[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 227 (Monday, November 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70511-70515]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28595]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68265; File No. SR-CBOE-2012-109]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Proposed Rule Change Related to CBSX To Address
Authority To Cancel Orders When a Technical or Systems Issue Occurs and
To Describe the Operation of Routing Service Error Accounts

November 19, 2012.
    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 November 16, 2012, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change
as described in Items I and II 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 is proposing to amend its rules to (i) address the
authority of CBOE Stock Exchange, LLC (``CBSX,'' CBOE's stock execution
facility) to cancel orders (or release routing-related orders) when a
technical or systems issue occurs; and (ii) describe the operation of a
CBSX error account(s) and routing broker error account(s), which may be
used to liquidate unmatched executions that may occur in the provision
of CBSX's routing service. The text of the rule proposal is available
on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at the
Exchange's Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

 1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to adopt new Rule 52.3A
to address the authority of CBSX to cancel orders (or release routing-
related orders) when a technical or systems issue occurs and to adopt
new Rule 52.10A to describe the operation of a CBSX Error Account(s)
(``CBSX Error Account(s)'') and routing broker error account(s), which
may be used to liquidate unmatched executions that may occur in the
provision of CBSX's routing service.
    By way of background, CBSX operates a system of trading that allows
automatic executions to occur electronically. As part of this
infrastructure, CBSX also automatically routes orders to other trading
centers under certain circumstances. These routing services are
provided in conjunction with one or more routing brokers that are not
affiliated with CBSX.\4\ Mechanically, when CBSX receives an order from
a Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'') that is held in CBSX system and
determines to route an order to another trading center, CBSX provides
the routing broker with a corresponding order and instructions to route
the order to another trading center(s). The routing broker then sends
the corresponding order to the other trading center.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., Rule 52.10, Order Routing to Other Trading
Centers.
    \5\ Generally, the routing brokers route the orders directly to
other trading centers. However, it is possible that a routing broker
may route orders to another trading center through a third-party
broker-dealer. In those cases, the third-party broker-dealer would
route the orders to the other trading center in its name, and any
executions would be submitted for clearance and settlement in the
name of the routing broker so that any resulting positions are
delivered to the routing broker upon settlement. As described above,
normally the routing broker would then coordinate with CBSX to
arrange for any resulting securities positions to be delivered to
the TPH that submitted the corresponding order to CBSX. If error
positions (as defined in proposed Rule 52.10A) result in connection
with the routing broker's use of a third-party broker-dealer for
outbound routing, and those positions are delivered to the routing
broker through the clearance and settlement process, those positions
would be permitted to be resolved in accordance with proposed Rule
52.10A. If the third-party broker-dealer received error positions
and the positions were not delivered to the routing broker through
the clearance and settlement process, then the third-party broker-
dealer would resolve those position itself, and the positions would
not be permitted to be resolved as set forth in proposed Rule
52.10A.

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

    In the normal course, the routing broker reports an execution or
cancellation of the routed order back to CBSX. Routed orders that are
executed at another trading center are submitted for clearance and
settlement in the name of the routing broker. The routing broker then
coordinates with CBSX to arrange for any resulting securities positions
to be delivered to the TPH that submitted the original order to CBSX
(i.e., upon receipt of a filled execution report for the routed order,
the CBSX system pairs the execution against the TPH's original order
being held in the CBSX system and reports the pairing for clearance and
settlement purposes by submitting a non-tape, clearing only
transaction).
    From time to time, CBSX encounters situations in which it becomes
necessary to cancel orders (or release routing-related orders) and
resolve error positions that result from errors of CBSX, routing
brokers, or another trading center.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The examples described in this filing are not intended to be
exclusive. Proposed Rule 52.3A would provide general authority for
CBSX to cancel orders (or release routing-related orders) in order
to maintain fair and orderly markets when technical or systems
issues are occurring, and proposed Rule 52.10A also would set forth
the manner in which error positions (which may occur in the
provision of CBSX's routing service) may be handled by CBSX. The
proposed rule change is not limited to addressing order cancellation
(release) or error positions resulting only from the specific
examples described in this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule 52.3A (Order Cancellation/Release)
    The Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule 52.3A to address the
authority of CBSX to cancel orders when a technical or systems issue
occurs. Specifically, paragraph (a) of the proposed rule would
expressly authorize CBSX to cancel orders as it deems to be necessary
to maintain fair and orderly markets if a technical or systems issue
occurs at CBSX,\7\ the routing broker, or another trading center to
which a CBSX order has been routed. Paragraph (a) would also provide
that a routing broker may only cancel orders being routed to another
trading center based on CBSX's standing or specific instructions or as
otherwise provided in the Exchange Rules.\8\ Paragraph (a) would also
provide that CBSX shall provide notice of the cancellation to affected
Trading Permit Holders as soon as practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ To confirm, the authority to cancel orders to maintain fair
and orderly markets under proposed Rule 52.3A would apply to any
technical or systems issue at CBSX and would include orders at CBSX
(i.e., the authority to cancel orders would apply to any orders that
are subject to CBSX's routing service and any orders that are not
subject to CBSX's routing service). By comparison, the routing
service error account provisions under proposed Rule 52.10A
(discussed below) would apply only to original and corresponding
orders that are subject to CBSX's routing service.
    \8\ As discussed above, CBSX uses non-affiliated routing brokers
to provide the routing services. These routing brokers are also not
facilities of CBSX. As provider of the routing services, CBSX
determines the logic that determines when, how and where orders are
routed away to other trading centers. See Rule 52.10.01(b). Under
paragraph (a) to proposed Rule 52.10A, the decision to take action
with respect to orders affected by a technical or systems issue
shall be made by CBSX. Depending on where those orders are located,
a routing broker would be permitted to initiate a cancellation of an
order(s) pursuant to CBSX's standing or specific instructions or as
otherwise provided in the Exchange Rules (e.g., CBSX's standing
instructions might provide, among other things, that the routing
broker could initiate the cancellation of orders if the routing
broker is experiencing technical or systems issues routing orders to
an away trading center).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (b) of the proposed rule provides that CBSX may also
determine to release orders being held on CBSX awaiting another trading
center execution as it deems to be necessary to maintain fair and
orderly markets if a technical or systems issues occurs at CBSX, a
routing broker, or another trading center to which an order has been
routed (the process for ``releasing'' orders is illustrated in more
detail below). Paragraph (c) of the proposed rule would provide that,
for purposes of Rule 52.10A, technical or system issues would include,
without limitation, instances where CBSX has not received confirmation
of an execution (or cancellation) on another trading center from a
routing broker within a response time interval designated by CBSX,
which interval may not be less than three (3) seconds.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Such a situation may not cause CBSX to declare self-help
against the other trading center pursuant to Rule 611 of Regulation
NMS. If CBSX determines to cancel or release orders, as applicable,
under proposed Rule 52.3A(a) but does not declare self-help against
that other trading center, CBSX would continue to be subject to the
trade-through requirements in Rule 611 with respect to that trading
center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The examples set forth below describe some of the circumstances in
which CBSX may decide to cancel (or release) orders.

    Example 1: If a routing broker or another trading center
experiences a technical or systems issue that results in CBSX or
routing broker not receiving responses to immediate-or-cancel
(``IOC'') orders sent to the other trading center, and that issue is
not resolved in a timely manner, then CBSX may seek to cancel the
routed orders affected by the issue.\10\ For instance, if a routing
broker experiences a connectivity issue affecting the manner in
which it sends and receives order messages to or from another
trading center, it may be unable to receive timely execution or
cancellation reports from the other trading center, and CBSX may
consequently seek to cancel the affected routed orders (e.g., by
calling the routing broker and instructing the routing broker to
attempt to cancel the orders) or perhaps the routing broker may
initiate the cancellation of the affected routed orders pursuant to
a standing or specific instruction from CBSX. In these
circumstances, CBSX would also attempt to release the initial orders
submitted by TPHs.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In a normal situation (i.e., one in which a technical or
systems issue does not exist), CBSX should receive an immediate
response back from the routing broker reporting any executions or
cancellations from the other trading center, and would then pass the
resulting fill or cancellation onto the TPH. If, after submitting an
order for which a corresponding order has been routed to another
trading center, a TPH sends an instruction to cancel the original
order, the cancellation is held by CBSX until a response is received
from the routing broker on the corresponding order. For instance, if
the other trading center executes the corresponding order, the
execution would be passed onto the TPH and the cancellation
instruction on the TPH's original order would be disregarded.
    \11\ Once an initial order is released, any cancellation that a
TPH submitted to CBSX on the initial order during such a situation
would be honored. If a TPH did not submit a cancellation to CBSX,
however, that initial order would remain ``live'' and thus be
eligible for execution or posting on CBSX, and CBSX would not treat
any execution of the initial order or any subsequent routed order
related to that initial order as an error (unless, of course, the
order was itself subject to another technical or systems issue or
any other trading center processing exceeded the applicable response
time interval).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example 2: If CBSX does not receive confirmation of an execution
(or cancellation) of an IOC order sent to another trading center
from a routing broker within a designated response time interval of
three (3) seconds, then an automated system feature will release the
initial order being held by CBSX.\12\ CBSX would also attempt to
cancel the routed order in these circumstances.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See existing paragraph (a) to Rule 52.7, Sweeping and
Trading Through Away Markets, which provides, in relevant part, that
``[i]n the event that CBSX does not receive any response at all to
an outbound Intermarket Sweep Order, and assuming that no system
errors have been detected, CBSX will issue a cancellation at the
expiration of the expiration delay timer on the Intermarket Sweep
Order. This action will release the corresponding order that had
been suspended on the CBSX Book pending the response to the
Intermarket Sweep Order, and the released order will re-aggress the
CBSX Book (including the generation of Intermarket Sweep Orders to
other away markets, if necessary).''
    In conjunction with this rule change, CBSX is proposing to amend
Rule 52.7 to provide that, ``[in] the event that CBSX does not
receive any response at all to an outbound Intermarket Sweep Order,
at the expiration of the response time interval, CBSX will release
the corresponding order that had been suspended on the CBSX Book
pending the response to the Intermarket Sweep Order in accordance
with Rule 52.3A, and the released order will re-aggress the CBSX
Book (including the generation of Intermarket Sweep Orders to other
away markets, if necessary).'' See proposed changes to Rule 52.7(a).
    As noted in Example 2 above, if the corresponding initial order
is released, CBSX would also attempt to cancel the routed order
(e.g., by calling the routing broker and instructing the routing
broker to attempt to cancel the orders).
    \13\ It is possible that attempts to cancel the routed orders
may not succeed. If CBSX receives an execution report on the order
that had been routed to another trading center, then the unmatched
execution would be considered an ``error position'' under proposed
Rule 52.10A.

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

    Example 3: If CBSX experiences a systems issue, CBSX may take
steps to cancel and/or release all outstanding orders affected by
the issue (which orders may include orders that may or may not be
subject to routing services). CBSX would also attempt to cancel any
routed orders related to the TPHs' initial orders, if applicable, in
these circumstances.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ It is possible that attempts to cancel the routed orders
may not succeed. If CBSX receives an execution report on the order
that had been routed to another trading center, then the unmatched
execution would be considered an ``error position'' under proposed
Rule 52.10A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule 52.10A (Routing Service Error Accounts)
    Proposed Rule 52.10A would provide that each routing broker shall
maintain, in the name of the routing broker, one or more accounts for
the purpose of liquidating unmatched trade positions that may occur in
connection with the another trading center routing service provided
under Rule 52.10 (``error positions'').\15\ In addition, CBSX may also
maintain, in the name of CBSX, one or more CBSX Error Accounts for the
purpose of liquidating error positions in the circumstances described
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ CBSX notes that, in connection with providing routing
services, routing brokers currently may utilize their own error
accounts to liquidate error positions. CBSX believes it is
reasonable and not inappropriate to address routing errors through
the error account of a routing broker because, among other reasons,
it is the executing broker associated with these transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (a) of the proposed rule would provide that errors to
which the rule would apply include any action or omission by CBSX, a
routing broker, or another trading center to which a CBSX order has
been routed, either of which result in an unmatched trade position due
to the execution of an order that is subject to the away market routing
service and for which there is no corresponding order to pair with the
execution (each a ``routing error''). Such routing errors would
include, without limitation, positions resulting from determinations by
CBSX to cancel or release an order pursuant to proposed Rule 52.3A (as
described above).
    Paragraph (b) of the proposed rule would provide that, generally,
each routing broker will utilize its own error account to liquidate
error positions. However, in certain circumstances, CBSX may utilize a
CBSX Error Account. In particular, in instances where the routing
broker is unable to utilize its own error account (e.g., due to a
technical, systems or other issue that prevents the routing broker from
doing so) or where the an [sic] error is due to a technical or systems
issue at CBSX, CBSX may (but would not be required to) determine it is
appropriate to utilize a CBSX Error Account. In making such a
determination to utilize a CBSX Error Account, CBSX would consider
whether is [sic] has sufficient time, information and capabilities
considering the market circumstances to determine that an error is due
to such circumstances and whether CBSX can address the error.
    CBSX believes it is reasonable and appropriate to address routing
errors through the error account of a routing broker in the manner
proposed because, among other reasons, it is the executing broker
associated with these transactions. CBSX also believes that having the
flexibility to determine to utilize a CBSX Error Account in the limited
circumstances described above allows for administrative convenience and
contributes to CBSX's ability to maintain a fair and orderly
market.\16\ From a TPH perspective, there would be no impact resulting
from the decision to use a CBSX Error Account or the routing broker's
error account to liquidate the error position in these circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange notes that any profit/loss from liquidating
the error positions would belong to CBSX (when a CBSX Error Account
is utilized) or the routing broker (when the routing broker's error
account is utilized). However, all or any portion of such profits/
losses may be subject to certain contractual obligations pursuant to
the routing service agreement between CBSX and the routing broker
(e.g., used to offset certain contractual obligations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By definition, an error position in a CBSX Error Account would only
include unmatched trades due to a routing error. In that regard,
paragraph (c) of the proposed rule would provide that CBSX shall not
accept any positions in a CBSX Error Account from an account of a
Trading Permit Holder or permit any Trading Permit Holder to transfer
any positions from the Trading Permit Holder's account to a CBSX Error
Account.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ CBSX may address error positions under the proposed rule
that are caused by the errors noted above, but CBSX may not accept
from a TPH positions that are delivered to the TPH through the
clearance and settlement process, even if those positions may have
been the result of an error. This would not apply, however, to
situations like the one described below in which CBSX incurred a
position to settle a TPH purchase, as the TPH did not yet have a
position in its account as a result of the purchase at the time of
CBSX's action, i.e., CBSX's action was necessary for the purchase to
settle into the TPH's account. Moreover, to the extent a TPH
receives positions in connection with an error or other technical or
systems issue, the TPH may seek to rely on other Exchange Rules such
as Rule 50.6, Liability and Legal Proceedings, if it experiences a
loss. For example, Rule 50.6, which cross-references Rule 6.7,
Exchange Liability, provides TPHs with the ability to file claims
for negligent acts or omissions of CBSX employees or for the failure
of its systems or facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent a routing broker utilizes its own account to
liquidate error positions, paragraph (d) of the proposed rule provides
that the routing broker shall liquidate the error positions as soon as
practicable. The routing broker could determine to liquidate the
position itself or have a third party broker-dealer liquidate the
position on the routing broker's behalf. Paragraph (d) also provides
that the routing broker establish and enforce policies and procedures
reasonably designed to (i) adequately restrict the flow confidential
and proprietary information associated with the liquidation of the
error position in accordance with Rule 52.10,\18\ and (ii) prevent the
use of information associated with other orders subject to the routing
services when making determinations regarding the liquidation of error
positions. In addition, paragraph (d) provides that the routing broker
shall make and keep records associated with the liquidation of such
routing broker error positions and shall maintain such records in
accordance with Rule 17a-4 under the Act.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Rule 52.10.01(c) provides that CBSX will establish and
maintain procedures and internal controls reasonably designed to
adequately restrict the flow of confidential and proprietary
information between CBSX and the routing broker (referred to in the
rule as the ``Technology Provider''), and, to the extent the routing
broker reasonably receives confidential and proprietary information,
that adequately restrict the use of such information by the routing
broker to legitimate business purposes necessary for the licensing
of routing technology.
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.17a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (e) of the proposed rule would provide that, to the
extent a CBSX Error Account is utilized to liquidate error positions,
CBSX shall liquidate the error positions as soon as practicable. In
liquidating error positions in a CBSX Error Account, CBSX shall provide
complete time and price discretion for the trading to liquidate error
positions in a CBSX Error Account to a third-party broker-dealer and
shall not attempt to exercise any influence or control over the timing
or methods of such trading.\20\ Such a third-party broker-dealer may
include a routing broker not affiliated with CBSX. Paragraph (e) would
also provide that CBSX shall establish and enforce policies and
procedures reasonably designed to adequately restrict the flow of
confidential and proprietary information between CBSX and the third-
party broker-dealer associated

with the liquidation of the error positions. Finally, paragraph (e)
would provide that CBSX shall make and keep records to document all
determinations to treat positions as error positions under the rule
(whether or not a CBSX Error Account is utilized to liquidate such
error positions), as well as records associated with the liquidation of
CBSX Error Account error positions through a third-party broker-dealer,
and shall maintain such records in accordance with Rule 17a-1 under the
Act.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ This provision is not intended to preclude CBSX from
providing the third-party broker with standing instructions with
respect to the manner in which it should handle all error account
transactions. For example, CBSX might instruct the broker to treat
all orders as ``not held'' and to attempt to minimize any market
impact on the price of the stock being traded.
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.17a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Examples of such error positions due to a routing error may
include, without limitation, the following:

    Example 4: Error positions may result from routed orders that
CBSX or a routing broker attempts to cancel but that are executed
before the other trading center receives the cancellation message or
that are executed because the other trading center is unable to
process the cancellation message. Using the situation described in
Example 1 above, assume CBSX seeks to release the initial orders
being held by CBSX because it is not receiving timely execution or
cancellation reports from another trading center. In such a
situation, although CBSX would attempt to direct the routing broker
to cancel the routed orders, the routing broker may still receive
executions from the other trading center after connectivity is
restored, which would not then be allocated to TPHs because of the
earlier decision to release the affected initial orders. Instead,
the routing broker would post the positions into its account and
resolve the positions in the manner described above. Alternatively,
if the routing broker is unable to resolve the positions (or if the
error position is due to a system or technical issue on CBSX), CBSX
may determine to post the positions into a CBSX Error Account and
resolve the positions in the manner described above.
    Example 5: Error positions may result from an order processing
issue at another trading center. For instance, if another trading
center experienced a systems problem that affects its order
processing, it may transmit back a message purporting to cancel a
routed order, but then subsequently submit an execution of that same
order for clearance and settlement. In such a situation, CBSX would
not then allocate the execution to the TPH because of the earlier
cancellation message from the other trading center. Instead, the
routing broker would post the positions into its account and resolve
the positions in the manner described above. Alternatively, if the
routing broker is unable to resolve the positions, CBSX may
determine to post the positions into a CBSX Error Account and
resolve the positions in the manner described above.
    Example 6: Error positions may result if a routing broker
receives an execution report from another trading center but does
not receive clearing instructions for the execution from the other
trading center. For instance, assume that a TPH sends CBSX an order
to buy 100 shares of ABC stock, which causes the routing broker to
send an order to another trading center that is subsequently
executed, cleared and closed out by that other trading center, and
the execution is ultimately communicated back to the TPH. On the
next trading day (T+1), if the other trading center does not
providing clearing instructions for that execution, CBSX/routing
broker would still be responsible for settling that TPH's purchase
and therefore would be left with open positions.\22\ Instead, the
routing broker would post the positions into its account and resolve
the positions in the manner described above. Alternatively, if the
routing broker is unable to resolve the positions, CBSX may
determine to post the positions into a CBSX Error Account and
resolve the positions in the manner described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ To the extent that a loss is incurred in covering the
position, the routing broker (on behalf of CBSX or itself) may
submit a reimbursement claim to that other trading center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example 7: Error positions may result from a technical or
systems issue that causes orders to be executed in the name of a
routing broker in connection with its routing services function that
are not related to any corresponding initial orders of TPHs. As a
result, CBSX would not be able to assign any positions resulting
from such an issue to TPHs. Instead, the routing broker would post
the positions into its account and resolve the positions in the
manner described above. Alternatively, if the routing broker is
unable to resolve the positions, CBSX may determine to post the
positions into a CBSX Error Account and resolve the positions in the
manner described above.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ To the extent such positions are not related to the routing
broker's function as a CBSX routing broker (i.e., originating with
CBSX), CBSX would not post such positions to a CBSX Error Account.
The routing broker would resolve the error positions itself.

    In each of the circumstances described above, CBSX and its routing
broker may not learn about an error position until T+1. For instance,
CBSX and its routing broker may not learn about an error position until
either (i) during the clearing process when a routing destination has
submitted to DTCC a transaction for clearance and settlement for which
CBSX/routing broker never received an execution confirmation, or (ii)
when another trading center does not recognize a transaction submitted
by a routing broker to DTCC for clearance and settlement. Moreover, the
affected TPHs' trade may not be nullified absent express authority
under Exchange Rules.\24\ As such, CBSX believes that use of a routing
broker error account (or a CBSX Error Account, as applicable), to
liquidate the error positions that may occur in these circumstances is
reasonable and appropriate in these circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See, e.g., Rule 52.4, Clearly Erroneous Policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
\25\ in general and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act \26\ in particular, which requires that the rules of an exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts, to remove impediments to and to
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
CBSX believes that this proposed rule change is in keeping with those
principles since CBSX's ability to cancel and release orders during a
technical or systems issue and to maintain a CBSX Error Account
facilitates the smooth and efficient operation of the market.
Specifically, CBSX believes that allowing CBSX to cancel and release
orders during a technical or systems issue (and permitting its routing
brokers to cancel orders pursuant to standing or specific instructions
or as otherwise permitted under Exchange Rules) would allow CBSX to
maintain fair and orderly markets. Moreover, CBSX believes that
allowing a routing broker to assume error positions in its own
account(s) to liquidate those positions (and allowing CBSX to assume
error positions in a CBSX Error Account to liquidate those positions in
instances where a routing broker is unable to do so or where the
routing error is due to a technical or systems issue at CBSX) subject
to the conditions set forth in proposed Rule 52.10A would be the least
disruptive means to address these errors. Overall, the proposed new
rule is designed to ensure full trade certainty to market participants
and to avoid disrupting the clearance and settlement process. The
proposed new rule is also designed to provide a consistent methodology
for handling error positions in a manner that does not discriminate
among TPHs. The proposed new rule is also consistent with Section 6 of
the Act insofar as it would require CBSX (and its routing brokers, as
applicable) to establish controls to restrict the flow of any
confidential information associated with the liquidation of error
positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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 (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date 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 the 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-CBOE-2012-109 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2012-109. 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, on business days
between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m., located at 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090. Copies of the filing will also 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-CBOE-2012-109 and should be
submitted on or before December 17, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-28595 Filed 11-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 25, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3736-3738]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00810]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0846; FRL-9304-01-R9]

Air Plan Approval; California; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District; South Coast Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District (SJVUAPCD) and South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan
(SIP). These revisions concern emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) from flares. We are
proposing to approve these local rules to regulate these emission
sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking
comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 24, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2021-0846 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donnique Sherman, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. The EPA's Recommendations to Further Improve the Rules
    D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates
that they were adopted or amended by the local air agencies and
submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to the EPA.

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Adopted/
         Local agency                    Rule No.                 Rule title          amended        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD.......................  1118.1......................  Control of               01/04/2019      04/24/2019
                                                              Emissions from Non-
                                                              Refinery Flares.
SJVUAPCD.....................  4311........................  Flares.............      12/17/2020      03/12/2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under CAA section 110(k)(1), the EPA must determine whether a SIP
submittal meets the minimum completeness criteria established in 40 CFR
part 51, appendix V for an official SIP submittal on which the EPA is
obligated to take action. If the EPA does not make an affirmative
determination of completeness or incompleteness within six months of
receipt of a SIP submittal, the submittal is deemed to be complete by
operation of law. The submitted rules listed in Table 1 were deemed
complete by operation of law on the following dates: October 24, 2019
(SCAQMD Rule

1118.1), and September 12, 2021 (SJVUAPCD Rule 4311).

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    There are no previous versions of SCAQMD Rule 1118.1 in the SIP.
SCAQMD locally adopted this rule on January 4, 2019, and CARB submitted
it to us on April 24, 2019.
    We approved an earlier version of SJVUAPCD Rule 4311 into the SIP
on November 3, 2011 (76 FR 68106). The SJVUAPCD adopted revisions to
the SIP-approved version on December 17, 2020, and CARB submitted them
to us on March 12, 2021. If we take final action to approve the
December 17, 2020 version of Rule 4311, this version will replace the
previously approved version of this rule in the SIP.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

    Emissions of NOX and VOCs contribute to the production
of ground-level ozone, which harms human health and the environment.
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that
control NOX emissions. The submitted rules set further
requirements to control NOX and other emissions from flares.
A description of these rules follows, and a more complete list of
revisions and rule discussion can be found in the technical support
documents (TSDs) and submitted district staff reports and rules for
this rulemaking:
     SCAQMD Rule 1118.1 was adopted to fulfill reasonably
available control technology (RACT) requirements for non-refinery
flares and to facilitate the transition of the NOX RECLAIM
(Regional Clean Air Incentives Market) program to a command-and-control
regulatory structure. Rule 1118.1 is designed to reduce NOX
and VOC emissions from non-refinery flares. The proposed rule
establishes capacity thresholds for existing flares and emission limits
for NOX, VOC, and carbon monoxide (CO) for new, replaced, or
relocated non-refinery flares.
     SJVUAPCD amended Rule 4311 to fulfill SJVUAPCD's control
measure commitments in their 2018 PM2.5 Plan and their 2016
Ozone Plan, for reducing flare emissions. SJVUAPCD amended Rule 4311 to
require owners and operators of flares to install Ultra Low
NOX (ULN) flaring technologies and to encourage alternative
uses of waste gas. Some of the revisions include establishing annual
throughput thresholds that flares must not exceed, and adding a
compliance schedule for meeting annual throughput limits.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?

    Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)),
must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA
section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements
in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193).
    Generally, SIP rules must require RACT for each major source of
NOX in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or
above (see CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f)). The SCAQMD and SJVUAPCD
regulate ozone nonattainment areas classified as Extreme for the 2008
8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and the
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 81.305). Therefore, these rules must
implement RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
    1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11,
1990).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    These rules meet CAA requirements and are consistent with relevant
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP revisions. The TSDs
have more information on our evaluation.

C. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

    The TSDs include recommendations for the next time the local
agencies modify their rules.

D. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
fully approve the submitted rules because they fulfill all relevant
requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
until February 24, 2022. If we take final action to approve the
submitted rules, our final action will incorporate these rules into the
federally enforceable SIP.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the SCAQMD rule and the SJVUAPCD rule described in Table 1 of
this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);

     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)

    Dated: January 11, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022-00810 Filed 1-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 239 (Thursday, December 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58802-58804]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26929]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF17-7-000]

Cimarron River Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Planned Request for Comments on
Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Cimarron Expansion Project
involving construction and operation of facilities by Cimarron River
Pipeline, LLC (Cimarron) in Beaver and Texas Counties, Oklahoma and
Seward County, Kansas. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-
making process to determine whether the Project is in the public
convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the Project. You can make a difference by providing us with
your specific comments or concerns about the Project. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they
need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and
properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission
receives them in Washington, DC on or before January 8, 2018.
    If you sent comments on this Project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on July 10, 2017, you will need to file those
comments in Docket No. PF17-7-000 to ensure they are considered as part
of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this Project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this planned
Project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the Project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses a
number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent
domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your

comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing
of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-
8258 or [email protected]. Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' If you are filing a comment on a particular project,
please select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the Project docket number
(PF17-7-000) with your submission:
    Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

Summary of the Planned Project

    Cimarron plans to construct, own, operate, and maintain the Project
facilities to provide up to an aggregate of 631 million standard cubic
feet of natural gas per day of additional firm natural gas
transportation capacity in order to support the growing demand for
liquids-rich natural gas transportation service in the region to ensure
that gas is properly treated and processed before it is distributed for
market use.
    Cimarron plans to expand its pipeline system by constructing about
49.3 miles of new natural gas pipeline in Beaver County, Oklahoma and
Seward County, Kansas and leasing approximately 19.1 miles of an
existing, currently idle 26-inch-diameter pipeline in Texas and Beaver
Counties, Oklahoma.
    A total of 23 miles of the Project would consist of 20-inch-
diameter pipeline extending north from a proposed tie-in facility
located near Cimarron's existing Beaver Compressor Station in Beaver
County. At a new tie-in with the leased pipeline in Beaver County, the
20-inch-diameter pipeline would change to 30-inch-diameter pipeline and
continue north about 24.3 miles through Seward County, Kansas before
reaching a new drip valve site. Two 30-inch-diameter pipelines would
then extend for approximately 1.5 miles and 0.6 mile, respectively, to
the National Helium Gas Processing Plant. The planned Project also
includes two new receipt point facilities, one at the beginning of the
leased pipeline in Texas County, Oklahoma and one along the 0.6-mile-
long 30-inch-diameter pipeline between the new drip valve site and the
National Helium Gas Processing Plant. The Project also includes the
construction of five new pig launcher and/or receiver facilities \1\ at
the beginning and end of the new pipelines and at the end of the leased
pipeline; three meter and regulator facilities; and four mainline
valves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A ``pig'' is a tool that the pipeline company inserts into
and pushes through the pipeline for cleaning the pipeline,
conducting internal inspections, or other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The general location of the Project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on connecting to
eLibrary, refer to page 6 of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the planned facilities would disturb about 649.7
acres of land for the pipelines and aboveground facilities. Following
construction, Cimarron would maintain about 339.2 acres for permanent
operation of the Project facilities; the remaining acreage would be
restored and revert to former uses. About 67 percent of the planned
pipeline route is within or parallel to existing pipeline, utility, or
road rights-of-way.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\3\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We, us, and our refer to the environmental staff of the
Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the planned Project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     land use;
     water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     cultural resources;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     air quality and noise;
     endangered and threatened species;
     public safety; and
     cumulative impacts.
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned Project
or portions of the Project, and make recommendations on how to lessen
or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Although no formal application has been filed, we have already
initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process.
The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement
of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before
the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we
have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their
involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on
the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish
and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We
will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations
to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and
address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the
Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues
related to this Project to formally cooperate with us in the
preparation of the EA.\4\ Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.

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

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s), and to
solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested
Indian tribes, and the public on the Project's potential effects on
historic properties.\5\ We will define the Project-specific Area of
Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO(s) as the Project
develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum
encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include
construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor
stations, and access roads). Our EA for this Project will document our
findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status
of consultations under Section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the Project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
planned Project.
    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    Once Cimarron files its application with the Commission, you may
want to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp. Instructions
for becoming an intervenor are in the ``Document-less Intervention
Guide'' under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's website. Please
note that the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor status
at this time. You must wait until the Commission receives a formal
application for the Project.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., PF17-
7). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Finally, public sessions or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: December 7, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-26929 Filed 12-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 29, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17417-17420]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07022]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-5035; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-042-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and Mark 0100 airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracking in a certain area of
the pressure bulkhead webplate and skin connection angle. This proposed
AD would require a one-time inspection of the affected pressure
bulkhead webplate and skin connection angle, and corrective actions if
necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking of
the pressure bulkhead webplate and skin connection angle that could
lead to sudden inflight decompression of the airplane resulting in
injury to occupants.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 13, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL
Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31
(0)88-6280-111; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
5035; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-5035;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-042-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2015-0024, dated February 19, 2015 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services
B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and Mark 0100 series airplanes. The MCAI
states:

    Service experience with the Fokker 100 type design has shown
that cracking can occur in the pressure bulkhead webplate and skin
connection angle on the right hand (RH) side at station 14911
(station 12447 for F28 Mark 0070) at stringer 67 of fuselage section
2, before reaching the existing threshold for inspection per ALS
[Airworthiness Limitations Section] task 533016-00-03 (F28 Mark
0100) or task 533016-01-03 (F28 Mark 0070). Any cracks in this area
are not visible from the outside (covered by fairing) until they
reach a critical length.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
sudden in-flight decompression of the aeroplane, possibly resulting
in injury to occupants.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Fokker Services
published Service Bulletin (SB) SBF100-53-128, which provides
inspection instructions to detect any crack in the affected area.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-
time inspection of the affected pressure bulkhead webplate and skin
connection angle, and, depending on findings, accomplishment of
applicable corrective action(s).
    This AD is considered to be an interim action and further AD
action may follow, possibly to lower the current ALS task threshold,
if justified by the inspection results.

    Corrective actions include repair of cracking in the skin
connection angle and pressure bulkhead webplate, as applicable.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
5035.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Fokker Services B.V. has issued Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-53-
128, dated November 12, 2014; and Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-53-
129, dated February 16, 2015. The service information describes
procedures for inspection of the affected pressure bulkhead webplate
and skin connection angle, and corrective actions if necessary. This
service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI and Service
Information

    Although the MCAI and service information allow further flight
after cracks are found during compliance with the proposed actions,
paragraph (g)(2) of this proposed AD requires that you repair the crack
before further flight.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD, and 1 work-
hour per product for reporting. The average labor rate is $85 per work-
hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $1,360, or $170 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 46 work-hours and require parts costing $2,000, for a cost
of $5,910 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these actions.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid

OMB control number. The control number for the collection of
information required by this proposed AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork
cost associated with this proposed AD has been detailed in the Costs of
Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing
instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of
information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this proposed AD
is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and
suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at
800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information
Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Fokker Services B.V.: Docket No. FAA-2016-5035; Directorate
Identifier 2015-NM-042-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 13, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and
F.28 Mark 0100 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the pressure
bulkhead webplate and skin connection angle on the right-hand (RH)
side at station 14911 (for Model F.28 Mark 0100 airplanes) or
station 12447 (for Model F.28 Mark 0070 airplanes) at stringer 67 of
fuselage section 2. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
cracking of the pressure bulkhead webplate and skin connection angle
that could lead to sudden inflight decompression of the airplane
resulting in injury to occupants.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Inspection

    At the time specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Do a detailed
inspection of the pressure bulkhead webplate and skin connection
angle on the RH side at station 14911 (for Model F28 Mark 0100
airplanes) or station 12447 (for Model F28 Mark 0070 airplanes) at
stringer 67 of fuselage section 2, as applicable, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-
53-128, dated November 12, 2014. This AD does not require action for
airplanes which, as of the effective date of this AD, have
accumulated less than 30,000 flight cycles.
    (1) If any crack is found in the skin connection angle, before
further flight, repair the skin connection angle, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-
53-129, dated February 16, 2015.
    (2) If any crack is found in the pressure bulkhead webplate,
before further flight, repair the pressure bulkhead webplate, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service
Bulletin SBF100-53-129, dated February 16, 2015.

(h) Compliance Times

    At the applicable time specified in (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD,
do the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes that have accumulated less than 40,000 total
flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD, do the actions in
paragraph (g) within 2,000 flight cycles after the effective date of
this AD.
    (2) For airplanes that have accumulated 40,000 or more total
flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD, do the actions in
paragraph (g) within 750 flight cycles after the effective date of
this AD.

(i) Reporting

    Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of
the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD to Fokker
Services B.V. Engineering, Quality Department P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL
Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31
(0)88-6280-111; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-53-128, dated
November 12, 2014, at the applicable time specified in paragraph
(i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD. The report must include the inspection
results; the airplane serial number; the total number of flight
cycles and flight hours on the airplane; a sketch or photo to show
the location of the crack(s) and damaged part(s), if applicable; and
the length of each crack, if applicable.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 425-
227-1149. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Fokker B.V. Service's
EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5
minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness
Directive 2015-0024, dated February 19, 2015, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2016-5035.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130
EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31
(0)88-6280-111; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 20, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-07022 Filed 3-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 124 (Thursday, July 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35080-35081]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14131]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EG21-181-000.
    Applicants: Ensign Wind Energy, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Ensign Wind Energy, LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/25/21.
    Accession Number: 20210625-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/21.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1609-003; ER19-1215-002.
    Applicants: Carroll County Energy LLC, Cricket Valley Energy
Center, LLC.
    Description: Response to May 27, 2021 Deficiency Letter of Carroll
County Energy LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/22/21.
    Accession Number: 20210622-5177.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/13/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-277-002.
    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: ER20-277-001 Settlement Compliance
Filing to be effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/25/21.
    Accession Number: 20210625-5022.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2207-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Oklahoma.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Coffeyville to be effective
6/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/25/21.
    Accession Number: 20210625-5009.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2208-000.
    Applicants: AEP Indiana Michigan Transmission Company, Inc., PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: AEP submits Revisions to PJM
Tariff, Att. H-20B Parts I and II to be effective 7/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/25/21.
    Accession Number: 20210625-5012.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2210-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1976R10 FreeState Electric
Cooperative, Inc. NITSA and NOA to be effective 9/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/25/21.
    Accession Number: 20210625-5020.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2211-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
American Transmission Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2021-06-25_SA 3670 ATC-
Springfield Solar Farm E&P (J1171) to be effective 6/23/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/25/21.

    Accession Number: 20210625-5044.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2212-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1977R16 Nemaha-Marshall
Electric Cooperative NITSA and NOA to be effective 9/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/25/21.
    Accession Number: 20210625-5054.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2213-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3620R3 Kansas City Board of
Public Utilities NITSA NOA to be effective 9/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/25/21.
    Accession Number: 20210625-5101.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2214-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2021-06-25_Att X Financial
Improvements and PGIA Filing to be effective 8/25/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/25/21.
    Accession Number: 20210625-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2215-000.
    Applicants: Peoples Natural Gas.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Peoples Natural Gas LLC MBR
Tariff Filing to be effective 6/28/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/25/21.
    Accession Number: 20210625-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2216-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2881R13 City of Chanute, KS
NITSA NOA to be effective 9/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/25/21.
    Accession Number: 20210625-5142.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/21.

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

    Dated: June 25, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-14131 Filed 6-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P