[Federal Register: October 22, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 203)]
[Notices]
[Page 59521-59523]
[DOCID:fr22oc07-43]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP07-451-000]

Black Bayou Storage, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Black Bayou Gas Storage
Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

October 12, 2007.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Black Bayou Gas Storage
Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Black
Bayou Storage, LLC (BBS) in Cameron Parrish, Louisiana.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process we will
use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the
project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine which
issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping
period will close on November 30, 2007.
    This notice is being sent to affected landowners; federal, state,
and local government representatives and agencies; environmental and
public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested
parties in this proceeding; and local libraries and newspapers. We
encourage government representatives to 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, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities.
The pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable
agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, 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 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?'' was attached to the
project notice BBS provided to landowners. 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. It is
available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    BBS proposes to convert a depleted natural gas production field in
Cameron Parish Louisiana located 15 miles west of Hackberry, Louisiana
but includes north into Calcasieu Parish for a short distance. The
storage field design capacity of each cavern would be approximately
10.4 billion cubic feet (Bcf) consisting of 7.5 Bcf of working capacity
and up to 2.9 Bdf of cushion gas. The caverns would have approximately
1,200 million cubic feet (MMcf) of maximum daily injection capability
and approximately 1,200 MMcf of maximum daily withdrawal capability.
BBS seeks authority to construct and operate the following facilities:
     Two salt dome storage caverns;
     One 18,940 horsepower compressor station;
     One leaching plant;
     Five brine disposal wells on one common pad;
     Five water supply wells on five separate pads;
     One electrical substation;
     One 30-inch-diameter, 2.45-mile-long gas pipeline
interconnect with Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corporation (Transco)
mainline;
     One 24-inch-diameter, 4.69-mile-long gas pipeline
interconnect with planned Kinder Morgan mainline;
     One 20-inch-diameter, 0.10-mile-long cavern gas pipeline
for Cavern No. 1;
     One 20-inch-diameter, 0.25-mile-long cavern gas pipeline
for Cavern No. 2;
     One 8-inch-, 12-inch-, and 16-inch-diameter, 2.20 mile-
long water pipeline system;
     One 16-inch-diameter, 1.43 mile-long brine pipeline
system;
     One meter station and one separate tie-in facility for
Transco's pipeline interconnect;
     One meter station with combined tie-in facilities for the
Kinder Morgan pipeline interconnect; and
     One 0.25-mile-long access road for Cavern Nos. 1 and 2.
    Certain facilities of Diasu Oil and Gas Company (Diasu) including a
tank farm would need to be dismantled, relocated or removed before BBS
constructs its proposed compressor station and leaching facility on the
site of Diasu's current facilities.
    The location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix 1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices, other
than Appendix 1 (maps), are available on the Commission's Web site
at the ``eLibrary'' link or from the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202)
502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the
last page of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nonjurisdictional Facilities

    Non-jurisdictional facilities that will be built as a result of the
proposed project would include a 2.2 mile-long 230 kV electric
powerline to be constructed by Entergy, Inc. (Entergy). The electric
powerline would run between Entergy's existing 230 kV transmission line
on the south bank of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and BBS's proposed
electrical substation approximately 2,100 feet northwest of the Central
Facility area. The electric powerline would require several
environmental permits and approvals including state and federal
authorization for work in waters of the U.S. (Coastal Use Permit) and
clearances under the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic
Preservation Act.

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would require about 94.4
acres of land. Following construction, about 24.2 acres would be
maintained as permanent pipeline right-of-way, new access roads, well
sites, or new aboveground facility sites. The remaining 70.2 acres of
land would be restored and allowed to revert to its former use.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals.
This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff
requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the
EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the
EA. State and local government representatives are encouraged to notify
their constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.
    In the EA we \2\ will discuss impacts that could occur as a result
of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Geology and soils
     Land use
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands
     Cultural resources
     Vegetation and wildlife
     Air quality and noise
     Endangered and threatened species
     Hazardous waste
     Public safety
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project
or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen
or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending
on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be
published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies, public
interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners,
newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for
this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA
is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make
our recommendations to the Commission.
    To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the
instructions in the public participation section below.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and
the environmental information provided by BBS. This preliminary list of
issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis.
     Cultural resources may be affected by the project.
     The project would cross two major waterbodies: Black Bayou
and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
     About 62.2 acres of wetlands, open water, and other land
uses would be impacted during construction by underground pipeline and
cable facilities, and about 6.8 acres of wetland

open water and other land uses would be impacted by above ground
pipeline facilities.
     Two cavern well pads, electrical substation, part of the
brine disposal well pad site, the Kinder Morgan meter station site, the
Transco meter station, and Water Well Pad No. 1, would be constructed
in marshland or open water and could potentially impact fisheries.
     Essential fish habitat for the brown shrimp, white shrimp,
and red drum are likely to be of concern within the project area.
     The proposed project would encompass areas containing
suitable nesting habitat for colonial wading birds.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commentor, your
concerns will be addressed in the EA/EIS and considered by the
Commission. You should focus on the potential environmental effects of
the proposal, alternatives to the proposal (including alternative
locations/routes), and measures to avoid or lessen environmental
impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments
are received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to:
    Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 2.
     Reference Docket No. CP07-451-000.
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before November 30, 2007.
    Please note that the Commission encourages electronic filing of
comments. See 18 Code of Federal Regulations 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Internet Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
 under the ``eFiling'' link and the link to the User's

Guide. Prepare your submission in the same manner as you would if
filing on paper and save it to a file on your hard drive. Before you
can file comments you will need to create an account by clicking on
``Login to File'' and then ``New User Account.'' You will be asked to
select the type of filing you are making. This filing is considered a
``Comment on Filing.''

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners who are
potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily
for project purposes, or who own homes within distances defined in the
Commission's regulations of certain aboveground facilities. By this
notice we are also asking governmental agencies, especially those in
Appendix 2, to express their interest in becoming cooperating agencies
for the preparation of the EA.
    If you do not want to send comments at this time but still want to
remain on our mailing list, please return the Information Request
(Appendix 3). If you do not return the Information Request, you will be
taken off the mailing list.

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an official party to the proceeding, an ``intervenor''. To
become an intervenor you must file a motion to intervene according to
Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR
385.214). Intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the
Commission's decision. Motions to Intervene should be electronically
submitted using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov.

Persons without Internet access should send an original and 14 copies
of their motion to the Secretary of the Commission at the address
indicated previously. Persons filing Motions to Intervene on or before
the comment deadline indicated above must send a copy of the motion to
the Applicant. All filings, including late interventions, submitted
after the comment deadline must be served on the Applicant and all
other intervenors identified on the Commission's service list for this
proceeding. Persons on the service list with e-mail addresses may be
served electronically; others must be served a hard copy of the filing.
    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your environmental comments considered.

Availability of Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://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. Be
sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance,
please contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
toll free at 1-866-208-3676, 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 now 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 http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx
 along with other related information.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-20716 Filed 10-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 249)]
[Notices]
[Page 74405-74407]
[DOCID:fr31de07-120]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2007-0093]

Electronic Signatures on Documents: East West Resort
Transportation, LLC, and TMS, LLC, dba Colorado Mountain Express (CME),
Application for Exemption

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FMCSA announces that it has received from East West Resort
Transportation, LLC, and TMS, LLC, dba Colorado Mountain Express (CME),
an application for an exemption from the original signature requirement
for a driver on the application for employment required by the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. The exemption would allow CME to use
an electronic signature as a functional equivalent of an original
signature on the driver employment applications. CME states that the
use of electronic signatures would substantially improve the level of
service that it can provide the public, as it would expedite processing
of employment applications as well as improve cost efficiency in its
business. FMCSA requests public comment on CME's application for
exemption.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 30, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System Number FMCSA-2004-19608 by any of the following
methods:
     Web Site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for

submitting comments on the Federal electronic docket site.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Ground Floor, Room W12-140, DOT Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the

Public Participation heading below. Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any

personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the

ground floor, room W12-140, DOT Building, New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://docketsinfo.dot.gov
.

    Public participation: The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is generally

available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can get electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the ``help'' section
of the www.regulations.gov Web site and also at the DOT's http://docketsinfo.dot.gov
 Web site. If you want us to notify you that we

received your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped
envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement page that appears
after submitting comments online.
    Comments received after the comment closing date will be included
in the docket, and we will consider late comments to the extent
practicable. FMCSA may, however, make a final decision on the
application for exemption at any time after the close of the comment
period.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT DMS Docket Number
FMCSA-2007-0093 using any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/. Follow the

instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140, Washington,
DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
West Building, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the online instructions for submitting

comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://dms.dot.gov including any personal

information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading for further
information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or Room W12-140

on the ground floor of the West Building, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
Docket Management System (DMS) is available 24 hours each day, 365 days
each year. If you want us to notify you that we received your comments,
please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print
the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting comments on-
line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or other
entity). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477, Apr. 11,
2000). This statement is also available at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver
and Carrier Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and
Operations. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, June 9, 1998) amended 49 U.S.C. 31315
and 31136(e) to provide authority to grant exemptions from motor
carrier safety regulations. Under its regulations, FMCSA must publish a
notice of each exemption request in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an opportunity to
inspect the information relevant to the application, including the
conducting of any safety analyses. The Agency must also provide an
opportunity for public comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and
determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reason for denying or, in the alternative, the
specific person or class of persons receiving the exemption, and the
regulatory provision or provisions from which exemption is granted. The
notice must also specify the effective period of the exemption (up to 2
years), and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

Request for Exemption

    East West Resort Transportation, LLC, and TMS, LLC, dba Colorado
Mountain Express (CME) is a DOT-registered motor carrier of passengers
providing service over regular routes and in special and charter
operations. CME operates 235 vehicles and has over 20 years of
experience in interstate commerce. CME's regular route operations are
provided principally between the Denver International Airport in
Denver, Colorado and points in Eagle County, Colorado including the
Vail and Beaver Creek ski resorts, the Eagle County, Colorado Regional
Airport and points in Pitkin County, Colorado, including the Aspen and
Snowmass ski resorts, pursuant to certificates issued by the former
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). Its authority to provide charter
and special operations extends to all points in Colorado.
    CME states that it has increasingly made use of computers in
conducting its business. It makes maximum use of the Internet in its
reservations, maintenance, accounting and virtually all other phases of
its business. CME advises that its ``goal of making maximum prudent use
of computers in its business extends to its goal of ultimate
digitization of all data which it both generates and receives in the
ordinary course of business, with the result of CME being a `paperless
office'.'' CME's ultimate goal, according to its exemption application,
is to conduct, to the extent possible, all of its internal operations
in a digitized format.
    CME states that, as a motor common carrier of passengers, it is
required to comply--and does comply--with the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). One specific

section of the FMCSRs--Sec.  391.21(b) reads: ``The application for
employment shall be made on a form furnished by the motor carrier. Each
application form must be completed by the applicant, must be signed by
him, and must contain the following information * * *.''
    As one part of its goal to utilize computers in its everyday
business activities, in 2006 CME contracted with a vendor to monitor
the Federal driver-recordkeeping requirements with a service that helps
carriers centralize and manage driver records, and standardizes
company-wide transportation safety and compliance programs and
resulting data. By providing proactive real-time alerts of important
driver information, this system lets CME know at a glance what its
compliance level is at any given time, and what work needs to be done
to maintain and enhance its compliance efforts.
    According to CME, one of the time-consuming drawbacks to the
overall process of hiring a driver is the requirement in 49 CFR
391.21(b) of having the application signed by the individual driver
applicant. CME's computer system is sophisticated and secure, and
applicants who submit an application online do so by entering a user
name and password that can only be known to the applicant. CME wishes
to make this online application process less complicated by allowing
driver-applicants to use an electronic signature, rather than having
the application completed online, approved, printed, signed by the
driver applicant, and then rescanned into the system.
    Due to the savings involved in not maintaining large areas devoted
to the storage of paper records, CME has strived to have substantially
all of its passenger-service records, including its traffic data,
digitized in a manner that minimizes human intervention. CME states
that the potential utilization of electronic signatures would
substantially improve the level of service that it can provide the
public as it reduces the margin of error in its operations, which
culminates in considerable cost savings to CME.
    CME requests that it be granted an exemption for a period of two
years from the requirement to maintain driver employment applications
bearing original signatures. A copy of CME's exemption application is
in the docket identified at the beginning of this notice.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) and 31136(e), FMCSA
requests public comment on CME's application for an exemption. The
Agency will consider all comments received by close of business on
January 30, 2008. Comments will be available for examination in the
docket at the location listed under the ADDRESSES section of this
notice. The Agency will file comments received after the comment
closing date in the public docket, and will consider them to the extent
practicable. In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to
file, in the public docket, relevant information that becomes available
after the comment closing date. Interested persons should monitor the
public docket for new material.

    Issued on: December 19, 2007.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E7-25318 Filed 12-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78166-78169]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27651]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96504; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2022-82]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule
6.40P-O

December 15, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on December 14, 2022, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.40P-O (Pre-Trade and
Activity-Based Risk Controls) pertaining to pre-trade risk controls to
make additional pre-trade risk controls available to Entering Firms.
The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at

the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.40P-O (Pre-Trade and
Activity-Based Risk Controls) pertaining to pre-trade risk controls to
make additional pre-trade risk controls available to entering Firms.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``Entering Firm'' refers to an OTP Holder or OTP
Firm (including those acting as Market Makers). See Rule 6.40P-
O(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background and Purpose
    In 2022, in connection with the Exchange's migration to Pillar and
to better assist OTP Holders and OTP Firms in managing their risk, the
Exchange adopted Rule 6.40P-O, which included pre-trade risk controls,
among other activity-based controls, wherein an Entering Firm had the
option of establishing limits or restrictions on certain of its trading
behavior on the Exchange and authorizing the Exchange to take action if
those limits or restrictions were exceeded.\5\ Specifically, the
Exchange added a Single Order Maximum Notional Value Risk Limit, and a
Single Order Maximum Quantity Risk Limit \6\ (collectively, the
``Initial Pre-Trade Risk Controls'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94072 (January 26,
2022), 87 FR 5592 (February 1, 2022) (Notice of filing Notice of
Filing of Amendment No. 4 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 4) (SR-
NYSEArca-2021-47).
    \6\ The terms ``Single Order Maximum Notional Value Risk Limit,
and ``Single Order Maximum Quantity Risk Limit'' are defined in Rule
6.40P-O(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to expand the list of the optional pre-
trade risk controls available to Entering Firms by adding several
additional pre-trade risk controls that would provide Entering Firms
with enhanced abilities to manage their risk with respect to orders on
the Exchange. Like the Initial Pre-Trade Risk Controls, use of the pre-
trade risk controls proposed herein is optional, but all orders on the
Exchange would pass through these risk checks. As such, an Entering
Firm that does not choose to set limits pursuant to the new proposed
pre-trade risk controls would not achieve any latency advantage with
respect to its trading activity on the Exchange. In addition, the
Exchange expects that any latency added by the pre-trade risk controls
would be de minimis.
Proposed Amendment to Rule 6.40P-O
    To accomplish this rule change, the Exchange proposes to amend the
definition of the term ``Pre-Trade Risk Controls'' set forth in Rule
6.40P-O(a)(2) to adopt the definition of ``Single-Order Risk
Controls,'' which controls would be listed in proposed paragraph (A) to
Rule 6.40P-O(a)(2). As proposed, the ``Single-Order Risk Controls''
would include the already-defined risk controls of the Single Order
Maximum Notional Value Risk Limit and Single Order Maximum Quantity
Risk Limit (collectively referred to herein as the ``existing Single-
Order Risk Checks''), with non-substantive changes to streamline the
descriptions of these controls into new paragraph (i) of proposed Rule
6.40P-O(a)(2)(A).\7\ However, because of a lack of demand for the
option to apply the existing Single-Order Risk Checks to Market Maker
quotes, the Exchange proposes to discontinue functionality supporting
this optional feature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See proposed Rule 6.40P-O(a)(2)(A)(i) (setting forth
``controls related to the maximum dollar amount for a single order
to be applied one time (`Single Order Maximum Notional Value Risk
Limit') and the maximum number of contracts that may be included in
a single order before it can be traded (`Single Order Maximum
Quantity Risk Limit'). Orders designated GTC will be subject to
these checks only once.'') Consistent with the foregoing changes,
the Exchange proposes to delete current paragraph (B) to Rule 6.40P-
O(a)(2)(B). See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the addition, the Exchange proposes to add paragraphs
(a)(2)(A)(ii) through (v) to enumerate the proposed new Single-Order
Risk Controls, as follows:

    (ii) controls related to the price of an order or quote
(including percentage-based and dollar-based controls);
    (iii) controls related to the order types or modifiers that can
be utilized;
    (iv) controls to restrict the options class transacted; and
    (v) controls to prohibit duplicative orders.

    Each of the new Single-Order Risk Controls in proposed paragraph
(a)(2)(A)(ii)-(v) is substantively identical to risk settings already
in place on the Exchange's affiliate equities exchange NYSE American
LLC (``NYSE American''),\8\ as well as those on the Cboe and MEMX
equities exchanges,\9\ except that the proposed controls account for
options trading, such as including reference to ``an order or quote''
versus ``an order'' and reference to restrictions on trading in an
``options class'' versus on ``the types of securities transacted
(including but not limited to restricted securities).'' \10\ As such,
the proposed new optional Pre-Trade Risk Controls are familiar to
market participants and are not novel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See NYSE American Rule 7.19E; see also Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 96403 (November 29, 2022) (SR-NYSEAMER-2022-53).
    \9\ See Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe BZX'') Rule 11.13,
Interpretations and Policies .01; Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe
BYX'') Rule 11.13, Interpretations and Policies .01; Cboe EDGA
Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe EDGA'') Rule 11.10, Interpretations and
Policies .01; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe EDGX'') Rule 11.10,
Interpretations and Policies .01; and MEMX LLC (``MEMX'') Rule
11.10, Interpretations and Policies .01.
    \10\ See proposed Rule 6.40P(a)(2)(A)(ii) and (a)(2)(A)(iv) as
compared to NYSE American Rule 7.19E(b)(2)(B) and (b)(2)(F),
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify current paragraph (b)(2) regarding
the setting and adjusting of the Pre-Trade Risk Controls to state that,
in addition to Pre-Trade Risk Controls being available to be set at the
MPID level or at one or more sub-IDs associated with that MPID, or
both, that Pre-Trade Risk Controls to restrict the options class(es)
transacted must be set per option class.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g.,. Rule 7.19E(d)(2) (specifying that pre-trade
risk controls related to transacting in restricted securities must
be set per symbol).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify paragraph (c)(1) regarding ``Breach
Action for Pre-Trade Risk Controls.'' First, the Exchange proposes to
specify that ``[a] Limit Order that breaches any Single-Order Risk
Control will be rejected.'' \12\ The proposed functionality is
consistent with the treatment of Limit Orders that breach the existing
Single Order Risk Checks and simply extends the application of the
breach action to the newly proposed Single-Order Risk Controls. Next,
proposed Rule 6.40P-O(c)(1)(A)(ii) specifies that ``[a] Market Order
that arrives during a pre-open state will be cancelled if the quantity
remaining to trade after an Auction breaches the Single Order Maximum
Notional Value Risk Limit,'' which functionality is identical to
treatment of such interest under the current Rule.\13\ Proposed Rule
6.40P-O(c)(1)(A)(ii) further specifies that ``[a]t all other times, a
Market Order that triggers or breaches any Single-Order Risk Control
will be rejected.'' \14\ The proposed functionality is consistent with
the treatment of Market Orders (that arrive other than during a pre-
open state) that breach the existing Single Order Risk Checks and
simply extends the

application of the breach action to the newly proposed Single-Order
Risk Controls. Further, proposed Rule 6.40P-O(c)(1)(A)(iii) addresses
the breach action relevant to the new Single-Order Risk Control set
forth in proposed Rule 6.40P-O(a)(2)(A)(ii) (i.e., a breach of controls
related to the price of an order or quote including percentage-based
and dollar-based controls). As proposed, a Limit Order or quote that
would breach a price control under paragraph (a)(2)((A)(ii) would be
rejected or cancelled as specified in Rule 6.62P-O (a)(3)(A) (Limit
Order Price Protection).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See proposed Rule 6.40P(c)(1)(A)(i).
    \13\ See Rule 6.40P(c)(1)(A)(i) (providing, in relevant part,
that ``[a] Market Order that breaches the designated limit of a
Single Order Maximum Quantity Risk Limit'' will be ``canceled if the
order was received during a pre-open state and the quantity
remaining to trade after an Auction concludes breaches the
designated limit.'').
    \14\ See proposed Rule 6.40P(c)(1)(A)(ii).
    \15\ See proposed Rule 6.40P(c)(1)(A)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to add new Commentary .02 to specify
the interplay between the Exchange's Limit Order Price Protection
(``LOPP'') functionality and the price controls that may be set by an
Entering Firm pursuant to proposed paragraph (a)(2)(A)(ii). Proposed
Commentary .02 specifies that an Entering Firm may set price controls
under paragraph (a)(2)(A)(ii) that are equal to or more restrictive
than levels set by the Exchange LOPP functionality.
Continuing Obligations of OTP Holders Under Rule 15c3-5
    The proposed Pre-Trade Risk Controls described here are meant to
supplement, and not replace, the OTP Holders' own internal systems,
monitoring, and procedures related to risk management. The Exchange
does not guarantee that these controls will be sufficiently
comprehensive to meet all of an OTP Holder's needs, the controls are
not designed to be the sole means of risk management, and using these
controls will not necessarily meet an OTP Holder's obligations required
by Exchange or federal rules (including, without limitation, the Rule
15c3-5 under the Act \16\ (``Rule 15c3-5'')). Use of the Exchange's
Pre-Trade Risk Controls will not automatically constitute compliance
with Exchange or federal rules and responsibility for compliance with
all Exchange and SEC rules remains with the OTP Holder.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-5.
    \17\ See also Commentary .01 to Rule 6.40P-O, which provides
that the Pre-Trade Risk Controls set forth in Rule 6.40P-O ``are
meant to supplement, and not replace, the OTP Holder's or OTP Firm's
own internal systems, monitoring, and procedures related to risk
management and are not designed for compliance with Rule 15c3-5
under the Exchange Act. Responsibility for compliance with all
Exchange and SEC rules remains with the OTP Holder or OTP Firm.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timing and Implementation
    The Exchange anticipates completing the technological changes
necessary to implement the proposed rule change in the second quarter
of 2023, but in any event no later than June 30, 2023. The Exchange
anticipates announcing the availability of the Pre-Trade Risk Controls
introduced in this filing by Trader Update in the first quarter of
2023.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\18\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\19\ in particular, because it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest,
and because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system because the proposed optional
additional Pre-Trade Risk Controls would provide Entering Firms
enhanced abilities to manage their risk with respect to orders or
quotes on the Exchange. The proposed additional Pre-Trade Risk Controls
are not novel; they are based on existing risk settings already in
place on NYSE American,\20\ as well as those on the Cboe and MEMX
equities exchanges,\21\ and market participants are already familiar
with the types of protections that the proposed risk controls afford.
Moreover, the proposed new Single-Order Risk Controls (like the
existing Single-Order Risk Checks) are options and, as such, Entering
Firms are free to utilize or not at their discretion. Thus, the
Exchange believes that the proposed additional Pre-Trade Risk Controls
would provide a means to address potentially market-impacting events,
helping to ensure the proper functioning of the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra note 8.
    \21\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
will protect investors and the public interest because the proposed
additional Pre-Trade Risk Controls are a form of impact mitigation that
will aid Entering Firms in minimizing their risk exposure and reduce
the potential for disruptive, market-wide events. The Exchange
understands that OTP Holders implement a number of different risk-based
controls, including those required by Rule 15c3-5. The controls
proposed here will serve as an additional tool for Entering Firms to
assist them in identifying any risk exposure. The Exchange believes the
proposed additional Pre-Trade Risk Controls will assist Entering Firms
in managing their financial exposure which, in turn, could enhance the
integrity of trading on the securities markets and help to assure the
stability of the financial system.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system by permitting Entering Firms to set price
controls under paragraph (a)(2)(A)(ii) that are equal to or more
restrictive than the levels established in the Exchange's LOPP
functionality, which protects from aberrant trades, thus improving
continuous trading and price discovery. To the extent that Entering
Firms would like to further manage their exposure to aberrant trades,
this proposed functionality affords such Firms the ability to set price
controls at levels that are more restrictive than the LOPP levels.
Additionally, because price controls set by an Entering Firm under
paragraph (a)(2)(A)(ii) would function as a form of limit order price
protection, the Exchange believes that it would remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system for an order that would breach such a price control to be
rejected or cancelled as specified per Rule 6.62P-O(a)(3)(A) regarding
the LOPP.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does
not unfairly discriminate among the Exchange's OTP Holders because use
of the proposed additional Pre-Trade Risk Controls is optional and is
not a prerequisite for participation on the Exchange. In addition,
because all orders on the Exchange would pass through the risk checks,
there would be no difference in the latency experienced by OTP Holders
who have opted to use the proposed additional Pre-Trade Risk Controls
versus those who have not opted to use them.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not

necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In
fact, the Exchange believes that the proposal will have a positive
effect on competition because, by providing Entering Firms additional
means to monitor and control risk, the proposed rule will increase
confidence in the proper functioning of the markets. The Exchange
believes the proposed additional Pre-Trade Risk Controls will assist
Entering Firms in managing their financial exposure which, in turn,
could enhance the integrity of trading on the securities markets and
help to assure the stability of the financial system. As a result, the
level of competition should increase as public confidence in the
markets is solidified.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \22\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\23\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \25\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2022-82 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-NYSEARCA-2022-82. 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-NYSEARCA-2022-82 and should be submitted
on or before January 11, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-27651 Filed 12-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 116 (Thursday, June 16, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35106-35110]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14925]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0228]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan Including
Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, and
Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a permanent safety zone from
Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan. This safety zone will cover
77 miles of navigable waterways in the Chicago area and is intended to
restrict vessels from entering certain segments of the navigable waters
of the Des Plaines River, the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, branches
of the Chicago River, and the Calumet-Saganashkee Channel. This safety
zone is necessary to protect the waters, waterway users and vessels
from hazards associated with a myriad of actions designed to control
the spread of aquatic nuisance species. Because the Asian Carp Regional
Coordinating Committee (ACRCC) may take such actions at any time and in
any segment of the waterways covered by this safety zone, this safety
zone will provide the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, the
ability to take targeted and expeditious action to protect vessels and
persons from the hazards associated with any Federal and state efforts
to control aquatic nuisance species.

DATES: This rule is effective July 18, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2011-0228 and are available online at http://www.regulations.gov. This material is also available for inspection or
copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays and the U.S. Coast
Guard Sector Lake Michigan, 2420 South Lincoln Memorial Drive,
Milwaukee, WI 53207, between 8 a.m.

and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call BM1 Adam Kraft, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake
Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail him at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On April 27, 2011, we published a Notice of Proposed Rule Making
(NPRM) entitled Safety Zones; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake
Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal,
Chicago River, and Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL, in the
Federal Register (76 FR 23524). We received zero letters commenting on
the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    In 2007, the Department of the Interior through the Fish and
Wildlife Service listed the Asian Carp and the Silver Carp as Injurious
Wildlife Species. Based upon testing conducted by the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Asian carp are believed to be
migrating toward the Great Lakes through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal and connected tributaries. Scientists are concerned that if these
aquatic nuisance species reach the Great Lakes in sufficient numbers
that they might devastate the Great Lakes commercial and sport fishing
industries.
    The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of
1990, as amended by the National Invasive Species Act of 1996,
authorized the USACE to conduct a demonstration project to identify an
environmentally sound method for preventing and reducing the dispersal
of non-indigenous aquatic nuisance species through the Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal.
    Subsequently, the USACE put in place an electric barrier to prevent
and reduce the dispersal of Asian carp in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal. Specifically, a demonstration dispersal barrier (Barrier I) was
constructed and has been in operation since April 2002. It is located
approximately 30 miles from Lake Michigan and creates an electric field
in the water by pulsing low voltage DC current through steel cables
secured to the bottom of the canal. A second barrier (Barrier IIA) was
constructed 800 to 1300 feet downstream of Barrier I. Barrier IIA is
currently operating at two volts per inch, 15 Hertz, and 6.5ms.
Construction on Barrier IIB was completed in early 2011. Operational
and safety testing was conducted on Barrier IIB in February 2011 and is
being analyzed. The completion of Barrier IIB should allow for
maintenance operations with reduced need for the use of other aquatic
nuisance species countermeasures.
    In addition to the aforementioned electric dispersal barriers, the
ACRCC has been conducting fish sampling in the Chicago Area Waterway
System. The purpose of this sampling is to detect the potential
presence of Asian Carp and other aquatic nuisance species within the
waters covered by this safety zone. Upon detection of the presence of
Asian Carp or other aquatic nuisance species within any segment of the
waterways covered by this safety zone, the ACRCC will take action
designed to control the spread of aquatic nuisance species within the
area of detection. The various types of actions that the ACRCC might
take are outlined in the Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework, which
can be found on the ACRCC's Web site: http://asiancarp.org.
    Because of the ACRCC's testing and countermeasure activity, the
Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, put in place a Temporary
Interim Rule (TIR) on May 1, 2010. This TIR established a 77 mile long
safety zone from Brandon Road Lock to Lake Michigan in Chicago, IL. The
purpose of that safety zone was to provide the Captain of the Port,
Sector Lake Michigan, with the ability to take targeted and expeditious
action to protect vessels and persons from the hazards associated with
the aquatic nuisance testing and the countermeasure activities detailed
in the ACRCC's Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework. Although that TIR
expired on March 1, 2011, the ACRCC will continue their testing and
countermeasure activities. Thus, the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake
Michigan, still finds it necessary to have the ability to take targeted
and expeditious actions in the affected waterways to protect vessels
and persons from the ACRCC's expected actions. For this reason, the
Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, is establishing a permanent
safety zone along the same waterways covered in the previously
published TIR. Like the safety zone established in the TIR, this safety
zone will only be enforced when testing and countermeasure activity
require the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan to enforce the
safety zone.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    No comments on the proposed rulemaking were received and no changes
are being made to the rule.

Regulatory Analysis

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This 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 rule to be minimal. This
determination is based on the following: (1) While this rule
establishes a safety zone that is 77 miles long, the Captain of the
Port, Sector Lake Michigan, will enforce the safety zone only in
relatively small segments. The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake
Michigan, will have the flexibility to enforce the safety zone in only
the segments of the safety zone affected by the application of
piscicide, targeted fishing operations or other countermeasures to
address the problem of aquatic nuisance species invasion; and (2) The
Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, will make every effort to
reduce the closure time of the enforced segments of the safety zone.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this 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 rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in any enforced segment of the 77 mile

safety zone. This rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because only small segments of the
safety zone will be enforced at any one time. Also, enforcement periods
will be relatively short. Furthermore, in certain instances vessels may
pass around an enforced segment of the zone. Finally, transit through
an enforced segment of the zone may be permitted by the Captain of the
Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative when
deemed practical.
    On April 27, 2011, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed
Rule Making (NPRM) entitled Safety Zones; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to
Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal, Chicago River, and Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL, in
the Federal Register (76 FR 23524). The Coast Guard received zero
public submissions commenting on the impact to small entities by this
rule. There have been no changes made to the rule as proposed.

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 rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls 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 rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.
    On April 27, 2011, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed
Rule Making (NPRM) entitled Safety Zones; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to
Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal, Chicago River, and Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL, in
the Federal Register (76 FR 23524). The Coast Guard received zero
public submissions commenting on the impact to small entities by this
rule. There have been no changes made to the rule as proposed.

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 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result
in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
    On April 27, 2011, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed
Rule Making (NPRM) entitled Safety Zones; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to
Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal, Chicago River, and Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL, in
the Federal Register (76 FR 23524). The Coast Guard received zero
public submissions commenting on the impact to small entities by this
rule. There have been no changes made to the rule as proposed.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
    On April 27, 2011, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed
Rule Making (NPRM) entitled Safety Zones; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to
Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal, Chicago River, and Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL, in
the Federal Register (76 FR 23524). The Coast Guard received zero
public submissions commenting on the impact to small entities by this
rule. There have been no changes made to the rule as proposed.

Civil Justice Reform

    This 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.
    On April 27, 2011, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed
Rule Making (NPRM) entitled Safety Zones; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to
Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal, Chicago River, and Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL, in
the Federal Register (76 FR 23524). The Coast Guard received zero
public submissions commenting on the impact to small entities by this
rule. There have been no changes made to the rule as proposed.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
    On April 27, 2011, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed
Rule Making (NPRM) entitled Safety Zones; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to
Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal, Chicago River, and Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL, in
the Federal Register (76 FR 23524). The Coast Guard received zero
public submissions commenting on the impact to small entities by this
rule. There have been no changes made to the rule as proposed.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does 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.
    On April 27, 2011, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed
Rule Making (NPRM) entitled Safety Zones; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to
Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal, Chicago River, and Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL, in
the Federal Register (76 FR 23524). The Coast Guard received zero
public submissions commenting on the impact to small entities by this
rule. There have been no changes made to the rule as proposed.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this 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.
    On April 27, 2011, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed
Rule Making (NPRM) entitled Safety Zones; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to
Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal, Chicago River, and Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL, in
the Federal Register (76 FR 23524). The Coast Guard received zero
public submissions commenting on the impact to small entities by this
rule. There have been no changes made to the rule as proposed.

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 rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
    On April 27, 2011, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed
Rule Making (NPRM) entitled Safety Zones; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to
Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal, Chicago River, and Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL, in
the Federal Register (76 FR 23524). The Coast Guard received zero
public submissions commenting on the impact to small entities by this
rule. There have been no changes made to the rule as proposed.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that this action is one of the category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have significant effect on the human
environment. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
section 2.B.2 Figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction and
neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact
statement is required. This rule involves the establishing of a safety
zone. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. The Coast Guard's responsibilities to assess environmental
impacts extend only to the creation of the safety zone and do not
include the application of piscicide or any other countermeasures to
combat invasive species.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C.
191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295,
116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.930 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.930  Safety Zone, Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan
including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago
River, and Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL.

    (a) Location. The safety zone consists of the following areas:
    (1) Des Plaines River. All U.S. waters of the Des Plaines River
located between mile marker 286.0 (Brandon Road Lock and Dam) and mile
marker 290.0 (point at which the Des Plaines River connects with the
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal).
    (2) Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. All U.S. waters of the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal between mile marker 290.0 (point at which the
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal connects to the Des Plaines River) and
mile marker 321.8 (point at which the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
Connects to the South Branch Chicago River).
    (3) South Branch Chicago River. All U.S. waters of the South Branch
Chicago River between mile marker 321.8 (point at which the South
Branch Chicago River connects to the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal)
and mile marker 325.6 (point at which the South Branch Chicago River
connects to the Chicago River (Main Branch) and North Branch Chicago
River).
    (4) Chicago River (Main Branch). All U.S. waters of the Chicago
River (Main Branch) between mile marker 325.6 (point at which the
Chicago River connects to the South Branch Chicago River) and 100 yards
extending past the end of the Chicago River covering the area of the
Federal channel within Chicago Harbor.
    (5) North Branch Chicago River. All U.S. waters of the North Branch
Chicago River between mile marker 325.6 (point at which the North
Branch Chicago River connects to the Chicago River (Main Branch) and
the South Branch Chicago River) and mile marker 331.4 (end of
navigation channel).
    (6) Calumet-Saganashkee Channel. All U.S. waters of the Calumet-
Saganashkee Channel between mile marker 303.5 (point at which the
Calumet-Saganashkee Channel connects to the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal) and mile marker 333.0; all U.S. waters of the Calumet-
Saganashkee Channel between mile marker 333.0 and Lake Michigan
(Calumet Harbor).
    (b) Effective Period. This rule is effective July 18, 2011.
    (c) Enforcement. (1) The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan,
may enforce this safety zone in whole, in segments, or by any
combination of segments. The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan,
may suspend the enforcement of any segment of this safety zone for
which notice of enforcement had been given.
    (2) The safety zone established by this section will be enforced,
pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of this section, only upon notice by the
Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan. Suspension of any previously
announced period of enforcement will also be provided by the Captain of
the Port, Sector Lake Michigan. All notices of enforcement and notices
of suspension of enforcement will clearly describe any segments of the
safety zone affected by the notice. At a minimum, notices of
enforcement and notices of suspension of enforcement will identify any
affected segments by reference to mile markers. When possible, the
Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, will also identify enforced
segments of this safety zone by referencing readily identifiable
geographical points. In addition to providing the geographical bounds
of any enforced segment of this safety zone, notices of enforcement
will also provide the date(s) and time(s) at which enforcement will
commence or suspend.

    (3) The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, will publish
notices of enforcement and notices of suspension of enforcement in
accordance with 33 CFR 165.7(a) and in a manner that provides as much
notice to the public as possible. The primary method of notification
will be through publication in the Federal Register. The Captain of the
Port, Sector Lake Michigan, will also provide notice through other
means, such as Broadcast Notice to Mariners, local Notice to Mariners,
local news media, distribution in leaflet form, and on-scene oral
notice. Additionally, the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan,
may notify representatives from the maritime industry through
telephonic and email notifications.
    (d) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, mooring, laying up,
or anchoring within any enforced segment of the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake
Michigan, or his or her designated representative.
    (2) The ``designated representative'' of the Captain of the Port,
Sector Lake Michigan, is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty
officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake
Michigan, to act on his or her behalf. The designated representative of
the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, will be aboard a Coast
Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, or other designated vessel or will be on
shore and will communicate with vessels via VHF radio, loudhailer, or
by phone. The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her
designated representative may be contacted via VHF radio Channel 16 or
the Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan Command Center at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) To obtain permission to enter or operate within an enforced
segment of the safety zone established by this section, Vessel
operators must contact the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan,
or his or her designated representative. Vessel operators given
permission to operate in an enforced segment of the safety zone must
comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port,
Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated representative.
    (4) When a segment of the safety zone is being enforced, it will be
closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain
of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated
representative. As soon as operations permit, the Captain of the Port,
Sector Lake Michigan, will issue a notice of suspension of enforcement
as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (5) All persons entering any enforced segment of the safety zone
established in this section are advised that they do so at their own
risk.

    Dated: June 3, 2011.
L. Barndt,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port, U.S. Coast Guard Sector
Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2011-14925 Filed 6-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 206 (Thursday, October 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 63487]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24927]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4145-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2013-0001]

Colorado; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for State of Colorado (FEMA-4145-DR), dated September 14, 2013, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: October 15, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Thomas J.
McCool, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Michael J. Hall as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-24927 Filed 10-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10505-10506]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4074]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Attendance at PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Meetings

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of the Commission and Commission staff may attend
upcoming PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) Members Committee meetings,
as well as other PJM committee, subcommittee or task force meetings.\1\
The Commission and Commission staff may attend the following meetings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For example, PJM subcommittees and task forces of the
standing committees (Operating, Planning and Market Implementation)
and senior standing committees (Members and Markets and Reliability)
meet on a variety of different topics; they convene and dissolve on
an as-needed basis. Therefore, the Commission and Commission staff
may monitor the various meetings posted on the PJM Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PJM Members Committee

 February 21, 2012 (Conference Call)
 February 23, 2012 (Wilmington, DE)
 March 26, 2012 (Conference Call)
 March 29, 2012 (Wilmington, DE)
 April 23, 2012 (Conference Call)
 April 26, 2012 (Wilmington, DE)
 May 17, 2012 (Cleveland, OH)
 June 25, 2012 (Conference Call)
 June 28, 2012 (Wilmington, DE)
 July 23, 2012 (Conference Call)
 July 26, 2012 (Wilmington, DE)
 September 24, 2012 (Conference Call)
 September 27, 2012 (Wilmington, DE)
 October 18, 2012 (Conference Call)
 October 25, 2012 (Wilmington, DE)
 November 26, 2012 (Conference Call)
 November 29, 2012 (Wilmington, DE)

PJM Markets and Reliability Committee

 February 23, 2012 (Wilmington, DE)
 March 29, 2012 (Wilmington, DE)
 April 26, 2012 (Wilmington, DE)
 June 28, 2012 (Wilmington, DE)
 July 26, 2012 (Wilmington, DE)
 September 27, 2012 (Wilmington, DE)
 October 25, 2012 (Wilmington, DE)
 November 29, 2012 (Wilmington, DE)

PJM Market Implementation Committee

 February 17, 2012 (Wilmington, DE)
 March 14, 2012 (Wilmington, DE)
 April 11, 2012 (Wilmington, DE)
 May 9, 2012 (To Be Determined)
 June 13, 2012 (To Be Determined)
 July 11, 2012 (To Be Determined)
 August 8, 2012 (To Be Determined)
 September 12, 2012 (To Be Determined)
 October 10, 2012 (To Be Determined)
 November 7, 2012 (To Be Determined)
 December 12, 2012 (To Be Determined)

    The discussions at each of the meetings described above may address
matters at issue in pending proceedings before the Commission,
including the following currently pending proceedings:

Docket No. EL05-121, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket Nos. ER06-456, ER06-880, ER06-954, ER06-1271, EL07-57, ER07-424,
ER07-1186, ER08-229, ER08-1065, ER09-497, and ER10-268, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER07-1186, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL08-47, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER08-386, Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER08-686, Pepco Holdings, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-1063, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER09-1148, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation
Docket No. ER09-1256, Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL10-52, Central Transmission, L.L.C. v. PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket Nos. ER10-253 and EL10-14, Primary Power, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER11-2183, American Electric Power Service Corporation
Docket Nos. ER11-2814 and ER11-2815, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and
American Transmission Systems, Inc.
Docket Nos. ER11-2875 and EL11-20, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket Nos. ER11-3972, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER11-4106, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER11-4402, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER11-4628, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL12-8, DC Energy, L.L.C. and DC Energy Mid-Atlantic, L.L.C.
vs. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL12-10, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL12-19-000, FirstEnergy Solutions Corporation and Allegheny
Energy Supply Company, LLC, v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-91, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-92, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-306, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company
Docket No. ER12-445, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-469, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-513, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-525, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-636, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-718, New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-759, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    For additional meeting information, see: http://www.pjm.com/
committees-

and-groups.aspx and http://www.pjm.com/Calendar.aspx.
    The meetings are open to stakeholders. For more information,
contact Valerie Martin, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: February 15, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-4074 Filed 2-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P