[Federal Register: June 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 109)]
[Notices]
[Page 27305]
[DOCID:fr09jn09-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings--No. 2

June 3, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP96-200-213.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company submits
for approval negotiated rate agreement with Arkansas Electric
Cooperative Corporation.
    Filed Date: 06/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090602-0133.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 15, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP96-200-214.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Comp.
    Description: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company submits
for approval amended negotiated rate agreement with Shell Energy North
America.
    Filed Date: 06/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090602-0134.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 15, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-301-236.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Company submits for filing and acceptance
an amendment to one Rate Schedule ETS-1 negotiated rate agreement with
Wisconsin Power & Light Co.
    Filed Date: 06/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090602-0131.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 15, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-301-237.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Company submits for filing and acceptance
and one Rate Schedule FTS-3 negotiated rate service agreement with
Wisconsin Power & Light Co.
    Filed Date: 06/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090602-0132.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 15, 2009.

    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests
must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all
the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests 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 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 email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-13390 Filed 6-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 31, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16795-16797]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06562]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91406; File No. SR-EMERALD-2021-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX Emerald, LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
the MIAX Emerald Fee Schedule To Adopt an Excessive Quoting Fee

March 25, 2021.
    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 March 12, 2021, MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX Emerald'' or
``Exchange''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Emerald Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') to adopt new Section 1)c), Excessive
Quoting Fee.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/emerald, at MIAX'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, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to adopt new
Section 1)c), Excessive Quoting Fee.
Background
    The Exchange initially filed its proposal to adopt the Excessive
Quoting Fee on February 8, 2021.\3\ On February 22, 2021, the Exchange
withdrew the First Proposed Rule Change and now resubmits this proposal
to provide additional background information and make further changes
due to business reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See SR-EMERALD-2021-06 (the ``First Proposed Rule Change'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange recently completed a significant upgrade to its
System's \4\ network architecture, based on customer demand, which has
resulted in the Exchange's network environment becoming more
transparent and deterministic. This project included additional network
development in several areas, which resulted in: (i) Minimum latency
between multicast market data signals disseminated by the Exchange
across the extranet switches; (ii) a reduction in the occurrence of
message sequence inversions from Members \5\ to the Exchange quoting
gateway processors; (iii) assurance of the optical fiber path for
participants within extremely tight tolerances; (iv) a re-architected
and engineered participant quoting gateway; and (v) the Exchange being
able to better measure the performance of the network and System at
extremely tight tolerances and the ability to provide Members with
reporting on the performance of their own systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
    \5\ ``Member'' means an individual or organization approved to
exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading Permit.
Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See the
Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule and Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to adopt new
Section 1)c), Excessive Quoting Fee. The Exchange proposes to assess an
Excessive Quoting Fee of $10,000 per day to any Market Maker \6\ that
exceeds 2.5 billion inbound quotes \7\ sent to the Exchange on that
particular day. In counting the total number of quotes for the purposes
of the Excessive Quoting Fee, the Exchange proposes to exclude messages
that are generated as a result of sending a mass purge message to the
Exchange. The Exchange proposes that the 2.5 billion inbound quote
limit for the Excessive Quoting Fee will reset each trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term ``Market Maker'' refers to ``Lead Market Maker''
(``LMM''), ``Primary Lead Market Maker'' (``PLMM'') and ``Registered
Market Maker'' (``RMM''), collectively. See the Definitions Section
of the Fee Schedule and Exchange Rule 100.
    \7\ The term ``quote'' or ``quotation'' means a bid or offer
entered by a Market Maker that is firm and may update the Market
Maker's previous quote, if any. The Rules of the Exchange provide
for the use of different types of quotes, including Standard quotes
and eQuotes, as more fully described in Rule 517. A Market Maker
may, at times, choose to have multiple types of quotes active in an
individual option. See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this proposal is to ensure that Market Makers do not
over utilize the Exchange's System by sending excessive quotes to the
Exchange, to the detriment of all other Members of the Exchange. Market
Makers that send an excessive number of quotes to the Exchange on any
particular day have the potential residual effect of exhausting System
resources, bandwidth, and capacity. In turn, this may create latency
and impact other Members' and non-Members' ability to send messages to
the Exchange and receive timely executions.
    The Exchange's high performance network provides unparalleled
system throughput and the capacity to handle approximately 38 million
messages per second. On an average day, the Exchange handles over
approximately 11 billion total messages. These billions of messages per
day consume the Exchange's resources, particularly storage
capabilities. The combination of (i) Member quoting behavior, (ii)
increased volatility in the marketplace, and (iii) increased number of
options products quoted on the Exchange has a significant impact on the
total number of quotes sent each trading day, resulting in additional
storage capacity. The Exchange believes this proposal will reduce the
potential for market participants to engage in excessive quoting
behavior that would require the Exchange to increase its storage
capacity and will encourage quotes to be made in good faith.
    Recognizing that orders and executions often occur in large
numbers, the purpose of this proposal is to focus on activity that is
truly disproportionate while fairly allocating costs. The proposal
contemplates that a Market Maker would have to exceed the high
threshold of 2.5 billion inbound quotes before that Market Maker would
be charged the proposed fee on that particular trading day. The
Exchange

believes that it is in the interests of all Members and market
participants who access the Exchange to not allow other market
participants to exhaust System resources, but to encourage efficient
usage of network capacity.
    The Exchange believes that this concept is not new or novel.\8\ The
Exchange notes that although prior similar proposals from other
exchanges relating to capacity-type fees focused on flow through
capacity, the Exchange has determined to adopt a quote cap methodology
at this time for business reasons. The Exchange's proposal is not
intended to raise revenue; rather, it is intended to encourage
efficient quoting behavior so that market participants do not exhaust
System resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60117 (June 16,
2009), 74 FR 30190 (June 24, 2009) (SR-AMEX-2009-25) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending
the Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services by Adding a
Ratio Threshold Fee); 64655 (June 13, 2011), 76 FR 35495 (June 17,
2011) (SR-AMEX-2011-37) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE Amex Options
Fee Schedule To Establish a New Fee Designed To Encourage Efficient
Use of Bandwidth by ATP Firms and To Rename a Related Existing Fee);
53522 (March 20, 2006), 71 FR 14975 (March 24, 2006) (SR-ISE-2006-
09) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Session/API Fees);
55941 (June 21, 2007), 72 FR 35535 (June 28, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-36)
(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
Change as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to API Fees);
84963 (December 26, 2018), 84 FR 830 (January 31, 2019) (SR-CboeBZX-
2018-095) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the BZX Equities Fee Schedule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes adopting the proposed fee will protect the
integrity of the MIAX Emerald market and benefit all market
participants of MIAX Emerald by ensuring that the Exchange's System is
not overloaded from excessive quotes being sent to it each day. The
Exchange notes that it will provide Market Makers with daily reports,
free of charge, which will detail their quoting activity in order for
those firms to be fully aware of the number of quotes they are sending
to the Exchange. This will allow firms to ensure that their quoting
behavior does not approach the proposed 2.5 billion inbound quote
limit.
    The Exchange notes that since the launch of MIAX Emerald in March
of 2019, no Market Maker has reached approximately more than two thirds
of the proposed 2.5 billion inbound quote limit threshold during peak
trading days, including days with high volatility in the marketplace.
Accordingly, the Exchange does not anticipate that any Market Maker
will exceed the proposed 2.5 billion inbound quote limit and become
subject to the proposed fee. The Exchange notes that this proposal is
not intended to raise revenue for the Exchange; rather, it is intended
to ensure that Market Makers are using their quoting methodologies in
the most efficient manner possible in light of the Exchange's highly
deterministic and transparent infrastructure.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \10\ in particular, in
that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among its Members and issuers and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \11\ in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general protects investors and the public
interest and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general to protect investors and the public interest and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers and dealers because it will encourage efficient utilization of
the Exchange's highly deterministic and transparent network
architecture. The Exchange believes that unfettered usage of System
capacity and network resource consumption can have a detrimental effect
on all market participants who are potentially compelled to send quote
messages to the Exchange on an unlimited basis, to the detriment of all
other market participants who access and use the Exchange. Further, the
proposed fee and message limit will apply equally to all Market Makers
who send quotes to the Exchange in excess of 2.5 billion inbound quotes
on any particular trading day.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory due to the substantial quote limit that the proposal
contemplates before the proposed fee kicks in, as well as the normal
Market Maker quote traffic that the Exchange has experienced since it
began operations in March of 2019. In addition, the Exchange believes
that by excluding messages that are generated from a mass purge message
sent to the Exchange from the calculation of the total quotes for the
proposed fee is not unfairly discriminatory because it will keep from
disadvantaging firms that choose to use mass purges on a regular basis
for risk management reasons. The Exchange notes that since the launch
of MIAX Emerald in March of 2019, no Market Maker has reached
approximately more than two-thirds of the proposed 2.5 billion inbound
quote limit threshold during peak trading days, including days with
high volatility in the marketplace. The Exchange does not anticipate
that any Market Maker will exceed the proposed 2.5 billion inbound
quote limit and become subject to the proposed fee.
    The Exchange further believes that its proposal is reasonable,
equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because it is not
intended to raise revenue for the Exchange; rather, it is intended to
ensure that Market Makers are using their quoting methodologies in the
most efficient manner possible in light of the Exchange's highly
deterministic and transparent infrastructure. The Exchange believes
that the proposed fee and quote limit is reasonable, equitably
allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because this proposal will
reduce the potential for market participants to engage in excessive
quoting behavior that would require the Exchange to increase its
storage capacity and will encourage quotes to be made in good faith.
The Exchange notes that other exchanges have implemented similar fees
and capacity type-limits in order to deter their firms from over-
utilizing their trading systems and exhausting system resources, while
encouraging the efficient usage of system resources.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed Excessive Quoting
Fee both appropriately reflects the benefits to different firms of
being able to send quotes into the Exchange's trading System, and
facilitates the Commission's goal of ensuring that critical market
infrastructure has ``levels of capacity, integrity, resiliency,
availability, and security adequate to maintain their operational
capability and promote the maintenance of fair and orderly markets.''
\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73639 (November 19,
2014), 79 FR 72251 (December 5, 2014) (File No. S7-01-13)
(Regulation SCI Adopting Release).

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

    The Exchange will also review the quoting behavior of all firms on
a regular basis to ensure that the inbound quote limit remains
significantly higher than the average firm quoting behavior, while
taking into account varying market conditions. The Exchange will
regularly monitor prevailing market conditions to ensure that the
inbound quote limit is sufficiently flexible and could not
inadvertently result in higher than anticipated fees being charged to
firms that are providing liquidity in volatile, high volume markets.
The Exchange does not want to discourage such liquidity provision and
believes that it should be able to adjust the inbound quote limit on a
monthly basis if need be.

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.
Intra-Market Competition
    The Exchange believes that the proposal does not put any market
participants at a relative disadvantage compared to other market
participants because the proposed fee and message limit will apply
equally to all Market Makers who send quotes to the Exchange in excess
of 2.5 billion inbound quotes on any particular trading day. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed fee neither favors nor
penalizes one or more categories of market participants in a manner
that would impose an undue burden on competition. Rather, the proposal
seeks to benefit all market participants by encouraging the efficient
utilization of the Exchange's highly deterministic and transparent
network architecture. Further, the Exchange notes that since the launch
of MIAX Emerald in March of 2019, no Market Maker has reached
approximately more than two-thirds of the proposed 2.5 billion inbound
quote limit threshold during peak trading days, including days with
high volatility in the marketplace. Accordingly, the Exchange does not
anticipate that any Market Maker will exceed the proposed 2.5 billion
inbound quote limit and become subject to the proposed fee.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed Excessive Quoting
Fee does not favor certain categories of market participants in a
manner that would impose a burden on competition.
Inter-Market Competition
    The Exchange believes the proposal does not place an undue burden
on competition on other self-regulatory organizations that is not
necessary or appropriate because of the availability of numerous
substitute options exchanges. There are 15 other options exchanges
where market participants can become members and send quotes if they
deem the 2.5 billion inbound quote limit to be too restrictive for
their quoting behavior. In addition, the Exchange does not believe the
proposal will impose any burden on inter-market competition as the
proposal does not address any competitive issues; rather, it is
intended to protect all market participants of MIAX Emerald by ensuring
that the Exchange's System is not overloaded from excessive quotes
being sent to it each day.

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,\14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \15\ thereunder.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \15\ 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-EMERALD-2021-10 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EMERALD-2021-10. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-EMERALD-2021-10 and should be submitted
on or before April 21, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-06562 Filed 3-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46694-46695]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18869]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0644]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Tigre Bayou, Vermilion Parish,
Delcambre, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
regulation governing the operation of the LA 330 Swing Bridge across
Tigre Bayou, mile 2.3 in Delcambre, Vermilion Parish, Louisiana. This
deviation provides for the bridge to remain closed to navigation for
approximately 80 days for the purpose of conducting scheduled
maintenance to the drawbridge.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on August 18, 2014
through 6 p.m. on November 9, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2014-0644] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Jim Wetherington, Bridge
Administration Branch, Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Cheryl F. Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Louisiana Department of Transportation
and Development (LADOTD) requested a temporary deviation from the
normal operation of the drawbridge in order to perform maintenance and
install a new rack system under the bridge. This deviation allows the
draw of the LA 330 Swing Bridge across Tigre Bayou, mile 2.3 in
Delcambre, Vermilion Parish, Louisiana, to remain closed to navigation
from 6 a.m. on August 18, 2014 through 6 p.m. on November 9, 2014.
These repairs require the bridge to be jacked up in order for the work
to be done. These repairs are necessary for the continued operation of
the bridge. The bridge can open for emergencies if four hours notice is
given.
    Broadcast Notice to Mariners and/or Local Notice to Mariners will
be used to update mariners of any changes in this deviation.
    The bridge has a vertical clearance of 5 feet above mean high water
in the closed-to-navigation position and unlimited vertical clearance
in the open-to-navigation position. Navigation on the waterway consists
primarily of recreational craft. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.507, the
draw of the bridge shall open on signal if at least four hours notice
is given. There is no alternate route.
    The Coast Guard and the State determined that there will be no
significant impacts on vessel traffic because only one request for an
opening was made within the last year. That vessel owner has been
contacted by the contractor and is aware of the situation. Vessel
traffic that does not require an opening may pass at any time at the
minimum safe operating speed.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridges must return to
their regular operating schedules immediately at the end of the
effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the
operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: July 24, 2014.
David M. Frank,
Bridge Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-18869 Filed 8-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 26, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29968-29970]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12363]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0659; FRL-9927-98-Region-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Ohio; Removal of General Conformity Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
removal of general conformity regulations from the Ohio state
implementation plan (SIP) under the Clean Air Act (CAA). These
regulations are no longer necessary since the establishment of the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users transportation act (transportation act) removed the
requirement for states to maintain general conformity regulations.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective July 27, 2015, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by June 25, 2015. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not
take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2014-0659, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2014-0659. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection Specialist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background for this action?
II. What is EPA's analysis of the state's submittal?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    On March 11, 1996, EPA approved the general conformity rules in
chapter 3745-102 of the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) into the Ohio
SIP (61 FR 9646). General conformity is a requirement of section 176(c)
of the CAA to ensure that no Federally supported actions outside of
highway and transit projects interfere with the purpose of the approved
SIP, i.e. the SIP's protection of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. General conformity requirements currently apply to the
following criteria pollutants: Ozone, particulate matter,

carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide. The general conformity
regulation is found in 40 CFR part 93, subpart B and provisions related
to general conformity SIPs are found in 40 CFR 51.851.
    On August 10, 2005, the transportation act was signed into law, and
among other things, it amended the CAA to eliminate the requirement for
states to adopt and submit general conformity SIPs. On April 5, 2010
(75 FR 17254), EPA updated the general conformity SIP regulations to be
consistent with the transportation act by eliminating the Federal
regulatory requirement for states to adopt and submit general
conformity SIPs. See 40 CFR 51.851. On July 21, 2014, the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency submitted a request to remove the
general conformity regulations from the Ohio SIP.

II. What is EPA's analysis of the state's submittal?

    We have reviewed Ohio's submittal to ensure consistency with the
current CAA, as amended by the transportation act, and EPA regulations
governing state procedures for general conformity (40 CFR 51.851).
Specifically, 40 CFR 51.851(a) was changed to indicate that states
``may'', not ``must'' submit to EPA a general conformity SIP because,
as 40 CFR 51.851(b) indicates, Federal agencies shall use the
provisions of 40 CFR part 93, subpart B in addition to any existing
applicable state or tribal requirements to review the conformity of
Federal actions in nonattainment or maintenance areas. Ohio's removal
of general conformity rules from its SIP meets the requirements set
forth in section 110(l) of the CAA with respect to adoption and
submission of SIP revisions. 40 CFR part 93, subpart B continues to
subject certain Federal actions to general conformity requirements
without the need for identical state rules and SIPs. Therefore,
repealing the state rule will not impact continuity of the general
conformity program in Ohio, and consequently meets the requirements of
section 110(l). Ohio's request to remove the general conformity
regulations from the Ohio SIP is approvable.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving the removal of the general conformity regulations
in OAC chapter 3745-102 from the Ohio SIP. We are publishing this
action without prior proposal because we view this as a
noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However,
in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we
are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to
approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed.
This rule will be effective July 27, 2015 without further notice unless
we receive relevant adverse written comments by June 25, 2015. If we
receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the
effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw
the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed
in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA
receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this
rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the
rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not
the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not receive any comments,
this action will be effective July 27, 2015.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 27, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register,

rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this
direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and
address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be
challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See
section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 13, 2015.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  52.1870  [Amended]

0
2. Section 52.1870 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(c)(107).

[FR Doc. 2015-12363 Filed 5-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 104 (Thursday, June 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25270-25281]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11277]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF17-5-000]

Port Arthur Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Louisiana Connector
Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of
Public Scoping Sessions

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that
will discuss the environmental impacts of the Port Arthur Louisiana
Connector Project involving construction and operation of facilities by
Port Arthur Pipeline, LLC (PAPL) in Jefferson County, Texas and
Cameron, Calcasieu, Beauregard, Allen, Evangeline, and St. Landry
Parishes, Louisiana. The Commission will use this EIS in its decision-
making process to determine whether the project is in the public
convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with
your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they
need to evaluate in the EIS. To ensure that your comments are timely
and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission
receives them in Washington, DC on or before June 24, 2017.
    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on February 24, 2017, you will need to file
those comments in Docket No. PF17-5-000 to ensure they are considered
as part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this planned
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses
a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent
domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission will provide equal
consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form
or provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of
comments and has expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' If you are filing a comment on a particular project,
please select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(PF17-5-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    (4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the
Commission invites you to attend one of the public scoping sessions its
staff will conduct in the project area, scheduled as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Date and time                          Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, June 12, 2017, 4:30 p.m.    West-Cal Arena & Events Center,
 to 7:30 p.m.                        Exhibit Hall B and Cyprus Meeting
                                     Room, 401 Arena Road, Sulphur, LA
                                     70665,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Tuesday, June 13, 2017, 4:30 p.m.   Coushatta Casino Resort--Koasati
 to 7:30 p.m.                        Pines Golf Course, Veranda Room,
                                     300 Koasati Drive, Kinder, LA
                                     70648, 1-800-584-7263.
Wednesday, June 14, 2017, 4:30      Louisiana State University--Eunice,
 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.                   Community Education Building, Room
                                     C118, LSUE Campus Dr., Eunice, LA
                                     70535,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary goal of these scoping sessions is to have you identify
the specific environmental issues and concerns that should be
considered in the EIS to be prepared for this project. Individual
verbal comments will be taken on a one-on-one basis with a court
reporter. This format is designed to receive the maximum amount of
verbal comments, in a convenient way during the timeframe allotted.
    Each scoping session is scheduled from 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
central daylight time. You may arrive at any time after 4:30 p.m. There
will not be a formal presentation by Commission staff when the session
opens. If you wish to speak, the Commission staff will hand out numbers
in the order of your arrival. Comments will be taken until 7:30 p.m.
However, if no additional numbers have been handed out and all
individuals who wish to provide comments have had an opportunity to do
so, staff may conclude the session at 7 p.m. Please see appendix 1 for
additional information on the session format and conduct.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Your scoping comments will be recorded by the court reporter (with
FERC staff or representative present) and become part of the public
record for this proceeding. Transcripts will be publicly available on
FERC's eLibrary system (see below for instructions on using eLibrary).
If a significant number of people are interested in providing verbal
comments in the one-on-one settings, a time limit of 3 to 5 minutes may
be implemented for each commentor.
    It is important to note that verbal comments hold the same weight
as written or electronically submitted comments. Although there will
not be a formal presentation, Commission staff will be available
throughout the comment session to answer your questions about the
environmental review process. Representatives from PAPL will also be
present to answer project-specific questions.
    Please note this is not your only public input opportunity; please
refer to the review process flow chart in appendix 2.

Summary of the Planned Project

    PAPL plans to construct and operate an interstate natural gas
transmission system in Texas and Louisiana. The project would provide
about 2.0 billion square cubic feet per day of natural gas to supply a
proposed natural gas liquefaction and export project in Jefferson
County, Texas.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This export project is referred to as the Port Arthur
Liquefaction Project. It, along with the Port Arthur Pipeline
Project, is also being reviewed by FERC under Docket Nos. CP17-20-
000 and CP17-21-000 and will be evaluated in the same EIS as the
Louisiana Connector Project. The Port Arthur Liquefaction Project
would involve the installation of a liquefaction facility for the
exportation of natural gas near Port Arthur in Jefferson County,
Texas. The Port Arthur Pipeline Project would involve the
construction and operation of about 34 miles of 42-inch-diameter
pipeline in Orange and Jefferson Counties, Texas and Cameron Parish,
Louisiana, and would also provide a source of gas for the
liquefaction facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Port Arthur Louisiana Connector Project would consist of the
following facilities:
     A 131-mile-long, 42-inch-diameter pipeline in Jefferson
County, Texas and Cameron, Calcasieu, Beauregard, Allen, Evangeline,
and St. Landry Parishes, Louisiana;
     a new compressor station in Allen Parish, Louisiana;
     eight interconnects and meter stations in Jefferson
County, Texas and Allen, Evangeline, and St. Landry Parishes,
Louisiana; and
     appurtenant underground and aboveground facilities.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
3.

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the planned project would disturb about 1,980 acres
of land for the pipeline and aboveground facilities. Following
construction, PAPL would maintain about 790 acres for permanent
operation of the pipeline project; the remaining acreage would be
restored and revert to former uses. About 83 percent of the planned
pipeline route parallels existing pipeline, utility, or road rights-of-
way.

The EIS Process

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

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

    In the EIS we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the planned project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     land use;
     water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     cultural resources;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     socioeconomics;
     air quality and noise;
     endangered and threatened species;
     public safety; and
     cumulative impacts.
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned project
or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen
or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Although no formal application has been filed, we have already
initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process.
The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement
of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before
the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we
have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their
involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EIS.
    The EIS will present our independent analysis of the issues. We
will publish

and distribute the draft EIS for public comment. After the comment
period, we will consider all timely comments and revise the document,
as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. To ensure we have the
opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully
follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning
on page 2.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues
related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the
preparation of the EIS.\4\ Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice. Currently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have expressed their intention to
participate as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS to
satisfy their NEPA responsibilities related to this project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

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

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

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities, the
environmental information provided by PAPL, comments received at PAPL's
open houses, and those comments filed to date. This preliminary list of
issues may change based on your additional comments and our analysis:
     Impacts on wetlands;
     construction in and potential impacts on aquatic resources
in Sabine Lake;
     colocation with existing pipelines; and
     utilization of the same or similar rights-of-way as other
proposed pipeline projects.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes: Federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
planned project.
    Copies of the completed draft EIS will be sent to the environmental
mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to
receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the
attached Information Request (appendix 4).

Becoming an Intervenor

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

Additional Information

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

    Dated: May 25, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01JN17.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01JN17.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01JN17.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01JN17.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01JN17.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01JN17.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01JN17.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01JN17.007

[FR Doc. 2017-11277 Filed 5-31-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-C