categories and subcategories, such use in general 123 does not restrict how we may define a subcategory in a specific case, " as appropriate," since each HAP emitting industry presents its own unique situation and factors to be considered. ( See, e. g., Sierra Club v. EPA, D. C. Cir.

No. 02 1253, 2004 U. S. App. LEXIS 348 ( decided Jan. 13,

2004).) 124 Even assuming for argument that the language of section 112( c)( 1) may initially appear to restrict our authority to define subcategories, section 112( c)( 1)

cannot be read in isolation. A broad review of the entire text, structure, and purpose of the statute, as well as Congressional intent shows that, applied within the context of CAA section 112( c)( 9), our approach of defining a low risk subcategory of PCWP facilities is reasonable,

at the very least as a way to reconcile the possible tension between the arguably restrictive language of section 112( c)( 1) and the Congressional intent behind section 112( c)( 9). ( See, e. g., Virginia v. Browner, 80 F. 3d 869, 879 ( 4th Cir. 1996).) Alternatively, even if the language is clear on its face in restricting our ability to define subcategories, we believe that, as a matter of historical fact, Congress could not have meant what the commenter asserts it appears to have said, and that as a matter of logic and statutory structure, it almost surely could not have meant it. ( See, e. g., Engine Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 88 F. 3d 1075, 1089 ( D. C. Cir. 1996).) 125 Our interpretation of the CAA is a reasonable accommodation of the statutory language and Congressional intent regarding the relationship of the statutory categorization and subcategorization, delisting, MACT and residual risk provisions that apply to the PCWP category.

This becomes clear in light of the issue addressed by commenters, which is whether we may delist a subcategory of low risk PCWP facilities only if such a group of sources is defined by criteria we have traditionally used to define categories and subcategories for regulatory,

rather than delisting purposes. Our approach implements Congressional intent to avoid the over regulatory result that flows from an overly rigid reading of the CAA. When the CAA is read as a whole, it is apparent that Congress   which in 1990 likely did not fully anticipate the policy considerations that come into play in regulating HAP emissions from PCWP facilities   has not spoken clearly on the precise issue. Our interpretation is necessary to fill this statutory " gap" and prevent the thwarting of Congressional intent not to unnecessarily burden low risk PCWP facilities by forcing them to meet stringent MACT controls when they already meet the risk based goals of section 112. Our interpretation thus lends symmetry and