[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1979-1982]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00377]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74017; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2014-116]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 967NY and To Adopt Rule 967.1NY To
Provide Price Protection for Market Maker Quotes

January 8, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on December 29, 2014, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 967NY (Price Protection) and to
adopt Rule 967.1NY to provide price protection for Market Maker quotes.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 is proposing to amend Rule 967NY and to adopt Rule
967.1NY to provide price protection for Market Maker quotes. The
Exchange currently offers price protection mechanisms for orders and,
at this time, is proposing to expand its mechanisms to make price
protection available for Market Maker quotes as well. The Exchange
believes that this proposed enhancement would assist with the
maintenance of fair and orderly markets by averting the risk of Market
Maker quotes sweeping through multiple price points resulting in
executions at prices that are through the last sale price or National
Best Bid or Best Offer (``NBBO'') and potentially erroneous.
    Rule 967NY, which applies solely to orders, affords price
protection to orders priced a specified percentage through the
prevailing contra-side market.\4\ Specifically, Rule 967NY(b) provides
a price protection filter for incoming limit orders, pursuant to which
the Exchange rejects limit orders priced a specified percentage \5\
through the NBB or NBO (``Limit Order Filter'').\6\ To clarify that
Rule 967NY applies only to orders, the Exchange proposes [sic] append
the word ``Orders'' to the Rule 967NY header to provide ``Rule 967NY.
Price Protection--Orders.'' The Exchange believes that this proposed
change would reduce any potential confusion regarding the applicability
of Rule 967NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange adopted Rule 967NY in 2013. See Exchange Rule
967NY; see also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70037 (July 25,
2013), 78 FR 46399 (July 31, 2013) (NYSEMKT-2013-62).
    \5\ Pursuant to Rule 967NY(b), unless determined otherwise by
the Exchange and announced to ATP Holders via Trader Update, the
specified percentage is 100% for the contra-side NBB or NBO priced
at or below $1.00 and 50% for contra-side NBB or NBO priced above
$1.00.
    \6\ Until recently the Limit Order Filter was only applicable to
orders received during Core Trading Hours, but the Exchange has
expanded this price protection feature to limit orders received
before the opening of trading. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 73024 (September 9, 2014), 79 FR 55049 (September 15, 2014) (SR-
NYSEMKT-2014-76).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Market Maker Quote Price Protection
    To further enhance the price protection functionality available on
the Exchange, the Exchange proposes to adopt a new rule, Rule 967.1NY,
that would provide for a price protection mechanism for quotes entered
by a Market Maker. To be clear that the proposed rule is for Market
Maker quotes only, and consistent with the proposed change to the title
for Rule 967NY, the Exchange proposes to title this new rule ``Price
Protection--Quotes.'' In addition, Rule 967.1NY(a) would provide that
the proposed price protection filters would be applicable only for
quotes entered by a Market Maker pursuant to Rule 925.1NY and would not
be applicable to orders entered by a Market Maker.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Orders entered by a Market Maker are covered by Rule 967NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To take into consideration the unique role of Market Makers to
enter two-sided quotations in their appointments, the Exchange proposes
to provide for two layers of price protection that would be applicable
to all incoming Market Maker quotes. As discussed in detail below, the
first layer of price protection would assess incoming sell quotes
against the National Best Bid (``NBB'') and incoming buy quotes against
the National Best Offer (``NBO''). The second layer of price protection
would assess the price of call or put bids against a specified
benchmark.
NBBO Price Reasonability Check
    Proposed Rule 967.1NY(a)(1) would set forth the Exchange's proposed
NBBO price reasonability check, which would compare Market Maker bids
with the NBO and Market Maker offers with the NBB. This proposed price
protection is [sic] mechanism is similar to the Limit Order Filter.
Specifically, provided that an NBBO is available, a Market Maker quote
would be rejected if it is priced a specified dollar amount or
percentage through the contra-side NBBO as follows:
    (A) $1.00 for Market Maker bids when the contra-side NBO is priced
at or below $1.00; or
    (B) 50% for Market Maker bids (offers) when the contra-side NBO
(NBB) is priced above $1.00.
    The Exchange would reject inbound Market Maker quotes that exceed
the parameters set forth in proposed Rule 967.1NY(a)(1)(A)-(B) as
presumptively erroneous. The Exchange believes that the proposed
percentages are appropriate because they are based on the percentages
already approved for the Limit Order Filter and are thus calibrated to
enable the Exchange to reject quotes that otherwise may cause price
dislocation before the erroneous quotes could cause harm to the market.
The Exchange is also proposing a specific dollar threshold for when the

NBO is priced at or below $1.00 because the Exchange believes that the
specified dollar amount provides more granular price protection than a
percentage-based protection. For example, if the NBO were $0.06, when
using a 100% filter, the Exchange would be required to reject any bids
priced $0.12 or more. For such low-priced NBOs, the Exchange believes
it is appropriate to provide Market Makers with the ability to enter
quotes at least $1.00 higher than the prevailing NBO.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that it continually assesses whether its
price protection mechanisms are appropriately calibrated and if it
proposes to amend the percentages for the Limit Order Filter, it
would do so by means of a separate rule filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, pursuant to proposed Rule 967.1NY(a)(1)(A), Market
Maker offers that arrive when the NBB is priced at or below $1.00 would
not be subject to this filter. The Exchange believes that when the NBB
is priced at or below $1.00, the price of an offer would be bound by
$0.00, and therefore an offer would always be less than $1.00 away from
the NBB. Such offer prices would likely not be erroneous and therefore
the Exchange does not believe it necessary to reject such Market Maker
offers.
    Because there may be market scenarios that require the proposed
parameters to be adjusted, for example, during periods of extreme price
volatility, the Exchange further proposes to specify that the Exchange
may revise these parameters, provided such revised parameters are
announced to ATP Holders via a Trader Update.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See proposed Rule 967.1NY(a)(1)(A)-(B) (setting forth the
specified dollar amount or percentages ``unless determined otherwise
by the Exchange and announced to ATP Holders via Trader Update'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an additional safeguard and risk-control feature, if a Market
Maker quote is rejected pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this proposed
Rule, the Exchange would also cancel any resting same-side quote in the
affected series from that Market Maker.\10\ The Exchange believes it is
appropriate to reject any resting same-side quote because when a Market
Maker submits a new quote, that Market Maker is implicitly instructing
the Exchange to cancel any resting quote in that same series. Thus,
even if the new quote is rejected because it is priced a specified
dollar amount or percentage through the contra-side NBBO, in violation
of proposed Rule 967.1NY(a)(1), the Market Maker's implicit instruction
to cancel the resting quote remains valid nonetheless.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See proposed Rule 967.1NY(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples, which are based on the below market
scenario, illustrate how the proposed Rule 967.1NY(a) would operate:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Option series                       NBBO                 Option series                 NBBO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December $30 Calls..................  $9.90 x $11.00.........  December $30 Puts.......  $0.06 x $0.10.
December $35 Calls..................  $6.00 x $6.20..........  December $35 Puts.......  $0.60 x $0.65.
December $40 Calls..................  $2.82 x $2.85..........  December $40 Puts.......  $2.30 x $2.40.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example 1--Proposed Rule 967.1NY(a)(1)(A): $1.00 for Market Maker
bids if the contra-side NBO is priced at or below $1.00. A Market Maker
submits a $1.50 bid for the December $30 puts where the NBO is $0.10.
As this is $1.00 or more above the NBO ($0.10 plus $1.00 = $1.10), the
Exchange would reject the Market Maker bid.
    Example 2--Proposed Rule 967.1NY(a)(1)(A): Market Maker offers that
arrive when the NBB is priced at or below $1.00 are not subject to this
filter. From the options chain above, the options that have a NBB at or
below $1.00 are the December $30 and $35 puts. As these options have a
NBB below $1.00 (and the offer is bound by $0.00--less than $1.00 away
from the NBB), there are no price protection filters and Market Maker
offers in these options would be subject to standard quote processing
without delay.
    Example 3--Proposed Rule 967.1NY(a)(1)(B): 50% for Market Maker
bids when the contra-side NBO is priced above $1.00. A Market Maker
submits a bid of $9.30 for the December $35 calls where the NBO is
$6.20. As this is 50% greater than the NBO ($6.20 plus 50% = $9.30),
the Exchange would reject the Market Maker bid.
    Example 4--Proposed Rule 967.1NY(a)(1)(B): 50% for Market Maker
offers when the contra-side NBB is priced above $1.00. A Market Maker
submits a $0.60 offer for the December $40 calls when the NBB is $2.82.
As this is 50% or more below the NBB ($2.82 minus 50% = $1.41), the
Exchange would reject the Market Maker offer as erroneous.
Underlying Stock Price/Strike Price Check
    Proposed Rule 967.1NY(a)(2) and (3) would set forth the Exchange's
proposed second layer of price protection filters for Market Maker
quotes. These price protection mechanisms would be applicable when
either there is no NBBO available, for example, during pre-opening or
prior to conducting a re-opening after a trading halt, or if the NBBO
is so wide as to not to reflect an appropriate price for the respective
options series.
    Proposed Rule 967.1NY(a)(2) would provide price protection for
Market Maker bids in call options. As proposed, if such bids equal or
exceed the price of the underlying security, the Market Maker bid would
be rejected.\11\ With a call bid, a Market Maker is bidding to buy an
option that would be exercised into the right to acquire the underlying
security. The Exchange does not believe that a derivative product,
which conveys the right to purchase a security underlying the
derivative, should ever be priced higher than the prevailing price of
the underlying security itself. Accordingly, the Exchange believes it
is appropriate to reject Market Maker bids for call options that are
equal to or in excess of the price of the underlying security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See proposed Rule 967.1NY(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed in new Rule 967.1NY(a)(2)(A), before the underlying
security is open, the Exchange would use the previous day's closing
price to determine the price of the underlying security. The Exchange
proposes to use the prior day's closing price because, although the
underlying securities may trade in the equities markets outside of 9:30
a.m. ET to 4:00 p.m. ET, the equities market is generally not as liquid
during this time and equity market makers generally do not have quoting
obligations in after-hours trading. Therefore, the Exchange believes
that using the previous day's closing price--based on trading during
Core Trading Hours, when the market is most liquid--provides a more
accurate benchmark and thus a more precise price protection filter for
underlying securities that have not yet opened. Per proposed Rule
967.1NY(a)(2)(B), once the underlying security has opened, the Exchange
would use the consolidated last sale price to determine the price of
the underlying security. Per proposed Rule 967.1NY(a)(2)(C), during a
trading halt of the underlying security, the Exchange would use the
consolidated last sale

reported immediately prior to the trading halt to determine the price
of the underlying security. The Exchange believes that the consolidated
last sale price for an underlying security that has already opened
would provide the most accurate benchmark because the market is most
liquid during Core Trading Hours.
    Proposed Rule 967.1NY(a)(3) would provide for price protection for
Market Maker bids in put options. The value of a put can never exceed
the strike price of the option, even if the stock goes to zero. For
example, a put with a strike price of $50 gives the holder the right to
sell the underlying security for $50 (no more, or no less), therefore
it would be illogical to pay more than $50 for the right to sell that
underlying security, no matter what the price of the underlying
security. As proposed, the Exchange would deem any put bid that equals
or exceeds the strike price of the option series to be erroneous and
the Exchange believes it would be appropriate to reject such bids.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See proposed Rule 967.1NY(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an additional safeguard and risk control feature, when a Market
Maker quote is rejected pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this
Rule, the Exchange would also cancel all resting quote(s) in the
affected class(es) from that Market Maker and shall not accept new
quote(s) in the affected class(es) until the Market Maker submits a
message (which may be automated) to the Exchange to enable the entry of
new quotes.\13\ The Exchange believes that this temporary suspension
from quoting in the affected option class(es) would operate as a safety
valve that forces Market Makers to re-evaluate their positions before
requesting to re-enter the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See proposed Rule 967.1NY(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consider the following examples which are based on the following:

Underlying Security Price = $50
December $50 Calls--December $50 Puts
December $70 Calls--December $70 Puts

    Example 1--Proposed Rule 967.1NY(a)(2)(B): MM bid for Call rejected
if the price of bid is equal to or greater than the price of the
underlying security. A Market Maker submits a quote that contains a $53
bid for the December $50 calls. With the underlying security having a
last sale price of $50, the Exchange would deem any bid for $50 or more
(for the right to buy stock at $50) as erroneous and would therefore
reject the bid(s).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchange would also cancel any resting quote(s) in the
affected class(es) from that Market Maker and will not accept new
quote(s) in the affected class(es) until the Market Maker submits a
message (which may be automated) to the Exchange to enable the entry
of new quotes. See proposed Rule 967.1NY(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example 2--Proposed Rule 967.1NY(a)(3): MM bid for Put rejected if
the price of bid is equal to or greater than the strike price of the
option. A Market Maker submits a quote that contains a $70 bid for the
December $70 puts. The most the December $70 puts could ever be worth
is $70 even if the underlying security goes to zero. The Exchange would
deem any bid to pay $70 or more for the December $70 puts to be an
erroneous quote and would therefore reject the put bid.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed extension of the Exchange's
price protection functionality to Market Maker quotes would assist with
the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by averting the risk of
Market Maker quotes sweeping through multiple price points resulting in
executions at prices that are through the last sale price or NBBO and
potentially erroneous. The Exchange notes that it retains the ability
to disable these price protection features in response to market
events.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange may disable the Underlying Stock Price/Strike
Price Check by security without affecting the status of the NBBO
Price Reasonability Checks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed
rule change via Trader Update. The Trader Update will be issued at
least 30 days prior to implementation to help ensure participants, in
particular Market Makers, have sufficient notice prior to introducing
the new functionality.
2. Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\17\ which
requires the rules of an exchange to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that this proposal meets these requirements
because it would assist with the maintenance of a fair and orderly
market by introducing new price protections that would help to mitigate
the risks associated with the entry of quotes that are priced a
specified dollar amount or percentage through the last sale or
prevailing contra-side market, which the Exchange believes is evidence
of error. By rejecting such quotes, the Exchange believes it is
promoting just and equitable principles of trade by preventing
potential price dislocation that could result from erroneous Market
Maker quotes sweeping through multiple price points resulting in
executions at prices that are through the last sale price or NBBO.
Specifically, when an NBBO is available, the Exchange believes
rejecting Market Maker quotes priced a specified dollar amount or
percentage through the contra-side NBBO would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and protect investors
and the public interest because it would enable the Exchange to avoid
the submission of erroneous quotes that otherwise may cause price
dislocation before such quotes could cause harm to the market.
    The Exchange believes that proposed percentages are reasonable as
they are based on the percentages already approved for the Limit Order
Filter. In addition, the Exchange believes that the addition of
specified dollar thresholds when the NBO is equal to or below $1.00 is
consistent with the Act because it would assist with the maintenance of
a fair and orderly market by offering Market Maker quotes more precise
price protection. Moreover, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to
place no limit on Market Maker offers that arrive when the NBB is
priced at or below $1.00 because when the NBB is priced at or below
$1.00, the price of an offer would be bound by $0.00, and therefore an
offer would always be less than $1.00 away from the NBB--and therefore,
not likely to be erroneous and not requiring price protection.
    Similarly, the Exchange also believes that when no NBBO is
available, the Exchange's proposed use of benchmarks to check the
reasonability of Market Maker bids for call and put options would
assist with the maintenance of a fair and orderly market by affording a
second layer of price protection to Market Maker quotes. The Exchange
believes these additional price reasonability checks on Market Maker
bids would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market and protect investors and the public interest because
the proposed check would reject Market Maker bids that are priced
higher than the corresponding benchmark, which would be the price of
the underlying security for call options and the strike price for put
options.
    The Exchange also believes the additional risk controls that result
in the cancellation of a Market Maker's resting

quote and/or the temporary suspension a Market Maker's quoting activity
in the affected option class(es) would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and protect investors
and the public interest because it provides the Market Maker with an
opportunity to re-evaluate their positions before requesting to re-
enter the market. The Exchange believes that this additional safeguard
would benefit investors and the public because it would provide market
participants with additional protection from anomalous executions.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the
proposal would not unduly burden any particular group of market
participants trading on the Exchange vis-[agrave]-vis another group
(i.e., Market Markers versus non-Market Makers) as the proposal is
designed to address the unique role of Market Makers to enter two-sided
quotations in their appointments and would apply equally to all Market
Makers. Moreover, the Exchange believes the proposal would provide
market participants with additional protection from anomalous
executions. Thus, the Exchange does not believe the proposal creates
any significant impact on competition. The Exchange believes this
proposal is pro-competitive as it may encourage Market Makers to quote
tighter deeper markets, which will increase liquidity and enhance
competition, given the safeties afforded by the proposed price
protection filters.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2014-116 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2014-116. 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 Web site (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 Web site 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; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2014-116 and should
be submitted on or before February 4, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00377 Filed 1-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 141 (Friday, July 23, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 43114]
[FR Doc No: 2010-17976]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0210; FRL-9177-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Texas; Revisions to Emissions Inventory Reporting Requirements and
Conformity of General Federal Actions, Including Revisions Allowing
Electronic Reporting Consistent With the Cross Media Electronic
Reporting Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the Governor of Texas and by the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) respectively on December 17, 1999 and
February 26, 2007. The revisions pertain to regulations on reporting
air pollution emissions (emission inventories), and conformity of
general Federal actions to SIPs. EPA is proposing to approve the
revision pursuant to section 110 of the CAA.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before August 23,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be
submitted electronically or through hand deliver/courier by following
the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final
rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emad Shahin, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number
214-665-7263; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct rule
without prior proposal because the Agency views this as non-
controversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed
rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no
adverse comments are received in response to this action no further
activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct
final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA
will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so at this time.
    For additional information see the direct final rule, located in
the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: July 12, 2010.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2010-17976 Filed 7-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 97 (Friday, May 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 29633]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12071]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-1769-000]

Viridian Energy NG, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Viridian Energy NG, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is June 4, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced 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>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 14, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-12071 Filed 5-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 110 (Thursday, June 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37535-37536]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12259]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004; FRL-11007-01-OCSPP]

Access to Confidential Business Information by Agile Decision
Sciences, LLC and Subcontractor Abaco-Blackfish JV, LLC

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has authorized its contractor Agile Decisions Sciences LLC
of Huntsville, AL and subcontractor Abaco-Blackfish JV, LLC of
Leesburg, VA to access information which has been submitted to EPA
under all Sections of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Some of
the information may be claimed or determined to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI).

DATES: Access to the confidential data will occur no sooner than June
15, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Colby Lintner or Adam Schwoerer,
Program Management and Operations Division (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number and
email address:<PHONE_NUMBER>; [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>;
[email protected].
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute
industrial chemicals. Because other entities may also be interested,
the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that
may be affected by this action.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004, is available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center
(EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services and docket
access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    Under contract number 68HERD23D0002 Task Order number
68HERD23F0105, contractor Agile Decision Sciences, LLC located at 350
Voyager Way, Suite 100B, Huntsville, AL 35806-3200 and subcontractor
Abaco-Blackfish JV, LLC located at 107 Harrison Street, NE Leesburg, VA
20176-2309 will support the operations of the TSCA Confidential
Business Information Center (CBIC), providing records services to EPA
personnel and contractors, as well as those companies who submit
information in compliance with TSCA. The efficient and ongoing
operation of services in the CBIC are vital to Agency personnel to make
informed decisions on environmental issues and other information that
maybe claimed as TSCA CBI in accordance with the TSCA Security Manual.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under
EPA contract number 68HERD23D0002 Task Order number 68HERD23F0105,
Agile Decision Sciences, LLC and Abaco-Blackfish JV, LLC will require
access to CBI submitted under all Sections of TSCA to perform
successfully the duties specified under the contract. Agile Decision
Sciences, LLC and Abaco-Blackfish JV, LLC personnel will be given
access to information claimed or determined to be CBI information
submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA.
    EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information
under all sections of TSCA that EPA will provide Agile Decision
Sciences, LLC and Abaco-Blackfish JV, LLC access to these CBI materials
on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under this
contract will take place at EPA Headquarters and in accordance with
EPA's TSCA CBI Protection Manual and the Rules of Behavior for Virtual
Desktop Access to OPPT Materials, including TSCA CBI.
    Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until April 02,
2028. If the contract is extended, this access will also continue for
the duration of the extended contract without further notice. Agile
Decision Sciences, LLC and Abaco-Blackfish JV, LLC personnel will be
required to sign nondisclosure agreements and will be briefed on
specific security procedures for TSCA CBI.
    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: June 5, 2023.
Pamela Myrick,
Director, Project Management and Operations Division, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2023-12259 Filed 6-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60455-60458]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27340]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82320; File No. SR-ISE-2017-103]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Calculation of the Member Order Routing Program

December 14, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 29, 2017, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') 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 Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to amend the
calculation of the Member Order Routing Program.
    While these amendments are effective upon filing, the Exchange has
designated the proposed amendments to be operative on December 1, 2017.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://ise.cchwallstreet.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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange operates the Member Order Routing Program
(``MORP''),\3\ which is a program that provides enhanced rebates to
order routing firms that select the Exchange as the default routing
destination for unsolicited Crossing Orders.\4\ This proposal seeks to
exclude options overlying NDX \5\ from the calculation of MORP for
purposes of rebates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74706 (April 10,
2016), 80 FR 20522 (April 16, 2016) (SR-ISE-2015-11). A Member may
designate one or more sessions to be eligible for MORP. A session is
connection to the exchange over which a member submits orders. See
Section V.C. of the Schedule of Fees. If a session is designated as
eligible for MORP all requirements for the program must be met for
that session.
    \4\ A ``Crossing Order'' is an order executed in the Exchange's
Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order Mechanism, Price Improvement
Mechanism (``PIM'') or submitted as a Qualified Contingent Cross
(``QCC'') order. For purposes of the fee schedule, orders executed
in the Block Order Mechanism are also considered Crossing Orders.
    \5\ NDX represents options on the Nasdaq 100 Index traded under
the symbol NDX (``NDX'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Eligible MORP Electronic Access Members (EAMS) that execute a
monthly average daily volume (ADV) in unsolicited Crossing Orders of
30,000 originating contract sides or more on their MORP designated
sessions are eligible for increased Facilitation and Solicitation
break-up rebates in addition to enhanced rebates for Unsolicited
Crossing Orders. Break-up rebates, which are shown in the table below,
apply instead of rebates described in Sections I, II, and III of the
Schedule of Fees, and will be provided for contracts that are submitted
to the Facilitation and Solicited Order Mechanisms that do not trade
with their contra order except when those contracts trade against pre-
existing orders and quotes on the Exchange's order books. The
applicable fee for Crossing Orders is applied to any contracts for
which a rebate is provided.
    Facilitation and Solicitation Break-Up Rebates are as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Regular orders      Complex     Regular orders      Complex                         Complex
                   Market participant                        in select       orders in     in non-select  orders in  non- Regular orders   orders in FX
                                                              symbols     select symbols      symbols     select symbols   in FX options      options
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market Maker............................................             N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A
Non-Nasdaq ISE Market Maker (FarMM).....................         ($0.35)         ($0.35)         ($0.15)         ($0.80)         ($0.15)         ($0.15)
Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer..........................          (0.35)          (0.35)          (0.15)          (0.80)          (0.15)          (0.15)
Professional Customer...................................          (0.35)          (0.35)          (0.15)          (0.80)          (0.15)          (0.15)
Priority Customer.......................................          (0.35)          (0.35)          (0.15)          (0.80)          (0.15)          (0.15)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, an EAM that is MORP eligible receives a rebate for all
unsolicited Crossing Orders of $0.05 per originating contract side,
provided that the member executes a minimum ADV in unsolicited Crossing
Orders of 30,000 to 99,999 originating contract sides though their MORP
designated sessions. If the member executed greater than 100,000
originating contract sides, the rebate for all unsolicited Crossing
Orders is $0.07 per originating contract side.\6\ No rebate is paid for
volume below 30,000 originating contract sides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The rebate for the highest tier achieved is applied
retroactively to all eligible contracts traded in a given month. For
purposes of determining whether the member meets the above ADV
thresholds, any day that the Exchange is not open for the entire
trading day or the Exchange instructs members in writing to route
their orders to other markets may be excluded from such calculation;
provided that the Exchange will only remove the day for members that
would have a lower ADV with the day included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the Facilitation and Solicitation Break-Up Rebate,
any EAM that qualifies for the MORP rebate by executing an ADV of
30,000 originating contract sides or more on their MORP designated
sessions is also eligible for increased Facilitation and Solicitation
break-up rebates \7\ for their Non-ISE Market Maker,\8\ Firm
Proprietary,\9\ Broker-Dealer,\10\ Professional Customer,\11\ and
Priority Customer orders.\12\ Currently, MORP eligible members that
execute a qualifying ADV in unsolicited Crossing Orders of at least
30,000 originating contract sides, receive a Facilitation and
Solicitation break-up rebate that is $0.35 per contract for regular and
complex orders

in Select Symbols,\13\ $0.15 per contract for regular orders in Non-
Select Symbols,\14\ $0.80 per contract for complex orders in Non-Select
Symbols, and $0.15 per contract for regular and complex orders in
foreign exchange option classes (``FX Options'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Break-up rebates are provided for contracts that are
submitted to the Facilitation and Solicited Order Mechanisms that do
not trade with their contra order except when those contracts trade
against pre-existing orders and quotes on the Exchange's orderbooks.
The applicable fee for Crossing Orders is applied to any contracts
for which a rebate is provided.
    \8\ A ``Non-ISE Market Maker'' is a market maker as defined in
Section 3(a)(38) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
registered in the same options class on another options exchange.
    \9\ A ``Firm Proprietary'' order is an order submitted by a
member for its own proprietary account.
    \10\ A ``Broker-Dealer'' order is an order submitted by a member
for a broker-dealer account that is not its own proprietary account.
    \11\ A ``Professional Customer'' is a person or entity that is
not a broker/dealer and is not a Priority Customer.
    \12\ A ``Priority Customer'' is a person or entity that is not a
broker/dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders
in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its
own beneficial account(s), as defined in ISE Rule 100(a)(37A).
    \13\ ``Select Symbols'' are options overlying all symbols listed
on the ISE that are in the Penny Pilot Program.
    \14\ ``Non-Select Symbols'' are options overlying all symbols
excluding Select Symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
    This proposal would exclude options overlying NDX from the monthly
ADV when calculating the originating contract side for unsolicited
Crossing Orders executed by an eligible EAM on their MORP designated
sessions. NDX would not be subject to unsolicited Crossing Orders
rebates and Facilitation and Solicitation break-up rebates. NDX will
continue to be subject to Section I Index Options pricing for simple
orders and Non-Select pricing for complex orders.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\15\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\16\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to exclude options overlying NDX from the
monthly ADV when calculating unsolicited Crossing Orders rebates and
also from Facilitation and Solicitation break-up rebates is reasonable
because the MORP will continue to be attractive to members that
participate in the program.\17\ Under MORP, which is a voluntary rebate
program, the Exchange currently provides enhanced rebates to EAMs that
connect directly to the Exchange and provide their clients with order
routing functionality that includes all U.S. options exchanges,
including ISE. Even with the exclusion of NDX from the MORP monthly ADV
and rebates, the Exchange still believes that Members will continue to
be incentivized to participate in the program. The Exchange today
prices Index Options separately from other multiply-listed options.\18\
This practice of pricing certain products separately is not novel.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See note 3 above.
    \18\ See Section I of the ISE Schedule of Fees.
    \19\ See Nasdaq Phlx's Pricing Schedule at Section I which
offers separate pricing for options overlying SPY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to exclude options overlying NDX from the
monthly ADV when calculating unsolicited Crossing Orders rebates and
also from Facilitation and Solicitation break-up rebates is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because no Member would be eligible to
include NDX in monthly ADV and receive MORP rebates. The Exchange would
uniformly calculate tiers and pay rebates associated with MORP.
    Any EAM that participates in the program will be provided the
rebates on an equal and non-discriminatory basis based on the order
flow executed on the Exchange.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\20\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Order routing
firms that participate in MORP and select the Exchange as the default
routing destination for unsolicited Crossing Orders will continue to
receive enhanced rebates. The exclusion from NDX from the monthly ADV
when calculating unsolicited Crossing Orders rebates and also from
Facilitation and Solicitation break-up rebates will apply uniformly to
all ISE Members. Other exchanges price certain symbols differently.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \21\ See note 19 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily direct their order flow to competing
venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review,
and consider adjusting, its fees and rebates to remain competitive with
other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed fee changes reflect this competitive environment.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\22\ 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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public
interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-ISE-2017-103 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-ISE-2017-103. 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-ISE-2017-103 and should be
submitted on or before January 10, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-27340 Filed 12-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 31, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 104)]
[Notices]
[Page 30911-30912]
[DOCID:fr31my06-82]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EC06-120-000, et al.]

Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, L.L.C., et al.; Electric Rate
and Corporate Filings

May 23, 2006.
    The following filings have been made with the Commission. The
filings are listed in ascending order within each docket
classification.

1. Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, L.L.C.; Duke Energy Marketing
America, LLC; The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company d/b/a Duke Energy
Ohio, Inc.

[Docket No. EC06-120-000]

    Take notice that on May 18, 2006, Duke Energy Trading and
Marketing, L.L.C., (DETM), Duke Energy Marketing America, LLC (DEMA)
and the Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company d/b/a/ Duke Energy Ohio (Duke
Energy Ohio), filed a request pursuant to

section 203 of the Federal Power Act and part 33 of the Commission's
regulations, for authorization of a transaction in which DETM and DEMA
will transfer to Duke Energy Ohio contracts under which DETM and DEMA
sell electric power at wholesale to the unaffiliated third parties.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 8, 2006.

2. Ocean Peaking Power, L.L.C. v. Jersey Central Power & Light Company

[Docket No. EL05-142-002]

    Take notice that on May 3, 2006, Jersey Central Power & Light
Company (Jersey Central) and Ocean Peaking Power, L.P. (OPP) concluded
a Settlement Agreement. Jersey Central states that it will provide a
refund to OPP with interest compounded to the date of the Commission's
approval of the settlement.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 5, 2006.

3. Ocean Peaking Power, L.L.C. v. Jersey Central Power & Light Company

[Docket No. EL05-142-003]

    Take notice that on May 3, 2006, Jersey Central Power & Light
Company (Jersey Central) and Ocean Peaking Power, L.L.C. submitted a
revised Generation Facility Transmission Interconnection Agreement
designated Second Revised Service Agreement No. 604 under the PJM Open
Access Transmission Tariff. Jersey Central states that the revised
Agreement implements the Settlement Agreement approved by the
Commission in the April 3, 2006 letter order in Docket No. EL05-142-
000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 5, 2006.

Standard Paragraph

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 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. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-8334 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14257-14258]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05327]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1410-005; ER10-1823-003; ER16-1750-008; ER20-
2768-003; ER20-2123-003; ER17-2381-005; ER17-2292-006; ER16-2601-006;
ER19-1656-005.
    Applicants: Wilkinson Solar LLC, Summit Farms Solar, LLC,
Southampton Solar, LLC, Scott-II Solar LLC, Hardin Solar Energy LLC,
Greensville County Solar Project, LLC, Eastern Shore Solar LLC,
Dominion Energy Marketing, Inc., Virginia Electric and Power Company.
    Description: Dominion Energy Services, Inc. submits Supplemental
Information to the March 1, 2022 Compliance Filing.
    Filed Date: 3/4/22.
    Accession Number: 20220304-5295.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/25/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1484-025; ER12-2381-011; ER13-1069-014.
    Applicants: MP2 Energy LLC, MP2 Energy NE LLC, Shell Energy North
America (US), L.P.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Shell Energy North
America (US), L.P, et al.
    Filed Date: 3/3/22.
    Accession Number: 20220303-5263.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2136-018; ER11-4044-028; ER11-4046-027; ER16-
1720-020; ER21-2137-004.
    Applicants: IR Energy Management LLC, Invenergy Energy Management
LLC, Gratiot County Wind II LLC, Gratiot County Wind LLC, Invenergy
Cannon Falls LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Invenergy Cannon Falls
LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 3/3/22.
    Accession Number: 20220303-5260.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1418-015; ER15-1883-015; ER21-2294-003; ER22-
415-003; ER21-2304-003; ER16-632-014; ER20-819-008; ER20-820-007; ER13-
1991-021; ER13-1992-021; ER10-1852-063; ER10-1890-021; ER11-2160-021;
ER13-2112-016; ER16-90-014; ER17-2340-011; ER15-2477-014; ER10-1962-
021; ER15-1375-015; ER20-2695-006; ER16-2443-011; ER17-838-040; ER10-
1951-043; ER11-4462-065; ER11-4677-021; ER12-2444-020; ER12-676-017;
ER15-1016-014; ER15-2243-012; ER11-4678-021; ER17-582-013; ER17-583-
013; ER12-631-022; ER21-1813-005; ER21-1814-005.
    Applicants: Yellow Pine Energy Center II, LLC, Yellow Pine Energy
Center I, LLC, Windpower Partners 1993, LLC, Whitney Point Solar, LLC,
Westside Solar, LLC, Vasco Winds, LLC, Silver State Solar Power South,
LLC, Shafter Solar, LLC, Perrin Ranch Wind, LLC, North Sky River
Energy, LLC, NextEra Energy Montezuma II Wind, LLC, NEPM II, LLC,
NextEra Energy Services Massachusetts, LLC, NextEra Energy Marketing,
LLC, NextEra Blythe Solar Energy Center, LLC, Mohave County Wind Farm
LLC, McCoy Solar, LLC, High Winds, LLC, Golden Hills Wind, LLC, Golden
Hills North Wind, LLC, Golden Hills Interconnection, LLC, Genesis
Solar, LLC, FPL Energy Montezuma Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Green Power
Wind, LLC, Florida Power & Light Company, Desert Sunlight 300, LLC,
Desert Sunlight 250, LLC, Blythe Solar IV, LLC, Blythe Solar III, LLC,
Blythe Solar II, LLC, Arlington Solar, LLC, Arlington Energy Center
III, LLC, Arlington Energy Center II, LLC, Adelanto Solar, LLC,
Adelanto Solar II, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Adelanto Solar II, LLC
et al.
    Filed Date: 3/3/22.
    Accession Number: 20220303-5267.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1575-007; ER14-2871-018; ER16-182-013; ER20-
71-006; ER20-72-006; ER17-47-010; ER21-1369-003; ER21-1371-003; ER21-
1373-004; ER21-1376-004; ER18-2241-006; ER19-426-006; ER19-427-006;
ER19-1660-006; ER19-1662-006; ER20-75-006; ER10-2488-024; ER15-621-017;
ER20-77-006; ER15-622-017; ER21-2782-002; ER22-149-002; ER15-463-017;
ER16-72-013; ER20-76-008; ER17-48-011; ER19-1667-006; ER13-1586-019;
ER21-1368-002; ER16-902-010; ER18-47-009; ER18-47-010; ER20-79-006;
ER18-2240-006.
    Applicants: Yavi Energy, LLC, Voyager Wind IV Expansion, LLC,
Voyager Wind II, LLC, Voyager Wind I, LLC, Valley Center ESS, LLC, TGP
Energy Management, LLC, Terra-Gen VG Wind, LLC, Terra-Gen Mojave
Windfarms, LLC, ES 1A Group 2 Opco, LLC, ES 1A Group 3 Opco, LLC, San
Gorgonio Westwinds II--Windustries, LLC, San Gorgonio Westwinds II,
LLC, Sagebrush Line, LLC, Sagebrush ESS, LLC, Ridgetop Energy, LLC,
Painted Hills Wind Holdings, LLC, Pacific Crest Power, LLC, Oasis Power
Partners, LLC, Oasis Alta, LLC, Mojave 16/17/18 LLC, Mojave 3/4/5 LLC,
LUZ Solar Partners IX, Ltd., LUZ Solar Partners VIII, Ltd., Garnet
Wind, LLC, Tehachapi Plains Wind, LLC, Edwards Sanborn Storage II, LLC,
Edwards Sanborn Storage I, LLC, DifWind Farms LTD VI, Coachella Wind
Holdings, LLC, Coachella Hills Wind, LLC, Cameron Ridge II, LLC,
Cameron Ridge, LLC, Alta Oak Realty, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Alta Oak
Realty, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 3/3/22.
    Accession Number: 20220303-5261.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2373-008; ER10-2005-025; ER11-26-025; ER10-
1841-025; ER20-1987-007; ER20-1769-006; ER20-122-006; ER19-2461-008;
ER19-987-012; ER19-1003-012; ER22-381-003; ER19-2437-008; ER19-1393-
012; ER19-1394-012; ER10-1852-064; ER10-1918-025; ER10-1907-024; ER10-
1950-025; ER19-2398-010; ER18-2246-014; ER21-1953-004; ER20-2690-006;
ER18-1771-014; ER16-1872-015; ER11-4462-066; ER10-1970-024; ER17-838-
041; ER10-1972-024; ER10-1951-044; ER20-1220-006; ER20-1879-007; ER16-
2506-017; ER18-2224-015; ER13-2461-019; ER19-2382-008; ER17-2270-016;
ER12-1660-024; ER13-2458-019.
    Applicants: Tuscola Wind II, LLC, Tuscola Bay Wind, LLC, Stuttgart
Solar, LLC, Story County Wind, LLC, Pheasant Run Wind, LLC, Pegasus
Wind, LLC, Oliver Wind III, LLC, Oliver Wind I, LLC, Oliver Wind II,
LLC, NextEra Energy Services Massachusetts, LLC, NextEra Energy Point
Beach, LLC, NextEra Energy Marketing, LLC, NextEra Energy Duane Arnold,
LLC, NEPM II, LLC, Marshall Solar, LLC, Langdon Renewables, LLC, Jordan
Creek Wind Farm LLC, Heartland Divide Wind II, LLC, Heartland Divide
Wind Project, LLC, Hancock County Wind, LLC, Garden Wind, LLC, FPL
Energy North Dakota Wind, LLC, FPL Energy North Dakota Wind II, LLC,
Florida Power & Light Company, Endeavor Wind II, LLC, Endeavor Wind I,
LLC, Emmons-Logan Wind, LLC, Dunns Bridge Solar Center, LLC, Crystal
Lake Wind Energy II, LLC, Crystal Lake Wind Energy I, LLC, Crowned
Ridge Wind, LLC, Crowned Ridge Interconnection, LLC, Chicot Solar, LLC,
Cerro Gordo Wind, LLC, Butler Ridge Wind Energy Center, LLC, Ashtabula
Wind III, LLC, Ashtabula Wind II, LLC, Ashtabula Wind I, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Butler Ridge Wind Energy
Center, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 3/3/22.
    Accession Number: 20220303-5268.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1217-000.
    Applicants: Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Engineering and
Procurement Agreement to be effective 3/15/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/7/22.
    Accession Number: 20220307-5192.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/28/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1218-000.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SA 434--Black Mesa Non-
Conforming LGIA to be effective 2/23/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/7/22.
    Accession Number: 20220307-5196.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/28/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1219-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Order No. 676-J Compliance Filing of PacifiCorp.
    Filed Date: 3/2/22.
    Accession Number: 20220302-5303.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/23/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1220-000.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Order No. 676-J Compliance Filing of Avista
Corporation.
    Filed Date: 3/2/22.
    Accession Number: 20220302-5304.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/23/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1225-000.
    Applicants: Navajo Tribal Utility Authority.
    Description: Petition for Limited Waiver of Navajo Tribal Utility
Authority.
    Filed Date: 3/4/22.
    Accession Number: 20220304-5296.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/25/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1227-000.
    Applicants: Martins Creek, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Proposed Revisions to
Reactive Service Rate Schedule and Request for Waivers to be effective
4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220308-5092.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/29/22.

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

    Dated: March 8, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-05327 Filed 3-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P