[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 222 (Thursday, November 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81184-81186]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27600]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79290; File Nos. SR-BX-2016-046; SR-NASDAQ-2016-111]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; The Nasdaq Stock
Market LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by
Amendments No. 1, Relating to Post-Only Orders and Orders With Midpoint
Pegging

November 10, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On September 13, 2016, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (``BX'') and The Nasdaq
Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') (individually, an ``Exchange,'' and
together, the ``Exchanges'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ proposed rule changes relating to Post-Only Orders and
Orders with Midpoint Pegging. The proposed rule changes were published
for comment in the Federal Register on September 28, 2016.\3\ On
October 5, 2016, Nasdaq filed Amendment No. 1 to its proposed rule
change (``Nasdaq Amendment No. 1'') and on November 3, 2016, BX filed
Amendment No. 1 to its proposed rule change (``BX Amendment No.
1'').\4\ The Commission received one comment letter on Nasdaq's
proposed rule change \5\ and a response letter from Nasdaq.\6\ The
Commission is approving the Exchanges' proposals, as modified by their
corresponding Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 78909 (September
22, 2016), 81 FR 66708 (``BX Notice'') and 78908 (September 22,
2016), 81 FR 66702 (``Nasdaq Notice'').
    \4\ In their respective Amendment No. 1, BX and Nasdaq modified
the discussion of their respective proposal to reflect that,
pursuant to proposed BX and Nasdaq Rules 4702(b)(4)(A), if the
adjusted price of a Post-Only Order would lock or cross a non-
displayed price on the respective Exchange's Book, the Post-Only
Order would be posted in the same manner as a Price to Comply Order.
BX Amendment No. 1 is available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-bx-2016-046/bx2016046-1.pdf and Nasdaq Amendment No. 1 is available
at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasdaq-2016-111/nasdaq2016111-1.pdf. Because these amendments are technical in nature and do not
materially alter the substance of the proposed rule changes, they
are not subject to notice and comment.
    \5\ See Letter from Joseph Saluzzi and Sal Arnuk, Partners,
Themis Trading LLC, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated
October 10, 2016 (``Themis Letter'').
    \6\ See Letter from Jeffrey S. Davis, Vice President and Deputy
General Counsel, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Commission, dated November 8, 2016 (``Response Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Changes

    The Exchanges are proposing to amend the behavior of Post-Only
Orders when they interact with resting Non-Displayed Orders, and the
behavior of Orders with Midpoint Pegging in a crossed market. The
Exchanges' proposals are substantively identical in many respects.
Therefore, the description below describes the proposals jointly but
notes material differences where applicable.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For more details regarding the Exchanges' proposals, see
Nasdaq Notice and BX Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, BX and Nasdaq Rules 4702(b)(4)(A) provide that, if the
adjusted price \8\ of a Post-Only Order would lock or cross an Order on
the respective Exchange's Book, the Post-Only Order would be repriced,
ranked, and displayed at one minimum price increment below the current
best-priced Order to sell on the respective Exchange's Book (for bids)
or above the current best-priced Order to buy on the respective
Exchange's Book (for offers). Under the proposals,\9\ if the adjusted
price of the Post-Only Order would lock or cross a non-displayed price
on the respective Exchange's Book, the Post-Only order would be posted
in the same manner as a Price to Comply Order.\10\ However, the Post
Only Order would execute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ According to BX and Nasdaq Rules 4702(b)(4)(A), if a Post-
Only Order would lock or cross a Protected Quotation, the price of
the Order would first be adjusted. If the Order is Attributable, its
adjusted price would be one minimum price increment lower than the
current Best Offer (for bids) or higher than the current Best Bid
(for offers). If the Order is not Attributable, its adjusted price
would be equal to the current Best Offer (for bids) or the current
Best Bid (for offers). However, the Order would not post or execute
until the Order, as adjusted, is evaluated with respect to Orders on
the respective Exchange's Book.
    \9\ The Exchanges are also proposing conforming changes
throughout BX and Nasdaq Rules 4702(b)(4)(A) to reflect this change.
    \10\ According to BX and Nasdaq Rules 4702(b)(1)(A), if the
entered limit price of a Price to Comply Order would lock or cross a
Protected Quotation and the Price to Comply Order could not execute
against an Order on the respective Exchange's Book at a price equal
to or better than the price of the Protected Quotation, the Price to
Comply Order will be displayed on the respective Exchange's Book at
a price one minimum price increment lower than the current Best
Offer (for a Price to Comply Order to buy) or higher than the
current Best Bid (for a Price to Comply Order to sell), but will
also be ranked on the respective Exchange's Book with a non-
displayed price equal to the current Best Offer (for a Price to
Comply Order to buy) or the current Best Bid (for a Price to Comply
Order to sell).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     On Nasdaq if (i) it is priced below $1.00 and the value of
price improvement associated with executing against an Order on the
Nasdaq Book (as measured against the original limit price of the Order)
equals or exceeds the sum of fees changed for such execution and the
value of any rebate that would be provided if the Order posted to the
Nasdaq Book and subsequently provided liquidity, or (ii) it is priced
at $1.00 or more and the value of price improvement associated with
executing against an Order on the Nasdaq Book (as measured against the
original limit price of the Order) equals or exceeds $0.01 per share;
\11\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This behavior related to the execution of the Post-Only
Order is not changed by Nasdaq's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     on BX, if (i) it is priced at $1.00 or more,\12\ or (ii)
it is priced below $1.00 and the value of price improvement associated
with executing against an Order on the Exchange Book (as measured
against the original limit price of the Order) equals or exceeds the
sum of fees charged for such execution and the value of any rebate that
would be provided if the Order posted to the Exchange Book and
subsequently provided liquidity.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ On BX, unlike on Nasdaq, executions in securities priced at
or above $1 result in rebates for the accessor of liquidity and as
such it is always in the best interest of the incoming Post-Only
Order to execute in securities at or above $1.
    \13\ This behavior related to the execution of the Post-Only
Order is not changed by BX's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, BX and Nasdaq Rules 4702(b)(4)(A) also provide that, if
the Post-Only Order would not lock or cross a Protected Quotation but
would lock or cross an Order on the respective Exchange's Book, the
Post Only Order

would be repriced, ranked, and displayed at one minimum price increment
below the current best-priced Order to sell on the respective
Exchange's Book (for bids) or above the current best-priced Order to
buy on the respective Exchange's Book (for offers). Under the
proposals,\14\ if the Post-Only Order would not lock or cross a
Protected Quotation but would lock or cross a Non-Displayed Order on
the respective Exchange's Book, the Post-Only Order would be posted,
ranked, and displayed at its limit price.\15\ However, the Post Only
Order would execute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchanges are also proposing conforming changes
throughout BX and Nasdaq Rules 4702(b)(4)(A) to reflect this change.
    \15\ One effect of this proposal is that, when a Post-Only Order
encounters a Non-Displayed Order that is a Midpoint Peg Order and
posts at its limit price, the Post-Only Order would establish a new
NBBO and the Midpoint Peg Order would either be cancelled or re-
adjusted based on the change to the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     On Nasdaq if (i) it is priced below $1.00 and the value of
price improvement associated with executing against an Order on the
Nasdaq Book equals or exceeds the sum of fees charged for such
execution and the value of any rebate that would be provided if the
Order posted to the Nasdaq Book and subsequently provided liquidity, or
(ii) it is priced at $1.00 or more and the value of price improvement
associated with executing against an Order on the Nasdaq Book equals or
exceeds $0.01 per share; \16\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ This behavior related to the execution of the Post-Only
Order is not changed by Nasdaq's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     on BX, if (i) it is priced at $1.00 or more,\17\ or (ii)
it is priced below $1.00 and the value of price improvement associated
with executing against an Order on the Exchange Book equals or exceeds
the sum of fees charged for such execution and the value of any rebate
that would be provided if the Order posted to the Exchange Book and
subsequently provided liquidity.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ On BX, unlike on Nasdaq, executions in securities priced at
or above $1 result in rebates for the accessor of liquidity and as
such it is always in the best interest of the incoming Post-Only
Order to execute in securities at or above $1.
    \18\ This behavior related to the execution of the Post-Only
Order is not changed by BX's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Nasdaq Rule 4702(b)(5)(A) provides that, if the NBBO is
crossed, a Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order \19\ would nevertheless be
priced at the midpoint between the NBBO. Currently, BX and Nasdaq Rules
4703(d) provide that, in the case of an Order with Midpoint
Pegging,\20\ if the Inside Bid and Inside Offer are crossed, the Order
would nevertheless be priced at the midpoint between the Inside Bid and
the Inside Offer. Moreover, even if the Inside Bid and Inside Offer are
crossed, an Order with Midpoint Pegging that crossed an Order on the
respective Exchange's Book would execute. Under the proposed amendments
to Nasdaq Rule 4702(b)(5)(A), if the NBBO is crossed, any existing
Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order would be cancelled and any new Midpoint
Peg Post-Only Order would be rejected. Similarly, under the proposed
amendments to BX and Nasdaq Rules 4703(d), if the Inside Bid and Inside
Offer are crossed, any existing Order with Midpoint Pegging would be
rejected and any new Order with Midpoint Pegging would be cancelled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ According to Nasdaq Rule 4702(b)(5)(A), a Midpoint Peg
Post-Only Order is an Order Type with a Non-Display Order Attribute
that is priced at the midpoint between the NBBO and that would
execute upon entry only in circumstances where economically
beneficial to the party entering the Order.
    \20\ According to BX and Nasdaq Rules 4703(d), Midpoint Pegging
means Pegging with reference to the midpoint between the Inside Bid
and the Inside Offer. The price to which an Order is pegged is
referred to as the Inside Quotation, Inside Bid, or Inside Offer, as
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments and Response to Comments

    The Commission received a comment letter opposing Nasdaq's proposal
and a response letter from Nasdaq.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra notes 5 and 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding Nasdaq's proposal, the commenter specifically questions
whether allowing Post-Only Orders to lock Non-Displayed Orders would
help or enhance price discovery.\22\ The commenter also questions
whether allowing this locking behavior would undermine investors'
reliance on the public market of bids, offers, and trades to reflect
the true price of an asset.\23\ Moreover, the commenter questions the
impact of this proposal on the ban against locked and crossed
markets.\24\ Finally, the commenter questions whether allowing a non-
displayed locked market would maintain fair and orderly efficient
markets, facilitate capital formation, and protect and serve the
interests of investors.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Themis Letter at 3.
    \23\ See id.
    \24\ See id. at 4.
    \25\ See id. This commenter also urges the Commission to
eliminate all post-only order types. See id. at 1. The Commission
notes that the comment urging the elimination of all post-only
orders types is beyond the scope of the proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to these comments, Nasdaq states that its proposal to
modify the processing of Post-Only Orders under a narrow set of
conditions would ensure that the market operates as efficiently as
possible, reduce information leakage, and improve execution
quality.\26\ In addition, according to Nasdaq, posting Post-Only Orders
at their limit price would result in tighter bid-ask spreads relative
to the current re-pricing practice, and tighter spreads would reflect
enhanced price discovery.\27\ Moreover, according to Nasdaq, many
economists believe that a locked market is ``the truest reflection of
the price of an asset.'' \28\ Therefore, Nasdaq believes that allowing
buyers and sellers to reflect their true demand and supply prices,
rather than re-pricing to an artificial price, would enhance investors'
experience on Nasdaq.\29\ Nasdaq notes that the proposal does not
permit a locked market as defined by Rule 610 of Regulation NMS, as
Rule 610 defines a locked market as the display of bids and offers at
the same price, while Nasdaq's proposal would involve only the display
of a bid or an offer, but not both.\30\ Finally, Nasdaq states its
belief that the proposal is consistent with maintaining fair and
orderly markets, efficient capital formation, and the protection of
investors.\31\ According to Nasdaq, the proposal would lead to tighter
spreads, better execution prices, and lower information leakage for
investors who currently quote and trade on Nasdaq.\32\ Nasdaq states
that it anticipates that, as a result of the proposal, current members
would quote and trade more actively and new members would commence
quoting and trading, which would further enhance the quality of the
Nasdaq market.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Response Letter at 1-2.
    \27\ See id. at 2.
    \28\ See id. at 3.
    \29\ See id.
    \30\ See id.
    \31\ See id.
    \32\ See id.
    \33\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
changes, as modified by Amendments No. 1, are consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\34\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule changes, as modified by
Amendments No. 1, are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\35\
which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to

promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the Exchanges believe that the proposals
related to the interaction between Post-Only Orders and Non-Displayed
Orders would help to reduce the information leakage that can occur when
a Post-Only Order re-prices to avoid locking or crossing the price of a
Non-Displayed Order resting on the respective Exchange's book.\36\
Specifically, under the proposals, if a Post-Only Order would not lock
or cross a Protected Quotation but would lock or cross a Non-Displayed
Order on the respective Exchange's Book, the Post-Only Order would be
posted, ranked, and displayed at its limit price, rather than be re-
priced. In addition, if the adjusted price of a Post-Only Order would
lock or cross a non-displayed price on the respective Exchange's Book,
the Post-Only Order would be posted in the same manner as a Price to
Comply Order (i.e., displayed at a price one minimum price increment
lower than the current Best Offer (for a buy order) or higher than the
current Best Bid (for a sell order); ranked with a non-displayed price
equal to the current Best Offer (for a buy order) or the current Best
Bid (for a sell order)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The Commission notes that, in conjunction with these
proposals, the Exchanges are adopting the Trade Now instruction,
which is an Order Attribute that would allow a resting Order that
becomes locked by an incoming Displayed Order to execute against the
available size of the contra-side locking Order as a liquidity
taker. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 79281 (November 10,
2016) (SR-BX-2016-059) and 79282 (November 10, 2016) (SR-NASDAQ-
2016-156).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the Exchanges' proposals to discontinue
pricing and executing Midpoint Peg Post-Only Orders (Nasdaq only) and
Orders with Midpoint Pegging when the NBBO is crossed would reflect
that the midpoint of a crossed market is not a clear and accurate
indication of a valid price and would avoid mispriced executions. The
Commission also notes that this proposed behavior is similar to the
rules of other exchanges.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See, e.g., BatsBZX Rule 11.9(c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the foregoing and the Exchanges' representations, the
Commission believes that the proposed rule changes, as modified by
Amendments No. 1, are consistent with the Act.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\38\ that the proposed rule changes (SR-BX-2016-046 and SR-NASDAQ-
2016-111), as modified by their respective Amendment No. 1, be, and
they hereby are, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-27600 Filed 11-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34598-34600]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12121]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0301]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Three Mile Creek, Mobile,
Alabama

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating schedule that
governs the CSX Transportation drawbridge across Three Mile Creek, mile
0.0, Mobile, Mobile County, Alabama. This proposed modification will
require the bridge to remain open to navigation for three 75 minute
periods each day. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and relate material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before August 8, 2022.

ADDRESSES:  You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG
2021-0301 using Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Doug Blakemore, Eighth Coast Guard District Bridge
Branch at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental)
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    CSX Transportation has requested to change the operating schedule
of their drawbridge across Three Mile Creek, mile 0.0, Mobile, Mobile
County, Alabama. This bridge is regulated under 33 CFR 117.5 and opens
on signal. It has a vertical clearance of 10' in the closed to vessel
position and is unlimited in the open to vessel position. Navigation on
this creek consists of tows and barges and small industrial vessels.
    On June 1, 2021 at the request of CSX, the Coast Guard issued a
temporary deviation to the regulations titled ``Drawbridge Operation
Regulation; Three Mile Creek, AL'' (86 FR 29204). There, we stated that
the 60-day deviation would test a temporary change to the operating
schedule of the CSX drawbridge bridge to determine whether a permanent
change is necessary. From June 1 through August 2, 2021 this deviation
opened the bridge from 6:30 a.m.-7:30 a.m., 2:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m. and
10:30 p.m.-11:30 p.m. to allow vessels to schedule their trips through
Three Mile Creek and opened at all other times on signal. During the
comment period that closed on August 3, 2021, eight comments were
received.
    Two commenters stated that the proposal would put maritime
companies at an unfair economic disadvantage in moving commerce
compared to rail transportation. Neither commenter provided data or
economic information. The decision to change or create a drawbridge
regulation rests primarily upon the effect of the proposed change on
navigation and a vessels reasonable ability to use the waterway and to
assure that the change provides for the reasonable needs of navigation
after full consideration of the effect of the proposed action on the
human environment.
    Two commenters stated that the temporary operating schedule would
create unsafe navigation conditions. Large vessel queues would be built
up waiting for the bridge to open. When the bridge opens these vessels
would attempt to pass through the bridge at the same time. During the
test deviation the bridge opened about 4 times per day. There were no
indications or reports that unsafe navigation conditions were created
during the 60 day test period.
    One commenter stated that the language used in this temporary
regulation change should be changed to remove the term ``if there are
no trains on the bridge.'' This phrase has been removed from the
proposed rule.
    One commenter stated that a commerce clause should be placed in
this bridge's regulation to allow free navigation. They cited a U.S.
Supreme Court ruling from 1865, ``Gilman v. Philadelphia.'' This ruling
addressed balancing the needs of waterborne and land commerce around
bridges. The proposed bridge schedule provides three periods during
which the bridge will remain open to navigation and requires that the
bridge open on signal at other times throughout the day.
    Several commenters stated that opening the bridge for one hour
period does not allow maritime companies and vessel operators' adequate
time to schedule and complete their transits through Three Mile Creek
and pass through the bridge. The Coast Guard has changed the proposed
rule to require CSX to keep the bridge opened to vessels for 75 minute
periods rather than 60 minutes.
    Two commenters stated that they have been losing business because
of CSX practices. Another commenter estimated that two companies, over
a 1 month period, lost up to $15,000 in one month because of bridge
opening delays. This schedule change should allow vessels with
sufficient time to schedule their through the bridge. The bridge will
be required to open at all other times on signal.
    The Coast Guard has concluded that there is sufficient information
to change the regulation which will provide vessels with reasonable
time to transit through the bridge and will allow CSX to manage their
railroad business needs.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule change would require CSX to open the bridge
three times each day for 75 continuous minutes to allow vessels to
transit through the bridge to and from the Mobile River. And it
requires CSX to open the bridge on signal at all other times when there
are no trains in the block passing over the bridge.
    In promulgating drawbridge regulations the Coast Guard must balance
the needs of vessels, land transportation and railroads. The public's
right to navigation is paramount to rail transportation but it is not
absolute. This right may be diminished to benefit land and rail
transportation provided that the reasonable needs of navigation are not
impaired. CSX has informed the Coast Guard that it cannot physically
expand its yard to accommodate building long trains. Vessel operators
and facility operators on Three Mile Creek have informed the Coast
Guard that their businesses have been and are impacted when CSX
stations and passes trains over the bridge and does not open the bridge
on signal. This proposed rule change should provide all entities with
the ability to use Three Mile Creek and the CSX drawbridge bridge.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss
First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that
vessels can still transit the bridge and the bridge will open in case
of emergency at any time.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A
above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact
on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity

and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it,
please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically
affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. 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 proposed rule will not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The
Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule promulgates the
operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such
actions are categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph
L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Implementation Procedures.
    Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum
for the Record are required for this rule. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision
Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2021-0301 in the search box and click
``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the Search Results column,
and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If your material
cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the
person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document
for alternate instructions.
    To view documents mentioned in this proposed rule as being
available in the docket, find the docket as described in the previous
paragraph, and then select ``Supporting & Related Material'' in the
Document Type column. Public comments will also be placed in our online
docket and can be viewed by following instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page. We review all
comments received, but we will only post comments that address the
topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic,
inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
    We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

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

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; DHS Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  117.115 redesignate paragraphs (a) and (b) as paragraphs
(b) and (c) and add new paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.115   Three Mile Creek.

    (a) The draw of the CSX railroad bridge, mile 0.0., will operate as
follows: each day from 6:30 a.m.-7:45 a.m., 2:30 p.m.-3:45 p.m. and
10:30 p.m.-11:45 p.m. the bridge will remain in the open to navigation
position. At all other times the draw will open on signal and remain
open to clear all vessel queues. CSX will open the draw anytime at the
direction of the District Commander.
* * * * *

    Dated: May 31, 2022
R.V. Timme,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2022-12121 Filed 6-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMORANDUM

TO:	Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

FROM:	TJ Finseth, ERG
	Danielle Lewis, ERG
	Elizabeth Sabol, ERG

DATE:	January 30, 2013

SUBJECT:	Methodology for Estimating Impoundment Age, Capacity, and Reductions in Capacity Used to Estimate Benefits Associated with Avoided Impoundment Failures

Steam electric power plants manage combustion residuals such as flue gas desulfurization (FGD) solids, fly ash, and bottom ash using either wet or dry handling practices. For plants that use wet handling systems, the combustion residuals are typically sluiced to one or more surface impoundments (i.e., settling ponds), where the solids settle out of the water. In addition to solids, these impoundments typically contain water with high concentrations of pollutants originating from the combustion residuals, including dissolved metals.
Although the impoundments are subject to state regulations, events such as the failure of a combustion residual impoundment at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston Fossil Plant in 2008, demonstrate the potential severity and cost of structural failures. In that case, over 5 million cubic yards of combustion residual was accidentally released, resulting in cleanup costs and other costs and damages exceeding $1 billion. Although the probabilities of catastrophic releases such as the Kingston's spill may be low, the high costs associated with these events mean that even very small risks entail significant costs to society. In addition, other smaller unintentional releases (e.g., spills) from surface impoundments may also result in substantial damages and incur large cleanup and other costs.
The operational changes prompted by the proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) may cause some plant owners to reduce their reliance on impoundments to handle combustion residuals. These changes would affect the future probability of impoundment failures and, as a result, accidental, and sometimes catastrophic releases, of combustion residual solids and wastewater. Benefits arising from the reduced risk of impoundment failures include avoided cleanup costs, environmental damage, and litigation costs.
EPA quantified and monetized these benefits based on predictions about how future impoundment structural failures and other accidental releases from impoundments would be reduced by the proposed ELGs, and the commensurate avoided costs of spill cleanup, natural resource damages, and litigation expenses. The details of this analysis are described in Chapter 7 of the Benefit and Cost Analysis for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category.
The analysis used to estimate the benefits associated with these avoided impoundment failures takes into account the impoundment age, capacity (expressed as volume, in cubic feet), and the estimated reductions in impoundment capacity. Therefore, ERG used data reported in responses to the Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines (Steam Electric Survey) to obtain these characteristics from each of the 1,070 coal combustion residual (CCR) impoundments considered in the scope of the Steam Electric ELGs. ERG also estimated how the future impoundment capacity for each impoundment would be reduced under each of the five regulatory options. For more information on the regulatory options considered as part of the rulemaking, see Section 8 of the Technical Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category.
Determining Surface Impoundment Age
ERG used data from Part A of the Steam Electric Survey to determine the age of CCR surface impoundments. Question A3-2, Table A-4, requested information on the initial year the impoundment was brought online for both active and inactive impoundments. ERG was able to obtain the year brought online for 1,059 of the 1,070 CCR impoundments from the Steam Electric Survey.
For the remaining 11 impoundments, ERG used the data from the 1,059 impoundments to calculate an average installation year associated with active impoundments and an average installation year associated with inactive impoundments.
ERG calculated the impoundment age by subtracting the year the impoundment was brought online from 2009. ERG used 2009 as the basis for the age because the data collected in the Steam Electric Survey represents 2009.
Determining Surface Impoundment Capacity
ERG determined the capacity, or volume, for all 1,070 CCR surface impoundments using data from Part D of the Steam Electric Survey. Table D-5 requested information on the original volume (in cubic feet) of the surface impoundment. From Table D-5, ERG was able to determine the volume for 893 impoundments.
For the remaining 177 surface impoundments, ERG estimated the volume of the impoundments using one of the following three prioritized estimation methods:
   1) For three of these impoundments, ERG determined the impoundment volume using the original surface area (in square feet), top elevation (in feet), and bottom elevation (in feet). ERG calculated the volume of the three impoundments using the following equation:

Volume (ft[3]) = Surface Area (ft[2]) x [Top Elevation (ft)  -  Bottom Elevation (ft)]

   2) For 111 of these impoundments, ERG estimated the impoundment volume using an average volume per flow rate into an impoundment (in cubic feet per gallons per day (gpd)) corresponding to status (active or inactive). Using Steam Electric Survey data for all combustion residual impoundments that reported both baseline flow rates into the impoundment and impoundment volume, ERG calculated an average volume per flow rate for each impoundment for which data were available and then averaged those ratios for all the impoundments to calculate a volume per flow factor, which was 600 ft[3]/gpd. See Section 3 for more information on how ERG calculated impoundment-specific flow rates entering the surface impoundments. ERG estimated the volume (in cubic feet) by multiplying the impoundment-specific flows rates, as described in Section 3, by the calculated volume per flow factor.

   3) For 63 of these impoundments (53 active and 10 inactive impoundments), ERG calculated the average volume for active and inactive impoundments based on the 896 impoundments for which ERG had impoundment volumes reported in the Steam Electric survey (893 impoundments) or ERG calculated the volume based on impoundment dimensions (3 impoundments, identified in bullet 1). These 896 impoundments account for 832 active and 64 inactive impoundments. The average volume for active impoundments was 49,400,000 ft[3] and the average volume for inactive impoundments was 48,700,000 ft[3].

Estimating Reduction in Impoundment Capacity
ERG estimated the reduction in impoundment capacity for all 1,070 CCR surface impoundments for each of the regulatory options. Each of the five regulatory options will result in a decrease in the wastewater entering the impoundments either by reducing or eliminating the volume of wastewater sent to the impoundment. ERG estimated that the impoundment capacity would decrease by the percent reduction in flow into each impoundment. While the reduction in flow entering the pond will not necessarily decrease the size of the impoundment unless the plant closes portions of the impoundment after the implementation of the ELGs, the impoundment will receive less combustion residual solid waste and therefore, will be less likely to have a breach of the impoundment. Furthermore, any breach or spill that does occur would likely be less severe since the impoundment would contain less combustion residual solids or wastewater.
ERG used information from Part A, Section 3 of the Steam Electric Survey to determine the types of combustion residual waste contained in each of the 1,070 CCR impoundments. ERG determined which impoundments received FGD wastewater, fly ash transport water, and bottom ash transport water. The Steam Electric Survey did not require plants to differentiate between CCR leachate from impoundments versus CCR leachate from landfills. For this reason, ERG was unable to evaluate which impoundments contained combustion residual landfill leachate and therefore, leachate was not included in the analysis.
ERG then calculated a baseline flow associated with each impoundment. As described in EPA's Incremental Costs and Pollutant Removals for Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Generating Point Source Category Report (DCN SE01957), ERG estimated the amount of FGD, fly ash, and bottom ash wastewater discharged by each plant for use in baseline and post-compliance pollutant loadings calculations. ERG used these waste-specific baseline flow rates to calculate the total baseline flow for each impoundment. ERG assumed each impoundment would receive the total volume of any combustion residual waste generated that is contained in the impoundment. For example, if an impoundment contains FGD wastewater and fly ash transport water, ERG calculated the baseline flow into the impoundment as the volume of FGD wastewater generated plus the volume of fly ash transport water generated. Additionally, if the plant operates two ponds in series, ERG assumed that the flow entering the first pond is equivalent to the flow entering the second pond (if no wastewater is sent only to the second pond).
ERG then calculated the reduction in flow into the impoundment for the five regulatory options. ERG calculated post-compliance flows for each impoundment based on the types of combustion residual contained in the impoundment and the effect of the regulatory option. For example, if an impoundment contains FGD wastewater and fly ash transport water, for Option 1, the post-compliance flow would include only the fly ash transport water and for Option 3, the post-compliance flow would be zero. ERG then calculated the flow reduction by subtracting the post-compliance flow from the baseline flow for each impoundment.
ERG calculated the percent reduction in flow using the following equation:
  Percent Reduction = (Baseline Flow  -  Post-Compliance Flow)/ Baseline Flow

As stated previously, ERG assumed that the percent reduction in flow is equivalent to the percent reduction in impoundment capacity because the impoundment will no longer have to handle or treat this percentage of flow.
After calculating the percent reduction in flow, ERG multiplied this percent reduction by the baseline volume calculated in Section 2 to estimate the reduced capacity for each impoundment under each regulatory option. ERG calculated a reduced capacity for each regulatory option using the following equation:
              Option Volume = Baseline Volume * Percent Reduction

Results
The age, baseline capacity, and reduced capacity for each of the 1,070 CCR impoundments under the five regulatory options are presented in the document entitled "Estimated Impoundment Age, Capacity, and Reductions in Capacity" (DCN SE01826).


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2961-2963]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00876]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93963; File Nos. SR-CboeBYX-2021-027; SR-CboeBZX-2021-
076; SR-CboeEDGA-2021-024; SR-CboeEDGX-2021-048]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Cboe BZX
Exchange, Inc.; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.;
Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Changes To Amend Each
Exchange's Rules in Connection With a Risk Setting That Users May Elect
To Apply to Their Orders in Hard To Borrow Securities

January 12, 2022.

I. Introduction

    On November 8, 2021, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``CboeBYX'') and Cboe
BZX Exchange, Inc. (``CboeBZX''), and on November 18, 2021, Cboe EDGA
Exchange, Inc. (``CboeEDGA'') and Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.
(``CboeEDGX,'' and collectively, the ``Exchanges''), each filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to allow each
Exchange to offer its Users \3\ a hard to borrow risk setting

(``Hard to Borrow List'') that Users may elect to apply to their short
sale orders in U.S. equity securities. The proposed rule changes were
published for comment in the Federal Register on November 29, 2021.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ A User is any Member or Sponsored Participant who is
authorized to obtain access to the System. See Cboe BYX Rule
1.5(cc); Cboe BZX Rule 1.5(cc); Cboe EDGA Rule 1.5(ee); and Cboe
EDGX Rule 1.5(ee).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 93638 (November 22,
2021), 86 FR 67767 (SR-CboeBYX-2021-027) (``BYX Notice''); 93641
(November 22, 2021), 86 FR 67763 (SR-CboeBZX-2021-076) (``BZX
Notice''); 93642 (November 22, 2021), 86 FR 67765 (SR-CboeEDGA-2021-
024) (``EDGA Notice''); and 93643 (November 22, 2021), 86 FR 67774
(SR-CboeEDGX-2021-048) (``EDGX Notice''). The proposed rule changes
are nearly identical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has received no comments on the proposed rule
changes. This order approves the proposed rule changes.

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Changes

    The Exchanges propose to include a Hard to Borrow List within their
risk settings. The Exchanges currently offer certain optional risk
settings applicable to a User's activities on the Exchange.\5\ These
risk settings currently provide Users with controls to restrict the
types of securities transacted, including restricted securities and
easy to borrow securities, as well as restricting activity to test
symbols only.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Interpretation and Policy .01 to CboeBYX Rule 11.13;
Interpretation and Policy .01 to CboeBZX Rule 11.13; Interpretation
and Policy .01 to CboeEDGA Rule 11.10; and Interpretation and Policy
.01 to CboeEDGX Rule 11.10.
    \6\ See BYX Notice at 67767; BZX Notice at 67764; EDGA Notice at
67765; and EDGX Notice at 67775.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchanges, when utilized, these optional risk
tools act as a risk filter by evaluating a User's orders to determine
whether the orders comply with certain criteria established by the
User.\7\ The proposal will offer Users an optional tool to evaluate
whether their orders comply with User established criteria.\8\
Specifically, orders submitted in securities included on a User's Hard
to Borrow List will be rejected back to the User.\9\ The Hard to Borrow
List resides at a User's port level, a User-specific logical session
used to access the Exchange.\10\ Users may upload a Hard to Borrow List
to their preferred port(s) via a web-based application programming
interface.\11\ When uploaded to the port, Users may apply the setting
to some or all of the market-participant identifiers (MPID) that they
use to access the Exchange via the specified port.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges state that, as is the case with the Exchanges'
existing risk settings, the User, and not the Exchange, will have the
full responsibility for ensuring that their orders comply with
applicable securities rules, laws, and regulations, and may not rely on
the Hard to Borrow List for any such purpose.\13\ Furthermore, use of
the Hard to Borrow List does not automatically constitute compliance
with Exchange Rules.\14\ The Exchanges state that they do not believe
that the use of the Hard to Borrow List can replace User-managed risk
management solutions.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See BYX Notice at 67767; BZX Notice at 67764; EDGA Notice
at 67765; and EDGX Notice at 67775 (citing Securities and Exchange
Act Release No. 50103 (July 28 2004), 69 FR 48007 (August 6, 2004)
(Final Rule: Short Sales) at 48014, regarding hard to borrow lists
and the locate requirements under 17 CFR 242.203 (Regulation SHO
Rule 203--Borrowing and delivery requirements)).
    \14\ See BYX Notice at 67767; BZX Notice at 67764; EDGA Notice
at 67766; and EDGX Notice at 67775.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges propose to make the risk setting available to their
Users upon request and will not require Users to utilize the Hard to
Borrow List.\16\ The Exchanges also state that they will not provide
preferential treatment to Users using the Hard to Borrow List.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of the proposal, the Exchanges assert the Hard to Borrow
List will offer Users another option in efficient risk management of
their access to the Exchange.\18\ For example, the Exchanges state the
Hard to Borrow List may assist some Users in managing borrowing costs
for their short sale transactions.\19\ According to the Exchanges, day
over day borrowing costs in hard to borrow securities may be costly,
and while a locate may be secured by a User prior to routing their
short sale transactions to one of the Exchanges, borrowing costs may
make such transactions less desirable.\20\ The Exchanges state by
utilizing the Hard to Borrow List, Users have a tool that enables them
to manage their costs by rejecting orders in such securities.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposals, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\22\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule changes are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\23\ which requires, among other things, that the Exchanges' rules
be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ In approving the proposed rule changes, the Commission
notes that it has considered the proposed rules' impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule changes are
reasonably designed to provide a useful risk management tool to Users
on the Exchanges. Adding a Hard to Borrow List could allow Users on the
Exchanges to better manage borrowing costs for such securities. The
Exchanges currently provide risk controls restricting certain
transactions by symbol,\24\ and the Commission believes that the
proposed rule change would provide an additional option for Users
seeking to further tailor their risk management capability while
transacting on the Exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See, e.g., Interpretation and Policy .01 to CboeBYX Rule
11.13(d); Interpretation and Policy .01 to CboeBZX Rule 11.13(d);
Interpretation and Policy .01 to CboeEDGA Rule 11.10(d); and
Interpretation and Policy .01 to CboeEDGX Rule 11.10(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the proposed Hard to Borrow List is an
optional functionality. The Commission reminds Users electing to use
the proposed risk control to be mindful of their obligations under all
applicable securities laws, rules, and regulations and emphasizes that
the proposed risk control is not a substitute for a Users' own systems,
processes, and procedures for compliance with such laws, rules, and
regulations. The Commission expects the Exchanges to periodically
assess whether its risk control settings are operating in a manner that
is consistent with the promotion of fair and orderly markets.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposal
is consistent with the requirements of the Act.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\25\ that the proposed rule changes (SR-CboeBYX-2021-027, SR-CboeBZX-
2021-076, SR-CboeEDGA-2021-024, SR-CboeEDGX-

2021-048), be, and hereby are, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-00876 Filed 1-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40351-40352]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16690]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1702-002; ER10-1726-003; ER10-1671-003.
    Applicants: RRI Energy Services, LLC, GenOn Wholesale Generation,
LP, Genon Power Midwest, LP.
    Description: Request for Category 1 Seller Status of GenOn Energy,
Inc. subsidiaries.
    Filed Date: 6/28/12.
    Accession Number: 20120628-5125.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/19/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2497-004.
    Applicants: Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc.
    Description: Updated market power analysis for Central region of
Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc.
    Filed Date: 6/28/12.
    Accession Number: 20120628-5103.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/27/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1417-002.
    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: San Diego Gas & Electric Company submits tariff filing
per 35: SDGE Formula Appendix X Compliance Filing to be effective 6/1/
2012.
    Filed Date: 6/28/12.
    Accession Number: 20120628-5080.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/19/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1821-001.
    Applicants: Colorado Highlands Wind, LLC.
    Description: COLORADO HIGHLANDS WIND, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): Colorado Highlands Wind MBR Supplemental Filing June 28, 2012
to be effective 7/20/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/28/12.
    Accession Number: 20120628-5078.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/19/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1832-000.
    Applicants: Lucky Corridor, LLC.
    Description: Lucky Corridor, LLC submits additional information.
    Filed Date: 6/28/12.
    Accession Number: 20120628-5051.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2121-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Distribution Service Agreement with Mogul Energy,
Mogul Energy Project to be effective 6/25/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/28/12.
    Accession Number: 20120628-5023.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/19/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2122-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: FTR Annual and Monthly Auction Changes--1 of 2 to be
effective 10/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/28/12.
    Accession Number: 20120628-5031.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/19/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2122-001.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: ISO New England Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): FTR Annual and Monthly Auction Changes--2 of 2 to be
effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 6/28/12.
    Accession Number: 20120628-5054.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/19/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2123-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.,
ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: ITCM-NMEPC-AEC-IPL IA to be effective 8/30/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/28/12.
    Accession Number: 20120628-5049.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/19/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2124-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.37:
Market-Based Rate Tariff Revision to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 6/28/12.
    Accession Number: 20120628-5056.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/19/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2125-000.
    Applicants: GWF Energy LLC.
    Description: GWF Energy LLC submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Notice of Change to be effective 9/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/28/12.
    Accession Number: 20120628-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/19/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2126-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Original Service Agreement No. 3332; Queue No. X2-075
to be effective 6/12/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/28/12.
    Accession Number: 20120628-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/19/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2127-000.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: ITC Midwest LLC submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Filing of Interchange Agreement to be effective 8/28/
2012.
    Filed Date: 6/28/12.
    Accession Number: 20120628-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/19/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2128-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Original Service Agreement No. 3344; Queue No. X1-088
to be effective 6/18/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/28/12.
    Accession Number: 20120628-5111.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/19/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2129-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 06-28-12 Schedule 1
Revisions to be effective 7/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/28/12.
    Accession Number: 20120628-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/19/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2130-000.
    Applicants: Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
    Description: Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Attachment P--Recharge NY Agreement
to be effective 7/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/28/12.
    Accession Number: 20120628-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/19/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2131-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Original Service Agreement No. 3343; Queue No. X1-005
to be effective 6/18/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/28/12.
    Accession Number: 20120628-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/19/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2132-000.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: ITC Midwest LLC submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Filing of Duane Arnold Energy Center Agreement to be
effective 8/28/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/28/12.
    Accession Number: 20120628-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/19/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2134-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Original Service Agreement No. 3342; Queue No. W1-122
to be effective 6/18/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/28/12.
    Accession Number: 20120628-5128.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/19/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2135-000.
    Applicants: Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
    Description: Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Attachment K--Recharge NY Operating
Agreement and Retail Transmission to be effective 7/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/28/12.
    Accession Number: 20120628-5136.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/19/12

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 28, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-16690 Filed 7-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P