1 MEMORANDUM Date: September 24, 2004 To: 316( b) Phase III Rulemaking Record ( Non CBI) From: Anne Jones, ERG, Inc. Subject: Calculation of Weights for Engineering Cost Estimates In this memorandum, ERG calculates the weights assigned to MODUs and platforms that were surveyed using information derived from the 316( b) survey of MODUs and platforms ( TetraTech, 2004), as well as weights for MODUs and platforms that voluntarily provided data to EPA ( Non CBI In Scope Facility Database   DCN 7 3505). These weights are used for two purposes.

First, they are used to calculate average capital and O& M costs using the engineering cost estimates derived by EPA ( U. S. EPA 2004a) for both surveyed and non surveyed existing oil and gas facilities. The average costs, by facility type ( deepwater platform/ structure, Alaska platform, and semi submersible, jackup, and drill ship MODU), are used as a proxy for compliance costs to new facilities of these types.

Second, they are used to compute the hypothetical incremental costs of the 316( b) rule had EPA chosen to regulate existing oil and gas facilities.

Sections 1 and 2 discuss the derivation of weights for MODUs and platforms, respectively. In general, these derivations involved a 2 step process.

As the first step, ERG discusses briefly how the weights of the surveyed facilities were derived based on the survey sampling plan, adjusted for non responses. Most of this step relies on information found in spreadsheets showing the original sampling strata and the facilities sampled in the 316( b) survey ( DCN 7 4021). The original groups of facilities in each sampling frame were developed based on information in DCN 7 4022, which merged data from EPA's contractor, TetraTech ( DCN 7 4023) and MMS ( DCN 7 4025, DCN 7 4026, DCN 7 4027). Preliminary strata selected for sampling are discussed in ERG ( 2003) and are finalized as discussed in Westat ( 2003) and summarized below. These strata and the facilities they encompass are shown in the sampling frame spreadsheets ( DCN 7 4021).

As the second step, ERG further adjusted these weights to account for extra survey information that could be applied to refine the representativeness of the survey data. These data are shown in DCN 7 3505.

1. Derivation of Weights for MODUs 1.1 Calculation of Survey Weights ERG first investigates information derived from the survey of MODUs undertaken for the purposes of the Phase III rulemaking decision ( Tetra Tech, 2004). Not all of the MODUs identified as currently operating 1 The original universe was 404; duplicates were found and eliminated after the survey was returned, leaving 384 non duplicates in the sampling universe.

2 ( See Chapter C2 in the EA; U. S. EPA, 2004b) would be subject to the proposed rule for oil and gas facilities had they been regulated as new facilities. EPA used a multi step process to estimate the total number of existing MODUs that would be regulated under the proposed rule were they to be constructed in the future ( i. e., CWISs with total design flow of at least 2 MGD and greater than 25 percent of intake volume used for cooling water purposes). This process relied on information in TetraTech ( 2004).

The following is the status of the economic survey respondents ( TetraTech, 2004):

23 respondents returned surveys.

8 respondents were determined to have CWISs that meet proposed rule criteria.

15 respondents were determined to have CWISs that do not meet proposed rule criteria or were not operating in U. S. waters

4 surveys were not returned from among a group of MODUs whose CWIS intake rates were known and were considered to meet proposed 316( b) criteria ( based on voluntary data submitted during the 316( b) Phase I rulemaking) ( see DCN 7 3505)

3 surveys were not returned among a group of MODUs whose CWIS intake rates were unknown.

The original sampling frame for MODUs ( DCN 7 4021) included 404 MODUs. After the survey was completed, ERG noted several duplicate facilities ( no duplicate facilities were sampled twice). These duplicates were removed from the universe, which reduced the universe to 384 MODUs ( see Final MODU List, DCN 7 4029). The final count of 384 MODUs, with their parent companies, is summarized in Table C2 1 in the EA ( U. S. EPA, 2004b). 1 EPA sampled 30 of these 384 MODUs in the survey. The adjusted statistical weight for each MODU is thus 384 divided by 30, or 12.8.

Based on the ratio of respondents whose intake rates meet proposed 316( b) criteria to total respondents ( 8/ 23), EPA assumes that among the 3 MODUs with unknown intake rates, 1 would have intake rates meeting proposed criteria and 2 would have intake rates not meeting proposed criteria. Thus the total number of MODUs in the economic survey sample whose intake rates are assumed to meet proposed criteria is estimated to be 13 ( including the 8 respondents, the 1 nonresponse with unknown CWIS rates that was imputed in scope, and the 4 nonresponses with known in scope CWIS rates). Multiplying this number ( 13) by the survey weight of 12.8 yields an estimate of a total of 166 MODUs with intake rates meeting proposed rule criteria.

1.2 Adjustments To Weights Using Extra Survey Information EPA needed to refine weights in order to fully use all technical data from the voluntary survey of members of the International Association of Drilling Contractors ( IADC) to compute aggregate costs to existing MODUs ( DCN 7 3505). EPA used this technical information to develop vessel specific compliance costs 2 53 of the 384 are foreign based and not considered affected by this rulemaking.

3 for an additional 71 MODUs not sampled in the survey. This information is used to determine what the additional cost of the Phase III rulemaking would have been had EPA opted to regulate existing MODUs and to calculate the weighted average cost of compliance by type of MODU.

1.2.1 Additions to the Universe or Adjustments to Total Numbers of MODUs To compute the weights of existing MODUs for the purposes of aggregating the engineering cost estimates, the following approach was used. After the survey was undertaken, ERG identified 6 MODUs, originally thought have intake rates of less than 2 MGD based on IADC data, that were subsequently determined to have intake rates greater than 2 MGD. Since these MODUs were never included in the original sampling frame, ERG adds them to the original estimate of MODUs with CWISs meeting proposed criteria ( 166 MODUs), for a total of 172 MODUs meeting proposed criteria ( DCN 7 4029). This is roughly half of the existing MODUs operating in U. S. waters, which total 331 MODUs or about 52 percent. 2 1.2.2 Adjusting Drill Ship Weights Of the 172 MODUs believed to meet proposed 316( b) criteria, seven are drill ships and all of these have technical data available and are assigned estimated compliance costs ( DCN 7 3505). Two of the drill ships were sampled in the survey and meet the proposed criteria. Had EPA used the original survey weights for these two drill ships, EPA would have estimated that 26 drill ships operate in the Gulf, which is known to be false. To avoid overestimating drill ships, EPA assigns a weight of one to all seven drill ships, including the two that were surveyed.

1.2.3 Calculation of Weights for MODUs Other Than Drill Ships With Technical Data After removing the seven drill ships from the list of MODUs, 165 MODUs remained to have weights assigned. EPA has technical data on 87 MODUs that are considered in scope. ( DCN 7 3505) Of these, 80 are not drill ships. Of these 80, 71 were not sampled in the 316( b) survey. These 71 were assigned a weight of 1. ERG does this because this group of MODUs may not be representative of MODUs in general. ERG believes that the group of MODUs surveyed by IADC may be highly biased towards MODUs with relatively high CWIS intake rates and/ or large numbers of CWISs ( due to the voluntary nature of the IADC survey). To avoid the possibility of overstating compliance costs by assuming all MODUs with technical data, regardless of whether they were sampled or not, have equal weights, ERG assumed the MODUs with technical data that were not surveyed in the 316( b) survey represent themselves only. Thus ERG assigns a weight of 1 to a total of 78 MODUs ( 71 non surveyed MODUs with technical data and 7 drill ships).

1.2.4 Calculation of Weights for Surveyed MODUs Other Than Drill ships Out of the 172 MODUs considered to meet proposed criteria, an estimated 94 MODUs ( 172 total MODUs minus 78 MODUs assigned a weight of one) are not a part of the group assigned a weight of 1. These MODUs are assumed to be represented by the surveyed MODUs. 3There are 13 sampled MODUs, of which one was a nonrespondent imputed " in scope." This nonrespondent MODU had no technical data available, except that it is known not to be a drill ship. Thus ERG returned this MODU to the pool of MODUs assumed to be represented by the surveyed MODUs considered in scope. That is, it is one of the 94 MODUs represented by the surveyed respondents. One of the 13 respondents returned an economic survey, but had no technical data in EPA's database. It is a semi submersible, so its compliance costs were imputed based on costs assigned to the other in scope semi submersibles that responded to EPA's survey. The cost to this MODU is used only to generate aggregate costs for existing MODUs ( ERG, 2004a) and to analyze MODU impacts ( ERG, 2004b).

4 Out of the count of 13 sampled MODUs that are estimated or assumed to meet proposed 316( b) criteria, EPA has technical data or imputes technical data for 12 MODUs, of which 10 are not drill ships. 3 These 94 MODUs are assumed to be represented by the 10 non drill ship MODUs that were sampled in the survey and that are considered to meet proposed 316( b) criteria. The weight of each of the 10 representative MODUs is thus calculated to be 9.4 ( 94/ 10). Table 1 shows the weights for all MODUs for which technical information is available and for which engineering estimates are available and/ or imputed.

Table 1. Weights Assigned to MODUs For Engineering Cost Purposes Parent Company MODU Name Assigned Weight Glomar Glomar CR Luigs 1 Transocean Transocean Discoverer Deep Seas 1 Glomar Glomar Explorer 1 Transocean Transocean Discoverer Enterprise 1 Transocean Transocean Discoverer Spirit 1 Transocean Transocean Deepwater Millennium 1 Transocean/ Deepwater Drilling LLC Transocean Deepwater Pathfinder 1 Nabors Nabors BR 201 1 Nabors Nabors BR 11 1 Nabors Nabors BR 12 1 Rowan/ Rowan Companies Inc. Rowan Alaska 1 Rowan/ Rowan Companies Inc. Rowan Juneau 1 Rowan/ Rowan Companies Inc. Rowan Louisiana 1 Rowan/ Rowan Companies Inc. Rowan Odessa 1 ENSCO ENSCO 64 1 Rowan/ Rowan Companies Inc. Arch Rowan 1 Rowan/ Rowan Companies Inc. Cecil Provine 1 Rowan/ Rowan Companies Inc. Gilbert Rowe 1 Rowan/ Rowan Companies Inc. Rowan California 1 Rowan/ Rowan Companies Inc. Rowan Fort Worth 1 Rowan/ Rowan Companies Inc. Rowan Halifax 1 Rowan/ Rowan Companies Inc. Rowan Middletown 1 Rowan/ Rowan Companies Inc. Rowan Paris 1 Rowan/ Rowan Companies Inc. Rowan Gorilla II 1 Rowan/ Rowan Companies Inc. Rowan Gorilla III 1 Rowan/ Rowan Companies Inc. Rowan Gorilla IV 1 Global Santa Fe/ Glomar Global Santa Fe Glomar High Island 1 1 Global Santa Fe/ Glomar Global Santa Fe Glomar High Island 2 9.4 Global Santa Fe/ Glomar Global Santa Fe Glomar High Island 3 1 Global Santa Fe/ Glomar Global Santa Fe Glomar High Island 8 1 Global Santa Fe/ Glomar Global Santa Fe Glomar Adriatic 10 9.4 Global Santa Fe/ Glomar Global Santa Fe Glomar High Island 4 1 Parent Company MODU Name Assigned Weight 5 Global Santa Fe/ Glomar Global Santa Fe Glomar Main Pass 1 1 Global Santa Fe/ Glomar Global Santa Fe Glomar Main Pass 4 9.4 Global Santa Fe/ Glomar Global Santa Fe Glomar Adriatic 2 1 Global Santa Fe/ Glomar Global Santa Fe Glomar Adriatic 3 1 Global Santa Fe/ Glomar Global Santa Fe Glomar Adriatic 4 1 Noble Noble Carl Norberg 1 Noble Noble Eddie Paul 1 Noble Noble Johnnie Hoffman 1 Noble Noble Sam Noble 9.4 Noble Noble Tom Jobe 1 Noble Noble Bill Jennings 1 ENSCO ENSCO 60 1 ENSCO ENSCO 68 1 ENSCO ENSCO 69 1 ENSCO ENSCO 81 1 ENSCO ENSCO 82 1 ENSCO ENSCO 83 1 ENSCO ENSCO 84 1 ENSCO ENSCO 86 1 ENSCO ENSCO 87 1 ENSCO ENSCO 88 9.4 ENSCO ENSCO 89 1 ENSCO ENSCO 90 1 ENSCO ENSCO 93 1 ENSCO ENSCO 95 1 ENSCO ENSCO 98 1 ENSCO ENSCO 99 1 Rowan/ Rowan International Inc. Rowan Anchorage 9.4 Rowan/ Rowan International Inc. Rowan Houston 1 Rowan/ Rowan International Inc. Rowan New Orleans 1 Rowan/ Rowan Drill Inc. Rowan Texas 1 Rowan/ Rowan Companies Inc. Charles Rowan 9.4 Noble Noble Earl Fredrickson 1 Noble Noble Leonard Jones 1 ENSCO ENSCO 26 1 Rowan Rowan Midland 1 Transocean Transocean Deepwater Horizon 1 Transocean Transocean Deepwater Nautilus 9.4 Noble Noble Homer Ferrington 1 Transocean Transocean Rather 1 Transocean Transocean Richardson 1 Transocean Falcon 100 1 ENSCO ENSCO 7500 1 Noble Noble Amos Runner 1 Noble Noble Jim Thompson 1 Noble Noble Max Smith 1 Noble Noble Paul Romano 1 Transocean Transocean Marianas 1 Transocean Transocean Cajun Express 1 Global Santa Fe/ Glomar Global Santa Fe Glomar Arctic 1 9.4 Parent Company MODU Name Assigned Weight 6 Global Santa Fe/ Glomar Global Santa Fe Glomar Celtic Sea 1 Noble Noble Joe Alford 1 Noble Noble Lester Pettus 1 ENSCO ENSCO 25 1 ENSCO ENSCO 29 1 Pride Pride Viking 9.4 Total 172 Source: DCN 7 3505, DCN 7 4021, DCN 7 4029, ERG estimates.

2. Weights for Platforms Very few existing platforms appear to have CWISs with intake rates that meet the proposed rule's criteria. Most of the existing platforms with CWISs of this size are located in the deepwaters of GOM and in California and Alaska waters ( Cook Inlet). Using the same approach as outlined for determining existing MODUs with CWIS intake rates meeting proposed rule criteria, EPA makes estimates of the number of platforms that would be regulated had EPA covered existing platforms under 316( b). These estimates rely initially on information from the survey conducted for the oil and gas sectors to support this rulemaking ( TetraTech, 2004).

The following sections discuss weights for platforms in the GOM ( Section 2.1), platforms off the California coast ( Section 2.2) and platforms in Alaska ( Section 2.3).

2.1 Gulf of Mexico EPA divided the survey in the GOM into three strata: deepwater, shallow large ( 20+ slot platforms), and shallow small ( fewer than 20 slots) ( DCN 7 4021). These three strata are discussed separately below.

2.1.1 Deepwater Calculation of Survey Weights A total of 26 platforms are identified as operating in deepwater Gulf locations ( DCN 7 4022). The survey universe of deepwater structures was 24 ( 2 structures were removed from the universe prior to the survey because their CWIS intake rates were known to be less than 2 MGD) ( Westat, 2003). For the survey, EPA sampled four facilities ( DCN 7 4021). There were no nonrespondents ( TetraTech, 2004). Only one of the four reported data showing them to have CWIS intake rates meeting proposed rule criteria ( DCN 7 3505). Thus EPA estimates that 6 deepwater structures would have CWIS intake rates meeting proposed rule criteria ( 24 divided by 4 is a weight of 6; with 1 respondent reporting an intake rate of 2 MGD or more, this produces an estimate of 6 total new structures meeting proposed rule criteria).

Adjustments To Weights Using Extra Survey Information IADC data indicate that 8 structures in the deepwater have CWIS intake rates meeting the proposed 316( b) criteria ( see DCN 7 3505). ERG uses this higher number of structures to estimate the number of existing 4Assuming that the four are the only large platforms in shallow water that meet the criteria, the likelihood of being an in scope platform is 4 out of 206 or 1.9 percent. The likelihood of drawing a random sample of 33 obsrevations and not sampling any of these in scope facilities is 0.98133 or 52 percent.

7 structures with CWISs meeting proposed criteria. ERG thus assigns a weight of 1 to each of the 8 deepwater structures that are assigned engineering costs. Table 2 shows the weights assigned.

Table 2. Weights Assigned to Deepwater Structures For Engineering Cost Purposes Parent Company Facility Name Assigned Weight BP BP Pompano 1 Shell Shell Mississippi Canyon 807 1 Shell Shell Vioska Knoll 1 ExxonMobil ExxonMobil Mississippi Canyon 1 Amerada Hess Corporation A ( BALDPATE); G07462 1 ChevronTexaco ChevronTexaco Green Canyon 1 Shell Shell West Delta 1 ExxonMobil ExxonMobil Alaminos Canyon 1 Total 8 Source: DCN 7 3505, DCN 7 4021, ERG estimates.

2.1.2 Shallow Water, Large Platforms Calculation of Survey Weights A total of 209 shallow water platforms with greater than 20 well slots were identified in MMS data ( DCN 7 4022). ERG determined that 206 existing platforms were either known to have CWISs with intake rates meeting proposed rule criteria or their intake rates were unknown ( 3 platforms were known to have total CWIS intake rates less than 2 MGD and were dropped from the sampling frame) ( DCN 7 4021, Westat 2003). EPA sampled 33 platforms out of the 206 in the sampling frame, of which 30 responded. None of these had intake rates meeting the proposed 316( b) criteria ( DCN 7 3505). EPA therefore assumes that all non respondents also would not meet the criteria.

Adjustments To Weights Using Extra Survey Information The sample of large platforms in shallow water identified no platforms that meet proposed 316( b) criteria. However, four platforms were known to have CWISs meeting proposed rule criteria based on earlier data ( DCN 7 3505). None of these was sampled ( DCN 7 4021). 4 Because these platforms are known to meet 316( b) criteria, ERG assigns each a weight of one. See Table 3 for the weight assignments by platform.

Table 3. Weights Assigned to Shallow Water, Large Platforms For Engineering Cost Purposes Parent Company Facility Name Assigned Weight Marathon Marathon South Pass ( Block 86) 1 ExxonMobil ExxonMobil South Pass 1 ExxonMobil ExxonMobil Green Canyon 1 Marathon Marathon Ewing Bank 1 5Assuming that the four are the only small platforms in shallow water that meet the criteria, the likelihood of being an in scope platform is 4 out of 2,194 or 0.14 percent percent. The likelihood of drawing a random sample of 18 obsrevations and not sampling any of these in scope facilities is 0.986918or 98 percent.

8 Total 4 Source: DCN 7 3505, DCN 7 4021, ERG estimates.

Shallow Water, Small Platforms Calculation of Survey Weights For shallow water, small platforms, EPA determined that 2,194 platforms were in the universe of platforms in the Federal GOM ( DCN 7 4022). The vast majority of these platforms have unknown CWIS intake rates. Four platforms were identified prior to EPA's Phase III Survey as having CWIS intake rates exceeding 2 MGD ( DCN 7 3505). None of these was sampled ( DCN 7 4021). A total of 18 platforms with unknown CWIS intake rates were sampled ( all responded), but EPA determined that none of the sampled platforms had total design flow rates meeting proposed rule criteria ( TetraTech, 2004; DCN 7 3505). Although this is a very small sample, this finding is bolstered by EPA's observations that platforms in state waters are unlikely to have CWIS with intake rates totaling 2 MGD or more ( U. S. EPA, 2004a). Platforms in state waters and small platforms in Federal waters are generally similar structures.

Adjustments To Weights Using Extra Survey Information Although the survey indicates that no shallow water, small platforms would meet the proposed criteria, there are four such platforms known to meet these criteria ( DCN 7 3505). ERG thus assumes that only four small platforms located in the shallow water GOM have CWIS intakes meeting proposed rule criteria. 5 These four platforms are assigned a weight of one. See Table 4 for the weight assignments by platform.

Table 4. Weights Assigned to Shallow Water, Small Platforms For Engineering Cost Purposes Parent Company Facility Name Assigned Weight BP BP Matagorda Island ( Block 623) 1 BP BP Matagorda Island ( Block 519) 1 ExxonMobil ExxonMobil Main Pass 1 BP BP Matagorda Island ( Block 622) 1 Total 4 Source: DCN 7 3505, DCN 7 4021, ERG estimates.

2.2 California Platforms Calculation of Survey Weights EPA identified 33 California platforms, 13 of which were dropped from the analysis because their intake rates were known to be less than 2 MGD ( DCN 7 4022; Westat, 2003). EPA sampled 3 of the remaining 20 platforms ( DNC 7 4021). Only one was found to have an intake rate meeting proposed rule criteria ( DCN 7 3505). ERG thus assumes seven existing platforms in California have total intake rates meeting proposed rule criteria ( 20 divided by 3 is a weight of 6.7, which yields 7 weighted platforms). 9 Adjustments To Weights Using Extra Survey Information A total of six platforms are known from earlier data ( see DCN 7 3505) to have intakes rates meeting proposed criteria ( including the platform surveyed in the 316( b) survey). ERG subtracted the five nonsurveyed known platforms from the extrapolated count of seven platforms, leaving two platforms estimated to be represented by the surveyed platform. The remaining five platforms are then assigned a weight of one. See Table 5 for a listing of weights by platform.

Table 5. Weights Assigned to California Platforms For Engineering Cost Purposes Parent Company Facility Name Assigned Weight Aera Energy Ellen ( Beta) 1 Aera Energy Eureka ( Beta) 2 Arguello Hermosa ( Point Arguello) 1 ExxonMobil Harmony ( Hondo Field) 1 ExxonMobil Heritage ( Pescado Field) 1 Arguello Harvest ( Point Arguello) 1 Total 7 Source: DCN 7 3505, DCN 7 4021, ERG estimates.

2.3 Alaska Platforms Calculation of Survey Weights   In Alaska, EPA determined that 19 platforms/ production facilities are in the survey universe ( one platform was known to have a total CWIS intake rate of less than 2 MGD and was dropped from the sampling frame) ( DCN 7 4022; DCN 7 4021; Westat, 2003). EPA sampled two platforms, but only one was determined to have a CWIS intake rate meeting proposed rule criteria. ERG therefore estimates that there are 10 platforms in Alaska with intakes that meet proposed rule criteria ( 19/ 2 is a weight of 9.5).

Adjustments To Weights Using Extra Survey Information   Five platforms ( all located in Cook Inlet) have CWIS data showing them to have CWISs meeting proposed rule criteria ( including the surveyed platform) ( DCN 7 3505). ERG subtracted the four platforms not surveyed in the 316( b) survey effort from the total of 10. The remaining 6 estimated platforms that would be subject to the 316( b) requirements were assumed represented by the surveyed platform, which was assigned a weight of 6. The non surveyed platforms were assigned a weight of one. See Table 6 for a listing of weights by platform.

Table 6. Weights Assigned to Alaska Platforms For Engineering Cost Purposes Parent Company Facility Name Assigned Weight Unocal Anna Platform 1 Unocal Steelhead 1 Unocal King Salmon Platform 6 Unocal Grayling Platform 1 Unocal Dolly Varden Platform 1 Total 10 Source: DCN 7 3505, DCN 7 4021, ERG estimates. 10 References ERG. 2003. Assessment of Platforms in the Gulf of Mexico That Are Likely To Be In Scope. Memorandum to George Denning, EPA, from ERG. August 21, 2003.

ERG. 2004a. Costs for Existing Oil and Gas Facilities Had These Been Regulated Under 316( b) Phase III.. Memorandum to Rulemaking Record. September 24, 2004.

ERG. 2004b. MODU Cost and Impact Calculations. Memorandum to Rulemaking Record. September 24, 2004.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( U. S. EPA). 2004a. Technical Development Document for the Proposed Section 316( b) Phase III Rule.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( U. S. EPA). 2004b. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Section 316( b) Phase III Rule.

Tetra Tech. 2004. Phase III Survey Response_ Strata_ Summary_ April 20_ 2004. Spreadsheet submitted to the CBI Rulemaking Record.

Westat. 2003. Sampling Selection for Offshore Oil and Gas TD# 00040917a dated September 17, 2003. Memorandum to John Fox, EPA. October 7, 2003.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 89 (Monday, May 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 28065]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10769]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL16-63-000]

Indicated RTO Transmission Owners; Notice of Petiton for
Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on April 26, 2016, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2015), the Indicated RTO
Transmission Owners (RTO) \1\ filed a petition for declaratory order
finding that RTO may use single-issue ratemaking in future filings
under section 205 of the Federal Power Act to modify existing
Commission jurisdictional rates, all as more fully explained in the
petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ American Electric Power Service Corporation, on behalf of
its affiliates Appalachian Power Company, Indiana Michigan Power
Company, Kentucky Power Company, Kingsport Power Company, Ohio Power
Company, Wheeling Power Company, AEP Appalachian Transmission
Company, AEP Indiana Michigan Transmission Company, AEP Kentucky
Transmission Company, AEP Ohio Transmission Company, AEP West
Virginia Transmission Company, Public Service Company of Oklahoma,
Southwestern Electric Power Company, AEP Oklahoma Transmission
Company, Inc., AEP Southwestern Transmission Company, Inc.,
Transource Missouri, LLC, Transource Kansas, LLC, Transource
Wisconsin, LLC, Transource West Virginia, LLC; Kansas City Power &
Light Company and KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company;
Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company; Westar Energy, Inc., Prairie Wind
Transmission, LLC, and Kanstar Transmission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding
must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to
the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice
of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceeding are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on May 26, 2016.

    Dated: May 2, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-10769 Filed 5-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 240 (Friday, December 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64414-64415]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27076]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84766; File No. SR-NYSE-2018-28]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on
Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed
Rule To Make Permanent the Retail Liquidity Program Pilot, Which is Set
To Expire on December 31, 2018

December 10, 2018.
    On June 4, 2018, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange
Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to make
permanent the Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program Pilot (``Program'').
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on June 21, 2018.\3\ On July 31, 2018, the Commission
designated a longer period within which to approve the proposed rule
change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings
to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.\4\ On
September 18, 2018, the Commission instituted proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \5\ to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change.\6\ The Commission received no
comment letters on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83454 (June 15,
2018), 83 FR 28874 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83749, 83 FR 38393
(August 6, 2018). The Commission designated September 19, 2018, as
the date by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the
proposed rule change.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84183, 83 FR 48350
(September 24, 2018) (``Order Instituting Proceedings'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \7\ provides that, after initiating
proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving or
disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after the
date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule change.
The Commission may, however, extend the period for issuing an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change by not more than 60
days if the Commission determines that a longer period is appropriate
and publishes the

reasons for such determination. The proposed rule change was published
for notice and comment in the Federal Register on June 21, 2018.\8\
December 18, 2018 is 180 days from that date, and February 16, 2019 is
240 days from that date. The Commission finds it appropriate to
designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or
disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to
consider the proposed rule change.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \8\ See supra note 3.
    \9\ The Commission notes that on November 30, 2018, the Exchange
has filed a separate proposed rule change to extend the pilot
period, which is currently set to expire on December 31, 2018, until
June 30, 2019. See SR-NYSE-2018-59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ designates February 16, 2019 as the date by which the
Commission should either approve or disapprove the proposed rule change
(File No. SR-NYSE-2018-28).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-27076 Filed 12-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P