PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request: U. S. EPA, Office of Administration and Resources Management, Office of Grants and Debarment 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2030  0020 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. X Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. G Three years from approval date b. X Other Specify: 12 / 31 / 05 7. Title: General Administrative Requirements for Assistance Programs: EPA Administrative Capability Questionnaire 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable): EPA ICR Number   0938.10 9. Keywords: Pre award Review, Non profit Pre award Review, Administrative Capability Questionnaire, Management and Financial Capability, Programmatic Capability.

10. Abstract: The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) uses the standards set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, part 30 subpart C to assess the adequacy of grantee administrative management systems. In response to concerns raised by Congress and EPA's Office of the Inspector General over the capability of EPA's non profit recipients to properly manage federal grant funds and successfully complete grant projects, EPA is instituting uniform pre award procedures to verify the administrative and programmatic capability of non profit applicants. In this ICR, EPA is prescribing an administrative capability questionnaire which will assist the Agency in evaluating the administrative and programmatic capabilities of non profit applicants seeking new grants in excess of $ 200,000.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. P Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. P Required to obtain or retain benefits c. G Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 100 b. Total annual responses 100 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 1 % c. Total hours requested 176,569 d. Current OMB inventory 176,169 e. Difference + 400 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change + 400 2. Adjustment  0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs  0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M)  0 c. Total annualized cost requested  0 d. Current OMB inventory  0 e. Difference  0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change  0 2. Adjustment  0

15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. P Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. X Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. Q Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. X Other ( describe): Once per applicant and every 4 years hence 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes XNo 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Marguerite Pridgen Phone: ( 202) 564 5308 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Howard F. Corcoran, Director Office of Grants and Debarment Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 106 (Monday, June 5, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25753-25754]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11544]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 387

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0211]
RIN 2126-AB74

Financial Responsibility for Motor Carriers, Freight Forwarders,
and Brokers

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

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA withdraws its November 28, 2014 advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning financial responsibility for
motor carriers, freight forwarders, and brokers. FMCSA is authorized to
establish minimum levels of financial responsibility for motor carriers
at or above the minimum levels set by Congress. In the ANPRM, FMCSA
sought public comment on whether to exercise its discretion to increase
the minimum levels of financial responsibility, and, if so, to what
levels. After reviewing all public comments to the ANPRM, FMCSA has
determined that it has insufficient data or information to support
moving forward with a rulemaking proposal, at this time.

DATES: As of June 5, 2017 the proposed published on November 28, 2014
at 79 FR 70839 is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Secrist, Chief, Registration,
Licensing & Insurance Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001,
by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
please contact Docket Services at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

ANPRM

    On November 28, 2014, FMCSA published an ANPRM regarding Financial
Responsibility for Motor Carriers, Brokers, and Freight Forwarders (79
FR 70839). In the ANPRM, the Agency announced that it was considering a
rulemaking that would increase minimum levels of motor carrier
financial responsibility for bodily injury or property damage \1\ and
sought information in connection with that potential rulemaking. In
addition, the Agency asked several questions related to broker/freight
forwarder financial responsibility as it continues to implement Section
32918 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Pub. L.
112-141) (MAP-21)(79 FR at 70842).\2\ Finally, the Agency asked a
series of questions in the ANPRM pertaining to (1) trip insurance for
Mexican carriers, (2) the discretionary imposition of financial
responsibility requirements for motor passenger carrier brokers
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 13904(f), and (3) its self-insurance program for
motor carriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FMCSA's regulations (49 CFR part 387 Subparts A and B)
require certain property and passenger motor carriers to maintain
financial responsibility at the statutory minimums set forth in 49
U.S.C. 31138 and 31139.
    \2\ While FMCSA is withdrawing this ANPRM, the Agency continues
its implementation of MAP-21 Section 32918 in a separate docket
(FMCSA-2016-0102). On May 20, 2016, the Agency held a full-day
informal roundtable discussion pertaining to broker/freight
forwarder financial responsibility (81 FR 24935). The Agency
received approximately 30 public comments in the meeting docket and
is continuing to examine options for addressing the issues covered
in that discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the core ANPRM issue of motor carrier financial
responsibility limits, FMCSA sought public comment on whether to
exercise its discretion to increase the minimum levels, and, if so, to
what levels. Specifically, in the effort to gather relevant data, FMCSA
posed a series of questions addressing the following matters:
     Premium Rates.
     Current Minimum Levels of Financial Responsibility.
     Impacts of Increasing the Minimum Level of Financial
Responsibility.
     Compensation.
     Sources of Information.
     Timelines for implementation.

Discussion of Comments

    The Agency received 2,181 public comments in response to the ANPRM.
Various stakeholders commented, including representatives of motor
carriers, insurance companies, broker/freight forwarders, safety
advocates, attorneys, drivers, and many others. Approximately 120
submissions, including one submission reflecting a petition signed by
11,366 individuals, expressed general support for increasing the
minimum levels of financial responsibility for motor carriers without
providing a substantive rationale for their opinion. Approximately 145
submissions expressed general opposition to increasing the minimum
levels of financial responsibility for motor carriers without providing
a substantive rationale for their opinions. The Agency appreciates the
level of interest shown in the ANPRM and the efforts that stakeholders
made to provide responsive information.

FMCSA Decision

    After considering whether to move forward with this rulemaking, the
Agency has decided to withdraw the November 28, 2014 ANPRM because the
Agency does not have sufficient data or information to support further
rulemaking.
    Despite receiving a significant number of comments in response to
the ANPRM, commenters did not provide responsive information necessary
to allow the Agency to proceed to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.\3\
In particular, commenters did not provide sufficient cost or benefit
data and the Agency was unable to otherwise obtain sufficient data on
industry practice with respect to the level of liability limits in
excess of the Agency's minimum financial responsibility requirements,
the cost of such premiums and the frequency of, and the amount by which
bodily injury and property damage claims exceed policy liability
limits. The anecdotal and hypothetical data provided by commenters are
not sufficient to allow the Agency to perform a systematic cost-benefit
analysis that would be required to raise motor carrier minimum
financial responsibility through a rulemaking. That is, based on the
information provided, FMCSA is not able to determine (1) potential
increases in insurance premiums associated with increased financial
responsibility limits, or (2) or the impact of an increase in minimum
financial responsibility requirements on insurance company capital
requirements set by insurance regulators to ensure there are sufficient
reserves to minimize the risk of insolvency and protect consumers.
Moreover, FMCSA is not able to calculate economic benefits from having
more financial resources available to assist crash victims associated
with increased minimum financial responsibility limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In a November 5, 2014 letter to the Acting Administrator of
FMCSA, the Agency's Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC)
provided recommendations to the Agency related to financial
responsibility requirements. While MCSAC provided useful
information, its task was not to develop cost and benefit
information for use in a rulemaking proceeding.

    Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87 on: May
25, 2017.
Daphne Y. Jefferson,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-11544 Filed 6-2-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78413-78416]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25206]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98899; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2023-77]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7.31-
E

November 9, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on October 31, 2023, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31-E to provide for the use
of ALO Reserve Orders. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31-E to provide for the use
of ALO Reserve Orders.
ALO Orders
    Rule 7.31-E(e)(2) defines an ALO Order as a Non-Routable Limit
Order that, unless it receives price improvement, will not remove
liquidity from the NYSE Arca Book. An ALO Order can be designated to be
cancelled if it would be displayed at a price other than its limit
price for any reason. An ALO Order can be designated as non-displayed.
    As described in Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(A), an Aggressing ALO Order to
buy (sell) will trade if its limit price crosses the working price of
any displayed or non-displayed orders to sell (buy) on the NYSE Arca
Book priced equal to or below (above) the PBO (PBB) of an Away Market,
in which case it will trade as the liquidity taker with such orders.
    As noted above, Rule 7.31-E(e)(2) provides that an ALO Order may be
designated to cancel if it would be displayed at a price other than its
limit price. If an ALO Order is not so designated, any untraded
quantity of such order to buy (sell) is processed as follows (Rules
7.31-E(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii)):
     If the limit price of the ALO Order locks the display
price of any order to sell (buy) ranked Priority 2--Display Orders on
the NYSE Arca Book, it will have a working price and display price (if
designated to display) one MPV below (above) the price of the displayed
order on the NYSE Arca Book.
     If the limit price of the ALO Order locks or crosses the
PBO (PBB) of an Away Market, it will have a working price equal to the
PBO (PBB) of the Away Market and a display price (if designated to
display) one MPV below (above) the PBO (PBB) of the Away Market.
    Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(C) provides that any untraded quantity of an ALO
Order to buy (sell) will have a working price and display price (if
designated to display) equal to its limit price if it locks non-
displayed orders to sell (buy) on the NYSE Arca Book. Rule 7.31-
E(e)(2)(D) provides that an ALO Order to buy (sell) will not be
assigned a working price or display price above (below) the limit price
of such order.
    Once resting on the NYSE Arca Book, ALO Orders may be re-priced or
trade, or both, as described in Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(E):
     If order(s) to sell (buy) ranked Priority 2--Display
Orders or the PBO (PBB) of an Away Market re-prices higher (lower), an
ALO Order to buy (sell) will trade or be priced, or both, consistent
with Rules 7.31-E(e)(2)(A), (e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii), and (e)(2)(C).

     If the PBO (PBB) of an Away Market re-prices lower
(higher) to be equal to or lower (higher) than its last display price
or if its limit price no longer locks or crosses the PBO (PBB) of the
Away Market, an ALO Order to buy (sell) will be priced pursuant to
Rules 7.31-E(e)(1)(A)(ii)(c) and (d). If the PBO (PBB) of an Away
Market re-prices lower (higher) than the working price of a non-
displayed ALO Order to buy (sell), such order will have a working price
equal to the PBO (PBB) of the Away Market.
Reserve Orders
    Rule 7.31-E(d)(1) provides for Reserve Orders, which are Limit or
Inside Limit Orders with a quantity of the size displayed and with a
reserve quantity (``reserve interest'') of the size that is not
displayed. The displayed quantity of a Reserve Order is ranked Priority
2--Display Orders, and the reserve interest is ranked Priority 3--Non-
Display Orders. Both the display quantity and the reserve interest of
an arriving marketable Reserve Order are eligible to trade with resting
interest in the NYSE Arca Book or to route to Away Markets. The working
price of the reserve interest of a resting Reserve Order will be
adjusted in the same manner as a Non-Displayed Limit Order, as provided
for in Rule 7.31-E(d)(2)(A).
    As described in Rule 7.31-E(d)(1)(A), the display quantity of a
Reserve Order must be entered in round lots, and the displayed portion
of a Reserve Order will be replenished when the display quantity is
decremented to below a round lot. The replenish quantity will be the
minimum display size of the order or the remaining quantity of the
reserve interest if it is less than the minimum display quantity.
    Rule 7.31-E(d)(1)(B) provides that each time the display quantity
of a Reserve Order is replenished from reserve interest, a new working
time is assigned to the replenished quantity (each display quantity
with a different time is referred to as a ``child'' order), while the
reserve interest retains the working time of the original order entry.
In addition, when a Reserve Order is replenished from reserve interest
and already has two child orders that equal less than a round lot, the
child order with the later working time will rejoin the reserve
interest and be assigned the new working time assigned to the next
replenished quantity. If a Reserve Order is not routable, the replenish
quantity will be assigned a display and working price consistent with
the instructions for the order.
    Rule 7.31-E(d)(1)(C) provides that a Reserve Order must be
designated Day and may only be combined with a Non-Routable Limit Order
or a Primary Pegged Order. Rule 7.31-E(d)(1)(C) also currently provides
that a Reserve Order may not be designated as an ALO Order.
    Rule 7.31-E(d)(1)(D) provides that routable Reserve Orders will be
evaluated for routing both on arrival and each time their display
quantity is replenished.
    Rule 7.31-E(d)(1)(E) provides that a request to reduce the size of
a Reserve Order will cancel the reserve interest before cancelling the
display quantity, and, if the Reserve Order has more than one child
order, the child order with the latest working time will be cancelled
first.
    Rule 7.31-E(d)(1)(F) provides that, if the PBBO is crossed and the
display quantity of a Reserve Order to buy (sell) that is a Non-
Routable Limit Order is decremented to less than a round lot, the
display price and working price of such Reserve Order will not change
and the reserve interest that replenishes the display quantity will be
assigned a display price one MPV below (above) the PBO (PBB) and a
working price equal to the PBO (PBB). Rule 7.31-E(d)(1)(F) further
provides that, when the PBBO uncrosses, the display price and working
price will be adjusted as provided for under Rule 7.31-E(e)(1) relating
to Non-Routable Limit Orders.
ALO Reserve Orders
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31-E to provide for the use
of ALO Reserve Orders. The proposed change is not intended to introduce
any new functionality or modify any current functionality, but rather
to facilitate the combination of two order types currently offered by
the Exchange. As proposed, ALO Reserve Orders would, except as
otherwise noted, operate consistent with current Rule 7.31-E(d)(1)
regarding Reserve Orders and current Rule 7.31-E(e)(2) regarding ALO
Orders. To allow for the use of ALO Reserve Orders, the Exchange first
proposes to amend Rule 7.31-E(d)(1)(C) to delete the last sentence of
such rule, which currently provides that a Reserve Order may not be
designated as an ALO Order.
    The proposed change is intended to allow ALO Orders, as described
in Rule 7.31-E(e)(2) and the paragraphs thereunder,\4\ to have a
displayed quantity, along with non-displayed reserve interest, as
described in Rule 7.31-E(d)(1). The display quantity of an ALO Reserve
Order would be replenished as provided in Rules 7.31-E(d)(1)(A) and
(B). As ALO Reserve Orders are non-routable, under Rule 7.31-
E(d)(1)(B)(ii), the replenish quantity of an ALO Reserve Order would be
assigned a display price and working price consistent with the behavior
of ALO Orders as described in current Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange does not propose to allow non-displayed ALO
Orders to be designated as Reserve Orders, given that a Reserve
Order must have both displayed and non-displayed portions, and thus
proposes to amend Rule 7.31-E(e)(2) to specify accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Aggressing ALO Reserve Orders would trade in accordance with
current Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(A). If an ALO Reserve Order is designated to
cancel, it will cancel if it would be displayed at a price other than
its limit price for any reason, as described in Rule 7.31-E(e)(2).
Otherwise, any untraded quantity of an ALO Reserve Order would continue
to be processed as ALO Orders are currently, as described in Rules
7.31-E(e)(2)(B) and (C). Similarly, the working price of the reserve
interest of a resting ALO Reserve Order would be adjusted as provided
for in Rule 7.31-E(d)(1) (i.e., in accordance with Rule 7.31-
E(d)(2)(A)). Rule 7.31-E(d)(1)(E) would also apply to requests to
reduce the size of ALO Reserve Orders.
    As described in Rule 7.31-E(d)(1)(F), when the PBBO is crossed and
the display quantity of an ALO Reserve Order to buy (sell) is
decremented to less than a round lot, the display price and working
price of the order would not change, but the reserve interest that
replenishes the display quantity would be assigned a display price one
MPV below (above) the PBO (PBB) and a working price equal to the PBO
(PBB). The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31-E(d)(1)(F) to add new
rule text describing how the display price and working price of an ALO
Reserve Order would be adjusted when a previously crossed PBBO
uncrosses. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add text to the last
sentence of Rule 7.31-E(d)(1)(F) providing that the display price and
working price of an ALO Reserve Order would be adjusted in accordance
with Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(E), which describes how ALO Orders resting on
the NYSE Arca Book are repriced and/or traded. Because ALO Orders
behave differently from other Non-Routable Limit Orders and may only
trade when they receive price improvement, the Exchange proposes to add
text to Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(F) clarifying that ALO Reserve Orders would
have their display price and working price adjusted consistent with the
rules applicable to ALO Orders when the PBBO uncrosses.
    The proposed change is intended to facilitate the combined use of
two existing order types available on the Exchange, thereby providing
ETP Holders with enhanced flexibility and

optionality when trading on the Exchange. The proposed change could
also promote increased liquidity and trading opportunities on the
Exchange, to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange also
believes the proposed change would permit the Exchange to offer
functionality already available on at least one other equities
exchange, thereby promoting competition among equities exchanges.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., MEMX Rules 11.8(b)(4) and (7) (providing that a
Limit Order may include a reserve quantity and may be designated
with a Post Only instruction); see also MEMX User Manual, available
at https://info.memxtrading.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/MEMX-User-Manual-03.10.23.pdf, at 9 (providing that a Limit Order
designated Day may have both reserve quantity and Post Only
instructions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of the technology changes associated with this proposed
rule change, the Exchange will announce the implementation date by
Trader Update, which, subject to effectiveness of this proposed rule
change, will be in the fourth quarter of 2023.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\7\
in particular, because it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market because it would allow for the combined use of two existing
order types available on the Exchange and permit the Exchange to offer
functionality similar to that already available on at least one other
equities exchange.\8\ ETP Holders would be free to choose to use the
proposed ALO Reserve Order type or not, and the proposed change would
not otherwise impact the operation of the Reserve Order or ALO Order as
described in current Exchange rules. The Exchange also believes that
the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market, as well as protect investors and
the public interest, by expanding the options available to ETP Holders
when trading on the Exchange and promoting increased liquidity and
additional trading opportunities for all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See note 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In addition, as noted above,
Exchange believes the proposed rule change would allow the Exchange to
offer functionality already available on at least one other equities
exchange \9\ and thus would promote competition among equities
exchanges. The Exchange also believes that, to the extent the proposed
change increases opportunities for order execution, the proposed change
would promote competition by making the Exchange a more attractive
venue for order flow and enhancing market quality for all market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \13\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-NYSEARCA-2023-77 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSEARCA-2023-77. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions;

you should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication
submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSEARCA-2023-77 and
should be submitted on or before December 6, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-25206 Filed 11-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 82)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 22867-22871]
[DOCID:fr28ap08-22]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 382

[Docket No. AD08-7-000]

Annual Charges Assessments for Public Utilities

April 21, 2008.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of Inquiry.

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

SUMMARY: In this Notice of Inquiry, the Commission is seeking comments
on its current methodology for the assessment of electric annual
charges to public utilities, in particular, whether that methodology
remains fair and equitable, and on alternative methodologies. As
provided in its current regulations, the Commission recovers the costs
of its electric regulatory program through filing fees and, as
particularly relevant here, annual charges assessed to public utilities
that provide transmission service, based on the volume of electricity
transmitted. This methodology reflects that regulation of transmission
providers, transmission facilities and transmission service is central
to Commission regulation, and that the transmission grid is the
interstate highway system for wholesale power sales. This Notice will
enable the Commission to determine whether its current methodology
remains fair and equitable, and to review alternative methodologies.

DATES: Comments are due May 28, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons may submit comments, identified by Docket
No. AD08-7-000, by any of the following methods:
     eFiling: Comments may be filed electronically via the
eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov.
Documents created electronically using word processing software should
be filed in the native application or print-to-PDF format and not in a
scanned format. This will enhance document retrieval for both the
Commission and the public. The Commission accepts most standard word
processing formats and commenters may attach additional files with
supporting information in certain other file formats. Attachments that
exist only in paper form may be scanned. Commenters filing
electronically should not make a paper filing. Service of rulemaking
(or Notice of Inquiry) comments is not required.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters that are not able to file
electronically must mail or hand deliver an original and 14 copies of
their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of
the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information contact:
Lawrence R. Greenfield (Legal Information), Office of the General
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Richard M. Wartchow (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Troy D. Cole (Technical Information), Director, Division of Financial
Services, Office of the Executive Director, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-
6161.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    1. In this Notice of Inquiry, the Commission is seeking comments on
its current methodology for the assessment of electric annual charges
to public utilities, in particular, whether that methodology remains
fair and equitable, and on alternative methodologies.\1\ As provided in
its current regulations, the Commission recovers the costs of its
electric regulatory program through filing fees and, as particularly
relevant here, annual charges assessed to public utilities that provide
transmission service, based on the volume of electricity transmitted.
This methodology reflects that regulation of transmission providers,
transmission facilities and transmission service is central to
Commission regulation, and that the transmission grid is the interstate
highway system for wholesale power sales. This Notice will enable the
Commission to determine whether its current methodology remains fair
and equitable, and to review alternative methodologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This Notice of Inquiry is limited to the assessment of
annual charges to public utilities regulated under Parts II and III
of the Federal Power Act (FPA). It does not, therefore, address the
assessment of charges for the Commission's hydroelectric, natural
gas or oil pipeline regulatory programs. It also does not address
recovery of Federal power marketing agency (PMA)-related costs or
electric filing fees (the latter are separately charged for, among
other things, petitions for declaratory orders, Commission staff
interpretations and certain qualifying facility-related filings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Although the Commission has held in the past that industry
concerns did not justify a change to the annual charges methodology, in
response to continued expressions of concern the Commission is issuing
this Notice of Inquiry to seek comment on whether the existing
methodology remains an appropriate means to recover the costs of the
Commission's electric regulatory program or whether there is another
more appropriate alternative. The Commission seeks to ascertain whether
those industry concerns, although not determinative previously, may now
be more valid and, if so, to review alternative proposals for the
recovery of the Commission's electric regulatory program costs. The
Commission also invites interested parties to submit in this proceeding
their views on other possible changes to the Commission's annual
charges regulations.

I. Background

A. Commission Authority

    3. The Commission is required by section 3401 of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1986 (Budget Act)\2\ to ``assess and collect fees
and annual charges in any fiscal year in amounts equal to all of the
costs incurred * * * in that fiscal year.'' \3\ The annual charges must
be computed based on methods which the Commission determines to be
``fair and equitable.'' \4\ The Conference Report accompanying the
Budget Act provides the Commission with the following guidance as to
this phrase's meaning:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 42 U.S.C. 7178 (2000).
    \3\ This authority is in addition to that granted to the
Commission in sections 10(e) and 30(e) of the FPA. See 16 U.S.C.
803(e), 823a(e).
    \4\ 42 U.S.C. 7178(b).

    [A]nnual charges assessed during a fiscal year on any person may
be reasonably based on the following factors: (1) The type of
Commission regulation which applies to such person such as a gas
pipeline or electric utility regulation; (2) the total direct and
indirect costs of that type of Commission regulation incurred during
such year; \5\ (3) the amount of energy--electricity, natural gas,
or oil--transported or sold subject to Commission regulation by such
person during such year; and (4) the total volume of all energy
transported or sold subject to Commission regulation by all
similarly situated persons during such year.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commission is required to collect not only all its
direct costs but also all its indirect expenses such as hearing
costs and indirect personnel costs. See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 99-1012
at 238 (1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3868, 3883 (Conference
Report); see also S. Rep. No. 99-348 at 56, 66 and 68 (1986).
    \6\ See Conference Report at 238. The Commission may assess
these charges by making estimates based upon data available to it at
the time of the assessment. 42 U.S.C. 7178(c).

    4. The Commission's annual charges do not enable the Commission to
collect amounts in excess of its expenses, but merely serve as a
vehicle to reimburse the United States Treasury for the Commission's
expenses.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 42 U.S.C. 7178(f). Congress approves the Commission's budget
through annual and supplemental appropriations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Current Annual Charges Billing Procedure

    5. As required by the Budget Act, the Commission's regulations
provide for the payment of annual charges by public utilities to fund
the Commission's electric regulatory program.\8\ The Commission intends
that these annual charges in any fiscal year will recover the
Commission's estimated electric regulatory program costs (other than
the costs of regulating PMAs and the electric regulatory program costs
recovered through electric filing fees) for that fiscal year. In the
next fiscal year, the Commission adjusts its annual charges up or down,
as appropriate, both to eliminate any over-or under-recovery of the
Commission's actual costs and to eliminate any over-or under-charging
of any particular person.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 18 CFR Part 382 (2007); see Revision of Annual Charges
Assessed to Public Utilities, Order No. 641, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,109 (2000), order on reh'g, Order No. 641-A, 94 FERC ] 61,290
(2001). The Commission's regulations define its electric regulatory
program as ``the Commission's regulation of the electric industry
under Parts II and III of the Federal Power Act; Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act; Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act;
Department of Energy Organization Act; Energy Security Act;
Regulatory Flexibility Act; Pacific Northwest Electric Power
Planning and Conservation Act; Flood Control and River and Harbor
Acts; Bonneville Project Act; Federal Columbia River Transmission
Act; Reclamation Project Act; Nuclear Waste Policy Act; National
Environmental Policy Act; and the Public Utility Holding Company
Act.'' 18 CFR 382.102.
    \9\ 18 CFR 382.201; accord Annual Charges Under the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, Order No. 507, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 30,839, at 31,263-64 (1988); Texas Utilities Electric
Company, 45 FERC ] 61,007, at 61,027 (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. When the Commission first developed an annual charge methodology
for public utilities in response to the Budget Act, it assessed charges
based on two types of wholesale electricity service: transmission and
wholesale sales in interstate commerce.\10\ However, in Order No. 641,
the Commission determined that the sweeping changes in the industry
occurring in the late 1980's and the 1990's had changed the industry
landscape, which consequently changed the nature of the Commission's
work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Annual Charges Under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1986, Order No. 472, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,746 (1987),
clarified, Order No. 472-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,750, order on
reh'g, Order No. 472-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,767 (1987), order
on reh'g, Order No. 472-C, 42 FERC ] 61,013 (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. In Order No. 641, the Commission noted that open access
transmission, functional unbundling, and the rapid movement to market-
based power sales rates brought about by Order No. 888, state retail
unbundling, and Order No. 2000 encouraging the formation of regional
transmission organizations (RTOs) caused the Commission's time and
effort to be increasingly devoted to assuring open and equal access to
public utilities' transmission systems. Order No. 641 anticipated that
wholesale power rates would be increasingly disciplined by competitive
market forces and less by direct regulation, and the Commission's
workload had, in fact, moved away from its traditional focus on review
of bilateral power sales agreements and instead focused increasingly on
transmission. In order to reflect those changes, Order No. 641 changed
the Commission's annual charges methodology to recover its electric
regulatory program costs by assessing charges solely on the MWh of
electric energy transmitted in interstate commerce by public utilities
providing transmission service, rather than on both jurisdictional
power sales and transmission volumes, as in the past.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Order No. 641, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,109 at 31,848-49;
accord Annual Charges Under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1986 (Phibro Inc.), 81 FERC ] 61,308, at 31,843-56 (1997) (Phibro
Inc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. As such, sections 382.201(a) and (b) of the Commission's
regulations provide that the costs of the Commission's administration
of its electric regulatory program (excluding the costs of regulating
the PMAs such as the Bonneville Power Administration,\12\ and electric
regulatory program costs recovered through electric filing fees \13\)
are assessed to public utilities that provide transmission service
based on the comparative amount of transmission that they provide;\14\
those that have provided more transmission service (i.e., more MWhs)
are charged more, and those that have provided less transmission
service (i.e., less MWhs) are charged less.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The PMAs such as the Bonneville Power Administration are
the subject of a separate assessment. 18 CFR 382.201(d).
    \13\ The Commission's case-specific filing fees are spelled out
in Part 381 of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR Part 381.
    \14\ 18 CFR 382.201(a), (b).
    \15\ See Order No. 641-A, 94 FERC ] 61,290 at 62,038.
    \16\ The Commission's regulations define public utility, for the
purpose of assessing annual charges, as ``any person who owns or
operates facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission
under Parts II and III of the Federal Power Act, and who has rate
schedule(s) on file with the Commission and who is not a `qualifying
small power producer' or a `qualifying cogenerator,' as those terms
are defined in section 3 of the Federal Power Act, or the United
States or a state, or any political subdivision of the United States
or a state, or any agency, authority, or instrumentality of the
United States, a state, political subdivision of the United States,
or political subdivision of a state.'' 18 CFR 382.102.
    In addition, the current electric annual charges are assessed
based on transmission service, and thus exclude power marketers,
which typically do not provide transmission service. 17 18 CFR
382.201; see Phibro Inc., 81 FERC ] 61,308 at 62,424-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. In calculating annual charges, the Commission first determines
the total costs of its electric regulatory program and subtracts all
PMA-related costs and electric filing fee collections to determine
total collectible electric regulatory program costs. It then uses the
data submitted under FERC Reporting Requirement No. 582 (FERC 582) to
determine the total volume of transmission and exchanges for all public
utilities to be assessed.\16\ The Commission divides that transaction
volume into its collectible electric regulatory program costs to
determine

the unit charge per megawatt-hour. Finally, the Commission multiplies
the transaction volume for each public utility to be assessed by the
unit charge per megawatt-hour to determine the annual charges for each
public utility.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 18 CFR 382.201; see Phibro Inc., 81 FERC ] 61,308 at
62,424-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. In response to Order No. 641, certain public utilities and
members of RTOs and independent system operators (ISO), including
municipal utility and cooperative members, expressed concern that this
annual charges methodology may be unfair and they alleged that the
resulting annual charges fall more heavily on RTO and ISO members than
on public utilities that are not RTO or ISO members. These concerns
were initially raised in proceedings where RTO and ISO members objected
to bills reflecting the charges determined under Order No. 641 and the
underlying methodology. Although they did not seek timely rehearing of
Order No. 641 itself, they sought rehearing of annual charges bills
determined using the Order No. 641 methodology.\18\ In a second
proceeding, three RTOs and ISOs filed a petition requesting that the
Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to revise the Order No. 641
methodology, seeking lower annual charges and questioning the
assumptions that the Commission made in issuing Order No. 641.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Revision of Annual Charges to Public Utilities
(California Independent System Operator), 101 FERC ] 61,043
(California ISO Order), order dismissing reh'g, 101 FERC ] 61,326
(2002) (California ISO Rehearing Order) (denying requests for
rehearing filed by California Independent System Operator, Inc., New
York Independent System Operator (New York ISO), Arizona Public
Service Company, American Transmission Company, LLC, and American
Transmission Services, Inc.).
    \19\ See Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.,
103 FERC ] 61,048 (Midwest ISO Order), order denying reh'g, 104 FERC
] 61,060 (2003) (Midwest ISO Rehearing Order) (denying petition for
rulemaking filed by Midwest ISO, New York ISO and PJM
Interconnection, LLC), aff'd, 388 F.3d 903 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (Midwest
ISO Court Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Those proceedings raised arguments that charges should be
assessed to power sales as well as transmission,\20\ challenges to the
Commission's finding that its work was primarily focused on
transmission regulation,\21\ assertions that annual charge allocations
should reflect the transmission component of bundled retail sales,\22\
and claims that the Commission's annual charge assessments do not
reflect the level of transmission service in various regions and unduly
disadvantage RTOs. The proceedings also addressed the assertion that
the Commission had erred in assessing charges to RTOs and ISOs based on
services provided for non-jurisdictional members.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Midwest ISO Rehearing Order, 104 FERC ] 61,060 at P 7.
    \21\ Id. P 9.
    \22\ Id. P 7 n.13.
    \23\ Midwest ISO Order, 103 FERC ] 61,048 at P 15 n.25; Midwest
ISO Rehearing Order, 104 FERC ] 61,060 at P 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. After noting that those arguments represented an untimely
attempt to seek rehearing of Order No. 641, the Commission responded to
the specifics of each issue. The Commission rejected the arguments that
annual charges should be allocated to power sales and arguments
questioning whether transmission was the Commission's primary
regulatory focus by noting that, in contrast to the timeframe in which
the Commission established its previous methodology, the Commission was
then focused increasingly on transmission through efforts related to
open access transmission service, interconnection policy, and RTO and
ISO regulation.\24\ The Commission also noted that then-current market
regulation efforts such as reforming western markets and promoting
standard market design (SMD), while nominally related to power sales,
were primarily focused on transmission issues.\25\ The Commission
reported that its reform of western markets was concerned with
transmission scheduling and constraints used to manipulate prices, and
its SMD proposal incorporated a new open access transmission tariff and
focused on congestion management procedures.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Midwest ISO Order, 103 FERC ] 61,048 at P 11-12; Midwest
ISO Rehearing Order, 104 FERC ] 61,060 at P 10.
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. The Commission rejected the suggestion that it should impose
annual charges based on the transmission component of bundled retail
sales, noting that such transactions formed no part of the Commission's
work load at that time.\27\ The Commission also refuted the suggestion
that the transaction volumes that it relied on were inaccurate and
understated transmission service provided by certain utilities, by
pointing out that the reported transaction volumes were subject to
audit and correction and annual charge assessments would be updated to
reflect any correction.\28\ Finally, the Commission justified assessing
annual charges on public utilities based on transmission services that
they provided to non-jurisdictional entities, noting that such charges
were properly recoverable in rates from the non-jurisdictional utility
and should be treated like any other cost of providing service.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ California ISO Order, 101 FERC ] 61,043 at P 15; see also
Order No. 641-A, 94 FERC ] 61,290 at 62,038.
    \28\ Midwest ISO Order, 103 FERC ] 61,048 at P 13.
    \29\ Id. P 15 & n.25. In fact, since that order, the
Commission's authority over such traditionally non-jurisdictional
utilities has expanded with the passage of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (EPAct 2005). Compare 16 U.S.C. 824(f) with 16 U.S.C. 824j-
1(a)-(b), 824o(b), 824u, 824v (2000 & Supp. V 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. The Midwest ISO petitioned the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia for review of the Commission's orders
denying the petition for rulemaking. The court denied the petition, but
noted the Commission's statement in the Midwest ISO Rehearing Order
that ``the issues may merit further consideration at a later time.''
\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Midwest ISO Court Order, 388 F.3d at 923, citing Midwest
ISO Rehearing Order, 104 FERC ] 61,060 at P 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    15. When the Commission issued Order No. 641, it determined that
its regulatory focus was turning increasingly towards regulation of
transmission service and away from a case-by-case review of wholesale
power sales rates. In recognition of this focus on regulating
transmission service, Order No. 641 provided for the Commission to
recover the costs of its electric regulatory program (not otherwise
recovered by, for example, filing fees) through annual charges assessed
to public utilities that provide transmission service, based on the
volume of electricity transmitted. Regulation of transmission
providers, transmission facilities and transmission service remains at
the heart of Commission regulation.
    16. Although the state of the industry in 2002 and 2003 did not
justify a change to the Commission's methodology, the Commission stated

that it would reconsider its methodology when the issue merited further
consideration. The Commission is now seeking through this Notice of
Inquiry to determine whether subsequent developments make it
appropriate to revisit Order No. 641 or otherwise suggest the need for
changes to its methodology for assessing annual charges to recover its
electric regulatory program costs.
    17. The Commission continues to devote substantial resources to
oversight of transmission service. In February 2007, for example, the
Commission issued Order No. 890, amending its regulations and reforming
the pro forma open access transmission tariff to ensure that
transmission services are provided on a just, reasonable and not unduly
discriminatory or preferential basis.\31\ In addition, the Commission
also continues to commit substantial resources to regulation of the
development and operation of RTOs and ISOs. These transmission service
providers, moreover, administer complex and comprehensive energy
markets and transmission tariffs that serve broad regions--New England,
New York, California, the mid-Atlantic and the Midwest, among others.
These RTO/ISO markets are based on regional, security-constrained
economic dispatch transmission service and locational-based marginal
pricing, including transmission congestion charges. Therefore, although
the Commission devotes some resources to power sales regulation through
its regulation of these markets, the markets are fundamentally linked
to transmission service. As a result, assessing annual charges based on
transmission has been a fair and equitable means to allocate the costs
of regulating these markets (with such costs, in turn, being
incorporated into the RTO/ISO transmission rates). Moreover, the
Commission devotes extensive resources to resolving hundreds of tariff
filings by these entities and their members each year--and these
filings are among the most complex that the Commission faces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in
Transmission Service, Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,241,
Order No. 890-A, FERC Stats. & Reg. ] 31,261 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. The Commission thus continues to focus very significant
resources on transmission,\32\ including implementation of new
authority under EPAct 2005 to, among other things, approve and enforce
mandatory reliability standards for the bulk-power system, which has as
its center the interstate electric transmission grid.\33\ Order No.
890, for example, established comprehensive requirements for
coordinated, open and transparent transmission planning to facilitate
the expansion of the transmission system and to address transmission
congestion, which can result in higher energy prices, and other
customer concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The current electric annual charges methodology also has
the advantages of being comparatively simple and easy to
administer--a not insignificant concern. It is a methodology that,
as well, has been challenged and upheld by the D.C. Circuit. See
supra notes 18, 29.
    \33\ Pub. L. No 109-58, Title XII, Subtitle A, 119 Stat. 594
(2005) (EPAct 2005) (amending the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 824, et seq.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. The RTOs and ISOs and their members in their earlier pleadings
pointed out that all transmission service in RTOs and ISOs is regulated
by this Commission and therefore annual charges are assessed on both
wholesale and retail transmission service. This stands in contrast to
annual charges paid by a public utility that is not an RTO or ISO
member, which may provide both unbundled wholesale transmission service
and bundled retail transmission service; for such public utilities,
only the former transmission service is considered in allocating the
Commission's electric regulatory program costs. This results in a
comparatively high percentage of the Commission's annual charges being
assessed to RTOs and ISOs.
    20. While the nature of Commission regulation of wholesale power
sales has certainly changed since adoption of Order No. 641, the
Commission continues to regulate wholesale power sales. Comprehensive
wholesale power sales rate review proceedings are now comparatively
rare. Instead of individual rate proceedings, the Commission reviews
new market-based rate power sales applications, electric quarterly
reports, and triennial filings and notices of changes in status for
market-based rate power sellers. In 2004, the Commission revised the
market-power analysis that is used to grant market-based rate
authority, and, in 2007, clarified its market-based rate policies.\34\
Further, the Commission establishes market rules and mitigation rules
for wholesale power sales. Finally, the Commission dedicates
enforcement resources to investigating compliance with rules governing
wholesale power sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Market-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy,
Capacity and Ancillary Services by Public Utilities, Order No. 697,
72 FR 39904 (Jul. 20, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,252,
clarified, 121 FERC ] 61,260 (2007), order on rehearing, 123 FERC
61,055 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. These facts, in combination with new programs intended to
implement new EPAct 2005 authority over certain mergers and other
corporate transactions and to sanction market manipulation, warrant the
Commission inquiring whether the current system remains fair and
equitable, or whether the concerns previously raised by RTOs and ISOs,
and their members, or other changes in the industry justify a change to
the current electric annual charges methodology.
    22. If such a change is justified, the Commission requests
comments, as described below, on whether other annual charges
assessment methodologies are more suitable than the current
methodology. Such alternate methodologies could include, but are not
limited to: (i) Assessing annual charges based on jurisdictional
wholesale power sales as well as transmission service,\35\ (ii)
adopting different annual charge calculation methodologies for
different types of public utilities to account for regional differences
in market structure or to account for the fact that all RTO and ISO
transmission service is considered when developing annual charges but
that non-RTO and ISO members' bundled retail transmission service is
not accounted for in annual charges, or (iii) determining annual
charges using factors other than the volume of MWh transmitted in
interstate commerce, such as peak load or transmission investment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ To the extent that a commenter advocates assessing annual
charges based on wholesale power sales, such commenter should
identify what utilities should be assessed annual charges and what
transactions (and/or power sales volumes) should be used in
developing such charges, as well as how the Commission would
calculate such charges. For example, should the methodology reflect
capacity sales, energy sales or both? Should the methodology reflect
shorter-term transactions, longer-term transactions or both and
should the methodology treat them similarly or should the
methodology treat them differently (and, if so, how)? Given that the
Commission does not separately track its resources devoted to
transmission regulation versus those devoted to wholesale power
sales regulation, how should the Commission allocate its costs
between the two? Given that any alternative annual charges
methodology adopted must be practical, i.e. must be a methodology
that the Commission can administer without undue burden, such
questions and others are important and necessitate answers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. The Commission requests that interested parties submit
comments, taking into account the factors listed in the Conference
Report for guidance, on the following inquiries:

    (A) Does the current electric annual charges assessment
methodology remain a fair and equitable method for recovering the
Commission's electric regulatory program costs, and why?
    (B) If the current electric annual charges assessment
methodology is no longer a fair

and equitable method, please identify what alternative methodology
is fair and equitable, and explain why, providing, where possible,
empirical evidence to support any proposed methodology.
    (C) For any such alternative methodology, please identify, with
specificity, what entities should be assessed electric annual
charges and how such an alternative methodology would work,\36\
including what data the Commission would need to allocate the
charges and how the Commission would obtain the data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The Commission emphasizes the importance of this third
question. Parties seeking a change in methodology are cautioned to
give this question careful thought and thorough analysis. Broadly
phrased requests that some other entities be charged will be less
persuasive than specific recommendations as to which particular
entities should be charged, and how.

III. Comment Procedures

    24. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and inquiries discussed in this notice, including any
related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to
discuss. Comments are due May 28, 2008. Comments must refer to Docket
No. AD08-7-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization
it represents, if applicable, and its address in their comments.
    25. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
    26. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    27. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters are not required to
serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

IV. Document Availability

    28. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    29. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
    30. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202)
502-6652 (toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>) or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    By direction of the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-9199 Filed 4-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


From:	Richard Haeuber/DC/USEPA/US
To:	John Schakenbach/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
Cc:	Gabrielle Stevens/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeb Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
Date:	02/07/2012 04:37 PM
Subject:	Emails in relation to EO 13563 12866 Interagency comments:CSAPR Amendment Final Rule

John -- two more emails from today for the docket

Rick Haeuber, Ph.D.
USEPA (6204J)
Clean Air Markets Division
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-343-9250
http://www.twitter.com/EPAairmarkets
http://www.facebook.com/EPAairmarkets
----- Forwarded by Richard Haeuber/DC/USEPA/US on 02/07/2012 04:36 PM -----

From:	"Kymn, Christine J."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To:	Richard Haeuber/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeb Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
Date:	02/07/2012 04:20 PM
Subject:	OIRA Review Concluded: EPA DFR Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone: Part II

Rick and Jeb,

OIRA has concluded review of EPA's DFR Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone: Part II.  Please let us know if you have any questions.  It has been a pleasure working with you.

Thanks,
Christine
----- Forwarded by Richard Haeuber/DC/USEPA/US on 02/07/2012 04:36 PM -----

From:	"Kymn, Christine J."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To:	Richard Haeuber/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeb Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
Date:	02/07/2012 04:25 PM
Subject:	ROCIS open for amendment

Hi guys,

ROCIS is open for amendment.  Please ask OP to upload the final rule and let us know when it's there.

Thanks,
Christine


	United States Environmental Protection Agency                        5 Post Office Square, Suite 100
                             Boston, MA 02109-3912

July 13, 2018

Paul Mercer, Commissioner
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
#17 State House Station
Augusta, Maine 04333

Walter Whitcomb, Commissioner
Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation & Forestry
#22 State House Station
Augusta, Maine 04333

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Maine Department of Inland Fish & Wildlife
#41 State House Station
Augusta, Maine 04333

Molly Sperduto
NRDAR/EC Program Supervisor
US Fish and Wildlife Service
70 Commercial Street
Concord, NH 03301

Ken Finkelstein, PhD
NOAA/NOS/OR&R
Assessment and Restoration Division
c/o EPA Region 1 New England
5 Post Office Square
Suite 100
Boston, MA 02109-3912

Re:	Notification of Intent to Delete Union Chemical Co., Inc. Superfund Site in Hope, Maine from the National Priorities List

Dear Commissioners Mercer, Whitcomb, Woodcock, Ms. Sperduto, and Dr. Finkelstein:

This is to notify you that EPA Region 1 is proposing to delete the Union Chemical Co., Inc. Superfund Site located in Hope, Maine from the National Priorities List (NPL).  EPA and the State of Maine, through the Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and maintenance, monitoring and Five-Year Reviews, have been completed.  However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

EPA, with the concurrence of MEDEP, will publish a Notice of Intent to Delete (NOID) the Site from the NPL in the Federal Register this month.  Assuming no substantive adverse comments are received, EPA will delete the Site from the NPL by the end of summer.  EPA will keep you apprised of the deletion process.  Whether or not the Site is deleted, the Settling Defendants under the 1992 Consent Decree will continue to perform long-term monitoring, and operation and maintenance, while EPA will continue to conduct Five-Year Reviews at the Site.

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you all for your time and continued support.

Sincerely,

Terrence Connelly
Remedial Project Manager

cc:	Charles Sands, EPA HQs
      Daniel Keefe, EPA ME/VT/CT Superfund Section Chief
      John Hultgren, EPA Senior Enforcement Counsel
      Rebecca Hewett, MEDEP Project Manager