[Federal Register: January 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 17)]
[Notices]
[Page 4388-4391]
[DOCID:fr26ja06-82]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53161; File No. SR-Amex-2005-075]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendments No. 1, 2, and 3
Thereto Relating to the Establishment of a New Class of Registered
Options Trader Called a Supplemental Registered Options Trader
(``SROT'')

January 20, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 14, 2005, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``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 the Amex. On November
4, 2005, the Amex filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\
On December 7, 2005, the Amex filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed
rule change.\4\ On January 13, 2006, the Amex filed Amendment No. 3 to
the proposed rule change.\5\ The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1, which replaced and superseded the original
filing in its entirety, is incorporated in this notice.
    \4\ Amendment No. 2, which replaced and superseded the original
filing in its entirety, is incorporated in this notice.
    \5\ Amendment No. 3, which made clarifying changes to the
Purpose section, as well as changes to the proposed rule text
relating to allocation of executed contracts and affiliation
limitations, is incorporated in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Amex proposes new Amex Rule 993-ANTE and proposes to adopt
amendments to existing Amex Rules 900-ANTE, 918-ANTE, 935-ANTE, 936-
ANTE, 936C-ANTE, 950-ANTE, 951-ANTE, 958-ANTE and 958A-ANTE to
authorize a new category of registered options trader called a
Supplemental Registered Options Trader (``SROT'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Amex's Web
site at http://www.amex.com, at the Amex's principal office, and at the

Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to create a new category of Registered
Options Trader (``ROT'') called an SROT. An SROT is a ROT which would
be a member organization so designated by the Exchange which would be
granted remote quoting rights to enter bids and offers electronically
from off the Exchange's physical trading floor.
    The introduction of SROTs combines the electronic and open outcry
trading models. Currently, the Exchange permits ROTs to submit quotes
only from the physical trading floor. In this regard, the Exchange
anticipates that offering the ability to enter offers and bids
electronically away from the trading floor will increase the liquidity
available in those classes which the SROT is assigned, as well as
enhance the overall competitiveness of the Exchange. Rules applicable
to ROTs would not apply to SROTs unless otherwise specified. The
proposed rules and amendments to current rules discussed below would
address the definition, approval process, obligations, and quoting
rights of SROTs.
    i. Proposed Rule 993-ANTE. Proposed new Amex Rule 993-ANTE sets
forth the method and the factors to be used in approving SROTs. Under
the Exchange's proposal, an SROT would be defined as a ROT that is a
member organization that would be granted remote quoting rights to
trade in at least 300-400 option classes. A member organization
requesting approval to act as an SROT would file an application with
the Exchange. The Exchange intends to approve SROTs that demonstrate
qualities which would encourage the development of the business of the
Exchange. A maximum of six (6) SROTs would initially be chosen based
upon the following criteria:
     Adequacy of resources including capital, technology and
personnel;
     History of stability, superior electronic capacity, and
superior operational capacity;
     Level of market-making and/or specialist experience in a
broad array of securities;
     Ability to interact with order flow in all types of
markets;
     Existence of order flow commitments;
     Willingness to accept allocations as an SROT in at least
300-400 options; and
     Willingness and ability to make competitive markets on the
Exchange and otherwise promote the Exchange in a manner that is likely
to enhance the ability of the Exchange to compete successfully for
order flow in the options it trades.
    The Exchange, through a committee designated by the Exchange's
Board of Governors (the ``Committee''), expects to approve SROTs that
demonstrate the foregoing criteria. The Committee would include
representatives from the Options Market Maker Association and the
Options Specialist Association. In approving an applicant as an SROT,
the Committee would be permitted to consider a member organization's
operations to determine the number of option classes an applicant would
be assigned.
    The Committee would use the factor relating to the existence of
order flow commitments to evaluate existing order flow commitments
between an SROT applicant and order flow providers. A future change to,
or termination of, any such commitments would not be used by the
Exchange at any point in the future to terminate or take remedial
action against an SROT. Furthermore, the Committee would not take
remedial action solely because orders subject to any such commitments
were not subsequently routed to the Exchange.
    The final criterion, ``willingness to promote the Exchange,'' would
include assisting in meeting and educating market participants,
maintaining communications with member firms in order to be responsive
to suggestions and complaints, responding to suggestions and
complaints, and other similar activities. The Committee would use the
final criterion listed to determine which applicants would best be able
to enhance the competitiveness of the Exchange. The Committee would not
apply this factor to in any way restrict, either directly or
indirectly, an SROT's activities as a market maker or specialist on
other exchanges, or to

restrict how SROTs handle orders held by them in a fiduciary capacity
to which they owe a duty of best execution. The Committee would use its
discretion in conjunction with the foregoing factors to determine which
SROTs should be initially chosen.
    Under the Exchange's proposal, determinations regarding granting or
withdrawing approval to act as an SROT would be made by the Committee.
Furthermore, the Exchange proposes that an SROT application would not
be approved by the Committee without written certification signed by an
officer of the Exchange's Technology department indicating that an SROT
applicant has sufficient technological ability to support the
continuous quoting requirement set forth in 993--ANTE (c) and 958--ANTE
(c), and that an SROT applicant has successfully completed, or is
scheduled to complete, testing of its quoting system with the Exchange.
    The Exchange's proposal further provides that if the Committee
decides not to approve the applicant, it would notify the applicant of
its denial. The applicant would be entitled to a hearing under Article
IV, Section 1(g) of the Amex Constitution and Amex Rule 40.
    The Committee would be permitted to defer an SROT applicant that
satisfies the technological readiness and testing requirements
described in proposed Amex Rule 993--ANTE subparagraph (a)(iv) based on
system constraints, capacity restrictions, or other factors to ensure
the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, for a period to be
determined at the Committee's discretion. The Committee may not defer a
determination of the approval of the application of an SROT applicant
unless the basis for such deferral has been objectively determined by
the Committee, subject to the Commission's approval or effectiveness
pursuant to a rule change filing under Section 19(b) of the Act. The
Committee would provide written notification to any SROT applicant
whose application is the subject of such deferral, describing the
objective basis for such deferral.
    The Exchange's proposal requires an SROT applicant that seeks to
withdraw as such to notify the Exchange at least ten business days
prior to the desired effective date of such withdrawal.
    The Exchange would also be permitted to suspend or terminate any
appointment of an SROT in one or more classes whenever, in the
Exchange's judgment, the interests of a fair and orderly market are
best served by such action. An SROT would be permitted to seek review
of the termination or suspension of its status by the Exchange pursuant
to Article IV, Section 1(g) of the Amex Constitution and Amex Rule 40.
    The proposal provides that the Exchange would determine the number
and type of option classes assigned to an SROT as currently set forth
under Commentary .05 of Amex Rule 958--ANTE. Under the proposal, the
Exchange would assign a minimum of 300 option classes per SROT.
    Under the Exchange's proposal, SROTs would be required to purchase
or lease one seat for every thirty (30) option classes quoted. SROTs
also would be required to provide continuous two-sided quotations in
accordance with the parameters set forth in Amex Rule 958--ANTE (c) in
at least 60% of the series of their assigned classes.
    The Exchange's proposal requires that, in addition to other
obligations, no SROT would be assigned to an options class where the
SROT has a direct or indirect affiliate who is a specialist, ROT or
SROT in such option class. Additionally, no person who is either
directly or indirectly affiliated with an SROT may submit quotations as
an SROT, ROT or specialist in options in which the affiliate SROT is
assigned. Furthermore, SROTs would maintain information barriers that
are reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of material, non-public
information with any affiliates that may conduct a brokerage business
in option classes assigned to an SROT, or that may act as a market
maker in any security underlying options assigned to an SROT. The
proposal further requires SROTs to comply with Amex Rule 193 regarding
the misuse of material non-public information between the affiliate and
the specialist organization. The purpose of this provision is to
prevent affiliated parties from quoting electronically in the same
option class and receiving multiple automatic allocations for the same
or affiliated beneficial account owners.
    Under the proposal, quoting rights and designation of an SROT would
be non-transferable. An SROT would be permitted to submit electronic
quotations only from off the floor of the Exchange. The proposal
further provides that an SROT may trade in a market making capacity
only in the classes of options in which the SROT is assigned.
    ii. 900--ANTE. Amex Rule 900--ANTE currently sets forth the
applicability, definitions and references on ANTE. The Exchange
proposes to include the definition of an SROT in 900--ANTE. The
Exchange defines a ROT as a regular member of the Exchange as defined
by Article I, Section 3 of the Amex Constitution, located on the
trading floor, who has permission to trade in options for his or her
own account in accordance with Amex Rule 958--ANTE. An SROT is defined
as a ROT that is a member organization so designated by the Exchange
that would be granted remote quoting rights to enter bids and offers
electronically from off the Exchange's physical trading floor.
Furthermore, SROTs would be subject to the obligations set forth under
proposed Amex Rule 993--ANTE. Exchange rules applicable to ROTs would
not apply to SROTs unless otherwise specified.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend the terms ``Designated Options
Area'' and ``Designated Stock Area'' to include only the area of the
Exchange's physical trading floor where the option and stock,
respectively, of a Paired Security are traded. The term ``ANTE
Participant'' also would be amended to include an SROT assigned to
trade a specific options class on the ANTE System.
    iii. 918--ANTE. Amex Rule 918--ANTE currently sets forth the
automated opening, reopening and closing rotation procedures, trading
halts and the supervision of such procedures. The Exchange proposes to
amend Commentary .01 to Amex Rule 918--ANTE to include paragraph (c),
which provides that SROTs may not submit market orders prior to the
opening and that SROTs may submit quotes or limit orders prior to the
opening.
    iv. 935--ANTE. Amex Rule 935--ANTE currently provides for the
allocation of all contracts executed through the ANTE system. The
Exchange proposes to amend Amex Rule 935--ANTE to include SROTs. Under
the Exchange's proposal, the ANTE System would allocate executed
contracts to non-broker-dealer customers, broker-dealers, competing
market makers, specialists, registered options traders and SROTs in
accordance with the provisions therein. The Exchange further proposes
that when more than one market participant is quoting at the Amex Best
Bid and Offer (``ABBO''), and an SROT is not interacting with its own
firm's orders, the allocations in the current Amex Rule 935--ANTE
(a)(1)-(4) would apply. Proposed paragraph (5) states that when more
than one market participant is quoting at the ABBO, and an SROT is
interacting with its own firm's orders, the ANTE System would allocate
the remaining contracts after non-broker dealer customer orders as
follows: (i) 40% to an SROT interacting with its own firm's orders and
(ii) the balance to

registered options traders and to the specialist.
    v. 936--ANTE and 936C--ANTE. Amex Rule 936--ANTE and Amex Rule
936C--ANTE govern the cancellation and adjustment of equity options
transactions and the cancellation and adjustment of index option
transactions, respectively. The Exchange proposes to amend Amex Rule
936--ANTE and Amex Rule 936C--ANTE to include SROTs in the transactions
that may be cancelled or adjusted. The proposal further modifies the
notification requirement to allow Trading Officials and/or the Obvious
Error Panel reviewing the transactions to both orally or electronically
notify the members involved in the transaction of their determination.
The purpose of the proposed electronic notification requirement is to
provide notice to SROTs which are engaging in transactions off the
Exchange's physical trading floor.
    vi. 950--ANTE. Amex Rule 950--ANTE (b) currently provides rules for
priority and parity at the opening. Paragraph (b)(i) specifically
provides that after the opening, an options specialist acting as
principal may only retain priority over, or be on parity with, orders
for the accounts of broker-dealers, but may not retain priority over,
or be on parity with, off-floor orders for the accounts of public
customers. The Exchange proposes to amend 950--ANTE (b)(i) to identify
SROTs as broker-dealers. Commentary .01 of paragraph (c) currently
provides that after the opening, an options specialist acting as
principal, may only retain priority over or be on parity with orders
for the accounts of broker-dealers but may not retain priority over or
be on parity with off-floor orders for the accounts of public
customers. Commentary .02 of paragraph (c) provides that options orders
for the accounts of broker-dealers may only retain priority over or be
on parity with orders for the accounts of broker-dealers but may not
retain priority over or be on parity with off-floor orders for the
accounts of public customers. The proposed amendments to Commentaries
.01 and .02 of paragraph (c) would also categorize an SROT as a broker-
dealer. Finally, the proposed amendment to Commentary .02 of paragraph
(l) would require SROTs to compete with one another to improve the
quoted markets in all series of option classes in which they trade.
    vii. 951--ANTE. Amex Rule 951--ANTE currently governs the bids and
offers of options contracts. Commentary .01 to Amex Rule 951--ANTE
provides that if the bid or offer of a specialist or registered options
trader locks or crosses the ABBO, the ANTE System would revise the bid
by one or more minimum price variations lower than the bid submitted,
or revise the offer by one or more minimum price variations higher than
the offer submitted, so that the bid or offer submitted does not lock
or cross the ABBO provided.\6\ The Exchange proposes to amend
Commentary .01 to Amex Rule 951--ANTE to apply to SROTs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The ANTE System collects all of the quotes being calculated
by the specialist and each registered options trader, and determines
the best bid and best offer for dissemination pursuant to the firm
quote rule, as the ABBO. The ANTE System never allows a locked or
crossed market to occur in the ABBO. If a quote is submitted that
would lock or cross the ABBO, the ANTE System will revise the bid or
the offer by the minimum price variant(s) so that the ABBO is not
locked or crossed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    viii. 958--ANTE. Amex Rule 958--ANTE governs ANTE options
transactions of registered options traders. Pursuant to 958--ANTE (a),
registered options traders are assigned classes of options in
accordance with the existing procedures set forth in Commentary .05.
Amex Rule 958--ANTE (a) also provides that any option transactions
initiated by a registered options trader on the Floor and through the
facilities of the Exchange for any account in which the registered
options trader has an interest would be in such assigned classes.
Paragraph (b) of Amex Rule 958--ANTE provides that transactions of a
registered options trader must be reasonably calculated to contribute
to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and no registered
options trader should enter into transactions or make bids or offers
that are inconsistent with such a course of dealings. Paragraph (c) of
Amex Rule 958--ANTE provides that whenever a registered options trader
participates in the trading of options in other than a floor brokerage
capacity, or is called upon by a floor official or floor broker acting
in an agency capacity, they would be required to make competitive bids
and offers necessary, in a market making capacity, to contribute to the
maintenance of a fair and orderly market. The Exchange proposes to
apply paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of 958--ANTE to SROTs as they
currently apply to registered options traders.
    Paragraph (h) currently provides that registered options traders
may choose to use an Exchange provided or proprietary automated quote
system to calculate and disseminate quotes, or join the specialist's
disseminated quotation in some or all of his assigned classes or
series. Paragraph (h) further provides that registered options traders
must be physically present at the specialist's post on the floor of the
Exchange where that options class is traded.
    Under the Exchange's proposal, SROTs would not be permitted to use
the ``join quote'' feature in ANTE. The Exchange believes that
requiring SROTs to submit their own quotes in options that an SROT is
assigned would serve to further foster active quote competition.
Finally, the Exchange proposes that SROTs, as well as registered
options traders and specialists, must compete with each other to
improve the quoted markets in all series of option classes which they
trade. The Exchange further proposes to amend its original filing to
remove the in-person requirement for SROTs as provided in paragraph (h)
because they would not be physically present.
    ix. 958A--ANTE. Amex Rule 958A--ANTE, the Exchange's Firm Quote
Rule, currently provides that registered options traders, when
inputting their own quotes through an Exchange provided or proprietary
automated quote calculation system, would each be considered a
responsible broker or dealer for their bids or offers to the extent of
their quotation size. The Exchange proposes to amend Amex Rule 958A--
ANTE (a)(ii)(C) to include SROTs as responsible broker-dealers to the
extent of their quotation size for the purposes of this rule.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principals of trade, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will impose no
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the 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 by the Exchange on
this proposal.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, as amended, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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-Amex-2005-075 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2005-075. 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 Section, Station
Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing
also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of the Amex. 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-Amex-2005-075 and should be submitted on or before February 16,
2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-968 Filed 1-25-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: December 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 243)]
[Notices]
[Page 76644-76645]
[DOCID:fr17de08-78]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-OW-8752-3]

National Recommended Draft Water Quality Criteria for Acrolein

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability of draft criteria and request for
scientific views.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the availability of
draft national recommended water quality criteria for the protection of
aquatic life for acrolein. The draft criteria are based on EPA's
Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for
the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses (1985), (EPA/R-85-
100). EPA's recommended section 304(a) water quality criteria provide
guidance to States and authorized Tribes in adopting water quality
standards for protecting aquatic life and human health and provide
guidance to EPA for promulgating Federal regulations under CWA section
303(c), when such action is necessary.

DATES: Scientific views must be received on or before March 17, 2009.
Comments postmarked after this date may not be considered.

ADDRESSES: Submit your scientific views, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0795, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC) Water Docket, MC 2822T; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Ave,
NW., EPA West, Room 3334, Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-
0795. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of Water Docket/
EPA/DC, 1301 Constitution Ave, NW., EPA West, Room 3334, Washington,
DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 am until 4:30 pm, EST,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Office of Water is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Frank Gostomski, Health and
Ecological Criteria Division (4304T), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20460;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What Are Water Quality Criteria?

    Water quality criteria are scientifically derived numeric values
that protect aquatic life or human health from the deleterious effects
of pollutants in ambient water.
    Section 304(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to develop
and publish and, from time to time, revise, criteria for water quality
accurately reflecting the latest scientific knowledge. Water quality
criteria developed under section 304(a) are based solely on data and
scientific judgments on the relationship between pollutant
concentrations and environmental and human health effects. Section
304(a) criteria do not reflect consideration of economic impacts or the
technological feasibility of meeting the chemical concentrations in
ambient water.
    Section 304(a) criteria provide guidance to States and authorized
Tribes in adopting water quality standards that ultimately provide a
basis for controlling discharges or releases of pollutants. The
criteria also provide guidance to EPA when promulgating federal
regulations under section 303(c) when such action is necessary. Under
the CWA and its implementing regulations, States and authorized Tribes
are to adopt water quality criteria to protect designated uses (e.g.,
public water supply, recreational use, industrial use). EPA's
recommended water quality criteria do not substitute for the CWA or
regulations, nor are they regulations themselves. Thus, EPA's
recommended criteria do not impose legally binding requirements. States
and authorized Tribes have the discretion to adopt, where appropriate,
other scientifically defensible water quality standards that differ
from these recommendations.

II. What Are the Acrolein Criteria?

    EPA is today publishing draft national recommended water quality
criteria (NRWQC) for protecting aquatic life for acrolein. These draft
criteria are based on EPA's Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National
Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and
Their Uses (1985), (EPA/R-85-100). These Guidelines describe the
Agency's current approach for deriving national recommended water
quality criteria to protect aquatic life. Toxicity data and other
information on the effects of acrolein were obtained from reliable
sources and subjected to both internal and external peer review.
    Freshwater: Freshwater aquatic organisms and their uses should not
be affected unacceptably if the acute (one-hour average) concentration
of acrolein does not exceed 3.0 ug/l more than once every three years
on the average, and if the chronic (four-day average) concentration of
acrolein does not exceed 3.0 ug/l more than once every three years on
the average.

    Saltwater: Saltwater criteria cannot be derived for acrolein at
this time because of a lack of acute and chronic toxicity data.

III. What Is the Relationship Between the Water Quality Criteria and
State or Tribal Water Quality Standards?

    As part of the water quality standards triennial review process
defined in Section 303(c)(1) of the CWA, the States and authorized
Tribes are responsible for maintaining and revising water quality
standards. Water quality standards consist of designated uses, water
quality criteria to protect those uses, a policy for antidegradation,
and general policies for application and implementation. Section
303(c)(1) requires States and authorized Tribes to review and modify,
if appropriate, their water quality standards at least once every three
years.
    States and authorized Tribes must adopt water quality criteria that
protect designated uses. Protective criteria are based on a sound
scientific rationale and contain sufficient parameters or constituents
to protect the designated uses.
    Consistent with 40 CFR131.21 [see: EPA Review and Approval of State
and Tribal Water Quality Standards (65 FR 24641, April 27, 2000)],
water quality criteria adopted by law or regulation by States and
authorized Tribes prior to May 30, 2000, are in effect for CWA purposes
unless superseded by federal regulations (see, for example, the
National Toxics Rule, 40 CFR 131.36; Water Quality Standards for Idaho,
40 CFR 131.33). New or revised water quality criteria adopted into law
or regulation by States and authorized Tribes on or after May 30, 2000
are in effect for CWA purposes only after EPA approval.

IV. Where Can I Find More Information About Water Quality Criteria and
Water Quality Standards?

    For more information about water quality criteria and Water Quality
Standards refer to the following: Water Quality Standards Handbook (EPA
823-B94-005a); Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM), (63 FR
36742); Water Quality Criteria and Standards Plan--Priorities for the
Future (EPA 822-R-98-003); Guidelines and Methodologies Used in the
Preparation of Health Effects Assessment Chapters of the Consent Decree
Water Criteria Documents (45 FR 79347); Methodology for Deriving
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health
(2000), EPA-822-B-00-004); Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National
Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and
Their Uses (EPA 822/R-85-100); National Strategy for the Development of
Regional Nutrient Criteria (EPA 822-R-98-002); and EPA Review and
Approval of State and Tribal Water Quality Standards (65 FR 24641).
    You can find these publications through EPA's National Service
Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP, previously NCEPI) or on
the Office of Science and Technology's Home-page (http://www.epa.gov/
waterscience).

    Dated: December 4, 2008.
Ephraim S. King,
Director, Office of Science and Technology.
[FR Doc. E8-29997 Filed 12-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 53)]
[Notices]
[Page 14517-14519]
[DOCID:fr18mr08-128]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57474; File No. SR-FINRA-2008-001]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to FINRA's Gross Income Assessment and Technical Changes to
Schedule A to FINRA's By-Laws

March 11, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On January 10, 2008, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD'')) \1\ filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'' or ``SEC'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\3\ a proposed rule change to amend Schedule A to the FINRA
By-Laws to amend the Gross Income Assessment (``GIA'') paid by each
FINRA member and to update the references to NASD that appear in
Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws. The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on February 7, 2008.\4\ The
Commission received no comment letters on the proposed rule change.
This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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 the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc., or FINRA, in connection with the consolidation of
the member firm regulatory functions of NASD and New York Stock
Exchange Regulation, Inc. (``NYSE''). See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 56145 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR 42169 (August 1, 2007).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57259 (February 1,
2008), 73 FR 7340 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    On July 30, 2007, NASD and the NYSE consolidated their member firm
regulation operations into a combined organization, FINRA. The proposed
rule change seeks to consolidate certain regulatory fees imposed by
NASD and NYSE that will be applied retroactively to January 1, 2008.
FINRA will announce this fee change in a Regulatory Notice.
    FINRA's member regulatory pricing structure currently consists
primarily of the following fees: the GIA; The Trading Activity Fee
(``TAF''); the Personnel Assessment (``PA''); and the Branch Office
Assessment (``BOA''). As part of the consolidation, NYSE committed to
transfer to FINRA certain regulatory revenues for the remainder of
2007.\5\ NYSE fees subject to the transfer agreement include a gross
FOCUS (Financial and Operational Combined Uniform Single Report) fee
(``GFF'') \6\

and registration fees for branch offices\7\ and registered
representatives.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56181 (August 1,
2007); 72 FR 44206 (August 7, 2007) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of SR-NYSE-2007-70).
    \6\ The GFF is comparable to FINRA's GIA. See Section 1(c) of
Schedule A of FINRA By-Laws.
    \7\ See NYSE Rule 342, Supplementary Material .11. NYSE's
registration fee for branch offices is comparable to FINRA's Branch
Office System Processing Fee. See also Section 4(a) of Schedule A of
FINRA By-Laws.
    \8\ See NYSE Rule 345, Supplementary Material .14. NYSE's
registration fee for registered representatives is comparable to
FINRA's registration fees for the registration of representatives or
principals. See also Section 4(b) of Schedule A of FINRA By-Laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA now proposes to: (1) Eliminate NYSE's legacy registration
fees for branch offices and registered representatives, which totals
approximately $18.6 million in fee reductions;\9\ (2) maintain FINRA's
fee structures and levels for the TAF, the BOA and the PA; and (3)
consolidate, with certain adjustments, FINRA's GIA rate structure with
NYSE's GFF rate structure.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57093 (January 3,
2008), 73 FR 1654 (January 9, 2008) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of SR-NYSE-2007-127).
    \10\ The NYSE will continue to charge its member organizations
an annual gross FOCUS fee; however, the fee was reduced by 75
percent beginning in 2008. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
56181, supra note 5. The reduced gross FOCUS fee charged by NYSE
will be retained by NYSE and will not be forwarded to FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GIA is currently assessed through a three-tier rate structure
with a minimum GIA of $1,200.00. Under the current GIA, members are
required to pay an annual GIA equal to the greater of $1,200.00 or the
total of: (1) 0.125% of annual gross revenue less than or equal to $100
million; (2) 0.029% of annual gross revenue greater than $100 million
up to $1 billion; and (3) 0.014% of annual gross revenue greater than
$1 billion.\11\ In contrast, the legacy GFF was assessed at a flat rate
of $0.42 per $1,000 of gross FOCUS revenue (or 0.042%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Gross revenue for assessment purposes is set out in Section
2 of Schedule A of FINRA's By-Laws, which defines gross revenue as
total income as reported on FOCUS form Part II or IIA excluding
commodities income.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To consolidate these two legacy fees, FINRA proposes to retain the
minimum assessment under the GIA of $1,200.00, with the ceiling
increased from $960,000.00 to $1 million of annual assessable revenue.
Because FINRA has committed to reduce the GIA by $1,200.00 per year for
five years, subject to annual approval by FINRA's Board of Directors,
the proposal will effectively reduce the GIA to $0 for the first $1
million of annual assessable revenue. For annual gross revenue over $1
million, the regressive rate structure of the legacy GIA and the flat
rate structure of the legacy GFF will be combined into a new seven-
tiered rate structure. Under the proposed rule change, members will be
assessed a GIA of:
    (1) $1,200 on annual gross revenue up to $1 million;
    (2) 0.1215% of annual gross revenue greater than $1 million up to
$25 million;
    (3) 0.2599% of annual gross revenue greater than $25 million up to
$50 million;
    (4) 0.0518% of annual gross revenue greater than $50 million up to
$100 million;
    (5) 0.0365% of annual gross revenue greater than $100 million up to
$5 billion;
    (6) 0.0397% of annual gross revenue greater than $5 billion up to
$25 billion; and
    (7) 0.0855% of annual gross revenue greater than $25 billion.
    The new rate structure will be implemented over a three-year period
beginning in 2008. During this period, the change in the GIA paid to
FINRA by each member will be subject to a cap based on the fees that
the member would have paid under the prior NASD and NYSE rate
structures. In 2008, a member's GIA will not be impacted by the new
rate structure. In 2009, any increase or decrease to the member's GIA
resulting from the new rate structure will be capped at a five percent
increase or decrease. In 2010, any increase or decrease to the member's
GIA resulting from the new rate structure will be capped at a ten
percent increase or decrease. During this implementation period, a
firm's GIA may increase or decrease due to a change in the member's
assessable revenue from year to year; however, any changes to the
firm's GIA that result from the change in rate structure will be
subject to the cap.
    For firms that were members of NASD only (not NYSE) as of July 30,
2007, the cap will be calculated based upon the GIA that the member
firm would have paid under the prior NASD GIA rate structure. For firms
that became, or become, FINRA members on or after July 30, 2007
(excluding those firms that were members of NYSE only as of July 30,
2007, and were subsequently required to become FINRA members pursuant
to NYSE Rule 2), the cap will be calculated based upon the GIA that the
member firm would have paid under the prior NASD GIA rate structure.
For firms that were members of the NYSE only (not NASD) as of July 30,
2007, the cap will be calculated based upon the NYSE GFF that the
member would have paid under the prior NYSE GFF rate structure.\12\ For
firms that were members of both NASD and the NYSE as of July 30, 2007
(``Dual Members''), the cap will be calculated based upon the GIA and
the GFF that the member would have paid under the prior NASD GIA rate
structure and the prior NYSE GFF rate structure.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In calculating the cap based upon the GFF that a member
would have paid under the prior NYSE GFF rate structure, FINRA will
use only that portion of the GFF that would have been transferred by
the NYSE to FINRA (i.e., 75 percent of the GFF paid by the member
firm).
    \13\ For an example of how the fees are calculated, see Notice,
supra note 4, at note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities association.\14\
Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act \15\ in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility
or system that FINRA operates or controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change creates a single fee structure for FINRA
that avoids duplicative fees charged by both FINRA and NYSE.
Specifically, the proposed rule change creates a seven-tiered rate
structure that balances NASD's legacy GIA tiered rate structure with
NYSE's legacy GFF flat rate structure. FINRA represents that the
proposed rule change will result in aggregate fee reductions of
approximately $25 million dollars in 2008 and forward. FINRA estimates
that, under the proposed rate structure, 93 percent of member firms
will have either no change to their GIA or a reduced GIA due to this
new rate structure. In addition, to minimize the impact on members, the
new rate structure will be implemented over a three-year period
beginning in 2008. Despite the reduction in revenue that will result
from the new rate structure, FINRA also represents that the revenue
collected under the proposal will adequately fund its member regulatory
programs, including the regulation of members through examination,
policymaking, rulemaking and enforcement activities. Accordingly, the
Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\16\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2008-001), be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \17\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-5355 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 150 (Friday, August 3, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38114-38115]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16004]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0734; FRL 9981-28--Region 7]

Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; MO; Redesignation
of the Missouri Portion of the St. Louis Missouri-Illinois Area to
Attainment of the 1997 Annual Standards for Fine Particulate Matter and
Approval of Associated Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On January 5, 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published in the Federal Register an advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPR) specifically requesting early input and comments on
the Agency's interpretation that air quality monitoring data from 2015-
2017 support a finding that the Missouri Portion of the St. Louis
nonattainment area attains the 1997 Annual National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). The
notice also provided an evaluation of Missouri's 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS maintenance plan, which includes the 2008 and
2025 NOX and PM2.5 motor vehicle emission budgets
(MVEBs) and established the 2008 base year emissions inventory. EPA
received no comments on the ANPR. EPA is now taking direct final action
on three items, consistent with the ANPR. First, EPA is approving the
state's request to redesignate the Missouri portion of the St. Louis
MO-IL nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS as the monitoring values demonstrate the area
attains the standard. Second, EPA is approving the state implementation
plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan for the Missouri
portion of the area including the motor vehicle emissions budget.
Third, EPA is approving Missouri's 2008 base year emissions inventory
in accordance with section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. In the ``Rules and
Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, we are approving the
state's SIP revisions as a direct final rule without a prior proposed
rule. If we receive no adverse

comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule.

DATES: Comments must be received September 4, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2017-0734 to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lachala Kemp, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document proposes to take action on the
State of Missouri request to redesignate the Missouri portion of the
St. Louis MO-IL nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 Annual
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate
matter (PM2.5), and to approve the state's 2008 emissions
inventory. We have published a direct final rule approving the State's
SIP revision(s) in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this
Federal Register, because we view this as a noncontroversial action and
anticipate no relevant adverse comment. We have explained our reasons
for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive
no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed
rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final
rule and it will not take effect. We would address all public comments
in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We do not
intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further
information, please see the information provided in the ADDRESSES
section of this document.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Designations and classifications,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: July 16, 2018.
James B. Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2018-16004 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 97 (Friday, May 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29627-29628]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12079]

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

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: EC12-100-000.
    Applicants: Alpha Gas and Electric, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization for Disposition of
Jurisdictional Facilities and Request for Expedited Action of Alpha Gas
and Electric, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/10/12.
    Accession Number: 20120510-5142.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/31/12.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2179-010; ER10-2181-010; ER10-2182-010.
    Applicants: R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Calvert Cliffs
Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC.
    Description: On 5/10/12 CENG Nuclear Entities submits Notice of
Change in Status and on 5/11/12 submits Supplemental Information.
    Filed Date: 5/10/12; 5/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20120510-5146; 20120511-5139.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/31/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-397-001.

    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: G491 Compliance filing to be effective 11/15/2011
under ER12-397 Filing Type: 80.
    Filed Date: 5/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20120511-5158.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1152-000; ER12-1153-000.
    Applicants: Bounce Energy PA, LLC, Bounce Energy NY, LLC.
    Description: Bounce Energy Companies' Additional Information.
    Filed Date: 5/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20120511-5059.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1152-002.
    Applicants: Bounce Energy PA, LLC.
    Description: Market-Based Rate Application Deficiency Filing to be
effective 2/24/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20120511-5016.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1153-002.
    Applicants: Bounce Energy NY, LLC.
    Description: Market-Based Rate Application Deficiency Filing to be
effective 2/24/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20120511-5018.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1471-003.
    Applicants: Canastota Windpower, LLC.
    Description: Canastota Windpower, LLC Amendment to Electric Tariff
to be effective 5/12/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20120511-5015.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1761-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Revisions to the PJM Tariff to add a new Schedule 10-
Michigan-Ontario Interface to be effective 4/5/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/10/12.
    Accession Number: 20120510-5148.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/31/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1762-000.
    Applicants: Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
    Description: Modifications to PASNY Revenue Decoupling Mechanism to
be effective 5/11/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/10/12.
    Accession Number: 20120510-5149.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/31/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1763-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Original Service Agreement No. 3284; Queue No. W3-139
to be effective 4/13/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20120511-5017.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1764-000.
    Applicants: Amplified Power & Gas, LLC.
    Description: Baseline New to be effective 7/16/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20120511-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1765-000.
    Applicants: International Transmission Company.
    Description: Notice of Succession to be effective 7/13/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20120511-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1766-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: True-Up to Tie-Line Fac Agmt with NRG Solar Blythe
LLC, Blythe Solar 1 Project to be effective 7/11/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20120511-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1767-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: True-Up to LGIA SERV AG with NRG Solar Blythe LLC,
Blythe Solar 1 Project to be effective 7/11/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20120511-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1768-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Original Service Agreement No. 3285; Queue No. X1-082
to be effective 4/13/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20120511-5151.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1769-000.
    Applicants: Viridian Energy NG, LLC.
    Description: Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 7/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20120511-5156.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1770-000.
    Applicants: DES Wholesale, LLC.
    Description: Baseline Filing to be effective 5/11/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20120511-5159.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1771-000
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Original Service Agreement No. 3318; Queue No. X3-075
to be effective 5/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20120511-5160.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/12.

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

    Dated: May 11, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-12079 Filed 5-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P