[Federal Register: August 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 168)]
[Notices]
[Page 51590-51591]
[DOCID:fr30au06-68]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Docket No. TS06-13-000]

American Transmission Company LLC; Notice of Filing

August 24, 2006.
    Take notice that on August 16, 2006, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(5) of
the Commission's Rules of Practice and

Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(5), American Transmission Company LLC
filed a request for clarification of Order 2004 and Rule 358.5(b)(8) of
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 15, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-14398 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 63186]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25208]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, October
22, 2014 at 10 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002.
    The subject matter of the Open Meeting will be:
     The Commission will consider whether to adopt rules
relating to credit risk retention by securitizers of asset-backed
securities, as mandated by Section 15G of the Exchange Act and Section
941(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act.
    The duty officer has determined that no earlier notice was
practicable.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted, or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Dated: October 17, 2014.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-25208 Filed 10-20-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 216)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 63156-63158]
[DOCID:fr08no07-24]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD05-07-100]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Isle of Wight Bay (Sinepuxent
Bay), Ocean City, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the regulations
that govern the operation of the US 50 Bridge across the Isle of Wight
Bay (Sinepuxent Bay), at mile 0.5, in Ocean City, MD. The proposal
would close the drawbridge to navigation in order to facilitate
extensive rehabilitation and to maintain the bridge's operational
integrity. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge
opening may do so at all times.

DATES: The Coast Guard proposes closing this drawbridge to navigation
beginning at 8 a.m. on January 7, 2008, through 5 p.m. on February 21,
2008. Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before December 24, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander
(dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 4th Floor, 431
Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004, or they may be hand
delivered to the same address between

8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. The
Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District maintains the public docket
for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as
well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the
docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for
inspection or copying at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra S. Elliott, Bridge Management
Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD05-07-
100), indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit
all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like
confirmation to know if they were received, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period. We may change this
proposed rule in view of those comments.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to the Commander, Fifth Coast Guard
District at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be
beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will
hold one at a time at a place announced by a later notice in the
Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    Maryland Department of Transportation--State Highway Administration
(MDOT) owns and operates the bascule span of the U.S. 50 Bridge, at
mile 0.5, across Isle of Wight Bay (Sinepuxent Bay) in Ocean City, MD.
The bridge has a vertical clearance in the closed position to vessels
of 13 feet, above mean high water (vertical clearance at center of
channel increased by five feet). The current regulations are outlined
at 33 CFR 117.559, which require the bridge to open on signal except:
from October 1 through April 30 from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m., the draw shall
open if at least three hours notice is given and from May 25 through
September 15 from 9:25 a.m. to 9:55 p.m. the draw shall open at 25
minutes after and 55 minutes after the hour for a maximum of five
minutes to let accumulated vessels pass, except that, on Saturdays from
1 p.m. to 5 p.m., the draw shall open on the hour for all waiting
vessels and shall remain in the open position until all waiting vessels
pass.
    The Office of Bridge Inspection and Remedial Engineering, a
division under MDOT, has requested a change to the existing operating
drawbridge regulations to accommodate the necessary repairs. The
repairs include replacing the existing north and south pinion/bull gear
sets in the west bascule leaf and replacing the existing grid deck in
the bascule span. To facilitate the repairs, the drawbridge will be
locked in the closed-to-navigation position from 8 a.m. on Monday,
January 7, 2008 until and including 5 p.m. on Thursday, February 21,
2008.
    Information provided by MDOT indicates that during the winter
months, in January and February, the bridge has an opening frequency of
five openings per month. Vessel operators with mast height lower than
13 feet still can transit through the drawbridge across Isle of Wight
Bay (Sinepuxent Bay) during the rehabilitation. The project will also
require a small barge, measuring 8 feet x 27 feet, for the gear
removal/grid deck installation. The barge will only be needed for a
six-day period and removed at the end of each procedure at the end of
each day. However, the barge can be removed during an emergency at any
time. Also, the Atlantic Ocean is an alternate route for vessels with a
mast height greater than 13 feet. Therefore, vessels should not be
negatively impacted by this proposal.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to suspend the operating regulations at 33
CFR 117.559 for the US 50 Bridge at mile 0.5, in Ocean City, Maryland
from 8 a.m. on January 7, 2008, through 5 p.m. on February 21, 2008.
During this suspension period, the Coast Guard proposes to implement
temporary operating regulations for this bridge. The proposed temporary
regulations will state that the bridge need not be opened by the bridge
operator, Maryland Department of Transportation--State Highway
Administration, during this period.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic
impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory
Evaluation is unnecessary.
    Due to the historical average number of bridge openings during this
time period, the proposed changes would have only a minimal impact on
maritime traffic seeking to transit the bridge. Vessel operators with
mast height lower than 13 feet still can transit through the drawbridge
across Isle of Wight Bay (Sinepuxent Bay) during the rehabilitation.
Also, the Atlantic Ocean is an alternate route for vessels with a mast
height greater than 13 feet who cannot transit under the bridge during
this period.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: owners and operators of vessels with
over 13 feet of mast height seeking to transit the bridge between 8
a.m. on January 7, 2008, through 5 p.m. on February 21, 2008. This
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because vessel operators with mast
height lower than 13 feet still can transit through the drawbridge. The
Atlantic Ocean is an alternate route for vessels with a mast height
greater than 13 feet. Additionally, before the effective period of this
rule, public notice will be promulgated so mariners can adjust their
plans accordingly.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment
(see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to
what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact Waverly W.
Gregory, Jr., Bridge Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, (757)
398-6222. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities
that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of
the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to security that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction
M16475.1D, and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive
5100.1, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this
case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section
2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should
be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, (32)(e), of the
Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-
1, paragraph (32)(e), an ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are not required for this rule.
Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final
decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further
environmental review.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to temporarily amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    2. From 8 a.m. on January 7, 2008 through 5 p.m. on February 21,
2008, temporarily designate the regulatory text in Sec.  117.559 as
paragraph (a), temporarily suspend newly designated paragraph (a), and
temporarily add paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.559  Isle of Wight Bay.

* * * * *
    (b) From 8 a.m. on January 7, 2008 through 5 p.m. on February 21,
2008, the draw of the U.S. 50 Bridge, mile 0.5, at Ocean City, need not
be opened.

    Dated: October 24, 2007.
Fred M. Rosa, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. E7-21882 Filed 11-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71097-71101]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29304]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC10-919-001]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-919); Comment
Request; Submitted for OMB Review

November 12, 2010.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3507 of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) has submitted the
information collection described below to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and renewal. Any interested person may file
comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments
to the Commission as explained below. The Commission issued a Notice in
the Federal Register (75FR 41840, 07/19/2010) requesting public
comments on renewing this information collection. FERC received one
comment on the FERC-919 from Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and has
made this notation in its submission to OMB.

DATES: Further comments on this collection of information are due by
December 22, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Address further comments on this collection of information
to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Desk Officer. Comments to OMB should be filed electronically, c/o
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and include OMB Control Number 1902-0234
for reference. The Desk Officer may be reached by telephone at 202-395-
4638.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission and should refer to Docket No. IC10-919-001.
Comments may be filed either electronically or in paper format. Those
persons filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing.
Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in an
acceptable filing format and in compliance with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission submission guidelines. Complete filing
instructions and acceptable filing formats are available at http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. To file the document
electronically, access the Commission's Web site and click on Documents
& Filing, E-Filing (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp), and
then follow the instructions for each screen. First-time users will
have to establish a user name and password. The Commission will send an
automatic acknowledgement to the sender's e-mail address upon receipt
of comments.
    For paper filings, the comments should be submitted to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, and should refer to Docket No. IC10-
919-001.
    Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in
FERC Docket Number IC10-919 may do so through eSubscription at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp. All comments may be viewed,
printed or downloaded remotely via the Internet through FERC's homepage
using the ``eLibrary'' link. For user assistance, contact
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by e-mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by fax
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission is responding to comments on
its request for a three-year extension of the information collected
under FERC-919 (OMB Control No. 1902-0234) ``Market Based Rates for
Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy, Capacity and Ancillary Services by
Public Utilities.'' Order No. 697 \1\ was issued by the Commission on
June 21, 2007 to modify Subpart H to 18 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 35, governing market-based authorization. In Order No. 697,
the Commission revised and codified its standards for obtaining and
retaining market-based rates for public utilities. Order No. 697 also
made minor adjustments to the change in status filing requirements
adopted in Order No. 652.\2\ It added a requirement to include
appendices of generation and transmission assets in the form provided
in Appendix B of Order No. 697 when reporting a change in status
regarding a change that impacts the pertinent assets held by a seller
or its affiliates with market-based rate authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Market-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy,
Capacity and Ancillary Services by Public Utilities, Order No. 697,
72 FR 39,904 (Jul. 20, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,252 (2007),
clarified, 121 FERC ] 61,260 (2007), order on reh'g, Order No. 697-
A, 73 FR 25832 (May 7, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,268, Order
No. 697-B, 73 FR 79610 (Dec. 30, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,285
(2008), order on reh'g, Order No. 697-C, 74 FR 30924 (June 29,
2009), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,291 (2009), order on reh'g, Order
No. 697-D, 75 FR 14342 (Mar. 25, 2010), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,305
(2010).
    \2\ Reporting Requirement for Changes in Status for Public
Utilities with Market-Based Rate Authority, Order No. 652, 70 FR
8253 (Feb. 18, 2005), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,175, order on reh'g,
111 FERC ] 61,413 (2005), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,175.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The market power analyses required by Order No. 697 help to inform
the Commission as to whether an entity seeking market-based rate
authority lacks market power, and whether rates charged by that entity
will be just and reasonable. The updated market power analyses allow
the Commission to monitor changes in a seller's market presence or
potential abuses of market power. The use of the Order No. 697 screens
and reviews for market power for all companies seeking authority for
market-based rates and those who have been charging market based rates
results in a consistent authorization and review process. It provides
regulatory certainty while ensuring the Commission meets

its statutory requirements as mandated by the Federal Power Act (FPA)
sections 205 and 206.
    For more detailed background information on the Commission's MBR
program and polices as they relate to this Information Collection
Review (ICR), see the public notice issued July 13, 2010 under Docket
No. IC10-919-000 at http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/File_list.asp?document_id=13831765.
    Public Comment and FERC Response. The Commission received comments
from EEI in response to the previously mentioned July 2010 public
notice on this ICR. No other comments were filed. A summary of the
comments by EEI regarding FERC-919 reporting requirements and the
Commission's response, including proposed changes to the burden
estimates of the FERC-919 requirements, are provided below. For
documents related to this ICR, see http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, scroll to ``Currently under Review,'' key in ``Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission'' and scroll to 1902-0234 ``Market Based Rates
for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy, Capacity and Ancillary Services
by Public Utilities.''
    Public Comment: Triennial Reviews. EEI asserts the ICR's burden
estimate for the triennial review filings appears to be too low. Based
on research and historical activity, FERC concluded 74 triennial market
power analyses in category 2\3\ were filed annually. FERC estimated
that it took an average of 40 hours to prepare each of these. EEI
states that ``several member companies'' take 400 to 720 hours or more
of company and consultant time to prepare the triennial review
applications. EEI states these companies reported to them that
preparation of the triennial review entailed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Category 2 means any sellers not in Category 1. Category 1
Sellers means wholesale power marketers and wholesale power
producers that own or control 500 MW or less of generation in
aggregate per region; that do not own, operate or control
transmission facilities other than limited equipment necessary to
connect individual generating facilities to the transmission grid
(or have been granted waiver of the requirements of Order No. 888,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,036); that are not affiliated with anyone
that owns, operates or controls transmission facilities in the same
region as the seller's generation assets; that are not affiliated
with a franchised public utility in the same region as the seller's
generation assets; and that do not raise other vertical market power
issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     120 to 160 hours for internal engineering analyses,
including calculation of simultaneous transmission import limits;
     150 to 160 hours for internal legal and compliance
analyses; and
     110 to 450 hours for outside consultant market-power and
legal analyses, including obtaining data pertaining to loads,
generation resources, planned outages, remote generation, and power
purchase arrangements in broad first and second tier balancing
authority areas.

EEI states there is additional time devoted to regional coordination
related to triennial review preparation.

    Moreover, EEI asserts that FERC's total estimated annual cost
burden for triennial review applications is too low. In its 60-day
notice, FERC estimated the total average annual cost burden for
respondents filing the data required in the FERC-919 is $2,801,891.
This resulted from using an average cost estimate of $137,874. This
average cost was based on salaries for internal professional and
clerical support, as well as direct and indirect overhead costs. EEI
argues that this average cost is not an appropriate figure to use
because the vast majority of the work done on triennial review
applications is performed by highly paid professionals. They state that
outside legal, engineering, and economic expertise costs far more than
the estimate included in the July 2010 notice for this ICR.
    EEI comments that the Commission's burden estimate for triennial
review applications may be low by a factor of 10 or more.
    FERC Response. According to EEI comments, it is the association of
the nation's shareholder-owned electric utilities, international
affiliates, and industry associates worldwide. Its members represent
approximately 70 percent of the U.S. electric power industry and serve
95 percent of the ultimate customers in the shareholder-owned segment
of the industry. EEI members include the majority of the public
utilities that are subject to the Commission's rate jurisdiction under
Federal Power Act section 205 and, therefore, must submit MBR
applications and change-in-status reports to obtain and to retain MBR
authorizations.
    In response to the EEI statement that ``several EEI member
companies'' report a higher number of hours for preparing triennial
reviews than FERC estimated in its ICR, FERC acknowledges that large
transmission-owning utilities with market-based rate authority have to
undertake more complex analyses in their triennial reviews than smaller
companies who do not own transmission. However, there are significantly
fewer entities that prepare complex analyses for their triennial
reviews than there are small energy businesses that prepare the
triennial reviews. FERC records show in September 2010 there were 1,590
organizations with authority to charge market-based rates. According to
the Energy Information Administration's most recent count from 2009,
there are 201 investor owned utilities (generally larger than other
respondents). These numbers give an order of magnitude as to how many
more small sellers there are than big sellers. The filings of these
smaller companies related to the activities of this ICR are far simpler
and require significantly fewer resources and time to complete. It is
this wide variation in the amount of effort required to prepare
triennial reviews that led the Commission to conclude that basing its
estimate on an average made the reporting burden in the July 2010
Notice as accurate as possible.
    Nevertheless, in consideration of EEI's concerns, FERC acknowledges
in this Notice that the complexity characteristic of triennial reviews
prepared by transmission-owning utilities with market-based rate
authority typically approaches what is done in the initial market power
analysis where the utility first sought market-based rate
authorization. FERC also recognizes that the complex analysis of
triennial reviews for transmission-owning utilities results from the
work of a diverse set of professions including consultant economists,
lawyers, and electrical engineers. The costs of engaging these
professionals may be somewhat higher than the estimate included in the
July 2010 Notice of this ICR.
    As a result of the foregoing, FERC has increased the estimated
average hours per response for triennial review applications from 40 to
250--the same amount of time FERC estimates it takes to prepare a
market power analysis for a new market-based rate application. The
Commission has also increased the average annual salary figure
associated with completing market power analysis in new applications
for market-based rates as well as completing triennial reviews from
$137,874 to $166,602. Even though EEI comments do not address the costs
associated with initial applications for MBRs, FERC will use the
revised $166,602 annual salary rate for triennials as the average
annual salary amount associated with its estimates for initial MBR
filings. The latter is an average, including benefits and bonuses, of
the salaries for a mid-level economist, lawyer, and electrical engineer
according to Salary.com data. (See http://salary.com).
    Public Comment: Change in status. EEI states that the ICR's burden
estimate for change in status filings appears to be

too low. They argue that each change in status filing is unique and
must be developed to fit specific circumstances. They state that FERC
regulations require updated market-power analyses to accompany certain
change in status filings, for example, any time there is a cumulative
increase in ownership or control of 100 MW or more of generation
capacity in a market. EEI states that the burden in such cases
potentially is comparable to the burden of performing the market-power
analysis portion of the triennial reviews. EEI asserts that the burden
of complying is far higher than FERC's estimated one hour per report.
Even in cases where a full market-power analysis is not required to be
filed, EEI states that some analysis has to be done to determine
whether such an analysis should be included in the filing. Also, beyond
drafting and submitting the change in status filing, EEI notes in its
comments that regulatory staff must constantly monitor business
activities, and must train business unit staff to inform them of
changes which may lead to a required change in status filing.
    FERC Response. As noted above, the Commission directed the filing
of changes in status in Order No. 652. In that order, the Commission
found the ongoing burden associated with change in status filings to be
de minimis.\4\ As a result of that determination, the Commission did
not attribute a burden estimate to this activity at that time;
therefore, no authorization from OMB was needed for that data
collection. In examining various aspects of it market-based rate
program in Order No. 697, FERC compiled all market-based rate data
requirements into this ICR, the FERC-919. Although the consolidation of
market-based rate data requirements in the FERC-919 included change in
status filings, FERC did not estimate burden hours for the change in
status filings based on the assumption they were still a de minimis
activity as determined in Order No. 652. In the July Notice for this
ICR FERC did, however, estimate that the Appendix B addition to change
in status filings would take one hour to complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Order No. 652, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,175 at P 35 (``the
time and effort required to prepare the notice of a change in
status--consisting of a transmittal sheet and a brief narrative
statement--will be de minimis and will constitute a fraction of that
required to submit the [FPA] section 203 application or [FPA]
section 205 filing. Furthermore, the information required to comply
with the reporting requirement would normally be collected by the
market-based rate seller in the ordinary course of preparing the
underlying filing.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an initial matter, FERC would like to clarify an apparent
misunderstanding regarding whether an updated market power analysis is
required to be submitted with a change in status filing. FERC does not,
in all instances, require market-based rate sellers to include an
updated market power analysis with a change in status filing that
involves an increase in ownership or control of 100 MW or more of
capacity. The Commission has left it to the market-based rate seller to
determine whether a change in status is a material change and to
provide adequate support and analysis for that conclusion, including
submission of an updated market power analysis if it chooses.\5\
However, it is hereby noted that the Commission retains the right to
require additional information, including an updated market power
analysis where necessary to determine the effect of a seller's change
in status on its market-based rate authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Order No. 697-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,268 at P 504
(``In Order No. 652, the Commission clarified and standardized
market-based rate sellers' reporting requirement for changes in
status and the Commission considered and rejected the idea that
change in status filing include an updated market power analysis.
The Commission explained that it is incumbent on an applicant to
decide whether a change in status is a material change and that an
applicant should provide adequate support and analysis, including an
updated market power analysis if it chooses.'') See also Order No.
652, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,175 at P 95.
    \6\ See Order No. 697-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,268 at P 505.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to EEI's comments, FERC reviewed change in status
filings made October 21, 2008 to October 20, 2010. To facilitate its
analyses, FERC divided change in status filings into two categories
based on the complexity and amount of work evident in the filing. Those
filings that were voluminous, provided detailed economic and market
data, undertook market power analyses and provided substantive
information about current operational dynamics were categorized as
``major'' change in status filings. These filings most commonly
included a full market power analysis with significant amount of detail
and complexity. Filings that did not include detailed market power
analyses but instead relied on simplified assumptions based on
previously submitted market power analyses to conclude that the change
in status did not reflect a departure from the characteristics the
Commission relied upon in granting the seller market-based rate
authority were categorized as ``minor.'' The change in status filings
categorized as ``minor'' were often from a market-based rate seller who
simply pointed to a recent market power study for the same market as
support for its contention that, given the size of the market and the
size of the seller's uncommitted generation capacity, the seller does
not have market power in the market; thus, the acquisition has not
changed any of the facts upon which the Commission relied in granting
the seller market-based rate authority. FERC also noted that sellers
sometimes make supplemental filings providing additional information
relating to previously submitted change in status. These supplemental
filings can similarly be categorized as ``major'' or ``minor.''
    FERC assessment and tally of these filings is as follows:

                              Total Number of Change in Status Filings at FERC: 82
                                           [10-21-2009 to 10-20-2010]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   All change in status filings         Change in status (CIS) filings            Supplemental CIS filings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     CIS          CIS          CIS
           Total filings            Initial CIS   requiring    requiring    previously   Major work   Minor work
                                       filing     major work   minor work     filed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
82................................           62            9           53           20            3           17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Total Number of Change in Status Filings at FERC: 78
                                           [10-21-2008 to 10-20-2009]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   All change in status filings         Change in status (CIS) filings            Supplemental CIS filings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     CIS          CIS          CIS
           Total filings            Initial CIS   requiring    requiring    previously   Major work   Minor work
                                       filing     major work   minor work     filed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
78................................           77            8           69            1                         1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From October 21, 2009 to October 20, 2010, there were a total of 82
change in status filings. Sixty-two of these were initial change in
status filings, nine of which were categorized as ``major'' and 53 of
which were categorized as ``minor.'' The remaining 20 filings were
supplements to initial notice of change in status filings submitted by
companies to provide additional information regarding a filing they had
already made; 3 of these supplemental filings were categorized as
``major'' and 17 were categorized as ``minor.'' Between October 21,
2008 to October 20, 2009, there were a total of 78 change in status
filings. Seventy-seven were initial change in status filings, eight of
which were ``major'' and 69 of which were categorized as ``minor.'' One
of the 78 filings was a ``minor'' supplement to an initial change in
status.
    Based on the EEI's comments and historical data regarding change in
status filings, FERC has decided to increase its assessment of the
reporting burden hours for change in status filings to 34.75 hours per
response, which includes preparation of the associated asset
appendices. FERC estimates an average of 80 change in status filings
per year [(82 + 78)/2 = 80)]. Of these, it estimates that 10 will be
major (250 hours per response) and 70 will be minor (4 hours per
response). By taking an average, FERC estimates that the total annual
burden for change in status filings is 2,780 hours [(250*10 = 2500) +
(70*4 = 280) = 2,780]. FERC estimates an average of 58 respondents per
year each filing an average of 1.38 responses (80 filings per year/58 =
1.38 \7\). Using the above estimates the average burden hours per
response is 34.75 (2,780 total hours/80 responses = 34.75).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Rounded off due to truncating the average number of
responses per respondent to two decimal places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the
FERC-919 reporting requirements, with revised burden and cost estimates
based on comments received in response to its July 2010 Notice and as
described above. There is no change to the reporting requirements.
    Burden Statement: The revised estimated annual burden for triennial
market power analysis in category 2 seller updates and the change in
status filings are shown below. There are also changes from the July
2010 Notice burden and cost estimates for market power analyses in new
applications for market based rates because FERC has revised the
average salary estimate for preparing market power analysis. There are
no changes to the burden estimates for the quarterly land acquisition
reports.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Estimated        Average         Average      Total annual
                                                     number of       number of     burden hours    burden hours
                    FERC-919                        respondents    responses per   per response     (1) x (2) x
                                                   annually (1)   respondent (2)        (3)             (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market power analysis in new applications for                155               1             250          38,750
 market-based rates (required in 18 CFR
 35.37(a))......................................
Triennial market power analysis in category 2                 74               1             250          18,500
 seller updates (required in 18 CFR 35.37(a))...
Quarterly land acquisition reports (required in               40               1               4             160
 18 CFR 35.42(d))...............................
Change in Status Filings (required in 18 CFR                  58            1.38           34.75       \7\ 2,780
 35.42(a))......................................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............          60,190
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $4,814,968
[((38,750 + 18,500 + 2,500 \8\)/2,080 \9\ hours per year, times
$166,602) + ((280 \10\ + 160)/2,080 hours per year, times $137,874) =
$4,814,968]. This number uses the average salary rate of $166,602,
which includes annual salaries, bonuses and benefits, of a mid-level
economist, lawyer, and electrical engineer according to Salary.com
data, for the hours required in 18 CFR 35.37(a) for market power
analysis in new applications for market-based rates, triennial market
power analysis in category 2 seller updates and major change in status
filings. It uses the average salary rate for an internal professional
of $137,874, based on a FERC estimate, for preparation of the quarterly
land acquisition reports and minor change in status filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Total number of burden hours for major change in status
filings. Of the 80 responses per year, 10 are major (10 responses x
250 hours per response = 2500).
    \9\ Estimated number of hours an employee works each year.
    \10\ Total number of burden hours for minor change in status
filings. Of the 80 responses per year, 70 are minor (70 responses x
4 hours per response = 280).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing,
acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining,
disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways
to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
(4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5)
searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of
information;

and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the information.
    The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for
professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect
overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to
providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost
for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs
incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs
apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than
any one particular function or activity.
    Any additional comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed
collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of
the burden of the proposed collections of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information
on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting
electronic submission of responses.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29304 Filed 11-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 177 (Friday, September 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 54706]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21812]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9916-65-Region 6]

Notice of Proposed Administrative Settlement Pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 122(i) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended
(``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed
administrative settlement concerning the EXPLO Systems, Inc., Superfund
Site, Camp Minden, Webster Parrish, Louisiana.
    The settlement requires the two (2) settling parties to pay a total
of $111,800 as payment of past response costs to the Hazardous
Substances Superfund. The settlement includes a covenant not to sue
pursuant to section 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607.
    For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this
notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to this
notice and will receive written comments relating to the settlement.
The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or
withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose
facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any
comments received will be available for public inspection at 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 14, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement and additional background
information relating to the settlement are available for public
inspection at 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. A copy of the
proposed settlement may be obtained from Cynthia Brown at 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments
should reference the EXPLO Systems, Inc., Superfund Site, Camp Minden,
Webster Parrish, Louisiana, and EPA Docket Number 06-06-14, and should
be addressed to Cynthia Brown at the address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Malone, Assistant Regional
Counsel, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or call (214) 665-
8030.

    Dated: August 29, 2014.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2014-21812 Filed 9-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15163-15166]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6186]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66544; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-032]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify NASDAQ's Investor Support Program

March 8, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 27, 2012, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by NASDAQ. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASDAQ proposes to modify the Investor Support Program (the
``ISP'') under Rule 7014 to introduce an additional method for members
to earn an enhanced rebate under the ISP. NASDAQ will implement the
proposed change on March 1, 2012. The text of the proposed rule change
is available at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/, at NASDAQ's principal
office, 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, NASDAQ 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. NASDAQ 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ is proposing to modify the Investor Support Program (the
``ISP'') under Rule 7014 to introduce an additional method for members
to earn an enhanced rebate under the ISP. The ISP enables NASDAQ
members to earn a monthly fee credit for providing additional liquidity
to NASDAQ and increasing the NASDAQ-traded volume of what are generally
considered to be retail and institutional investor orders in exchange-
traded securities (``targeted liquidity'').\3\ The goal of the ISP is
to incentivize members to provide such targeted liquidity to the NASDAQ
Market Center.\4\ The Exchange noted in the ISP Filing that maintaining
and increasing the proportion of orders in exchange-listed securities
executed on a registered exchange (rather than relying on any of the
available off-exchange execution methods) would help raise investors'
confidence in the fairness of their transactions and would benefit all
investors by deepening NASDAQ's liquidity pool, supporting the quality
of price discovery, promoting market transparency and improving
investor protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For a detailed description of the Investor Support Program
as originally implemented, see Securities Exchange Act Release No.
63270 (November 8, 2010), 75 FR 69489 (November 12, 2010) (NASDAQ-
2010-141) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness) (the ``ISP
Filing''). See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 63414
(December 2, 2010), 75 FR 76505 (December 8, 2010) (NASDAQ-2010-153)
(notice of filing and immediate effectiveness); 63628 (January 3,
2011), 76 FR 1201 (January 7, 2011) (NASDAQ-2010-154) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness); 63891 (February 11, 2011), 76
FR 9384 (February 17, 2011) (NASDAQ-2011-022) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness); 64050 (March 8, 2011), 76 FR 13694 (March
14, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-034); 65717 (November 9, 2011), 76 FR
70784 (November 15, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-150) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness).
    \4\ The Commission has recently expressed its concern that a
significant percentage of the orders of individual investors are
executed at over the counter (``OTC'') markets, that is, at off-
exchange markets; and that a significant percentage of the orders of
institutional investors are executed in dark pools. Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (January 14, 2010), 75 FR 3594
(January 21, 2010) (Concept Release on Equity Market Structure,
``Concept Release''). In the Concept Release, the Commission has
recognized the strong policy preference under the Act in favor of
price transparency and displayed markets. The Commission published
the Concept Release to invite public comment on a wide range of
market structure issues, including high frequency trading and un-
displayed, or ``dark,'' liquidity. See also Mary L. Schapiro,
Strengthening Our Equity Market Structure (Speech at the Economic
Club of New York, Sept. 7, 2010) (``Schapiro Speech,'' available on
the Commission Web site) (comments of Commission Chairman on what
she viewed as a troubling trend of reduced participation in the
equity markets by individual investors, and that nearly 30 percent
of volume in U.S.-listed equities is executed in venues that do not
display their liquidity or make it generally available to the
public).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Without modifying any existing aspects of the ISP, the Exchange now
proposes to provide an additional method for members to qualify for an
ISP rebate that includes a new criterion focused on liquidity provision
through Public Customer Orders in the NASDAQ Options Market. The change
recognizes the extent to which members that represent retail and/or
institutional investors are active in trading both cash equities and
options on behalf of such customers. In fact, to an increasing extent
the customers that such members represent simultaneously trade
different asset classes within a single investment strategy. NASDAQ
also notes that cash equities and options markets are linked, with
liquidity and trading patterns on one market affecting those on the
other. Accordingly, pricing incentives that encourage market
participant activity in both markets recognize that activity in the
options markets also supports price discovery and liquidity provision
in the NASDAQ Market Center. The NASDAQ Market Center fee schedule for
order execution and routing in Rule 7018 already recognizes the
convergence between cash equities and options trading through liquidity
provider rebate tiers available to members active in both the NASDAQ
Market Center and the NASDAQ Options Market.
    Participants in the ISP are required to designate specific NASDAQ
order entry

ports for use under the ISP and to meet specified criteria focused on
market participation, liquidity provision, and high rates of order
execution. For members qualifying for the new ISP tier, NASDAQ will pay
a credit of $0.0003 per share with respect to shares of displayed
liquidity executed at a price of $1 or more and entered through ISP-
designated ports, and $0.0001 per share with respect to all other
shares of displayed liquidity executed at a price of $1 or more. The
specific criteria for the proposed new ISP tier are as follows:
    (1) The member's Participation Ratio \5\ for the month exceeds its
Baseline Participation Ratio \6\ by at least 0.30%. In general terms,
the Baseline Participation Ratio is the ratio of shares of liquidity
provided by the member in NASDAQ for the month of August 2010 or August
2011 (whichever is lower) to the total consolidated volume for that
month. To the extent that a member's participation in NASDAQ equals or
exceeds its Baseline Participation Ratio (i.e., to the extent that the
member at least matches its participation in NASDAQ during the lower of
August 2010 or August 2011), the member may be eligible for the
program. Exceeding the Baseline Participation Ratio by specified
amounts may qualify the member for higher credits under the ISP. The
requirement reflects the expectation that a member participating in the
program must maintain or increase its participation in NASDAQ as
compared with an historical baseline. All of the ISP's existing tiers
have a criterion focused on the member's Participation Ratio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Participation Ratio'' is defined as follows: ``[F]or a
given member in a given month, the ratio of (A) the number of shares
of liquidity provided in orders entered by the member through any of
its Nasdaq ports and executed in the Nasdaq Market Center during
such month to (B) the Consolidated Volume.'' ``Consolidated Volume''
is defined as follows: ``[F]or a given member in a given month, the
consolidated volume of shares of System Securities in executed
orders reported to all consolidated transaction reporting plans by
all exchanges and trade reporting facilities during such month.''
``System Securities'' means all securities listed on NASDAQ and all
securities subject to the Consolidated Tape Association Plan and the
Consolidated Quotation Plan.
    \6\ ``Baseline Participation Ratio'' is defined as follows:
``[W]ith respect to a member, the lower of such member's
Participation Ratio for the month of August 2010 or the month of
August 2011, provided that in calculating such Participation Ratios,
the numerator shall be increased by the amount (if any) of the
member's Indirect Order Flow for such month, and provided further
that if the result is zero for either month, the Baseline
Participation Ratio shall be deemed to be 0.485% (when rounded to
three decimal places).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) The member's ``ISP Execution Ratio'' for the month must be less
than 10. The ISP Execution Ratio is defined as ``the ratio of (A) the
total number of liquidity-providing orders entered by a member through
its ISP-designated ports during the specified time period to (B) the
number of liquidity-providing orders entered by such member through its
ISP-designated ports and executed (in full or partially) in the Nasdaq
Market Center during such time period; provided that: (i) No order
shall be counted as executed more than once; and (ii) no Pegged Orders,
odd-lot orders, or MIOC or SIOC orders shall be included in the
tabulation.'' \7\ Thus, the definition requires a ratio between the
total number of orders that post to the NASDAQ book and the number of
such orders that actually execute that is low, a characteristic that
NASDAQ believes to be reflective of retail and institutional order
flow. All of the ISP's existing tiers have a criterion focused on the
member's ISP Execution Ratio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ These terms have the meanings assigned to them in Rule 4751.
MIOC and SIOC orders are forms of ``immediate or cancel'' orders and
therefore cannot be liquidity-providing orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) The shares of liquidity provided through ISP-designated ports
during the month are equal to or greater than 0.2% of Consolidated
Volume during the month, reflecting the ISP goals of encouraging higher
levels of liquidity provision. All of the ISP's existing tiers have a
criterion focused on the liquidity provided through ISP-designated
ports as a percentage of Consolidated Volume.
    (4) At least 80% of the liquidity provided by the member during the
month is provided through ISP-designated ports. This requirement is
designed to mitigate ``gaming'' of the program by firms that do not
generally represent retail or institutional order flow but that
nevertheless are able to channel a portion of their orders that they
intend to execute through ISP-designated ports and thereby receive a
credit with respect to those orders. All of the ISP's existing tiers
have a criterion requiring the member to provide a specified percentage
of liquidity through ISP-designated ports.
    In addition to these criteria, which are similar or identical to
criteria for existing ISP tiers, members seeking to qualify for the new
tier would also be required to satisfy the following criteria:
    (5) The member has an average daily volume during the month of
100,000 or more contracts of liquidity provided through one or more of
its Nasdaq Option Market market participant identifiers (``MPIDs''),
provided that such liquidity is provided through Public Customer
Orders, as defined in Chapter I, Section 1 of the Nasdaq Options Market
Rules. That rule defines Public Customer Order as an order for the
account of a person that is not a broker or a dealer. Thus, in keeping
with the goal of the ISP to encourage participation by retail and
institutional investors and the members that represent them in exchange
markets, the new criterion focused on options would require a specified
level of liquidity provision through orders that are directly
identified under Nasdaq Options Market rules as having characteristics
consistent with this goal.
    (6) The member's ratio between shares of liquidity provided through
ISP-designated ports and total shares accessed, provided, or routed
through ISP-designated ports during the month is at least 0.80. This
additional criterion reflects a goal of ensuring that the qualifying
member is using its ISP-designated ports substantially for liquidity
provision, in keeping with the ISP's overall goal of drawing liquidity-
providing orders to exchange markets. A similar criterion is applicable
to NASDAQ's Extended Hours Investor Program (the ``EHIP''), which is
also provided for under Rule 7014.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system which NASDAQ operates or controls, and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ISP encourages members to add targeted liquidity that is
executed in the NASDAQ Market Center. The primary objective in making
the enhancements to the ISP reflected in the proposed rule change is to
add an even greater amount of targeted liquidity to the NASDAQ Market
Center and also the NASDAQ Options Market by adding an additional
method by which members may qualify for the ISP, but without
eliminating or modifying any of the existing methods.
    The rule change proposal, like the original ISP, is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination, but rather is intended to promote
submission of liquidity--providing orders to NASDAQ, which benefits all
NASDAQ members and all investors. The change recognizes the extent to
which members that represent retail and/or institutional investors are
active in trading both cash

equities and options on behalf of such customers. In fact, to an
increasing extent the customers that such members represent
simultaneously trade different asset classes within a single strategy.
NASDAQ also notes that cash equities and options markets are linked,
with liquidity and trading patterns on one market affecting those on
the other. Accordingly, pricing incentives that encourage market
participant activity in both markets recognize that activity in the
options markets also supports price discovery and liquidity provision
in the NASDAQ Market Center. Thus, the new tier, like existing tiers,
is designed to benefit all market participants by encouraging
submission of liquidity--providing orders to the NASDAQ Market Center,
and further broadens this incentive by encouraging the submission of
liquidity--providing options contracts to the NASDAQ Options Market.
    Likewise, the proposal, like the ISP, is consistent with the Act's
requirement for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges. Members who choose to significantly increase the volume
of liquidity--providing orders that they submit to the NASDAQ Market
Center and the NASDAQ Options Market in order to qualify for the new
tier, or existing tiers, would be benefitting all investors, and
therefore providing credits to them, as contemplated by the ISP, is
equitable. Moreover, NASDAQ believes that the level of the credit
available through the new tier--$0.0003 per share for displayed
liquidity provided through ISP-designated ports and $0.0001 per share
for other displayed liquidity--is reasonable, in that it is comparable
to the added rebates of $0.0001, $0.0003, or $0.0004 per share executed
already provided under other ISP tiers, and does not reflect a
disproportionate increase above the rebates provided to all members
with respect to provision of displayed liquidity under Rule 7018, which
range from $0.0020 to $0.00295 per share executed. NASDAQ further notes
that by adding an additional tier to the ISP without altering any of
the existing tiers, NASDAQ is effectively reducing fees for members
qualifying for the new tier without making any offsetting fee
increases.
    Finally, NASDAQ notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues
if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or
rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In
such an environment, NASDAQ must continually adjust its fees to remain
competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems
that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards
applicable to exchanges. NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change
reflects this competitive environment because the changes to the ISP
are designed to increase the credits provided to members that enhance
NASDAQ's market quality through liquidity provision.

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Because the market
for order execution is extremely competitive, members may readily opt
to disfavor NASDAQ's execution services if they believe that
alternatives offer them better value. For this reason and the reasons
discussed in connection with the statutory basis for the proposed rule
change, NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed changes will impair
the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain
their competitive standing in the financial markets. In fact, because
it institutes a reduction in fees, NASDAQ believes that the proposed
rule change will enhance the degree of competition between NASDAQ and
other trading venues.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \10\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\11\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If
the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved
or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-NASDAQ-2012-032 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2012-032. 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2012-032 and should
be submitted on or before April 4, 2012.

    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. 2012-6186 Filed 3-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19281-19282]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8311]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0249; Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-6]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Bozeman, MT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify Class E airspace at Gallatin
Field Airport, Bozeman, MT, to accommodate aircraft using Instrument
Landing System (ILS) Localizer (LOC) standard instrument approach
procedures at the airport. The FAA is proposing this action to enhance
the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport. This
action also would adjust the geographic coordinates of the airport for
the Class D and E airspace areas, and would update the airport name.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 23, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-
0249; Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-6, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA 2011-0249 and Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-6) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2011-0249 and Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-6''. The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA
98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace designated
as an extension to Class D surface area at Gallatin Field Airport,
Bozeman, MT. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft
using the ILS LOC standard instrument approach procedures at the
airport and would enhance the safety and management of aircraft
operations. The geographic coordinates of the Gallatin Field Airport
for Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, and Class E
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, would be
adjusted in accordance with the FAA's aeronautical database. This
action would also update the airport name from Bozeman, Gallatin Field
Airport, MT, to Gallatin Field Airport.
    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in
paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order
7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1. The Class D and Class
E airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in this Order.
    The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, section 106, describes
the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes additional controlled airspace at Gallatin Field
Airport, Bozeman, MT.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the
Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September
15, 2010 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D airspace.

* * * * *

ANM MT D Bozeman, MT [Amended]

Gallatin Field Airport
    (Lat. 45[deg]46'39'' N., long. 111[deg]09'07'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
7,000 feet MSL within a 4.4-mile radius of Gallatin Field Airport.
This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates
and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Airport/Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

ANM MT E2 Bozeman, MT [Amended]

Gallatin Field Airport
    (Lat. 45[deg]46'39'' N., long. 111[deg]09'07'' W.)

    Within a 4.4-mile radius of Gallatin Field Airport. This Class E
airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times
established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and
time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/
Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6004 Class E airspace designated as an extension to a
Class D Surface Area.

* * * * *

ANM MT E4 Bozeman, MT [Modified]

Gallatin Field Airport
    (Lat. 45[deg]46'39'' N., long. 111[deg]09'07'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 3 miles
each side of the 316[deg] bearing of Gallatin Field Airport
extending from the 4.4-mile radius of the airport to 15.5 miles
northwest of the airport, and that airspace 2.4 miles each side of
the 212[deg] bearing of the Gallatin Field Airport extending from
the 4.4-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles southwest of the
airport.

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM MT E5 Bozeman, MT [Amended]

Gallatin Field Airport
    (Lat. 45[deg]46'39'' N., long. 111[deg]09'07'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 13.5-mile radius of Gallatin Field Airport, and within 4.8
miles northeast and 13 miles southwest of the 316[deg] bearing of
the airport extending from the 13.5-mile radius to 24.4 miles
northwest of Gallatin Field Airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on March 28, 2011.
John Warner,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2011-8311 Filed 4-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P