[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18642-18646]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07009]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Fee Schedule To Establish Fees for Mini Options on BOX

March 21, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby
given that on March 15, 2013, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the
``Exchange'') 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. The
Exchange filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule to
establish fees for Mini Options on the BOX Market LLC (``BOX'') options
facility. While changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal
will be effective upon filing, the changes will become operative on
March 18, 2013. The text of the proposed rule change is available from
the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public
Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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, Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX
to establish fees for option contracts overlying 10 shares of a
security (``Mini Options'').
    The Exchange represented in its filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or the ``Commission'') to establish Mini
Options that, ``the current Fee Schedule will not apply to the trading
of mini-options contracts. The Exchange will not commence trading of
mini-options contracts until specific fees for mini-options contracts
trading have been filed with the Commission.'' \5\ As the Exchange
intends to begin trading Mini Options on March 18, 2013 it is
submitting this filing to describe the transaction fees that will be
applicable to the trading of Mini Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68771 (January 30,
2013), 79 [sic] FR 8208 (February 5, 2013) (SR-BOX-2013-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mini Options have a smaller exercise and assignment value due to
the reduced number of shares they deliver as compared to standard
option contracts. Despite the smaller exercise and assignment value of
Mini Options, the cost to the Exchange to process quotes and orders in
Mini Options, perform regulatory surveillance and retain quotes and
orders for archival purposes is the same as for a standard contract.
This leaves the Exchange in a position of trying to strike the right
balance of fees applicable to Mini Options. The Exchange, therefore,
believes that adopting fees for Mini Options that are in some cases the
same, in some cases proportionally lower, and in other cases exempt
from the fees for standard contracts, is appropriate, reasonable, not
unfairly discriminatory

and not burdensome on competition between participants, or between the
Exchange and other exchanges in the listed options market place. The
Exchange proposes to implement these changes on March 18, 2013.
    The following is a discussion of the existing Fee Schedule as it
relates to the treatment of Mini Options as compared to standard option
contracts.
Section I. Exchange Fees
    The Exchange proposes to assess Mini Options transactions 1/10th of
the applicable standard contract Exchange Fee. Currently the Exchange
assesses Exchange Fees based on transaction types and account types.
Specifically, the Exchange has distinct fees for Auction Transactions
(transactions executed through the BOX Price Improvement Period,
Solicitation, and Facilitation auction mechanisms), and non-Auction
Transactions (transactions executed on the BOX Book). The account types
on BOX are Public Customer, Professional Customer, Broker-Dealer, and
Market Maker (see BOX Rule 100 Series for definitions of each).
    For Auction Transactions in Mini Options, the Exchange proposes to
assess $0.015 per contract fee for Public Customer Improvement Orders
in the PIP and Responses in the Solicitation and Facilitation
mechanisms. For Non-Auction Transactions in Mini Options, the Exchange
proposes to assess a $0.007 fee for Public Customers. For Professional
Customers and Broker Dealers, the Exchange proposes to assess a $0.035
fee for Mini Options Auction Transactions in PIP Orders or Agency
Orders, Improvement Orders in the PIP, and Responses in the
Solicitation or Facilitation Auction Mechanisms. For Non-Auction
Transactions in Mini Options, the Exchange proposes to assess a $0.040
fee for Professional Customers and Broker Dealers.
    For the remaining types of Exchange Fees that are based upon a
Participant's monthly average daily volume (``ADV'') in Auction
Transactions and Non-Auction Transactions, the Exchange proposes to
count Mini Options the same as a standard contact (i.e., one contract
in a Mini Options will equal one standard option contract). At each ADV
threshold, the Exchange proposes to charge Participants a per contract
fee in Mini Options that is 1/10th the amount charged for standard
contracts.
    For example, Mini Options Exchange Fees for Initiating Participants
in Auction Transactions set forth in Section I.A. of the BOX Fee
Schedule will be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Per contract
      Initiating participant monthly ADV in auction         fee in mini
                      transactions                         options (all
                                                          account types)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
150,001 contracts and greater...........................          $0.010
100,001 contracts to 150,000 contracts..................           0.012
50,001 contracts to 100,000 contracts...................           0.015
20,001 contracts to 50,000 contracts....................           0.017
1 contract to 20,000 contracts [sic]....................     0.025 [sic]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The tiered, per contract fee for Market Makers set forth in Section
I.B. of the BOX Fee Schedule will also be adjusted for Mini Options as
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Per contract
  Market Maker monthly ADV in non-auction transactions      fee in mini
                                                              options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
150,001 contracts and greater...........................          $0.013
100,001 contracts to 150,000 contracts..................           0.016
50,001 contracts to 100,000 contracts...................           0.018
10,001 contracts to 50,000 contracts....................     0.020 [sic]
1 contract to 10,000 contracts [sic]....................     0.025 [sic]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section II. Liquidity Fees and Credits
    The Exchange currently assesses liquidity fees and credits for all
options classes traded on BOX (unless explicitly stated otherwise) that
are applied in addition to any applicable Exchange Fees described
above. The Exchange proposes to amend Section II.D (Exempt
Transactions) to state that Mini Options will also be considered exempt
from all liquidity fees and credits.
Section III. Eligible Orders Routed to an Away Exchange
    All fees on eligible orders routed to an away exchange will
continue to apply to Mini Options. The Exchange currently charges
customer accounts \6\ $0.50 per contract executed on away exchanges and
exempts Public Customer accounts from the routing fee for orders
received by BOX via the Directed Order provided that: (A) 33% or more
of a Participant's Public Customer Directed Orders received during the
month are executed through the BOX PIP, and (B) less than 45% of a
Participant's Directed Orders received are routed to and executed on an
away exchange during the month. The purpose of this structure is to
provide an incentive to Participants to submit their customer orders
for execution on BOX, help the Exchange recover some of the costs
incurred in providing routing services to Participants, and discourages
potentially abusive and predatory order routing practices to evade fees
on other exchanges. The Exchange uses third-party broker-dealers to
route orders to other exchanges and incurs charges for each order
routed to and executed at an away market, in addition to the
transaction fees charged by other exchanges. Equally applying these
fees to Mini Options will allow the Exchange to continue to offset the
costs it incurs by routing orders to an away exchange. Participants can
still ensure that these fees are not incurred by choosing to instruct
BOX not to route their customer orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term Customer accounts includes both Professional
Customers and Public Customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, for purposes of determining if Non-Professional,
Public Customer Directed Orders can qualify for the Public Customer
Directed Order exemption, the Exchange proposes to count [sic] the same
as standard contracts when calculating the percentage of contracts the
Public Customer has executed on BOX compared to the percentage routed
and executed away.
Section IV. Regulatory Fees
    Presently the Exchange charges an Options Regulatory Fee (``ORF'')
of $0.0030 per contract. The Options Regulatory Fee is assessed on each
BOX Options Participant for all options transactions executed or
cleared by the BOX Options Participant that are cleared by The Options
Clearing Corporation (OCC) in the customer range regardless of the
exchange on which the transaction occurs. The Exchange is proposing to
charge the same rate for transactions in Mini Options, since the costs
to the Exchange to process quotes, orders, trades and the necessary
regulatory surveillance programs and procedures in Mini Options are the
same as for standard contracts. As such, the Exchange feels that it is
appropriate to charge the ORF at the same rate as the standard
contract.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities and does not
unfairly

discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exchange Fees
    The Exchange has determined to charge fees for orders in Mini
Options at a rate that is 1/10th the rate of fees the Exchange
currently charges for trading in standard options. The Exchange
believes the proposed fees and rebates are reasonable and equitable in
light of the fact that while Mini Options do have a smaller exercise
and assignment value, specifically 1/10th that of a standard option
contract, the cost to the Exchange to process quotes and orders in Mini
Options is the same as for a standard contract. Furthermore, Mini
Options have been approved [sic] for trading at several other competing
exchanges and market participants can readily direct order flow to any
these venues if they deem the Mini Options fees to be excessive.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67948 (September
28, 2012), 77 FR 60735 (October 4, 2012) (SR-NYSE-Arca-2012-64) (SR-
ISE-2012-58); No. 68132 (November 1, 2012), 77 FR 66904 (November 7,
2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-126); No. 68656 (January 15, 2013), 78 FR 4526
(January 22, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-001); No. 69018 (March 1, 2013), 78
FR 15090 (March 8, 2013) (SR-BATS-2013-013); No. 68720 (January 24,
2013), 78 FR 6382 (January 30, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-011); No. 68719
(January 24, 2013), 78 FR 6391 (January 30, 2013) (SR-BX-2013-006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory that Public Customers be charged lower fees in both
Auction Transactions in Mini Options and non-Auction Transactions in
Mini Options than Professionals and Broker-Dealers on BOX. The
securities markets generally, and BOX in particular, have historically
aimed to improve markets for investors and develop various features
within the market structure for customer benefit. As such, the Exchange
believes the proposed fees for Public Customer transactions in Mini
Options are appropriate and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange
believes comparably lower customer transaction fees are reasonable. The
Exchange believes it promotes the best interests of investors to have
lower transaction costs for Public Customers, and that the reduction in
Mini Options fees will attract Public Customer order flow to BOX.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes that assessing the same per
executed contract fee for Professionals and Broker-Dealers in both
Auction Transactions in Mini Options and non-Auction Transactions in
Mini Options are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because these types of Participants are more sophisticated and have
higher levels of order flow activity and system usage. This level of
trading activity draws on a greater amount of BOX system resources than
that of Public Customers, and thus, greater ongoing BOX operational
costs. As such, rather than passing the costs of these higher order
volumes along to all market participants, the Exchange believes it is
more reasonable and equitable to assess those costs to the persons
directly responsible. To that end, BOX aims to recover costs incurred
by assessing Professionals and Broker-Dealers a market competitive fee.
As stated above, BOX operates within a highly competitive business. The
proposed fees charged to Professionals and Broker-Dealers in Mini
Options have been designed to be comparable to the fees that such
accounts would be charged at competing venues. Further, the Exchange
believes that charging Professionals and Broker-Dealers the same fee
for all transactions in Mini Options [sic] not unfairly discriminatory
as the fees will apply to all Professionals and Broker-Dealers equally.
Professionals and Broker-Dealers remain free to change the manner in
which they access BOX.
    The Exchange believes its proposal to include Mini Options volume
in the ADV tiers for Initiating Participants in Auction Transactions is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange
believes that providing a volume discount to Options Participants that
initiate auctions on Customer orders incentivizes these Participants to
submit their customer orders to BOX, particularly into the PIP for
potential price improvement. This potentially increased volume also
increases potential revenue to BOX, and allows BOX and the Exchange to
spread its administrative and infrastructure costs over a greater
number of transactions, leading to lower costs per transaction. The
decreased per transaction costs allow BOX to share its savings with its
Participants in the form of lower tier rates.
    Further, the Exchange believes it is equitable and non-
discriminatory to provide Initiating Participants a tiered fee
structure related to their participation in Auction Transactions. As
stated above, the Exchange believes assessing 1/10th of the standard
contract fee is reasonable and equitable in light of the fact that Mini
Options do have a smaller exercise and assignment value, specifically
1/10th that of a standard option contract. The proposed fee structure
for Mini Options is related to trading activity in BOX Auction
Transactions and is available to all BOX Options Participants; they may
choose to trade on BOX to take advantage of the discounted fees for
doing so, or not. The Exchange also believes the proposed Mini Options
fees for the BOX auction mechanisms are reasonable. Participants will
benefit from the opportunity to aggregate their trading in the BOX
Facilitation and Solicitation Auction mechanisms with their PIP
transactions to more easily attain a discounted fee tier. The tiered
fee structure in the BOX auction mechanisms aims to attract order flow
to BOX, providing greater potential liquidity within the overall BOX
market and its auction mechanisms, to the benefit of all BOX market
participants.
    Finally, with regard to Mini Options Exchange fees for transactions
on the BOX Book, the Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory for BOX Market Makers to have the opportunity to benefit
from a potentially discounted fee less than that charged to other
Participants. Market Makers have obligations that other Participants do
not. In particular, they must maintain active two-sided markets in the
Mini Options classes in which they are appointed, and must meet certain
minimum quoting requirements. As such, the Exchange believes it is
appropriate that Market Makers be charged lower Mini Options
transaction fees on BOX.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed tiered and potentially
discounted fees for Market Makers that, on a daily basis, trade an
average daily volume (as calculated at the end of the month) of 5,000
contracts or more [sic] on BOX represent a fair and equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges as they are
aimed at incentivizing these Participants to provide a greater volume
of liquidity. The Exchange believes that giving incentives for this
activity results in increased volume on BOX. Such increased volume
increases potential revenue to BOX, and would allow BOX and the
Exchange to spread its administrative and infrastructure costs over a
greater number of transactions, leading to lower costs per transaction.
The decreased per transaction costs allow BOX to share its savings with
its Participants in the form of lower tier rates.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Market Maker tiered
execution fee for Mini Options is equitable because it is available to
all Market Makers on an equal basis and provides discounts that are
reasonably related to the size of the contract (1/10th that of a
standard contract), and the value to an

exchange's market quality associated with higher levels of market
activity. For the reasons listed above, the Exchange believes it is
appropriate that Market Makers be charged potentially lower transaction
fees for Mini Options on BOX when they provide greater volumes of
liquidity to the market.
    The Exchange also believes it is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to combine volume in standard options and Mini
Options to calculate the tier a Market Maker has reached because doing
so will provide the Market Maker with an opportunity to qualify for
increased rebates and, therefore, incentivize Participants to trade
more of such order flow on the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Mini Options Exchange Fees
will keep BOX competitive with other exchanges as well as be applied in
such a manner so as to be equitable among all BOX Participants. The
Exchange believes the proposed fees are fair and reasonable and must be
competitive with fees in place on other exchanges. Further, the
Exchange believes that this competitive marketplace impacts the fees
proposed for BOX.
Liquidity Fees and Credits
    BOX believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to exempt Mini Options from Liquidity Fees and Credits.
Liquidity fees and credits are intended to attract order flow to BOX by
offering incentives to all market participants to submit their orders
to BOX, and while the Exchange believes that Mini Options fill a need
in the Marketplace by making options overlying highly priced securities
more readily available as an investing tool and at more affordable and
realistic prices, due to the unique and novel nature of Mini Options
the Exchange believes it is reasonable to not provide an incentive to
market participants to submit orders in these products.
    Further, since the five issues that Mini Options will trade on are
among the most actively traded issues, the Exchange does not believe
that an added incentive to increase volume in these issues is needed.
In standard contract transactions BOX collects a fee from Participants
that add liquidity on BOX and credits another Participant an equal
amount for removing liquidity. Stated otherwise, the collection of
these liquidity fees does not directly result in revenue to BOX, but
simply allows BOX to provide the credit incentive to Participants to
attract order flow. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and
equitable to exempt Mini Options from liquidity fees and credits since
these fees and credits for transactions offset one another in any
particular transaction.
    Further, it is not unfairly discriminatory as the exemption of Mini
Options from liquidity fees and credits applies equally to all
Participants and across all account types on the Exchange. As stated
above, BOX operates within a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily direct order flow to any of eight [sic] other
competing venues if they deem fees at a particular venue to be
excessive. The Exchange believes that exempting Mini Options from
liquidity fees and credits is reasonable compared to the similar fees
and credits offered by the other exchanges since liquidity fees and
credits do not directly result in revenue to BOX.
Routing Fees
    BOX believes that applying the current routing fee structure for
routing customer orders in Mini Options to other market venues is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the following
reasons. Presently, the Exchange charges customer accounts $0.50 per
contract executed on away exchanges and exempts Public Customer
accounts from the routing fee for orders received by BOX via Directed
Order when certain execution thresholds are met. This fee is designed
to help the Exchange recover some of the costs it incurs by routing
orders to other exchanges, discourage potentially abusive and predatory
order routing practices, and incentivize Participants to seek price
improvement for their Public Customers.
    The costs that BOX incurs for routing orders to an away exchange
include clearance charges imposed by the OCC, charges from third-party
broker dealers for each order routed to an away market, and the
transaction fees charged by other exchanges. Unlike some exchanges that
pass these costs directly on to the broker acting as the agent for the
order which was executed, BOX only offsets its routing costs by
charging a flat per contract fee. While some exchanges have proposed
lower transaction fees for Mini Options, the charges imposed by the OCC
and the third-party broker dealers will remain fixed regardless of the
exercise and assignment value of the contract. Given the Exchange's
need to cover the costs of Participants trading Mini Options, the
Exchange believes it is reasonable to charge the same fee for routing
Mini Options. Doing so will allow the Exchange to continue to offset a
portion of its costs attendant with offering routing services and avoid
sharing those costs with other Participants who are not trading Mini
Options.
    The Exchange notes that Participants can avoid the Routing
Surcharge in several ways. First, they can manage their own routing to
different options exchanges, or choose to utilize a myriad of other
routing solutions that are available to market participants. Lastly,
they can instruct BOX not to route their orders to away exchanges by
designating them as Fill and Kill (``FAK''). Given this ability to
avoid the routing fee, coupled with the fixed third party costs
associated with routing, the Exchange feels it is reasonable and
equitable to charge the same routing fee for Mini Options that is
charged for standard option contracts.
    Further, the Exchange believes it is equitable and non-
discriminatory to continue to offer certain Public Customer Directed
Orders an exemption from the routing fee, in orders for Mini Options or
standard contracts. By assessing a fee for routing certain orders, BOX
aims to recover its costs in providing this optional service and
prevent Participants from submitting orders on BOX to evade other
exchanges' fees. However, BOX also wishes to provide incentives to
Participants to seek price improvement for their Public Customer orders
by entering them into the PIP. The Exchange believes that providing
non-Professional, Public Customer Directed Orders an exemption from
certain routing fees is consistent with the long history in the options
markets of such customers being given preferred treatment. BOX has
already established the exemption thresholds for Public Customer
Directed Orders and believes it is appropriate to count Mini Options
transactions toward a Participant's monthly executions when determining
if the Participant has met these thresholds at the end of the month.
Regulatory Fees
    Finally, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that charging
the same ORF for transactions in Mini Options, is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory since the costs to the Exchange to
process quotes, orders, trades and the necessary regulatory
surveillance programs and procedures in Mini Options are the same as
for standard contracts. The ORF is in place to help the Exchange offset
regulatory expenses and the Exchange's cost of supervising and
regulating Participants, including performing routine surveillances,
and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and

enforcement activities remains the same for Mini Options.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is designed
to provide greater specificity and precision within the Fee Schedule
with respect to the fees that will be applicable to Mini Options when
they begin trading on the Exchange on March 18, 2013.
    The Exchange believes that adopting fees for Mini Options that are
in some cases the same, in some cases proportionally lower, and in
other cases exempt from the fees for standard contracts, strikes the
appropriate balance between fees applicable to standard contracts
versus fees applicable to Mini Options, and will not impose a burden on
competition among various market participants on the Exchange, or
between the Exchange and other exchanges in the listed options
marketplace, not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. BOX currently assesses distinct standard contract
Exchange Fees for different account and transaction types. The Exchange
believes that applying this segmented fee structure to Mini Options
will result in these participants being charged proportionally for
their transactions in Mini Options. In this regard, as Mini Options are
a new product being introduced into the listed options marketplace, the
Exchange is unable at this time to absolutely determine the impact that
the fees and rebates proposed herein will have on trading in Mini
Options. That said, however, the Exchange believes that the rates
proposed for Mini Options would not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain
competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\11\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other
charge applicable only to a member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule
change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
would otherwise further the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

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-BOX-2013-15 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.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2013-15. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2013-15 and should be
submitted on or before April 17, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-07009 Filed 3-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17027-17029]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05723]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2019-0002]

Respirable Crystalline Silica Standards for General Industry,
Shipyards, and Construction; Extension of the Office of Management and
Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork)
Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to
extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements
specified in the Respirable Crystalline Silica Standards for General
Industry, Maritime, and Construction.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
May 22, 2023.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Documents in the docket are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some
information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to
read or download through the website. All submissions, including
copyrighted material, are available for inspection through the OSHA
Docket Office.

Contact the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>)
for assistance in locating docket submissions.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2019-0002) for the Information Collection
Request (ICR). OSHA will place all comments, including any personal
information, in the public docket, which may be made available online.
For further information on submitting comments, see the ``Public
Participation'' heading in the section of this notice titled
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seleda Perryman or Theda Kenney,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of a continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance process to provide the public with an opportunity to
comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements
in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired
format, the reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, the
collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of
the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes
information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for
enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing information regarding the
causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and
accidents (see 29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA
obtain such information with a minimum burden upon employers,
especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the
maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of effort in obtaining
information (see 29 U.S.C. 657).
    The Respirable Crystalline Silica Standards for general industry
(29 CFR 1910.1053), shipyards (29 CFR 1915.1053) and construction (29
CFR 1926.1153) contain the following information collection
requirements: conducting worker exposure assessments and notifying
workers of the assessment results and any corrective actions being
taken; establishing, implementing, reviewing, evaluating, and updating
a written exposure control plan and making the plan available to
workers and designated representatives; creating and submitting air
quality permit notifications; establishing a respiratory protection
program; providing qualitative fit-testing and maintaining records;
providing medical surveillance to workers; providing the physician or
other licensed health care provider (PLHCP), or the specialist, with
specific information; ensuring that the PLHCP, or specialist, explains
the results of the medical examination to the employee and provides
each employee with a copy of their written medical report; obtaining a
written medical opinion from the PLHCP, or specialist, and ensuring
that each employee receives a copy of the opinion; and making and
maintaining air monitoring data, objective data, and medical
surveillance records; and providing workers and designated
representatives with access to these records. The records are used by
workers, employers, and OSHA to determine the effectiveness of the
employer's compliance efforts.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Respirable Crystalline Silica
Standards for General Industry, Maritime and Construction. The agency
is requesting an adjustment decrease of 4,672,138 burden hours (from
12,468,266 to 7,796,128). The requested adjustment decrease is
associated with the agency now zeroing out the burden hours of initial
exposure assessments and the initial medical examinations for existing
employees; and employers completing their written exposure assessment
and respirator programs. In addition, the burden for rule
familiarization and other one-time costs incurred within the first year
was removed. Also, the agency is requesting an adjustment decrease of
$132,079,926 for operation and maintenance costs (from $393,789,550 to
$261,709,624) to adjust for substantially decreased estimates of
initial exposure assessments and initial medical examinations.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Respirable Crystalline Silica Standards for General Industry
(29 CFR 1910.1053) and Shipyards (29 CFR 1915.1053) and Construction
(29 CFR 1926.1153).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0266.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 764,318.
    Frequency: Biennially, Once, On occasion, Quarterly, Semi-annually,
Annually.
    Average Time per Response: Various.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 17,203,330.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 7,796,128.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $261,709,625.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax), if your comments, including
attachments, are not longer than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA
Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or (3) by hard copy. All comments,
attachments, and other material must identify the agency name and the
OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2019-0002). You may
supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically.
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
dates of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and
access the docket is available at the website's ``User Tips'' link.

    Contact the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY (877) 889-
5627) for information about materials not available from the website,
and for assistance in using the internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020
(85 FR 58393).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on March 14, 2023.
James S. Frederick,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2023-05723 Filed 3-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: January 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 8)]
[Notices]
[Page 1504-1507]
[DOCID:fr12ja07-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Comined Notice of Filings 1

January 3, 2007.
    Docket Numbers: EC07-41-000.
    Applicants: Scottish Power plc; PPM Enrgy, Inc.; Big Horn Wind
Project LLC; Casselman Windpower LLC; Colorado Green Holdings LLC;
Eastern Desert Power LLC; Elk River Wind LLC; Flat Rock Windpower LLC;
Flat Rock Windpower II LLC; Flying Cloud Power Partners, LLC; Klamath
Generation LLC;

Klondike Wind Power LLC; Klondike Wind Power II LLC; Klondike Wind
Power III LLC; Leaning Juniper Wind Power LLC; MinnDakota Wind LLC;
Moraine Wind LLC; Mountain View Power Partners III, LLC; Phoenix Wind
Power LLC; Shiloh I Wind Project, LLC; Trimont Wind I LLC; Twin Buttes
Wind LLC; Iberdrola, S.A.
    Description: Joint application of Scottish Power plc et al for
authorization for indirect disposition of jurisdictional facilities and
requests for waiver of filing requirements and expedited consideration.
    Filed Date: 12/22/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061227-0070.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: EC07-42-000.
    Applicants: BBPOP Wind Equity LLC; Babcock & Brown Wind Partners
U.S. LLC; B&B Wind Portfolio I LLC; Mendota Hills, LLC; Allegheny Ridge
Wind Farm, LLC; North Allegheny Wind, LLC; Argonne Wind LLC; GSG, LLC.
    Description: BBPOP Wind Equity LLC et al submits an application for
authorization of indirect disposal of jurisdictional facilities
pursuant to Section 203 of the FPA.
    Filed Date: 12/22/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061227-0071.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: EC07-43-000.
    Applicants: LSP Energy Limited Partnership; Complete Energy
Holdings, LLC.
    Description: LSP Energy Limited Partnership and Complete Energy
Holdings, LLC submit a joint application for authorization of the
disposition of jurisdictional facilities.
    Filed Date: 12/22/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061228-0100.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: EC07-44-000.
    Applicants: Entegra Power Group LLC; Gila River Power, L.P.; Union
Power Partners, L.P.
    Description: Entegra Power Group LLC et al, submit an application
for order amending blanket authorization for certain future transfers
and acquisitions of equity interests under Section 203 of the Federal
Power Act.
    Filed Date: 12/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20070103-0125.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 18, 2007.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings

    Docket Numbers: ER96-719-015; EL05-59-003.
    Applicants: MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Description: MidAmerican Energy Company submits a refund report.
    Filed Date: 12/22/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061222-5024.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER00-1053-019.
    Applicants: Maine Public Service Company.
    Description: Maine Public Service Co. submits a revised Open Access
Transmission Tariff pages and a Settlement Agreement regarding its
Formula Rate and its 2006 Informational Filing.
    Filed Date: 12/22/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061226-0202.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-345-008.
    Applicants: New England Power Pool Participants Committee
    Description: ISO New England, Inc. submits its Semi-Annual Status
Report on load response programs in accordance with FERC's 2/25/03
Order.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2006.
    Accession Number: 20070103-0128.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1178-007; ER05-1191-007.
    Applicants: Gila River Power, L.P.; Union Power Partners, L.P.
    Description: Gila River Power, LP and Union Power Partners L.P.
submit a notice of non-material change in status relating to their
upstream ownership structure pursuant to Section 35.27(c) of FERC's
Rules and Regs.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2006.
    Accession Number: 20070103-0132.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-185-006.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
worksheets that detail the results of its Real-Time guarantee payment
impact test for the period from 5/1/05 to 4/7/06 pursuant to FERC's 11/
3/06 Order.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2006.
    Accession Number: 20070103-0131.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-451-017.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits materials
demonstrating its readiness to deploy its Energy Imbalance Services
market, to become effective 2/1/07.
    Filed Date: 12/22/2006.
    Accession Number: 20070103-0134.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 8, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-314-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits a supplement to
their filing of revised Network Integration Transmission Service
Agreement.
    Filed Date: 12/27/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061228-0193.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 17, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-379-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Co submits a Small
Generator Interconnection Agreement and a Service Agreement for
Wholesale Distribution Service with MM Tulare Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061229-0076.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 18, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-380-000; ER06-319-004; ER06-1136-001; ER06-
1550-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits revisions to Schedule
2 of the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff.
    Filed Date: 12/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20070103-0120.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 18, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-381-000.
    Applicants: Electric Energy, Inc.
    Description: Electric Energy, Inc submits modification 18 to a
Power Contract dated 9/2/87 with the United States Department of Energy
designated as Contract  DE-AC05-760R01312 (Rate Schedule FERC
10).
    Filed Date: 12/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20070103-0121.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 18, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-382-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool Inc submits a Revised Agreement
for Wholesale Distribution Service Charges between Kansas Electric
Power Cooperative Inc and the Empire District Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 12/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20070103-0122.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 18, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-383-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits proposed revisions to its Large
Generator Interconnection Agreement designated as Exhibit A--First Rev
Sheet 428 to FERC Electric Tariff, Substitute 6th Rev Volume 11 to
become effective 12/29/06.
    Filed Date: 12/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20070103-0123.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 18, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-384-000.
    Applicants: Midwest ISO.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits proposed revisions to Schedules 10, 16 and 17 of their Open
Access Transmission and Energy Markets Tariff.
    Filed Date: 12/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20070103-0124.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 18, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-386-000.
    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: San Diego Gas & Electric submits a change in rates for
the Transmission Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment and its
Transmission Owner Tariff, to become effective 1/2/06.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2006.
    Accession Number: 20070103-0080.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-387-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Pool Participants Committee
    Description: The New England Power Pool Participants Committee
submits a transmittal letter along with counterpart signature pages of
the New England Power Pool Agreement executed with Conectiv Energy
Supply Inc et al.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2006.
    Accession Number: 20070103-0133.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-388-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.; New York
State Electric & Gas Corporation.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator Inc et al. submit
an executed Standard Large Generator Interconnection Agreement for the
Munnsville Wind Farm Project.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2006.
    Accession Number: 20070103-0129.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-390-000.
    Applicants: Nevada Solar One, LLC.
    Description: Nevada Solar One, LLC submits an application for order
granting market-based rate authority, waiving regulations and granting
blanket approvals, the proposed market-based rate tariff.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2006.
    Accession Number: 20070103-0130.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-391-000.
    Applicants: Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc.
    Description: Dynegy Midwest Generation Inc submits an Amended and
Restated Black Start Service Agreement dated as of 12/27/06 by and
between Illinois Power Company dba AmerenIP.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2006.
    Accession Number: 20070103-0135.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-393-000.
    Applicants: MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Description: MidAmerican Energy Company submits its First Revised
Sheet 10 to their FERC Electric Rate Schedule 72, Contract for Firm
Transmission Service, with Western Area Power Administration.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2006.
    Accession Number: 20070103-0137.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-394-000.
    Applicants: MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Description: MidAmerican Energy Company submits its First Revised
Sheets 11, 12, 15-18 and Original Sheet 12a to Original Service
Agreement 260 with Eldridge Electric and Water Utilities.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2006.
    Accession Number: 20070103-0138.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-395-000.
    Applicants: ALLETE, Inc.
    Description: ALLETE, Inc submits two service agreements
establishing the rates, terms and conditions pursuant to which the
transmission function of MP Transmission.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2006.
    Accession Number: 20070103-0139.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-396-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits revised pages to its
Open Access Transmission Tariff.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2006.
    Accession Number: 20070103-0140.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-397-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.; New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: ISO New England, Inc and New England Power Pool
Participants Committee submit revised tariff sheets reflecting proposed
amendments to Schedule 2--Reactive Supply & Voltage control from
Generation Resources Service.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2006.
    Accession Number: 20070103-0141.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 19, 2007.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings

    Docket Numbers: ES07-14-000.
    Applicants: International Transmission Company.
    Description: International Transmission Company submit an
application pursuant to Section 204 for Authority to Issue Securities
    Filed Date: 12/29/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061229-5049.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ES07-15-000.
    Applicants: Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC submits an
Application under Section 204 for Authority to Issue Securities.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061229-5051.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 19, 2007.

    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 Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-269 Filed 1-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P