 ADVANCE \y63

	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	REGION III

1650 Arch Street

	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

July 11, 2007

Ms. Joyce E. Epps, Director

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Protection

Bureau of Air Quality

P.O. Box 8468

Harrisburg, PA 17105

Dear Ms. Epps:

On June 28, 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
received a revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP)
from the Department of Environmental Protection dated June 12, 2007.
This SIP revision pertains to redesignation of the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre
8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment, as well as the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area maintenance plan and 2002 base-year
inventory.  The EPA has determined that the SIP submittal is
administratively and technically complete, and is reviewing this SIP
revision to prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to
Brian Rehn, Air Quality Planning Branch, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.  He is the
principal contact for this rulemaking.

Sincerely,

/s/

          Judith M. Katz, Director

                          			         Air Protection Division

cc: Arleen Shulman, PADEP

	Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474


OMB Control Number: 2010 0032 Approval Expires: 08/ 31/ 06 For Review of Content; Application Will Be Submitted Online Outreach Award Application SECTION 1: COMPANY DESCRIPTION Please provide the following required information:

Official Name of Organization ( as it should appear on the award):

Primary Contact Name:

Title:

E mail Address:

Street Address:

City: State: Zip code:

Phone ( area code + extension):

How did you hear about this award?

SECTION 2: OUTREACH Please describe any special efforts your facility has made to promote the value of good environmental performance and the value of participation in Performance Track ( PT) to the public and/ or to other facilities. Include examples of how your organization has educated the public on the benefits of PT. Each of the following nine categories below should be addressed. Please be as specific as possible.

° Internal Promotions ( e. g. among employees, sister facilities, or corporate wide) OMB Control Number: 2010 0032 Approval Expires: 08/ 31/ 06 For Review of Content; Application Will Be Submitted Online ° External Promotions ( e. g. conferences, events, articles, press releases, advertisements)

° Assisted PT in building key partnerships with states, political allies, and/ or trade associations ( e. g. held tele seminar, hosted site visit):

° Number of new PT applications resulting from outreach ( list facilities):

° PT Mentoring ( e. g. communicated best practices, assisted with PT applications):

° Served as PT event host ( e. g. program acceptance event, conference, awards ceremony, application workshop, member event):

° PT Logo Use ( e. g. media materials, flag use, stickers, vehicle signs):

° PT mentioned on facility's website ( e. g. facility and/ or corporate, list URL): For Review of Content; Application Will Be Submitted Online ° Other:

Award Description: This coveted award recognizes current EPA Performance Track members who, in addition to being exemplary environmental stewards, make a special effort to inform the public about what it means to be a member of the Performance Track ( PT) program . The award also recognizes members' efforts to reach out to and encourage other U. S. facilities to join Performance Track. A win win relationship is created as more facilities come forward and commit to continuous environmental improvement. Through the Outreach Award, we seek to show our appreciation to members who continually work to strengthen Performance Track.

The Performance Track Outreach Award is sponsored by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's Performance Track Program.

Eligibility: All current members of the Performance Track Program are eligible to apply for this award. Facilities may self nominate, be nominated by other facilities, states or local entities, or by EPA Performance Track staff. Completed applications must be received by December 15 of the applicable calendar year. ( e. g. for activities occurring in the ' 04 calendar year, applications are due on December 15, 2004)

Application Process: The application period is based on calendar year activities by a facility, with applications due December 15 of the applicable year.

Notification and Presentation: Recipients will be notified via telephone and a letter from the Performance Track Director. Awards will be presented at the Annual Member Event and Conference.

For more information: Please contact Luctrician Booth at booth. luctrician@ epa. gov or call ( 202) 566 2867.

The public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.5 hours per response. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. To comment on this collection contact the Director, Collection Strategies Division ( 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed form to this address.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 173 (Friday, September 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46980-46982]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19214]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86832; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2019-49]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Suspension of and
Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or
Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Modify the Options Regulatory Fee

August 30, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On July 2, 2019, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``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 (File No. SR-NYSEArca-2019-49) to modify the
amount of its Options Regulatory Fee (``ORF'').\3\ The proposed rule
change was immediately effective upon filing with the Commission
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\4\ The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on July 22, 2019.\5\
The Commission received one comment letter on the proposal.\6\ Pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\7\ the Commission is hereby: (1)
Temporarily suspending File No. SR-NYSEArca-2019-49; and (2)
instituting proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove
File No. SR-NYSEArca-2019-49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86390 (July 16,
2019), 84 FR 35169 (July 22, 2019) (``Notice'').
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). A proposed rule change may take
effect upon filing with the Commission if it is designated by the
exchange as ``establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person, whether
or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization.''
15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). Although the proposed rule change was
effective upon filing, the Exchange indicated that it would not
implement the fee until August 1, 2019. See Notice, supra note 3, at
35169.
    \5\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 35169.
    \6\ See Letter to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission,
from Ellen Greene, Managing Director, Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA''), dated August 27, 2019
(``SIFMA Letter'').
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the amount of its ORF from $0.0055
to $0.0054 per contract.\8\ The Exchange assesses the ORF on Options
Trading Permit (``OTP'') Holders or OTP Firms for all options
transactions that are cleared by those firms through the Options
Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') in the Customer range, regardless of the
exchange on which the transaction occurs.\9\ The Exchange noted that
its ORF ``is designed to recover a material portion, but not all, of
the Exchange's regulatory costs for the supervision and regulation of
OTP Holders and OTP Firms.'' \10\ Noting that it adjusts the ORF amount
periodically to ensure that the revenue from ORF does not exceed its
regulatory costs, the Exchange proposed to decrease the ORF because
``from 2017 to 2018, options transaction volume increased to a level
that if the ORF is not adjusted, the ORF revenue to the Exchange year-
over-year could exceed a material portion of the Exchange's regulatory
costs.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 35170.
    \9\ See id.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ See id. The Exchange noted that it last changed the ORF in
2014. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Suspension of the Proposed Rule Change

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\12\ at any time within
60 days of the date of filing of an immediately effective proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act,\13\ the Commission
summarily may temporarily suspend the change in the rules of a self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'') 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. As discussed below, the Commission believes a temporary
suspension of the proposed rule change is necessary and appropriate to
allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency
with the Act and the rules thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When exchanges file their proposed rule changes with the
Commission, including fee filings like the Exchange's present proposal,
they are required to provide a statement supporting the proposal's
basis under the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to the exchange.\14\ The instructions to Form 19b-4, on which exchanges
file their proposed rule changes, specify that such statement ``should
be sufficiently detailed and specific to support a finding that the
proposed rule change is consistent with [those] requirements'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 17 CFR 240.19b-4 (Item 3 entitled ``Self-Regulatory
Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for,
the Proposed Rule Change'').
    \15\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 6 of the Act, including Sections 6(b)(4), (5), and (8),
require the rules of an exchange to: (1) Provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons
using the exchange's facilities; \16\ (2) perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, protect investors
and the public interest, and not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; \17\
and (3) not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\18\ In
justifying its proposal, the Exchange stated in its filing that its
proposal ``is reasonable because it would help ensure that revenue
collected from the ORF does not exceed a material portion of the
Exchange's regulatory costs.'' \19\ In determining the amount of the
proposed ORF, the Exchange said that it considered: (1) The increase in
options transaction volume in 2018, (2) the decrease in options
transaction volumes in the first five months of 2019, (3) the
Exchange's projection that options transaction volumes will remain
stable at best in the future, and (4) the ``estimated projections for
[the Exchange's] regulatory costs.'' \20\ The Exchange also asserted
that the ORF is equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory
because the fees are imposed on clearing firms, who can then choose to
pass through all, a portion, or none of the costs of the ORF to their
customers.\21\ In addition, the Exchange stated that the regulatory
costs relating to monitoring OTP Holders or OTP Firms with respect to
Customer trading activity are generally higher than the regulatory
costs associated with monitoring OTP Holders or OTP Firms that do not
engage in Customer trading activity, which tends to be more automated
and less labor-intensive.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \19\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 35171.
    \20\ See id.
    \21\ See id. at 35171-72.
    \22\ See id. at 35171.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Commission received one comment letter on the
proposal, in which the commenter argued that the Exchange has not
provided sufficient information to satisfy the statutory requirements
under the Act.\23\ Specifically, the commenter stated that the Exchange
should ``include quantitative data showing

anticipated revenues, costs and profitability'' and describe the
methodology used for any estimations of baseline and expected costs and
revenues to support the Exchange's assertions that the proposed ORF is
an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among members.\24\ The
commenter also stated that the Exchange should provide support for its
assertions that assessing ORF only on transactions cleared at OCC in
the Customer range represents an equitable allocation that is not
unfairly discriminatory.\25\ Lastly, the commenter argued that the
Exchange should not be permitted to charge ORF for trades occurring on
other exchanges unless the Exchange can support its assertion
concerning its ``authority to act on activities occurring outside its
own market.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 6, at 1-2.
    \24\ See id. at 2.
    \25\ See id.
    \26\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In temporarily suspending the Exchange's proposed rule change, the
Commission intends to further consider whether the proposal to modify
the amount of the ORF is consistent with the statutory requirements
applicable to a national securities exchange under the Act. In
particular, the Commission will consider whether the proposed rule
change satisfies the standards under the Act and the rules thereunder
requiring, among other things, that an exchange's rules provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and
other persons using its facilities; not permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers; and do not impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of investors, and otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, to temporarily suspend the
proposed rule change.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ For purposes of temporarily suspending the 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the
Proposed Rule Change

    In addition to temporarily suspending the proposal, the Commission
also hereby institutes proceedings pursuant to Sections 19(b)(3)(C)
\29\ and 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \30\ to determine whether the
Exchange's proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has
reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved.
Rather, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to
provide additional comment on the proposed rule change to inform the
Commission's analysis of whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). Once the Commission temporarily
suspends a proposed rule change, Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act
requires that the Commission institute proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) to determine whether a proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\31\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for possible disapproval under
consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act also
provides that proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a
proposed rule change must be concluded within 180 days of the date
of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule change.
See id. The time for conclusion of the proceedings may be extended
for up to 60 days if the Commission finds good cause for such
extension and publishes its reasons for so finding, or if the
exchange consents to the longer period. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how its proposed fee
is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires that the
rules of a national securities exchange ``provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and issuers and other persons using its facilities;'' \32\
(emphasis added);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how its proposed fee
is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange not be
``designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers'' \33\ (emphasis added); and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how its proposed fee
is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires that the
rules of a national securities exchange ``not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of [the Act].'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the proposal purports to modify the amount of the
ORF in response to changes in options transaction volume in a manner
that is designed to recover a material portion, but not all, of the
Exchange's regulatory costs for the supervision and regulation of its
options participants. However, the Exchange's statements in support of
the proposed rule change are general in nature and lack detail and
specificity.\35\ For example, the Exchange provides only broad
information on options transaction volume trends, but does not provide
any information on the Exchange's historic or projected options
regulatory costs (including the costs of regulating activity that
clears in the Customer range and the costs of regulating activity that
occurs away from the Exchange), the amount of regulatory revenue it has
generated and expects to generate from the ORF as well as other
sources, or the ``material portion'' of options regulatory expenses
that it seeks to recover from the ORF. Similarly, the Exchange has not
provided information to support its assertion that regulating customer
activity is ``generally more labor-intensive'' and therefore, more
costly.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See, e.g., SIFMA Letter, supra note 6, at 2 (arguing that
the Exchange has ``not provided enough information . . . to satisfy
the Exchange Act standards'').
    \36\ See id. See also SIFMA Letter, supra note 6, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the commenter stated, without more information in the filing on
the Exchange's regulatory revenues attributable to ORF as well as
regulatory revenue from other sources, and more information on the
Exchange's regulatory costs to supervise and regulate OTP Holders and
OTP Firms, including, e.g., Customer versus non-Customer activity and
on-exchange versus off-exchange activity, the proposal lacks
information that can speak to whether the proposed ORF is reasonable,
equitably allocated, and not unfairly discriminatory, particularly
given that the ORF is assessed only on transactions that clear in the
Customer range and regardless of the exchange on which the transaction
occurs, and that the ORF is designed to recover a material portion, but
not all, of the Exchange's regulatory costs for the supervision and
regulation of activity across all OTP Holders and OTP Firms.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 6, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act]
and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the [SRO]
that proposed the rule change.'' \38\ The description of a proposed
rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal
analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be
sufficiently detailed and specific to support an

affirmative Commission finding,\39\ and any failure of an SRO to
provide this information may result in the Commission not having a
sufficient basis to make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act and the applicable rules and
regulations.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
    \39\ See id.
    \40\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, including as to
whether the proposed fees are consistent with the Act, and
specifically, with its requirements that exchange fees be reasonable
and equitably allocated and not be unfairly discriminatory.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with
respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant
concerns. Such comments should be submitted by September 27, 2019.
Rebuttal comments should be submitted by October 11, 2019. Although
there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or
disapproval which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of
views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to
Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral
presentation.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by an SRO. See Securities
Acts Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate Committee on Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th
Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and
merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in
addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the
proposed rule change.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the proposed rule changes, including whether the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NYSEArca-2019-49 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 No. SR-NYSEArca-2019-49. The 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 such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. 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 publicly available. All submissions
should refer to File No. SR-NYSEArca-2019-49 and should be submitted on
or before September 27, 2019. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by
October 11, 2019.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the
Act,\43\ that File No. SR-NYSEArca-2019-49, be and hereby is,
temporarily suspended. In addition, the Commission is instituting
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \44\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57) and (58).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\44\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-19214 Filed 9-5-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48785-48787]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17525]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC16-152-000.
    Applicants: Little Elk Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, Request for Expedited Consideration and Confidential
Treatment of Little Elk Wind Project, LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/18/16.
    Accession Number: 20160718-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/16.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2432-010.
    Applicants: Bayonne Plant Holding, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Bayonne Plant Holding, L.L.C.
Informational Filing in ER10-2432 to be effective 10/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5080.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2435-010.
    Applicants: Camden Plant Holding, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Camden Plant Holding, L.L.C.
Informational Filing in ER10-2435 to be effective 10/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2442-010.
    Applicants: Elmwood Park Power, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Elmwood Park Power, LLC
Informational Filing in ER10-2442 to be effective 10/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5082.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2444-010.
    Applicants: Newark Bay Cogeneration Partnership, L.P.
    Description: Compliance filing: Newark Bay Cogeneration
Partnership, L.P. Informational Filing in ER10-2444 to be effective 10/
1/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5092.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2449-008.
    Applicants: York Generation Company LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: York Generation Company LLC
Informational Filing in ER10-2449 to be effective 10/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2633-026; ER10-2570-026; ER10-2717-026; ER10-
3140-026; ER13-55-016.
    Applicants: Birchwood Power Partners, L.P., Shady Hills Power
Company, L.L.C., EFS Parlin Holdings, LLC, Inland Empire Energy Center,
LLC, Homer City Generation, L.P.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the GE
Companies, et al.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5227.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3272-002.
    Applicants: Lower Mount Bethel Energy, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Lower Mount Bethel Energy, LLC
Informational Filing in ER10-3272 to be effective 10/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5085.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1029-002.
    Applicants: Chubu TT Energy Management Inc.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Chubu TT Energy
Management Inc.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5242.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-277-004.
    Applicants: Talen Energy Marketing, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Talen Energy Marketing
Informational Filing in ER16-277 to be effective 10/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5095.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1456-001.
    Applicants: Talen Energy Marketing, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Talen Energy Marketing
Informational Filing in ER16-1456 to be effective 10/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5097.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1462-002.
    Applicants: Palmco Power DE LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Palmco Power DE FERC Electric Tariff
to be effective 5/19/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/18/16.
    Accession Number: 20160718-5056; 20160718-5086.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1464-002.
    Applicants: Palmco Power ME, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Palmco Power ME FERC Electric Tariff
to be effective 5/20/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/18/16.
    Accession Number: 20160718-5042; 20160718-5083.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1465-002.
    Applicants: Palmco Power MI LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Palmco Power MI FERC Electric Tariff
to be effective 5/20/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/18/16.
    Accession Number: 20160718-5043; 20160718-5085.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1466-002.
    Applicants: Palmco Power NH LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Palmco Power NH FERC Electric Tariff
to be effective 5/20/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/18/16.
    Accession Number: 20160718-5046; 20160718-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1467-002.
    Applicants: Palmco Power VA LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Palmco Power VA FERC Electric Tariff
to be effective 5/20/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/18/16.
    Accession Number: 20160718-5036; 20160718-5088.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1468-002.
    Applicants: Palmco Power RI LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Palmco Power RI FERC Electric Tariff
to be effective 5/20/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/18/16.
    Accession Number: 20160718-5050; 20160718-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1485-002.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2016-07-15_MI-ONT PARS MISO-PJM JOA
2nd Amendment to be effective 7/28/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5164.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1788-002.
    Applicants: LE Energy, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: FERC Electric MBR Tariff Application
to be effective 8/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/18/16.
    Accession Number: 20160718-5009; 20160718-5069.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1793-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2016-07-13_CMP Baseline Filing--
Attachment LL Amendment to be effective 7/25/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5169.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1794-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2016-07-15_CMP Baseline Filing--RS 8
MISO-Manitoba Hydro SOA Amendment to be effective 7/25/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5177.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1795-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2016-07-15_CMP Baseline Filing--RS
46 Minnkota-MISO Coor Opr Agr Amendment to be effective 7/25/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5176.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1797-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2016-07-15_CMP Baseline Filing--
MISO-SPP JOA Amendment to be effective 7/25/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1798-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2016-07-15_CMP Baseline Filing--
MISO-PJM JOA Amendment to be effective 7/25/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5179.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2202-000.
    Applicants: Montour, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Montour, LLC Informational Filing
In ER15-2187 to be effective 10/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2203-000.
    Applicants: Montour, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Montour, LLC Informational Filing
In ER15-2188 to be effective 10/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2207-000.
    Applicants: H.A. Wagner LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: H.A. Wagner Informational Filing to
be effective 10/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5118.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2208-000.
    Applicants: Pedricktown Cogeneration Company LP.
    Description: Compliance filing: Pedricktown Cogeneration
Informational Filing, Waiver Request, etc. to be effective 10/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2209-000.
    Applicants: Brandon Shores LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Brandon Shores Informational Filing
to be effective 10/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2216-000.
    Applicants: Energetix DE, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation to be
effective 8/31/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5174.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2217-000.
    Applicants: Logan Generating Company, L.P.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Reactive Tariff to be
effective 9/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5178.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2218-000.
    Applicants: North American Power Business, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: MBR Application to be
effective 9/14/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5180.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2219-000.
    Applicants: Chief Conemaugh Power, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing in ER15-2187
to be effective 10/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5181.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2220-000.

    Applicants: Chief Keystone Power, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing in ER15-2188
to be effective 10/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5182.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2221-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to WMPA No. 3203,
W3-079, among PJM, Marina Energy and JCPL to be effective 10/27/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/18/16.
    Accession Number: 20160718-5035.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2222-000.
    Applicants: Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Long Sault Division Proposed
Initial Open Access Transmission Tariff to be effective 9/17/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/18/16.
    Accession Number: 20160718-5051.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2223-000.
    Applicants: Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Tapoco Division Proposed
Initial Open Access Transmission Tariff to be effective 9/17/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/18/16.
    Accession Number: 20160718-5052.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/16.

    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 85.214) 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: July 18, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-17525 Filed 7-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 47277]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21815]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81818; File No. SR-LCH SA-2017-007]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Notice of Designation of
Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Options on Index Credit Default Swaps

October 4, 2017.
    On August 1, 2017, Banque Central de Compensation, which conducts
business under the name LCH SA (``LCH SA''), 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 (SR-LCH SA-2017-007) to amend LCH
SA's CDS Margin Framework and CDSClear Default Fund Methodology to
incorporate terms and conforming changes, and to provide for risk
management policies related to options on index credit default swaps in
order to permit LCH SA to clear such options. The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on August 21,
2017.\3\ The Commission received no comments regarding the proposed
changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-81399 (Aug. 15,
2017), 82 FR 39622 (Aug. 21, 2017) (SR-LCH SA-2017-007)
(``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act provides that within 45 days of the
publication of the notice of the filing or a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.\4\
The 45th day from the publication of the Notice is October 5, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission
action on the proposed rule change. As noted above, LCH SA proposed to
amend its CDS Margin Framework and CDSClear Default Fund Methodology in
order to permit it to clear options on index credit default swaps. The
Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider LCH SA's proposed rule change and the risks
associated therewith.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act, extends the period by which the Commission shall either approve or
disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-LCH SA-2017-007) to
no later than November 19, 2017.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-21815 Filed 10-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8945-8946]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02949]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96827; File No. SR-MRX-2022-29]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of
Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Options 7, Section 6 To Add
Port Fees

February 7, 2023.
    On December 16, 2022, Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``MRX'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \1\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to assess port fees. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on December 28, 2022.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96563 (December 21,
2022), 87 FR 79924.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 2, 2023, MRX withdrew the proposed rule change (SR-MRX-
2022-29).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-02949 Filed 2-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

FOR

State Review Framework

August 24, 2010

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Compliance

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part A

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

	1(a)	Title of the Information Collection

	1(b)	Short Characterization/Abstract

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

	2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

	2(b)	Practical Utility/Users of the Data

3.	NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

	3(a)	Nonduplication

	3(b)	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

	3(c)	Consultations

	3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection

	3(e)	General Guidelines

	3(f)	Confidentiality

	3(g)	Sensitive Questions

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

	4(a)	Respondents/SIC Codes

	4(b)	Information Requested

5.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED: AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY,
AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

	5(a)	Agency Activities

	5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

	5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

	5(d)	Collection Schedule

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

	6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden

	6(b)	Estimating Government Burden

	6(c)	Bottom Line Burden and Cost Table

	6(d)	Reasons for Change of Burden

	6(e)	Burden Statement

Part B

This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in
collecting this information.

Part A

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

	1(a)	Title of the Information Collection

ICR:	 State Review Framework (EPA ICR Number 2185.04)

OMB Control Number: N/A

“State Review Framework”

	1(b)	Short Characterization/Abstract

	The State Review Framework (“Framework”) is an oversight tool
designed to assess state performance in enforcement and compliance
assurance.  The Framework’s goal is to evaluate state performance by
examining existing data to provide a consistent level of oversight and
develop a uniform mechanism by which EPA Regions, working
collaboratively with their states, can ensure that state environmental
agencies are consistently implementing the national compliance and
enforcement program in order to meet agreed-upon goals and standards.
Furthermore, the Framework is designed to foster dialogue on enforcement
and compliance performance between the states that will enhance
relationships and increase feedback, which will in turn lead to
consistent program management and improved environmental results.

	Specifically, the Framework is a structured process that provides
critical information on a state’s (or Region’s, for states with
EPA-implemented programs) core enforcement and compliance assurance
performance by employing existing data available in EPA’s existing
national databases and presented in management reports for each state.
No new data collection is required for the national databases.  Data
from national databases is complimented by data obtained through file
reviews of a state environmental agency’s compliance and enforcement
files.  No new data is required in these files; however, they are
reviewed to ensure proper and adequate documentation.

	The Framework process asks regions, states and local governments to
examine the existing data described above in three core programs: Clean
Air Act (“CAA”), Stationary Sources; Clean Water Act (“CWA”),
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”); and
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), Subtitle C.  The
Framework process looks at thirteen (13) elements.  The EPA evaluates
the twelve (12) primary elements, and a thirteenth optional element,
using data and file review metrics that require no new reporting burden.
 The utility of the Framework’s metrics and the Implementation Guide
are a direct result of the collaboration between states, Regions,
Headquarters, and environmental leaders.  These stakeholders provided
extensive input and comments which helped to shape the Framework.  OECA
completed evaluations of pilot and full implementation stages of the
review process, which included input from the pilot states.  The results
of these evaluations have been used to improve the Framework and further
ensure that it is narrowly crafted and only collects information that
satisfies the Agency’s needs.

The thirteen (13) elements mentioned above are: (1) Degree to which data
in national system reflect regulated universes, state activities, and
compliance monitoring findings; (2) Degree to which data reported into
the national system is accurately entered and maintained (example,
correct codes used, dates are correct, etc.). (3) Degree to which
required data was entered into the national database in a timely manner;
(4) Degree to which all enforcement/compliance commitments in relevant
agreements (i.e., PPAs, PPGs, categorical grants, CMS plans,
authorization agreements, etc.) are met and any products or projects are
completed; (5) Degree to which state completed the universe of planned
inspections/compliance evaluations (addressing core requirements and
federal, state and regional priorities); (6) Degree to which inspection
or compliance evaluation reports properly document observations, are
completed in a timely manner, and include accurate description of
observations; (7) Degree to which compliance determinations are
accurately made and promptly reported in the national database based
upon compliance monitoring report observations and other compliance
monitoring information (e.g., facility-reported information); (8) Degree
to which the state accurately identifies significant noncompliance/high
priority violations and enters information into the national system in a
timely manner; (9) Degree to which state enforcement actions include
required corrective action (i.e., injunctive relief or other complying
actions) that will return facilities to compliance in a specific time
frame; (10) Degree to which a state takes timely and appropriate
enforcement actions in accordance with policy relating to specific
media; (11) Degree to which state documents in its files that initial
penalty calculation includes both gravity and economic benefit
calculations, appropriately using the BEN model or other method that
produces results consistent with national policy; (12) Degree to which
differences between initial and final penalty are documented in the file
along with a demonstration in the file that the final penalty was
collected; and (13) (Optional) Other program activities (e.g., using
outcome data, compliance assistance, self-disclosure programs,
innovative approaches, etc.).  In the interest of accuracy and
efficiency, the Framework also includes a five-step protocol for
managing the process: (1) pre-review; (2) offsite review; (3) onsite
review; (4) drafting of the report; and (5) composing the final report
and follow-up.  After reviewing the level of performance based on the
metrics developed under the 12 required performance elements, and other
information collected in the review process, EPA will determine if a
state or Region meets minimum performance levels.

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

	2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

The purpose of this collection is to assess state performance in core
enforcement and compliance assurance programs.  The goals are to provide
a consistent level of oversight and develop a uniform mechanism by which
EPA Regions, working collaboratively with their states, can ensure that
state environmental agencies are meeting agreed-upon goals.  It is
important to note that all data requested by this collection is
currently in EPA’s or the state’s databases and enforcement and
compliance files.  No additional monitoring or sampling will be required
by this ICR.

While the data that the Agency will collect is pre-existing, the Agency
is permitted to review the states’ Clean Air Act, Stationary Source
program, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, Subtitle C program, and the Clean
Water Act, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
program to ensure minimum performance levels are met.  The Agency’s
oversight authority for the aforementioned programs are:

(1) Clean Air Act, Stationary Source program:

Section 114 allows collection of information from states.  Specifically,
the collection of the requested information is authorized by 40 CFR
70.4(j)(1), which states that “[a]ny information obtained or used in
the administration of a State program shall be available to EPA upon
request without restriction and in a form specified by the
Administrator, including computer-readable files to the extent
practicable,” and 40 CFR 70.10(c)(1)(iii), which addresses EPA
oversight of State and local agencies’ compliance and enforcement
efforts for major sources under Title V operating permit programs.

(2) Solid Waste Disposal Act, Subtitle C program:

The Act refers to activities at companies that generate hazardous waste.
 At §3007, the Agency is permitted to have access to and request
records regarding hazardous waste generating activities.   Additionally,
40 CFR 271.17(a) authorizes EPA, upon request without restriction,
access to “[a]ny information obtained or used in the administration of
a State program.”

(3) Clean Water Act, NPDES program:

The Act refers to activities involving the discharge of materials into
waters of the United States.  At §308, the Agency is permitted to
review records to determine compliance with effluent limitations or
treatment performance standards.  Further, the NPDES state program
regulations provide that   “[a]ny information obtained or used in the
administration of a State program shall be available to EPA upon request
without restriction."  40 CFR 123.41.  Also, 40 CFR 123.43 requires
states to provide EPA with information on NPDES program implementation.

The information collected through this ICR will aid the Agency in
achieving EPA’s Strategic Plan goal to increase compliance and
environmental stewardship.  This goal was developed in response to the
1993 Government Performance and Results Act and is described in EPA’s
2006 - 2011 Strategic Plan, Goal 5, “Compliance and Environmental
Stewardship.”

	2(b)	Practical Utility/Users of the Data

EPA will use the data obtained from the collection to determine if a
state or Region meets minimum performance levels.  Such a determination
is necessary to recognize states that are performing well and to provide
assistance to states that are not meeting minimum performance levels.

3.	NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

	3(a)	Nonduplication

The information to be obtained under this ICR has not been collected by
EPA or any other federal agency.

	3(b)	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission

On April 14, 2010, EPA published a pre-ICR Federal Register Notice
announcing its intent to request to renew an existing approved ICR for
the State Review Framework to OMB.  Attachment A includes a copy of this
Federal Register Notice.  EPA received no comments to the Federal
Register Notice.

	3(c)	Consultations

EPA consulted with several key state and media associations in the
course of developing the State Review Framework.  The leadership and
membership of these organizations were instrumental in helping OECA
develop the initial concept for the State Review Framework, in working
to develop the main components and metrics, completing pilot projects
and providing input into its evaluation.  These associations are:

ECOS

ASIWPCA

ASTSWMO

STAPPA/ALAPCO

The main contacts with these organizations are:

Environmental Council of States (ECOS)

Steve Thompson

Executive Director

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality

405-702-7163

President of ECOS

Carolyn Hanson

Deputy Executive Director

ECOS

202-624-3665

Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators (ASIWPCA)

Linda Eichmiller

Executive Director

ASIWPCA

Washington, DC

202-756-0600

Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
(ASTSWMO)

Dania Rodriguez

Deputy Executive Director

ASTSWMO

202-624-5973

National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)

Misti Duvall

Staff Associate

444 North Capital St NW, Suite 307

Washington, DC 20001

202-624-7864

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Eddie Terrill

NACAA Co-Chair, Enforcement & Compliance Committee

405-702-4155

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Richard Stedman

NACAA Co-Chair, Enforcement & Compliance Committee

360-586-1044

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
	3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection

Each respondent will report only one time every four years.

	3(e)	General Guidelines

This information collection is consistent with OMB guidelines contained
in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2).

	3(f)	Confidentiality

Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of
confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency
policies set forth in Title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B -
Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902,
September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR
42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

	3(g)	Sensitive Questions

The collection in this ICR does not contain any sensitive questions.

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

	4(a)	Respondents and SIC Codes

Respondents potentially affected by this action are 10 EPA Regional
Offices, 50 States, 4 Territories, and 40 Local Agencies.  Based on our
experience, we believe the true number of  respondents for this ICR will
primarily be 10 EPA Regional Offices, fifty (50) states and 4 (four)
territories.  There are no SIC codes for the Respondents.

	4(b)	Information Requested

		(i) Data items, including recordkeeping requirements

The State Review Framework requests information on the contribution of
state enforcement activities to federally delegated programs.  There are
no recordkeeping requirements associated with this collection.

The collection process will compile information on the state’s
enforcement and compliance activities, including inspection coverage,
enforcement timeliness and appropriateness, penalty calculations and
fines collected, and data quality, accuracy and completeness.

		(ii) Respondent Activities

Respondent will engage in the following activities during the Framework
process:

1. Pre-Review and Offsite Review

Review elements and metrics

Train/brief state staff & managers on review substance and process.

Collect files, policies, data sets, reports, and review and correct the
national data.

2. Onsite Review

Participate in kick-off meeting.

Assist/facilitate EPA review of files and data sets

Participate in discussion of program with EPA

3. Report Drafting

Review and comment on draft report

4. Coordination of Parts 1, 2 & 3

Coordination of review with the state agency

Coordination of the review within EPA

5.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED: AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY,
AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

	5(a)	Agency Activities

Agency activities associated with the State Review Framework consist of
the following:

(1) Review elements and metrics

(2) Train/brief state staff & managers on review substance and process

(3) Collect files, policies, data sets, reports, and review and correct
the national data.

(4) Participate in kick-off meeting.

(5) Assist/facilitate EPA review of files and data sets

(6) Participate in discussion of program with EPA

(7) Review and comment on draft report

(8) Coordination of review with the state agency

(9) Coordination of the review within EPA

	5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

The Agency will provide respondents with guidelines and training for
conducting the review that will ensure a consistent approach to the
reviews.  Over the course of the review process the Agency will work
with the states and provide assistance as necessary.  All of the state
reports will be submitted electronically.  National data used to assess
state performance already resides in various EPA databases.  These data
are covered by other Information Collection Requests or regulatory
language.  Additional data will come from the review of state inspection
and enforcement files, which is the data that are to be collected based
on this request.

	5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

Small entities will not be affected as the collection will only be
completed by EPA Regions, States and territories.

	5(d)	Collection Schedule

Each Respondent will complete the four-step protocol for managing the
process one time every four years: (1) pre-review and offsite review,
including a review and correction of the data of the national data; (3)
onsite review; (4) drafting of the report; and (5) composing the final
report and follow-up.  In the initial year, twenty (20) states are
scheduled to complete the review process.  In the second year another
twenty (20) states are scheduled with the remaining ten states
completing the review process in year three.

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

	6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden and Costs

The estimated total hour burden for response is 612 hours per
respondent.  This burden hour estimate translates to a cost of
$21,852.38 per entity that voluntarily completes the survey resulting in
the total of $1,180,028.52.  There is no recurring respondent burden
associated with this ICR.  No capital or operations and maintenance
costs are incurred by respondents under this ICR.

	The labor costs in the following table are based on the following
average labor rates:

		Legal:		$38.89   (State Government Lawyer)

		Managerial:	$36.98   (State Managers)

		Technical:	$35.82   (Math and Science)

		Clerical:	$15.49   (Office and Administrative Support)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor’s, Bureau
of Labor Statistics, “May 2008 National Occupational Employment and
Wage Estimates,” http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/naics4_999200.htm

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes150000.htm

http://www.bls.gov/OES/current/oes430000.htm.

Table 1.  Respondents’ Burden and Costs

Information Collection

Activity	Legal

$38.89/

hour

	Man.

$36.98/

hour

	Tech.

$35.82/

hour	Cler.

$15.49/

hour	Cap./

Start-up cost	Oper.

and

Maint.

 (O&M cost)

1. Pre-Review and Offsite Review

Review elements and metrics and prepare data discrepancy response	6.5
56.17	96.92	0	$0.0	$0.0

Train/brief state staff & managers on review substance and process.	2
23.42	31.17	0	$0.0	$0.0

Collect files, policies, data sets, reports etc.  	1.67	20.83	46.58
19.83	$0.0	$0.0

2. Onsite Review

Participate in kick-off meeting.	2.83	20.17	9.33	0	$0.0	$0.0

Assist/facilitate EPA review of files and data sets	.67	33.75	57.58	0
$0.0	$0.0

Participate in discussion of program with EPA	2	22.33	23.67	0	$0.0	$0.0

3. Report Drafting

Review and comment on draft report	1.5	45.33	35.33	0	$0.0	$0.0

4. Coordination of

Parts 1, 2 & 3

Coordination of review with the state agency	0	12	18.33	0	$0.0	$0.0

Coordination of the review within EPA	0	8.23	13.83	0	$0.0	$0.0

TOTAL HOURS/Respondent

	17.17

($38.89)	242.2

($36.98)	332.8

($35.82)	19.83

($15.49)

LABOR COST/Respondent	$667.75

	$8,956.56	$11,920.90	$307.17

No. of Respondents: 54	Total hours: 612/Respondent x 54 Respondents =
33,048 over 3 years or 11,016 annually	Total Cost: $21,852.38/Respondent
x 54 respondents = $1,180,028.52 over 3 years or  $393,342.84 annually

	6(b)	Estimating Agency Burden

EPA Regions I through X will participate in the State Review Framework
process and the following table details the hour and cost burden per
region. These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
“2010 General Schedule” which excludes locality rates of pay.

	The cost for the Regional table (Table 2) is based on the average
hourly labor rate as follows:

Legal		$45.99   (GS-14, Step 5)

		Managerial	$38.92   (GS-13, Step 5)

Technical	$28.88   (GS-12, Step 1)

Clerical	$15.63   (GS-6,   Step 3)

	The cost for the Headquarters table (Table 3) is based on the average
hourly labor rate as follows:

Legal		$57.13   (GS-14, Step 5)

		Managerial	$48.35   (GS-13, Step 5)

Technical	$35.88   (GS-12, Step 1)

Clerical	$19.41   (GS-6,   Step 3)

	These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) “2010
General Schedule” and includes the locality payment for the Washington
D.C. area.

Table 2. Agency Burden and Cost (per Region)

Information Collection

Activity	Legal

$45.99/

hour

	Man.

$38.92/

hour

	Tech.

$28.88

/hour	Cler.

$15.63/

hour	Capital/

Start-up cost	Oper. and Maint. (O&M cost)

1. Pre-Review and Offsite Review

Review elements and metrics and prepare data discrepancy response	0	6.25
32.25	0	0	0

Train/brief state staff & managers on review substance and process.	0	11
20.25	0	0	0

Collect files, policies, data sets, reports etc.  	0	4	19.25	0	0	0

2. Onsite Review

Participate in kick-off meeting.	.75	3	9	0	0	0

Assist/facilitate on-site review of files and data sets	0	29.5	127.5	0	0
0

Participate in discussion of program with state	0	3	12	0	0	0

3. Report Drafting

Review and comment on draft report	0	21.5	81	0	0	0

4. Coordination of Parts 1, 2 & 3

Coordination of review with the state agency	0	2.89	11	0	0	0

Coordination of the review within EPA

	0	2.33	17	0	0	0

Total Agency hours	0.75	73.47	329.25	0	0.0	0.0

Total Agency costs	34.49	$2,859.45	$9,508.74	$0	0.0	0.0

TOTAL REGIONAL AGENCY HOURS:     403.47 (x 10 Regions =  4034.7)

TOTAL REGIONAL AGENCY COST:    $12,402.68 x 10 Regions = $124,026.80)

Table 3. Agency Burden and Cost (Headquarters)

Information Collection

Activity	Legal

$57.13/

hour

	Man.

$48.35/

hour

	Tech.

$35.88

/hour	Cler.

$19.41/

hour	Capital/

Start-up cost	Oper. and Maint. (O&M cost)

1. Pre-Review and Offsite Review

Train/brief state and region staff & managers on review substance and
process.	0	3	3	0	0	0

Collect files, policies, data sets, reports etc.  	0	0	2	5	0	0

2. Onsite Review

Participate in kick-off meeting.	1	1	1	0	0	0

Participate in discussion of the program with the Regions	5	5	10	0	0	0

3. Report Drafting

Review and comment on draft report	5	5	15	0	0	0

4. Coordination of Parts 1, 2 & 3

Coordination of the review within EPA	0	2	2	0	0	0

TOTAL

	11	16	33	5	0	0

TOTAL COST

	$628.43	$773.60	$1184.04	$97.05	0.0	0.0

TOTALS

   Hours: 65    Labor Cost: $2,683.12

	6(c) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

Table 4.  Total Estimated Respondent Burden and Cost Summary (over 3
years)

	No. of Respondents	No. of Activities	Total hours	Total Labor Costs
Total Capital and Start-up costs	Total Annual O&M costs

Respondent	54	9  	33,048	$1,180,028.52	$0.0	$0.0

Table 5. Total Estimated Agency Burden and Cost Summary

	No.of Activities	Total hours	Total Labor Costs	Total Capital and
Start-up costs	Total Annual O&M costs

Regions	9	4,034.7 (for all ten regions)	$124,026.80 (for all ten
regions)	$0.0	$0.0

Headquarters	6	65	$2,683.12	$0.0	$0.0

	6(d)	Reasons for Changes in Burden

There has been no increase in the hours in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently
approved by OMB. There has been an increase in the cost in the total
estimated respondent burden based on rates from the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) “2010 General Schedule.”

	6(e)	Burden Statement

The average annual respondent burden for each state is 612 hours.  This
estimate includes time for (1) reviewing and correcting the national
data and the metrics; (2) training and briefing state staff & managers
on review substance and process; (3) collecting files, policies, data
sets, reports etc.; (4) participating in kick-off meetings; (5)
assisting/facilitating EPA review of files and data sets; (6)
participating in discussion of program with EPA; (7) reviewing and
commenting on draft report; (8) coordinating of review with the state
agency; and (9) coordinating of the review within EPA. There is no
record keeping burden for this collection as the State Review Framework
does not include record keeping requirements.  Burden means the total
time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal
agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it
displays a valid OMB Control Number.  The OMB Control Numbers for
EPA’s regulations are listed at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 To comment on the Agency's need for this
information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any
suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of
automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for
this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-OECA-2010-0291, which is available
for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and
Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket
Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OECA
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public docket is
available at http://www.regulations.gov.  Use http://www.regulations.gov
to submit or view public comments, to access the index listing of the
contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the
public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system,
select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.
You can also send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include
the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-OECA-2010-0291 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

	This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in
collecting this information.

  PAGE   1

  PAGE   14


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 242 (Monday, December 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 74655]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30280]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER13-342-001.
    Applicants: CPV Shore, LLC.
    Description: CPV Shore, LLC submits tariff filing per 35.17(b):
Supplement to Market-Based Rate Application to be effective 1/10/2013.
    Filed Date: 12/4/12.
    Accession Number: 20121204-5126.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-343-001.
    Applicants: CPV Maryland, LLC.
    Description: CPV Maryland, LLC submits tariff filing per 35.17(b):
Supplement to Market-Based Rate Application to be effective 1/10/2013.
    Filed Date: 12/4/12.
    Accession Number: 20121204-5125.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/12.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF12-252-002.
    Applicants: Elk Hills Power, LLC.
    Description: Elk Hills Power, LLC submits Form 556 Application for
Certification as a qualifying cogeneration facility.
    Filed Date: 12/4/12.
    Accession Number: 20121204-5163.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/13.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings:

    Docket Numbers: RD13-2-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
    Description: Petition of the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation for Approval of Proposed Reliability Standard VAR-002-2b.
    Filed Date: 11/21/12.
    Accession Number: 20121121-5096.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/13.
    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
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: December 5, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-30280 Filed 12-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44018-44019]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17755]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13757-002; Project No. 13761-002; Project No. 13768-002]

FFP Missouri 5, LLC et al.; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Motions to Intervene and Protests

FFP Missouri 5, LLC Project No. 13757-002
FFP Missouri 6, LLC Project No. 13761-002
Solia 6 Hydroelectric, LLC Project No. 13768-002

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been
filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Original Major License.
    b. Project Nos.: 13757-002; 13761-002; 13768-002.
    c. Date Filed: March 14, 2014.
    d. Applicant: FFP Missouri 5, LLC; FFP Missouri 6, LLC; Solia 6
Hydroelectric, LLC. All applicants are subsidiaries of Free Flow Power
Corporation.
    e. Name of Projects: Emsworth Locks and Dam Hydroelectric Project;
Emsworth Back Channel Dam Hydroelectric Project; Montgomery Locks and
Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The proposed projects would be located at U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' (Corps) dams on the Ohio River in Allegheny and
Beaver counties, Pennsylvania (see table below for specific locations).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Federal land
                                                                                used by
      Project No.                Project             County and state            City/Town          project \1\
                                                                                (acres)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P-13757................  Emsworth Locks and Dam.  Allegheny, PA.........  Emsworth..............             9.5
P-13761................  Emsworth Back Channel    Allegheny, PA.........  Emsworth..............             9.0
                          Dam.
P-13768................  Montgomery Locks & Dam.  Beaver, PA............  Borough of Industry...             5.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The federal lands are managed by the Corps.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 USC 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Thomas Feldman, Vice President, Free Flow
Power Corporation, 239 Causeway Street, Suite 300, Boston, MA 02114; or
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Ramya Swaminathan, Chief Operating Officer, Free Flow Power
Corporation, 239 Causeway Street, Suite 300, Boston, MA 02114; or at
(978)-283-2822.
    Daniel Lissner, General Counsel, Free Flow Power Corporation, 239
Causeway Street, Suite 300, Boston, MA 02114; or at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Brandi Sangunett,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests and
requests for cooperating agency status: 60 days from the date of this
notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202)
502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy
to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
the applicable project name(s) and docket number(s) (e.g., Emsworth
Lock and Dams P-13757-002).
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. These applications have been accepted for filing, but are not
ready for environmental analysis at this time.
    l. The proposed Emsworth Locks and Dam Hydroelectric Project would
be located at river mile (RM) 6.2 and would consist of the following
new facilities: (1) A 205-foot-long, 180-foot-wide intake channel
directing flow to a 30-foot-long, 63.5-foot-high, 180-foot-wide intake
structure with 5-inch bar spacing trashracks; (2) a 180-foot-long by
180-foot-wide reinforced concrete powerhouse on the south bank of the
river; (3) four turbine-generator units with a combined capacity of 24
megawatts (MW); (4) a 380-foot-long, 280-foot-wide tailrace; (5) a 50-
foot-long by 60-foot-wide substation; (6) a 1,893-foot-long, 69-
kilovolt (kV), overhead transmission line to connect the project
substation to an existing substation; and (7) appurtenant facilities.
The average annual generation would be 101,300 megawatt-hours (MWh).
    The proposed Emsworth Back Channel Dam Hydroelectric Project would
be located at RM 6.8 and consist of the following new facilities: (1) A
100-foot-long, 165-foot-wide intake channel directing flow to 32-foot-
long, 63.5-foot-high, 90-foot-wide intake structure with 5-inch bar
spacing trashracks; (2) a 150-foot-long by 90-foot-wide reinforced
concrete powerhouse on the north bank of the river; (3) two turbine-
generator units with a combined capacity of 12.0 MW; (4) a 190-foot-
long, 105-foot-wide tailrace; (5) a 50-foot-long by 60-foot-wide
substation; (6) a 3,758-foot-long, 69-kV, overhead transmission line to
connect the project substation to an existing substation; and (7)
appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation would be 53,500
MWh.
    The proposed Montgomery Locks and Dam Hydroelectric Project would
be located at RM 31.7 and consist of the following new facilities: (1)
A 340-foot-long, 205-foot-wide intake channel directing flow to a 150-
foot-long, 90-foot-high, 205-foot-wide intake structure with 5-inch bar
spacing trashracks; (2) a 315-foot-long by 205-foot-wide reinforced
concrete powerhouse on the north bank of the river; (3) three turbine-
generator units with a combined capacity of 42 MW; (4) a 280-foot-long,
210-foot-wide tailrace; (5) a 50-foot-long by 60-foot-wide substation;
(6) a 392-

foot-long, 69-kV, overhead transmission line to connect the project
substation to an existing distribution line; and (7) appurtenant
facilities. The average annual generation would be 194,370 MWh.
    Free Flow Power proposes to operate all three projects in a ``run-
of-river'' mode using flows made available by the Corps. The proposed
projects would not change existing flow releases or water surface
elevations upstream or downstream of the proposed projects.
    m. A copy of each application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. Copies are also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application
must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention
deadline date, a competing development application, or a notice of
intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of
intent allows an interested person to file the competing development
application no later than 120 days after the specified intervention
deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will not be
accepted in response to this notice.
    A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address,
and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an
unequivocal statement of intent to submit a development application. A
notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this
public notice.
    Anyone may submit a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
85.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to
take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but only those
who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's
Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to
intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline for the
particular application.
    When the applications are ready for environmental analysis, the
Commission will issue a public notice requesting comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions, or prescriptions.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' ``NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE
COMPETING APPLICATION,'' or ``COMPETING APPLICATION;'' (2) set forth in
the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the
application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name,
address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening;
and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR Sec. Sec.
385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the
applications directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or
motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the
applicant specified in the particular application.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-17755 Filed 7-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 231)]
[Notices]
[Page 72886-72887]
[DOCID:fr01de08-136]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59008; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-114]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Web CRD Fingerprinting Fees

November 24, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1), notice is hereby given that on November 20,
2008, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by CBOE. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.

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

    CBOE proposes to amend its Fees Schedule relating to Web Central
Registration Depository (``Web CRD'') fingerprint processing fees. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary and at the Commission.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CBOE included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

(a) Purpose
    The Exchange has established an arrangement with the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') to allow Exchange
members that are not FINRA members to register associated persons
electronically with the Exchange through the Web CRD system. Section 12
of the Exchange's Fees Schedule includes fees that are imposed upon
non-FINRA Exchange members and member organizations, which fees members
pay directly to FINRA through the Web CRD system at the time the
Exchange member or member organization effects a registration
transaction through Web CRD. These fees include fees assessed by FINRA
for its work in processing fingerprints.
    FINRA has amended its fingerprinting processing fees so that the
charge for the first and third submission of a fingerprint card is
$30.25 and the charge for the second submission of a fingerprint card
is $13.00.\1\ The fee for processing fingerprint cards where the member
had fingerprints processed through a self-regulatory organization other
than FINRA is unchanged at $13.00. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes
to amend its Fees Schedule to reflect the updated Web CRD
fingerprinting fees charged by FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CBOE's Fees Schedule includes a fee for the second
submission of a fingerprint card with the initial fingerprint card
attached and a separate fee for the second submission of a
fingerprint card without the initial fingerprint card attached. CBOE
proposes to eliminate this distinction and charge a single fee for
the second submission of a fingerprint card because FINRA no longer
distinguishes its fee in this manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to update its Fees Schedule to replace
references to the NASD with references to FINRA.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On July 26, 2007, the Commission approved a proposed rule
change filed by NASD to amend NASD's Certificate of Incorporation to
reflect its name change to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
Inc., or FINRA, in connection with the consolidation of the member
firm regulatory functions of NASD and NYSE Regulation, Inc. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56146 (July 26, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \3\, in
general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) \4\ of the Act
in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members. The Exchange believes the proposed fees are reasonable in that
they are identical to those charged by other exchanges that use FINRA's
Web CRD.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \5\ See, e.g., Boston Options Exchange Fee Schedule, Section
6(b), Chicago Stock Exchange Fee Schedule Section J, and
Philadelphia Stock Exchange Fee Schedule, Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of purposes of the Act.

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 foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \7\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission

may summarily abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2008-114 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-CBOE-2008-114. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of CBOE. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-114 and should be
submitted on or before December 22, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-28426 Filed 11-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P