[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 166 (Friday, August 26, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53342-53343]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21869]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0798]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the
Cape Fear Memorial Bridge, at mile 26.8, over Cape Fear River, at
Wilmington, NC. The deviation restricts the operation of the draw span
to facilitate the cleaning and painting of the structure.

DATES: This deviation is effective at 6 a.m. on August 12, 2011 thru
August 26, 2011 with actual notice and from 12 a.m. on August 26, 2011
thru 11:59 p.m. December 1, 2011 with constructive notice.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket USCG-2011-0798 and are available online by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0798 in the ``Keywords'' box,
and then clicking ``Search''. This material is also available for
inspection or copying the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Mr. Bill H. Brazier, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth
Coast Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on reviewing the docket,
call Rene V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The North Carolina Department of
Transportation, who owns and operates this vertical lift bridge, has
requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations
set out in 33 CFR 117.823, to facilitate painting of the structure.
    The Cape Fear Memorial Bridge, at mile 26.8, at Wilmington NC has
vertical clearances in the full open and closed position to vessels of
135 feet and 65 feet, above mean high water, respectively.
    Under the regular operating schedule, the bridge opens on signal as
required by 33 CFR 117.5, except that under 33 CFR 117.823, the draw
need not open for the passage of vessels from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. on the
second Saturday of July and from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. on the second Sunday
of November every year. This regulation does not change the provisions
of 33 CFR 117.823 and therefore the draw need not open for the passage
of vessels from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. on the second Sunday of November,
specifically November 13, 2011.
    Under this temporary deviation, the drawbridge will operate as
follows: From 6 a.m. on August 12, 2011 until and including 11:59 on
December 1, 2011, vessel openings will be provided if at least three
hours advance notice is given to the bridge operator at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or via marine radio on channel 18 VHF. In addition, to accommodate
scaffolding, the available vertical clearances of portions of the
drawbridge (up to half of the drawbridge at one time) will be reduced
by approximately four feet, to 131 feet and 61 feet above mean high
water, respectively. There are no alternate routes for vessels
transiting this section of the Cape Fear River. The Bridge may be
opened in the event of an emergency.
    Typical vessel traffic on the Cape Fear River includes a variety of
vessels from freighters, tug and barge traffic, and recreational
vessels. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge
opening may continue to do so at anytime.
    The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with
commercial and recreational waterway users. The Coast Guard will inform
all users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notice to
Mariners of the closure periods for the bridge so that vessels can
arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by the temporary
deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the draw must return to its
original operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: August 12, 2011.
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr.,
Bridge Program Manager. By direction of the Commander, Fifth Coast
Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011-21869 Filed 8-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23629-23633]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08388]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94723; File No. SR-CBOE-2022-015]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To
Amend Rule 10.3 Regarding Margin Requirements

April 14, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 30, 2022, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. On April
13, 2022, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on
the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, 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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend Rule 10.3 regarding margin requirements. The text of the
proposed rule change is provided below.

(additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *
Rules of Cboe Exchange, Inc.
* * * * *

Rule 10.3. Margin Requirements

    (a)-(b) No change.
    (c) Customer Margin Account--Exception. The foregoing requirements
are subject to the following exceptions. Nothing in this paragraph (c)
shall prevent a broker-dealer from requiring margin from any account in
excess of the amounts specified in these provisions.
    (1)-(4) No change.
    (5) Initial and Maintenance Margin Requirements on Short Options,
Stock Index Warrants, Currency Index Warrants and Currency Warrants.
    (A)-(B) No change.
    (C) Related Securities Positions--Listed or OTC Options. Unless
otherwise specified, margin must be deposited and maintained in the
following amounts for each of the following types of positions.
    (i)-(ii) No change.
    (iii) Covered Calls/Covered Puts. [(a)] No margin is required for a
call (put) option contract or warrant carried in a short position where
there is carried in the same account a long (short) position in
equivalent units of the underlying security.
    [(b) No margin is required for a call (put) index option contract
or warrant carried in a short position where there is carried in the
same account a long (short) position in an (1) underlying stock basket,
(2) index mutual fund, (3) IPR, or (4) IPS, that is based on the same
index underlying the index option or warrant and having a market value
at least equal to the aggregate current index value.
    (c)] In order for th[e]is exception[s in subparagraphs (a) and (b)
above] to apply, in computing margin on positions in the underlying
security[, underlying stock basket, index mutual fund, IPR or IPS, as
applicable], ([1]a) in the case of a call, the current market value to
be used shall not be greater than the exercise price, and ([2]b) in the
case of a put, margin shall be the amount required by subparagraph
(b)(2) of this Rule, plus the amount, if any, by which the exercise
price exceeds the current market value.
    (iv) Exceptions. The following paragraphs set forth the minimum
amount of margin which must be maintained in margin accounts of
customers having positions in components underlying options, stock
index warrants, currency index warrants or currency warrant when such
components are held in conjunction with certain positions in the
overlying option or warrant. In respect of an option or warrant on a
market index, an underlying stock basket is an eligible underlying
component. The option or warrant must be listed or guaranteed by the
carrying broker dealer. In the case of a call option or warrant carried
in a short position, a related long position in the underlying
component shall be valued at no more than the call option/warrant
exercise price for margin equity purposes.
    (a) Long Option Offset. When a component underlying an option or
warrant is carried long (short) in [an] the same account [in which
there is also carried] as a long put (call) option or warrant
specifying equivalent units of the underlying component, the minimum
amount of margin which must be maintained on the underlying component
is 10% of the option/warrant exercise price plus the out-of-the-money
amount not to exceed the minimum maintenance required pursuant to
paragraph (b) of this Rule.
    (b) Conversion. When a call option or warrant carried in a short
position is covered by a long position in equivalent units of the
underlying component and there is [also] carried in the same account a
long put option or warrant specifying equivalent units of the same
underlying component and having the same exercise price and expiration
date as the short call option or warrant, the minimum amount of margin
which must be maintained for the underlying component shall be 10% of
the exercise price.
    (c) Reverse Conversion. When a put option or warrant carried in a
short position is covered by a short position in equivalent units of
the underlying component and there is [also] carried in the same
account a long call option or warrant specifying equivalent units of
the same underlying component and having the same exercise price and
expiration date as the short put option or warrant, the minimum amount
of margin which must be maintained for the underlying component shall
be 10% of the exercise price plus the amount by which the exercise
price of the put exceeds the current market value of the underlying, if
any.
    (d) Collar. When a call option or warrant carried in a short
position is covered by a long position in equivalent units of the
underlying component and there is [also] carried in the same account a
long put option or warrant specifying equivalent units of the same
underlying component and having a lower exercise price than, and same
expiration date as, the short call option/warrant, the minimum amount
of margin which must be maintained for the underlying component shall
be the lesser of 10% of the exercise price of the put plus the put out-
of- the-money amount or 25% of the call exercise price.
    (e) Protected Option. When an in-the-money index call (put) option
contract or warrant is carried in a short position and there is carried
in the same account a long (short) position in an underlying stock
basket, non-leveraged index mutual fund or non-leveraged exchange-
traded fund that is based on the same index underlying the index option
or warrant, the minimum amount of margin which must be maintained on a
short index call option is 100% of the amount, if any, by which the
aggregate current index value exceeds the market value of the basket or
fund; and in the case of a short index put option, 100% of the amount,
if any, by which the aggregate current index value is below the market
value of the

basket or fund. If the index call (put) option contract or warrant
carried short is at- or out-of-the-money and there is carried in the
same account a long (short) position in any underlying stock basket,
non-leveraged index mutual fund or non-leveraged ETF that is based on
the same index underlying the index option or warrant, no margin is
required.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), 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 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 proposed rule change amends Rule 10.3 regarding margin
requirements. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule
10.3(c)(5)(C)(iii)(b) to update the provisions that provide margin
relief for a cash-settled index option written against a holding in an
exchange-traded fund that tracks the same index as the index underlying
the index option. Rule 10.3 sets forth margin requirements, and certain
exceptions to those requirements, applicable to security positions of
Trading Permit Holders' (``TPHs'') customers. Rule 10.3(c)(5)(C)(iii)
currently requires no margin for covered calls and puts. Specifically,
that rule provides the following:
     No margin is required for a call (put) option contract or
warrant carried in a short position where there is carried in the same
account a long (short) position in equivalent units of the underlying
security.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In computing margin on such a position in the underlying
security, (a) in the case of a call, the current market value to be
used shall not be greater than the exercise price and (b) in the
case of a put, margin will be the amount required by Rule
10.3(b)(2), plus the amount, if any, by which the exercise price of
the put exceeds the current market value of the underlying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No margin is required for a call (put) index option
contract or warrant carried in a short position where there is carried
in the same account a long (short) position in an (1) underlying stock
basket,\4\ (2) index mutual fund, (3) index portfolio receipt
(``IPR''),\5\ or (4) index portfolio share (``IPS''),\6\ that is based
on the same index underlying the index option or warrant and having a
market value at least equal to the aggregate current index value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ An ``underlying stock basket'' means a group of securities
that includes each of the component securities of the applicable
index and which meets the following conditions: (a) The quantity of
each stock in the basket is proportional to its representation in
the index, (b) the total market value of the basket is equal to the
underlying index value of the index options or warrants to be
covered, (c) the securities in the basket cannot be used to cover
more than the number of index options or warrants represented by
that value and (d) the securities in the basket shall be unavailable
to support any other option or warrant transaction in the account.
See Rule 10.3(a)(7).
    \5\ IPRs are securities that (a) represent an interest in a unit
investment trust (``UIT'') which holds the securities that comprise
an index on which a series of IPRs is based; (b) are issued by the
UIT in a specified aggregate minimum number in return for a
``Portfolio Deposit'' consisting of specified numbers of shares of
stock plus a cash amount; (c) when aggregated in the same specified
minimum number, may be redeemed from the UIT, which will pay to the
redeeming holder the stock and cash then comprising the Portfolio
Deposit; and (d) pay holders a periodic cash payment corresponding
to the regular cash dividends or distributions declared and paid
with respect to the component securities of the stock index on which
the IPRs are based, less certain expenses and other charges as set
forth in the UIT prospectus. IPRs are ``UIT interests'' within the
meaning of the Rules. See Rule 1.1. A UIT Interest is any share,
unit, or other interest in or relating to a unit investment trust,
including any component resulting from the subdivision or separation
of such an interest.
    \6\ IPSs are securities that (a) are issued by an open-end
management investment company based on a portfolio of stocks or
fixed income securities designed to provide investment results that
correspond generally to the price and yield performance of a
specified foreign or domestic stock index or fixed income securities
index; (b) are issued by such an open-end management investment
company in a specified aggregate minimum number in return for a
deposit of specified number of shares of stock and/or a cash amount,
or a specified portfolio of fixed income securities and/or a cash
amount, with a value equal to the next determined net asset value;
and (c) when aggregated in the same specified minimum number, may be
redeemed at a holder's request by such open-end management
investment company, which will pay to the redeeming holder stock
and/or cash, or a specified portfolio of fixed income securities
and/or cash with a value equal to the next determined net asset
value. See Rule 1.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     In order for the exceptions in the previous bullets to
apply, in computing margin on positions in the underlying security,
underlying stock basket, index mutual fund, IPR or IPS, as
applicable,\7\ (1) in the case of a call, the current market value to
be used shall not be greater than the exercise price, and (2) in the
case of a put, margin shall be the amount required by subparagraph
(b)(2) of Rule 10.3, plus the amount, if any, by which the exercise
price exceeds the current market value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ IPRs and IPSs are commonly referred to as ETFs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 10.3(c)(5) generally requires TPHs to obtain from a customer,
and maintain, a margin deposit for short cash-settled index options in
an amount equal to 100% of the current market value of the option plus
15% (if overlying a broad-based index) or 20% (if overlying a narrow-
based index) of the amount equal to the index value multiplied by the
index multiplier minus the amount, if any, by which the option is out-
of-the-money.\8\ The minimum margin required for such an option is 100%
of the option current market value plus 10% of the index value
multiplied by the index multiplier for a call or 10% of the exercise
price multiplied by the index multiplier for a put.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The out-of-the-money amount for a call is any excess of the
aggregate exercise price of the option or warrant over the product
of the current (spot or cash) index value and the applicable
multiplier. The out-of-the-money amount for a put is any excess of
the product of the current (spot or cash) index value and the
applicable multiplier over the aggregate exercise price of the
option or warrant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to current Rule 10.3(c)(5)(C)(iii)(b) and (c), however, a
TPH needs to require no margin deposit for a short cash-settled index
call option if the TPH is holding in the same account a long position
in an ETF that tracks the same index underlying the index option \9\ if
the current market value of the ETF for margin purposes (1) is at least
equal to the aggregate current index value and (2) is not greater than
the exercise price. If an account is short a cash-settled index put
option and is holding in the same account a short position in the ETF,
a TPH needs to require a margin deposit for the amount required by Rule
10.3(b)(2) \10\ plus the

amount, if any, by which the exercise price of the option exceeds the
market value of the ETF if the market value of the ETF is at least
equal to the aggregate current index value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This is the same margin treatment that applies to an option
on an equity security written against the underlying security. See
current Rule 10.3(c)(5)(C)(iii)(a).
    \10\ Rule 10.3(b)(2) provides the minimum amount of margin that
must be maintained in customer margin accounts having positions in
securities is: (1) With respect to long positions, 25% of the
current market value of all long in the account; plus (2) with
respect to short positions, (a) $2.50 per share or 100% of the
current market value, whichever is greater, of each security short
in the account that has a current market value of less than $5.00
per share; plus (b) $5.00 per share or 30% of the current market
value, whichever is greater, of each security short in the account
that has a current market value of $5.00 per share or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend this exception to margin
requirements applicable to short option positions or warrants on
indexes that are offset by positions in an underlying stock basket,
non-leveraged index mutual fund, or non-leveraged exchange-traded fund
(collectively referred to as ``ETFs'') that is based on the same index
option, as well as move it within Rule 10.3 to Rule
10.3(c)(5)(C)(iv).\11\ Specifically, the proposed rule change adopts
the following as Rule 10.3(c)(5)(C)(iv)(e): \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Proposed paragraph (e) limits the margin relief to index
options written against an underlying stock basket, non-leveraged
index mutual fund or non-leveraged exchange-traded fund (compared to
underlying stock basket, index mutual fund, IPR, or IPS in current
subparagraph (iii)(b)). The Exchange proposes to add the non-
leveraged limitation to clarify that this exception is not intended
to and does not apply to leveraged instruments. Additionally, the
Exchange excludes IPRs and IPSs from being eligible for the margin
relief in paragraph (e), as the Exchange understands that the use
and availability of these products has diminished and has not
observed the writing of index options against them.
    \12\ The proposed rule change identifies the strategy described
in proposed subparagraph (e) as a ``protected option,'' which is a
strategy of writing an index option against a holding in an ETF
based on the same index as the index option, to differentiate it
from a ``covered call,'' which is a strategy of writing an option
against a position in an underlying security (the margin treatment
for which is described in current subparagraph (iii)(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When an in-the-money index call (put) option contract or warrant is
carried in a short position and there is carried in the same account a
long (short) position in an underlying stock basket, non-leveraged
index mutual fund or non-leveraged exchange-traded fund that is based
on the same index underlying the index option or warrant, the minimum
amount of margin which must be maintained on a short index call option
is 100% of the amount, if any, by which the aggregate current index
value exceeds the market value of the basket or fund; and in the case
of a short index put option, 100% of the amount, if any, by which the
aggregate current index value is below the market value of the basket
or fund. If the index call (put) option contract or warrant carried
short is at- or out-of-the-money and there is carried in the same
account a long (short) position in any underlying stock basket, non-
leveraged index mutual fund or non-leveraged ETF that is based on the
same index underlying the index option or warrant, no margin is
required.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange understands that FINRA intends to submit a
proposed rule change to adopt the same provision in its rules
following Commission approval of this proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change amends the form of margin a TPH is
required to hold in an account for a short in-the-money index call
(put) option if there is a long position in an ETF based on the same
index to be the amount by which the value of an ETF is below (above)
the aggregate index value. Rather than necessitating the purchase or
deposit of additional ETF shares to address a deficiency in the value
of the ETF compared to the aggregate index value (regardless of the
amount of the deficiency), as required by current rules, the proposed
rule change will enable excess maintenance margin equity in a margin
account to support the requirement. If excess maintenance margin is
insufficient or nonexistent, the TPH would need to require a deposit of
margin which can be in any form (e.g., cash and/or marginable
securities) from the account owner in an amount equal to any
deficit.\14\ Additionally, the proposed rule change will require no
margin when an option is at- or out-of-the-money, regardless of whether
the ETF market value is at least equal to the aggregate index value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Pursuant to the current Rules, if the ETF market value is
not at least equal to the aggregate index value, and additional
shares are not purchased or deposited, then the required margin is
equal to the amount of the option current market value plus 15% (if
a broad-based index) or 20% (if a narrow-based index) of the
aggregate index value minus any out-of-the-money amount, subject to
a minimum requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is more reasonable
and practical than the current requirements, as clearing firms will no
longer need to constantly monitor the value of an ETF and compare it to
the aggregate current index value and see to it that an account owner
deposits or purchases additional ETF shares to address any deficiencies
in order to satisfy the margin exception in the rule. As a result, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule may reduce the operational cost of
the protected option strategy, which may make this strategy more
beneficial to customers. While the structure of ETFs and market forces
may cause an ETF's price to differ slightly in value from the index
value, the Exchange has observed that these values are highly
correlated and do not deviate significantly. Therefore, the Exchange
believes the proposed margin requirement for protected in-the-money
index options is an effective safeguard against the risk of a short
option position.
    The proposed rule change also eliminates the need for margin for an
at-the-money or out-of-the-money protected index option, regardless of
the value of the ETF. Currently, if the market value of an ETF was less
(if a call) or more (if a put) than the current aggregate index value,
the ETF position must be supplemented to address the deficiency. Due to
the high correlation between the values of an ETF and an index, as
noted above, the amount of margin necessary to address such deficiency
would be minimal. In addition, given that options are unlikely to be
assigned/exercised when they are at- or out-of-the-money, the need for
such margin is also minimal. Therefore, the Exchange believes the cost
to TPHs to monitor the need for margin for options that are unlikely to
be assigned/exercised is not justified and unnecessary given the
minimal margin amounts that would ultimately be necessary to cover the
likely small deficiencies between the values of an ETF and index.
    Additionally, the proposed rule change eliminates the requirement
to mark the price of a long ETF with an index call option written
against it at the lower of the ETF's market value or the index option
strike price. With covered call options, this requirement is intended
to cap favorable moves in the price of the underlying security at the
strike price because moves above the strike price will not be realized.
Currently, the Exchange applies this same requirement to protected
options written against ETF holdings to maintain equivalency with the
treatment of covered options. However, unlike stocks, favorable moves
in the price of an underlying ETF may be realized because, if a short
index option is assigned, the ETF shares are not sold (in the case of a
long ETF/short call) or purchased (in the case of a short ETF/short
put). Thus, favorable moves in the ETF price are not capped at the
strike price. As a result, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to
no longer apply this requirement to protected options written against
ETF holdings.
    In connection with this change, the proposed rule change deletes
Rule 10.3(c)(5)(C)(iii)(b), as well as the cross-reference to such
paragraph and the references to underlying stock basket, index mutual
fund, IPR or IPS, as applicable,\15\ in current subparagraph (c), as
those terms relate specifically to current subparagraph (b). Because
this would leave only one section in Rule 10.3(c)(5)(C)(iii), the
proposed rule change deletes subparagraph lettering and combines
current subparagraph (iii)(a) and current subparagraph (iii)(c) into a
single provision as subparagraph

(iii) and makes corresponding conforming changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ These terms are related only to current subparagraph (b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change also makes clarifying, nonsubstantive
changes in each subparagraph of Rule 10.3(c)(5)(C)(iv) to conform
language in those subparagraphs to language used throughout Rule 10.3.
Specifically, the proposed rule change amends the provision of each
subparagraph to state that the minimum amount of required margin in the
circumstances described in each subparagraph applies when the
applicable long position is carried ``in the same account as'' the
applicable short position, rather than ``also carried.'' This language
is consistent with the language in, for example, current Rule
10.3(c)(5)(C)(iii), as margin requirements are determined generally
based on positions held in the same account.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\16\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \17\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, 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. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \18\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Exchange further believes the proposed rule
change furthers the objectives of Section 6(c)(3) of the Act,\19\ which
authorizes the Exchange to, among other things, prescribe standards of
financial responsibility or operational capability and standards of
training, experience and competence for its Trading Permit Holders and
person associated with Trading Permit Holders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change amends a specific margin
treatment related to short index options written against ETFs in the
same manner. Given the difference described above between short stock
options written against the underlying stock and short index options
written against ETFs, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to apply
different margin treatments to these different strategies. While the
economic outcomes of covered options and protected options are similar,
as described above, the Exchange believes it promotes just and
equitable principles of trade to apply margin slightly differently to
protected options than covered options given the possibility of
realizing gains in ETFs above the exercise prices that is not a
possibility for covered options. While the proposed rule change may
result in lower margin requirements for protected option strategies,
the Exchange believes the proposed margin amounts are more reasonable
than the current requirements, as they are more tailored to these
strategies and reflect the potential deficiencies between the value of
the ETF and the value of the index. As a result, the Exchange believes
the proposed margin required will still be sufficient for protected
option strategies. Given the high correlation between these values, the
Exchange believes it is appropriate to require margin in an amount
necessary to only cover this deficiency, as ultimately that is the risk
against which the margin requirement is protecting. Additionally, the
Exchange believes the burdens associated with the current margin
requirements for short at- and out-of-the-money index options outweigh
the benefits of the likely minimal margin that is required for options
that are unlikely to be assigned/exercised. Additionally, as discussed
above, the proposed rule change may reduce the operational burden of
protected option strategies, which the Exchange believes may make the
strategies more beneficial for customers and thus remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market, as well as reduce
the margin required for such strategies, which will potentially free up
capital that can be put back into the market, which ultimately benefits
investors.
    The proposed clarifying, nonsubstantive changes provide for more
consistent language in similar rule provisions, which will ultimately
benefit investors.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as it will apply the same
margin treatment to all TPHs. The Exchange does not believe that the
proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition,
as the Exchange expects FINRA to adopt a similar rule change, and
several other options exchanges incorporate by reference the Exchange's
margin rules into their rules (and thus apply them to their members).
Additionally, as discussed above, the proposed rule change may reduce
the operational burden of protected option strategies, as well as
reduce the margin required for such strategies, which may make the
strategies more beneficial for customers. The proposed rule change is
not intended as a competitive filing, but rather to modify margin
requirements for a certain option strategy to be more reasonable and
practical.

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
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 Exchange 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2022-015 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-CBOE-2022-015. 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-CBOE-2022-015 and should be submitted on
or before May 11, 2022.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-08388 Filed 4-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 210)]
[Notices]
[Page 64395-64396]
[DOCID:fr29oc08-108]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Special Approval of Alternate Standard

    In accordance with Part 238.21 of Title 49 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) received a request for approval of an Alternate
Standard of compliance with certain requirements of its safety
standards. The individual petition is described below, including the
party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of
the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of
relief.

Long Island Railroad and Metro-North Railroad (Special Approval
Petition Docket Number FRA-2004-17099)

    The Long Island Railroad (LIRR) and Metro-North Railroad (MNCW)
further identified herein as the railroads, seeks approval to amend a
previously granted alternate standard to be used in accordance with the
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards, 49 CFR part 238, section 309,
periodic maintenance of MU locomotive equipment brakes. Section
309(b)(2) requires periodic brake equipment maintenance to be performed
at an interval not to exceed every 1,104 days.

The railroads were granted an alternate standard July 4, 2004, for M7-
MU locomotives that required that periodic brake equipment maintenance
be performed at an interval not to exceed every 1,840 days.
    The railroads most recent request dated September 12, 2008, states
that the M7 MU locomotive tests are near their completion and the
railroad requests to extend the testing beyond the 1,840 days and
perform age exploration similar to the testing of electronic brake
systems on more traditional freight and passenger locomotives. The M7
air brake system is integrated with the propulsion system, and a full
pneumatic back up of the emergency brake application function is
available through the emergency brake valve and conductors valve. The
M7 utilizes various systems to monitor, diagnose, and report brake
equipment functions to a centralized diagnostic system on board the
equipment. At the original submission, the railroads provided required
technical documentation, a Preliminary Hazard Analysis, Failure Modes
and Effect Analysis, Maintainability Analysis, and has served a copy of
the petition on designated representatives of its employees. A list of
the names and addresses of the persons served is available at the DOT
docket site contained in this notice.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2004-17099) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78).

    Issued in Washington, DC on October 22, 2008.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
 [FR Doc. E8-25768 Filed 10-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 211 (Wednesday, October 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65935-65936]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26812]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2012-0076]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated June

18, 2012, the Locomotive and Tower Preservation Fund, Ltd. (L&TPF) has
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of
compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety
regulations contained in 49 CFR part 230--Steam Locomotive Inspection
and Maintenance Standards. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-
2012-0076.
    Steam Locomotive Number 2719 is a former Soo Line class H-23 4-6-2
``Pacific'' type locomotive built by the American Locomotive Company in
1923. L&TPF restored Steam Locomotive Number 2719 and completed the
current 1,472-service-day inspection (SDI) in accordance with 49 CFR
230.17-One thousand four hundred seventy-two (1472) service day
inspection in July 1998. As of September 2006, Steam Locomotive Number
2719 has been operated by the Lake Superior Railroad Museum and the
North Shore Scenic Railroad.
    To date, Steam Locomotive Number 2719 has accumulated 224 days of
service, with the possibility of an additional 25-29 service days for
the remainder of 2012, and another 25-29 service days for the 2013
operating season. Its second 1,472 SDI is due at the expiration of the
15 years permitted by 49 CFR 230.17.
    L&TPF requests relief from 49 CFR 230.17(a) with respect to the
timeframe for the inspection. The current 1,472 SDI period ends on July
30, 2013. The request is for permission to extend the current 1,472 SDI
for 60 calendar days to allow Steam Locomotive Number 2719 to finish
the late summer/early fall operating season at the end of September
2013. This would allow for an additional four weekends of service. The
annual inspection will be performed as required in July 2013. Granting
the waiver will allow Steam Locomotive Number 2719 to operate during
its normal seasonal operation, and will move the 15-year 1,472 SDI date
so that it occurs after the operating season. L&TPF states that
granting the relief will permit the locomotive to finish its operating
season, generate income to use for the SDI, and will not decrease the
safety for the locomotive, railroad employees, or the public.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is
open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by December 20, 2012 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78), or online at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 26, 2012.
Ron Hynes,
Director, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2012-26812 Filed 10-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


EC E T t / 2

SEET t / 2

SEEC Overlap of 95% CIs for E C and E T ( but E C not in 95% CI for E T and vice versa): [ t / 2 (  )

SE EC + t / 2 (  )

SE ET ]   ( E T   E C )

Significant difference between E C and E T at 5% level of Type I error:

( E T   E C )   t / 2 (   p )

[ ( SE ET ) 2 + ( SE EC ) 2] ½

( N 1)   v p   2

( N   1)

Does the first condition imply the second?:

[ t / 2 (  )

SE EC + t / 2 (  )

SE ET ]   t / 2 (   p )

[ ( SE EC ) 2 + ( SE ET ) 2] ½

F ( 1,  )

( SE EC + SE ET ) 2   F ( 1,   p )

[ ( SE EC ) 2 + ( SE ET ) 2]

F ( 1,  )/ F ( 1,   p )   [( SE EC ) 2 + ( SE ET ) 2]/( SE EC + SE ET ) 2 But: F ( 1,  )   F ( 1,   p ), so F ( 1,  )/ F ( 1,   p )   1;

and [( SE EC ) 2 + ( SE ET ) 2]/( SE EC + SE ET ) 2 =

[( SE EC ) 2 + ( SE ET ) 2]/{[( SE EC ) 2 + ( SE ET ) 2] + 2

SE EC

SE ET }   1 Consequently, overlap of the 95% CIs for E C and E T ( but E C not in the 95% CI for E T and vice versa) demonstrates that the difference between E C and E T is significant at the 5% level of Type I error. i 0 100 ..

:= RSX i i 100 :=

n 5 :=

p 0.05 :=

nu i n 1

( ) RSX i ( ) 2 1 +

      2 RSX i ( ) 4 1 +

:=

Crit i qF p 1 , n 1

,

( )

qF p 1 , round nu i ( )

,

( )

1 RSX i +

( )

:=

Crit 0 1 = 0 0.5 1 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 Crit i RSXi " RSX" is the ratio of the SEE2 of two estimates.

" n" is the sample size for each of the estimates.

" nu" is the degrees of freedom of the test for a significant difference between the two estimates.

" Crit" is a criterion whose value is < 1 when, given overlap of the 95% CIs of the two estimates sufficient that one ( or both) includes the estimate for the other,

the estimates are not significantly different from one another.

Thus, overlap of the 95% CIs for two estimates, such that the 95% CI for one estimate includes the other estimate, is necessary to demonstrate that the difference between the estimates is nonsignificant. i 0 100 ..

:=

EE i 0.5 i 100 +

:=

AEE i 2 1 EE i

:= 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 5 10 15 20 25 30 1 AEE i 1 EE i EE 25 0.75 =

1 EE 25 1.333 = 1 EE 25

1 AEE 25         0.889 =

1 AEE 25 1.5 =

Extraction efficiency, EE, is an overestimate; the actual efficiency is closer to AEE.

( 1/ EE)/( 1/ AEE) is the fraction by which " X EEC" estimates based on EE should be reduced. 2600X DDD 46X EEC 36X EEC 11.2X EEC 15.6X EEC 12.3X EEC 10.6X EEC 37X EEC 1400X DDD Margin of Exposure ( ME) 2100X DDDa Mouse 38X EECa Earthworm 30X EECa Honeybee 9.2X EECa Carabid beetle 13X EECa Rove beetle 10X EECa Ladybird beetle 8.8X EECa Flower bug 30X EECb Trout 1150X DDDa Quail Adjusted ME ( a0.89  ME,

b0.82  ME)

Test Species Variance in Trout Weight 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 10 20 30 Days Variance Trt Con Quail Toxicity Test: Change in Weight ( g)

Treatment Mean +

SEM 0 1 2 3  5 0 5 10 Female Male C T X XX/ XX/

X/ XX X/ X/

X XXX X XX Statistics Problem( s)

X WI Quail Tox NCSU Chicken Tox X/

AZ/ AZ Trout Tox/ Diet X MT Honey bee X/ X MT/ SB Lady Beetle Tox/ Diet X/ X MT/ SB Rove Beetle Tox/ Diet XX/

MT/ SB Ground Beetle Tox/ Diet MT/ SB Flower Bug Tox/ Diet X/

MT/ SB Earthworm Tox/ Diet X SB Soil Degradation SS MCRY3A vs LPMIR604 SS Conc. mCry3A in MIR604 SS Characterize MCRY3A Design Problem( s)

Lab Study SS: Syngenta Seeds SB: Syngenta Biotech.

MT: Mombo Tox BE: Brixham Environ.

WI: Wildlife International


[Federal Register: August 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 161)]
[Notices]
[Page 48544-48546]
[DOCID:fr21au06-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings  1

August 4, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC06-145-000; ER06-1307-000.
    Applicants: Rockingham Power, L.L.C.; Duke Power Company LLC;
Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc.
    Description: Rockingham Power, LLC et al submit an application for
authorization of disposition of jurisdictional assets pursuant to
Section 203 and a notice of termination of rate schedules.
    Filed Date: 7/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060803-0005.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 18, 2006.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:
    Docket Numbers: EG06-67-000.
    Applicants: Snowflake White Mountain Power, LLC.
    Description: Snowflake White Mountain Power, LLC submits its notice
of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 7/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060804-0089.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: EG06-68-000.
    Applicants: CalPeak Power LLC.
    Description: CalPeak Power LLC submits its Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 8/2/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060804-0096.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 23, 2006.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings
    Docket Numbers: ER96-2504-015; ER05-1367-004; ER05-1368-004; E05-
1369-006; ER00-826-007; ER00-828-007; ER98-421-018; ER98-4055-015;
ER01-1337-010; ER02-177-011; ER03-1212-009; ER96-110-021; ER99-2774-
014; ER03-956-010; ER03-185-008; ER03-17-008; ER01-545-010; ER00-1783-
010; ER02-795-008.
    Applicants: Cinergy Gas & Electric Company; PSI Energy, Inc.; Union
Light Heat & Power Company; Cinergy Marketing & Trading, LP;
Brownsville Power I, L.L.C.; Caledonia Power I, L.L.C.; CinCap IV, LLC;
CinCap V, LLC; Cinergy Capital & Trading, Inc.; Cinergy Power
Investments, Inc.; St. Paul Cogeneration, LLC; Cinergy Operating
Companies; Duke Power Company LLC; Duke Energy Trading and Marketing,
L.L.C.; Duke Energy Marketing America, LLC; Duke Energy Fayette, LLC;
Duke Energy Hanging Rock, LLC; Duke Energy Lee, LLC; Duke Energy
Vermillion, LLC; Duke Energy Washington, LLC.
    Description: Duke Energy Corporation on behalf of The MBR Companies
submit a notice of a non-material change in status in respect to their

authority to engage in wholesale sales of capacity, energy, and
ancillary services at market-based rates.
    Filed Date: 7/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060803-0001.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER99-1293-007.
    Applicants: Monmouth Energy, Inc.
    Description: Compliance Filing of FERC's Order Issued 6/30/2006 of
Monmouth Energy, Inc.
    Filed Date: 7/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060728-5102.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 11, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER00-2268-019; ER99-4124-016; ER00-3312-017; ER99-
4122-018.
    Applicants: Pinnacle West Capital Corporation; Arizona Public
Service Company; Pinnacle West Energy Company; APS Energy Services
Company, Inc.
    Description: Pinnacle West Capital Corp. et al., submits a
supplemental compliance filing in response to the Commission's 4/17/06
Order.
    Filed Date: 7/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060728-5110.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER01-48-007.
    Applicants: Powerex Corp.
    Description: Powerex Corp submits its 2006 triennial market power
analysis in support of its continued authority to sell power at market-
based rates.
    Filed Date: 7/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060802-0150.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1270-000.
    Applicants: Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation.
    Description: Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation submits
revised FERC Rate Schedule 202, Sixth Revised Sheet Nos. 9-12.
    Filed Date: 7/21/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060725-0059.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 11, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1306-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Co submits two Large Facility
Agreements and fifteen Small Facility Agreements with the City and
County of San Francisco designated as Revised Rate Schedule FERC 114.
    Filed Date: 7/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060802-0009.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1319-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company (Wisconsin).
    Description: Northern States Power Co submits changes in rates,
rate design and terms and conditions applicable to service to ten
wholesale electric customers, the Village of Bangor, WI et al,
effective 10/1/06.
    Filed Date: 7/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060802-0049.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1320-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
    Description: Wisconsin Electric Power Co submits its 2006 Test Year
Wholesale Rate Adjustment for certain customers to take effect 1/1/07
or 5/1/07.
    Filed Date: 8/1/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060803-0074.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 22, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1321-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc submits its Seventh Revised Sheet
11 of Second Revised FERC Rate Schedule 300, Agreement w/ Missouri
Joint Municipal Electric Utility.
    Filed Date: 8/1/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060802-0155.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 22, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1331-000.
    Applicants: CalPeak Power LLC.
    Description: Calpeak Power, LLC submits an application for
acceptance of their proposed FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1
under ER06-1331.
    Filed Date: 8/2/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060804-0095.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 23, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1322-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc submits its Sixth Revised Sheet 11
to Rate Schedule 303, Agreement w/ Missouri Joint Municipal Electric
Utility Commission.
    Filed Date: 8/1/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060802-0156.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 22, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1323-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc submits its Sixth Revised Sheet 9
to Rate Schedule 302, Agreement w/Missouri Joint Municipal Electric
Utility Commission.
    Filed Date: 8/1/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060802-0154.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 22, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1324-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Pool Participants Committee.
    Description: New England Power Pool Participants Committee submits
counterpart signature pages of the NEPOOL Agreement dated 9/1/71 with
Caithness New England Services Co., LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 8/1/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060802-0151.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 22, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1327-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Florida Power & Light Co submits the Original Service
Agreement No. 244 for Long-Term Firm Point-to-Point Transmission
Service w/ the City of Homestead, Florida.
    Filed Date: 8/1/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060802-0159.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 22, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1328-000.
    Applicants: Central Illinois Public Service Company; Union Electric
Company; Ameren Energy Generating Company.
    Description: Ameren Parties submits its Third Amendment to the
Joint Dispatch Agreement, effective 9/29/06, which changes the
termination provision of the agreement.
    Filed Date: 8/1/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060802-0157.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 22, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1329-000.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Idaho Power Co submits notice of cancellations of
Service Agreement No 6 et al, to be made effective 10/1/06.
    Filed Date: 8/1/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060803-0002.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 22, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1332-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Co submits the revised rate
sheets for the two Reliability Must-Run Service Agreements with
California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Filed Date: 7/11/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060713-0033.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 14, 2006.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It

is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related
to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same
docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    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 St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings 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 e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(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. E6-13732 Filed 8-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P