[Federal Register: May 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 90)]
[Notices]
[Page 26110]
[DOCID:fr08my08-84]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. RM07-10-000]

Transparency Provisions of Section 23 of the Natural Gas Act;
Notice of Form No. 552 Follow-Up Workshop

 April 30, 2008.
    The follow-up staff workshop in the above-referenced proceeding is
scheduled for May 19, 2008, at the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in the
Commission Meeting Room (2-C) from 9:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. (EDT).
This is a continuance of the April 22, 2008, Form No. 552 Technical
Conference.
    Order No. 704, Transparency Provisions of Section 23 of the Natural
Gas Act,\1\ requires certain natural gas buyers and sellers to identify
themselves to the Commission and report certain information about their
physical natural gas transactions for the previous calendar year on
Form No. 552, established for the purpose of obtaining information
about the amount of daily or monthly fixed-price trading that is
eligible to be reported to price index publishers as compared to the
amount of trading that uses or refers to price indices. This workshop
will address the questions submitted prior to the April 22 Technical
Conference in connection with the filing of Form No. 552 as well as
issues brought up at that conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Transparency Provisions of Section 23 of the Natural Gas
Act, Order No. 704, 73 FR 1014 (Jan. 4, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,260 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Staff is issuing this Notice to alert interested individuals of the
date for the upcoming workshop, and to note that on May 12, 2008, staff
will post a link on the FERC calendar announcing the May 19 workshop,
to access staff's draft responses to the questions that have been
submitted and an agenda for the May 19 workshop.
    The session will neither be web-cast nor transcribed. All
interested persons are invited to attend in person or participate via
teleconference in the May 19 workshop. There is no fee to register, to
participate via teleconference, or to attend the conference.
    Those interested in participating by phone must register no later
than May 14, 2008, on the FERC Web site at https://www.ferc.gov/whats-
new/registration/form-552-05-19-form.asp. Those who will participate in
person are encouraged, but not required, to register. Information for
the conference call will be e-mailed to registered participants. For
additional information, please contact Michelle Reaux of FERC's Office
of Enforcement at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Commission conferences and meetings are accessible under section
508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations
please send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866)
208-3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>
with the required accommodations.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-10123 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 31, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34275-34276]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12663]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0426]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; St. Croix River, Stillwater, MN

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Stillwater Highway Bridge across
the St. Croix River, mile 23.4, at Stillwater, Minnesota. The deviation
is necessary due to increased vehicular traffic after a local
Independence Day fireworks display. This deviation allows the bridge to
remain in the closed-to-navigation position to clear increased
vehicular traffic congestion.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 10 p.m. to 11:30 p.m., July 4,
2016.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, (USCG-2016-0426) is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Eric A. Washburn, Bridge
Administrator, Western Rivers, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Minnesota Department of Transportation
requested a temporary deviation for the Stillwater Highway Bridge,
across the St. Croix River, mile 23.4, at Stillwater, Minnesota. This
deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation
position from 10 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2016.
    The Stillwater Highway Bridge currently operates in accordance with
33 CFR 117.667(b), which states specific seasonal and commuter hour
operating requirements.
    The Stillwater Highway Bridge provides a vertical clearance of 10.9
feet above normal pool in the closed-to-navigation position. Navigation
on the waterway consists primarily of commercial sightseeing/dinner
cruise boats and recreational watercraft. This temporary deviation has
been coordinated with waterway users. No objections were received.
    The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there are
no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the St.
Croix River. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway
through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in
operating schedule for the bridge so the vessel operators can arrange
their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary
deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: May 24, 2016.
Eric A. Washburn,
Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers.
[FR Doc. 2016-12663 Filed 5-27-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 144 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43885-43887]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17444]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67427; File No. SR-FINRA-2012-034]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Amend TRACE Reporting Rules Relating to
Transfers of TRACE-Eligible Securities To Create or Redeem Instruments
Such as ETFs

July 12, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 11, 2012, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') 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 FINRA. FINRA has
designated the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-
controversial'' rule change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under
the Act,\3\ which renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this
filing by the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comment on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 6730(e) to expressly exclude
from the Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (``TRACE'') trade
reporting requirements transfers of TRACE-Eligible Securities for the
sole purpose of creating or redeeming instruments such as exchange-
traded funds (``ETFs'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA, 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, FINRA 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. FINRA 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Under the Rule 6700 Series (the TRACE rules), members are required
to report transactions in debt securities that are TRACE-Eligible
Securities as defined in Rule 6710(a) to FINRA unless they fall within
an express exception listed in Rule 6730(e). Certain transactions and
transfers are not reported to FINRA (e.g., trades executed and reported
through an exchange and transfers made pursuant to an asset purchase
agreement that has been approved by a bankruptcy court). Members must
have policies and procedures and internal controls in place to
determine whether a transaction qualifies for an exception under the
TRACE rules.
    FINRA proposes to amend Rule 6730(e) to provide that transfers of
TRACE-Eligible Securities for the sole purpose of creating or redeeming
an instrument that evidences ownership or otherwise tracks the
underlying securities transferred, such as an ETF, shall be excluded
expressly from the TRACE reporting requirements. The proposed amendment
to Rule 6730(e) is similar to an exclusion for such

transfers in equity securities incorporated in FINRA equity trade
reporting rules in 2011.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65025 (August 3,
2011), 76 FR 48937 (August 9, 2011) (SEC order approving SR-FINRA-
2011-027, amending FINRA Rules 6282(i)(1), 6380A(e)(1), 6380B (e)(1)
and 6622(e)(1)) and Regulatory Notice 11-40 (August 2011) (2011
Equity Trade Reporting Filing). The proposed rule change also
codifies interpretive guidance that was published in 2003 regarding
transfers of TRACE-Eligible Securities for such purposes. See Letter
dated March 18, 2003, to Alice Yau, Vice President, Compliance, J.P.
Morgan Securities from Sharon Zackula, Office of General Counsel,
FINRA (f/k/a the National Association of Securities Dealers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, a member broker-dealer that is an ``authorized
participant'' of an ETF on behalf of a customer transfers TRACE-
Eligible Securities to an ETF and in return receives ETF creation
units. Under the proposed rule change, the transfers of the TRACE-
Eligible Securities from the broker-dealer to the ETF would not be
reported to TRACE.\5\ (Similarly, the transfer of the ETF creation
units to the broker-dealer would not be reported.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ FINRA notes that the proposed exception would apply
irrespective of whether the member is acting as agent, principal or
riskless principal in the creation process. Thus, if the broker-
dealer that is an authorized participant in the above example is
acting as riskless principal on behalf of its customer, the
immediate subsequent transfer of the ETF creation units from the
authorized participant to its customer also would not be reportable.
Similarly, if a broker-dealer that is an authorized participant is
acting as riskless principal on behalf of a customer that redeems an
ETF creation unit, neither the transfer of the ETF creation unit
from the broker-dealer to the ETF in return for TRACE-Eligible
Securities, nor the immediate subsequent transfer of such TRACE-
Eligible Securities to the customer would be reportable. This is
consistent with interpretive guidance relating to the 2011 Equity
Trade Reporting Filing. See Regulatory Notice 11-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, FINRA notes that purchases and sales of TRACE-Eligible
Securities that are to be transferred for the purposes of creating or
redeeming instruments such as ETFs (or a creation unit thereof) and
subsequent purchases and sales of the ETF or a similar instrument in
the secondary market are not subject to an exclusion. Such purchases
and sales involving TRACE-Eligible Securities must be reported to FINRA
in accordance with the Rule 6700 Series. Additionally, purchases and
sales of the underlying TRACE-Eligible Securities in order to track the
performance of an instrument such as an ETF, without actually creating
the instrument, are reportable events and must be reported to TRACE.
    As noted in Item 2 of this filing, FINRA has filed the proposed
rule change for immediate effectiveness. The implementation date will
be 30 days after the date of the filing.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\6\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change will
clarify members' obligations with respect to the reporting of transfers
of TRACE-Eligible Securities to create or redeem instruments such as
ETFs under the Rule 6700 Series. In addition, the proposed rule change
is consistent with an exclusion for such transfers in equity securities
incorporated in FINRA equity trade reporting rules in 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others
    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing 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 for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act\7\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the 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 to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or 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 is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2012-034 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2012-034. 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 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2012-034 and should be
submitted on or before August 16, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17444 Filed 7-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 91)]
[Notices]
[Page 26843]
[DOCID:fr12my10-139]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Notification of Petition for Approval; Railroad Safety Program
Plan

    Although not required, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is
providing notice that it has received a petition for approval of a
Railroad Safety Program Plan (RSPP) submitted pursuant to Title 49 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 236, subpart H. The petition is
listed below, including the party seeking approval, and the requisite
docket number. FRA is not accepting comments on this RSPP.

Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation

[Docket Number FRA-2010-0086]

    The Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation (PATH) submits a
petition for approval of an RSPP. An RSPP is a system safety plan
implemented by the railroad to identify and manage safety risks and
generate data for use in making safety decisions. The petition, RSPP,
and any related documents have been placed in the requisite Docket
(FRA-2010-0086) and are available for public inspection.
    Interested parties are invited to review the RSPP and associated
documents at the DOT Docket Management Facility during regular business
hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590. All documents in the public docket are also
available for inspection and copying on the internet at http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications received into any of our dockets by name of the
individual submitting the document (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78) or at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC on May 6, 2010.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-11204 Filed 5-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 44421]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14664]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34958; File No. 812-15460]

Morningstar Funds Trust and Morningstar Investment Management
LLC.

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application under Section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from Section 15(c) of
the Act.

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: The requested exemption would permit a Trust's
board of trustees (the ``Board'') to approve new sub-advisory
agreements and material amendments to existing sub-advisory agreements
without complying with the in-person meeting requirement of Section
15(c) of the Act.

APPLICANTS:  Morningstar Funds Trust and Morningstar Investment
Management LLC.

FILING DATES:  The application was filed on April 27, 2023, and amended
on June 23, 2023 and June 28, 2023.

HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING:  An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing
the SEC's Secretary at [email protected] and serving the
Applicants with a copy of the request by email, if an email address is
listed for the relevant Applicant below, or personally or by mail, if a
physical address is listed for the relevant Applicant below. Hearing
requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on July 31,
2023, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the Applicants,
in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service.
Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the
nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the
desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request,
and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing
may request notification by emailing the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: The Commission: [email protected]. Applicants: Eric
S. Purple, Esq., Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP,
[email protected] and Mena M. Larmour, Esq., Stradley Ronon Stevens
& Young, LLP, [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Trace W. Rakestraw, Senior Special
Counsel, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Division of Investment Management, Chief
Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For Applicants' representations, legal
analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' second amended
application, dated June 28, 2023, which may be obtained via the
Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of
this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field,
on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/legacy/companysearch.html. You
may also call the SEC's Public Reference Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.

    Dated: July 6, 2023.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-14664 Filed 7-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 17751]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7408]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2011-0034 (Notice No. 11-1)]

Hazardous Materials: Request for U.S. Competent Authority
Approval of International Atomic Energy Agency Special Arrangement CDN/
5255/X-96 (Rev. 0) Concerning Transport of Sixteen Radioactively
Contaminated Steam Generators From Bruce Power, Tiverton, Ontario to
the Studsvik Facility in Sweden via the Great Lakes

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice of document availability.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is notifying the public of a request by Bruce Power for
U.S. competent authority approval of a Canadian special arrangement
transport certificate issued in accordance with the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) ``Regulations for the Safe Transport of
Radioactive Material'' (TS-R-1).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Rick Boyle, Office of Hazardous
Materials Engineering and Research,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any
written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by
the name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you
may visit http://www.regulations.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 4, 2011, the Canadian Nuclear
Safety Commission (CNSC) issued a transport license and certificate to
Bruce Power for the transport to Sweden of 16 radioactively
contaminated decommissioned steam generator large components originally
installed in the Bruce Power nuclear power plant near Tiverton,
Ontario. The stated purpose of the transport is to conduct recycling
and volume reduction activities in Sweden. Under the terms of the
license and certificate, the transport of the steam generators would be
conducted in accordance with the special arrangement provisions of the
International Atomic Energy Agency ``Regulations for the Safe Transport
of Radioactive Material'' (TS-R-1). The initial leg of transport would
be by road and entirely within Canada. The steam generators would then
be loaded on a vessel in Owen Sound, Ontario for transport to Sweden
via Lake Huron, Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario and interconnecting
waterways as well as the St. Lawrence River. At various times the
vessel would necessarily enter U.S. waters. Therefore, under IAEA
special arrangement provisions, the U.S. would need to revalidate the
Canadian certificate in order to permit transport. PHMSA is recognized
as the IAEA Competent Authority for the U.S. and is responsible for
competent authority approval in these cases.
    An application requesting the U.S. competent authority approval of
the Canadian certificate was received from Bruce Power on Thursday,
February 24, 2011. All relevant documents will be made available for
public review online in the docket for this notice. PHMSA intends to
conduct a fully independent review of the proposed transport including
safety, environmental, and fitness assessments, in consultation with
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and U.S. Coast Guard. PHMSA must
approve, deny, or institute additional controls regarding the transport
in the request for competent authority approval.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 23, 2011 under authority
delegated in 49 CFR part 106.
Magdy El-Sibaie,
Associate Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-7408 Filed 3-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 207 (Monday, October 26, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67665-67666]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23491]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682; FRL-10014-47-OAR]

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Petroleum Refinery Sector: Action Denying a Petition for
Reconsideration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Denial of petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing
notice that it has responded to a petition for reconsideration of a
final rule published in the Federal Register on February 4, 2020. The
rule promulgated amendments to the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Petroleum Refinery Sector based on
the residual risk and technology review (RTR) conducted for the
Petroleum Refinery source category. On April 6, 2020, the EPA received
a petition for reconsideration on five issues related to the February
4, 2020, final rule. On September 3, 2020, the Administrator notified
the petitioner by letter that the EPA was denying reconsideration. The
basis for the denial is set out fully in the letter sent to the
petitioner, and this letter is available in the rulemaking docket.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 26, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this action,
contact Mr. Andrew Bouchard, Sector Policies and Programs Division
(E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    This Federal Register document, the petition for reconsideration,
and the letter denying the petition for reconsideration are available
in the docket the EPA established for the Petroleum Refining sector
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682. The petition for
reconsideration is titled, April 6, 2020 Petition for Reconsideration
from EarthJustice, which is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0682. The document for the EPA's response letter denying the petition
for reconsideration is titled, EPA's Response to the April 6, 2020
Petition for Reconsideration from EarthJustice, which is also available
in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available (i.e.,
confidential business information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute). Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov/ or
in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is
(202) 566-1742. Out of an abundance of caution for members of the
public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are closed
to the public, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide
remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. For further
information on EPA Docket Center services and the current status,
please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets. The amended
Petroleum Refinery Sector NESHAP was published in the Federal Register
on February 4, 2020, at 85 FR 6064.

II. Judicial Review

    Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) specifies which
Federal Courts of Appeal have venue over petitions for review of final
EPA actions. This section provides, in part, that ``a petition for
review of action of the Administrator in promulgating . . . any
emission standard or requirement under section [112] of [the CAA],'' or
any other ``nationally applicable'' final action, ``may be filed only
in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.''
    The EPA has determined that its denial of the petition for
reconsideration is nationally applicable for purposes of CAA section
307(b)(1) because the actions directly affect the Petroleum Refinery
Sector NESHAP, which are nationally applicable CAA section 112
standards. Thus, any petitions for review of the EPA's decision denying
the petitioner's request for reconsideration must be filed in the

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by
December 28, 2020.

III. Description of Action

    On February 4, 2020, the EPA promulgated a final rule addressing a
petition for reconsideration that was filed in response to a rule
issued in December 2015,\1\ which amended the Petroleum Refinery Sector
NESHAP based on the RTR conducted for the Petroleum Refinery source
category. 85 FR 6064. Following promulgation of the final rule, on
April 6, 2020, the Administrator received a petition for
reconsideration of certain provisions of the final rule pursuant to CAA
section 307(d)(7)(B). The petition for reconsideration was filed by
Earthjustice on behalf of Air Alliance Houston, California Communities
Against Toxics, Clean Air Council, Coalition for a Safe Environment,
Community In-Power and Development Association, Del Amo Action
Committee, Environmental Integrity Project, Louisiana Bucket Brigade,
Sierra Club, Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, and Utah
Physicians for a Healthy Environment. The petition for reconsideration
requests that the EPA reconsider five issues in the February 4, 2020,
final rule: (1) The EPA's rationale that the pressure relief device
(PRD) standards and emergency flaring standards are continuous; (2) the
EPA's rationale for the PRD standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and
(3); (3) the EPA's rationale for separate work practice standards for
flares operating above the smokeless capacity; (4) the EPA's rationale
for risk acceptability and risk determination; and (5) the EPA's
analysis and rationale in its assessment of acute risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The December 1, 2015, rule can be found in the Federal
Register at 80 FR 75178.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) requires the EPA to convene a proceeding
for reconsideration of a rule if a party raising an objection to the
rule ``can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable
to raise such objection within [the public comment period] or if the
grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment
(but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such
objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' The
requirement to convene a proceeding to reconsider a rule is, thus,
based on the petitioner demonstrating to the EPA both: (1) That it was
impracticable to raise the objection during the comment period, or that
the grounds for such objection arose after the comment period, but
within the time specified for judicial review (i.e., within 60 days
after publication of the final rulemaking notice in the Federal
Register, see CAA section 307(b)(1)); and (2) that the objection is of
central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
    The EPA carefully reviewed the petition for reconsideration and
evaluated all five issues raised to determine if they meet the CAA
section 307(d)(7)(B) criteria for reconsideration. In a separate letter
to the petitioner, the EPA Administrator denied the petition for
reconsideration. The letter articulates in detail the rationale for the
EPA's final responses and is available in the docket for this action.

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-23491 Filed 10-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 4, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 192)]
[Notices]
[Page 58594]
[DOCID:fr04oc06-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-444-001]

Egan Hub Storage, LLC; Notice of Compliance Filing

September 27, 2006.
    Take notice that on September 25, 2006, Egan Hub Storage, LLC (Egan
Hub) submitted a compliance filing pursuant to Egan Hub Storage, LLC,
116 FERC ] 61,174 (2006), issued on August 24, 2006.
    Egan Hub states that copies of its filing have been served upon all
parties on the Commission's official service list.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-16346 Filed 10-3-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 29, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24781-24782]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11170]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0978; FRL-9994-34-OECA]

Access by EPA Subcontractors to Information Claimed as
Confidential Business Information (CBI) Submitted Under Titles I and II
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Prevent Pollution From Ships Act
(APPS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA), Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships
(APPS) and regulations require that the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) provide notice to interested parties before any
contractor may be provided access to confidential business information
(CBI). EPA is providing notice that several subcontractors of a
previously identified contractor will be given access to CBI. This
permits the CBI owners and any other interested parties to comment on
the subcontractors' proposed access to CBI so that EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance can utilize the named
subcontractors to provide compliance assistance and enforcement
services without providing individualized notice to CBI owners.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 3, 2019.
Subcontractors' access to information collected under the CAA Titles I
and II, and the APPS, will begin on June 4, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA HQ-
OECA-2012-0978, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OECA-2012-0978 in the subject line of the message.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Kimes, Air Enforcement
Division, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (Mail Code
8MSU), Environmental Protection Agency, 1595 Wynkoop St., Denver, CO
80202; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this notice apply to me?

    This action is directed to the general public. However, this action
may be of particular interest to certain parties, including: Vehicle
manufacturers and importers; engine manufacturers and importers; motor
vehicle fuel and fuel additive producers and importers; manufacturers,
importers, distributors and installers of vehicle and engine emission
control equipment and parts; and any other parties subject to the CAA,
APPS and regulations found in 40 CFR parts 79, 80, 85, 86, 89-92, 94,
1033, 1036, 1037, 1039, 1042, 1043, 1045, 1048, 1051, 1054, 1060, 1065,
and 1068.
    This Federal Register notice may be of particular relevance to
parties that have submitted data to EPA under the above-listed
regulations. Because other parties may also be interested, EPA has not
attempted to describe all the specific parties that may be affected by
this action. If you have further questions regarding the applicability
of this action to a particular party, please contact the person listed
in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. How can I get copies of this document and other related
information?

A. Electronically

    EPA has established a public docket for this Federal Register
notice under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0978.
    All documents in the docket are identified in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, such as CBI or other
information for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
materials, such as copyrighted material, will only be available in hard
copy at the EPA Docket Center.

B. EPA Docket Center

    Materials listed under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0978 will be
available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

III. Description of Programs and Potential Disclosure of Information
Claimed as CBI to Contractors

    EPA's OECA has responsibility for protecting public health and the
environment by regulating air pollution from motor vehicles, engines,
and the fuels used to operate them, and by encouraging travel choices
that minimize emissions. In order to implement various Clean Air Act
programs, and to give regulated entities flexibility in meeting
regulatory requirements (e.g., compliance on average), OECA collects
compliance reports and other information from the regulated industry.
Occasionally, the information submitted to, or obtained by, EPA, is
claimed to be CBI by persons submitting data to EPA. Information
submitted under such a claim is handled in accordance with EPA's
regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, and in accordance with EPA
procedures that are consistent with those regulations. When EPA has
determined that disclosure of information claimed as CBI to EPA
contractors or subcontractors is necessary, the corresponding contract
must address the appropriate use and handling of the information by the
EPA contractor and subcontractor and the EPA contractor and
subcontractor must require its personnel who require access to
information claimed as CBI to sign written non-disclosure agreements
before they are granted access to data.
    On March 12, 2019, EPA provided notice in the Federal Register of,
and an opportunity to comment on, EPA's determination that its
contractor Eastern Research Group, Incorporated, (ERG) 14555 Avion
Parkway, Suite 200, Chantilly, VA 20151, required access to CBI
submitted to EPA under Section 114 of the CAA, Section 208 of the CAA,
and the APPS for the work ERG would be conducting under Contract Number
68HERH19C0004. See Access by United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Contractors to Information Claimed as Confidential
Business Information (CBI) Submitted under Clean Air Act (CAA), Title
I, Programs and Activities Air, and Title II Emission Standards for
Moving Sources, and Act To Prevent Pollution From Ships (APPS), 84 FR
8859 (March 12, 2019). In accordance with 40 CFR 2.301(h), EPA has now
determined that the subcontractors listed below also require access to
CBI submitted to EPA under Section 114 of the CAA, Section 208 of the
CAA, and the APPS, and we are providing notice and an opportunity to
comment on EPA subcontractors' access to information claimed as CBI.
OECA collects this data in order to monitor compliance with regulations
promulgated under the CAA Title II Emission Standards for Moving
Sources, the APPS, and the International Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), Annex VI. We are issuing this Federal
Register notice to inform all affected submitters of information that
we plan to grant access to material that may be claimed as CBI to the
subcontractors identified below on a need-to-know basis.
    Under Contract Number 68HERH19C0004, ERG provides enforcement
support for EPA's CAA mobile source regulatory and enforcement
activities, including field inspections, investigations, audits, and
other CAA regulatory and enforcement support that involve access to
information claimed as CBI. ERG also employs subcontractors, who
support these activities, under the above-listed contract. These
subcontractors include: Sunblock Systems, Inc.; PG Environmental, LLC;
BDO USA, LLP; Dr. James J. Carroll; Dr. Yiqun Huang; Dr. Maureen
Kaplan; and Capital Reporting Company. Access to data, including
information claimed as CBI, will commence six days after the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and will continue
until March 1, 2024. If the contract and associated subcontracts are
extended, this access will continue for the remainder of the ERG
contract without further notice. If the contract expires prior to March
1, 2024, the access will cease at that time. If ERG employs additional
subcontractors to support EPA on a regular basis or on a limited or
one-time basis under the above-listed contract, and those
subcontractors require access to CBI, EPA will notify affected
companies of the contemplated disclosure and provide them with an
opportunity to comment by either sending them a letter or by publishing
an additional notice in the Federal Register.
    Parties who wish to obtain further information about this Federal
Register notice, or about OECA's disclosure of information claimed as
CBI to subcontractors, may contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: May 16, 2019.
Phillip A. Brooks,
Director, Air Enforcement Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-11170 Filed 5-28-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 24, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 100)]
[Notices]
[Page 29160]
[DOCID:fr24my07-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Filing Deadline Extension for the FERC Form 714
``Annual Electric Balancing Authority Area and Planning Area Report''
and Availability of Electronic Submission Software

May 18, 2007.
    Take notice that the filing deadline for the FERC Form 714,
reporting 2006 data, is extended to July 16, 2007, for all respondents.
The extension is granted to allow the respondents additional time to
prepare their initial electronic filing of the form. Electronic filing
of Form 714 became mandatory on April 19, 2007, through Commission
Order No. 695 (http://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/comm-meet/2007/041907/E-14.pdf
).

    Software, necessary for the submission of the form, is available
for download free from the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/eforms/form-714/elec-subm-soft.asp.
 A Personal

Identification Number (PIN) is necessary to download the respondent's
initial database and to use as an electronic signature in submitting
Form 714 filings to the Commission. PINs will be e-mailed to each 2005
Form 714 contact person of record. Those who do not receive their PIN
by close of business on May 23, 2007, should e-mail the legal name of
the respondent and a contact person's name and E-mail address to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    More information on the Form 714 filing requirements can be found
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/eforms.asp#714
 and questions about the form can be e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-9985 Filed 5-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 13 (Friday, January 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2834-2839]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00856]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82499; File No. SR-Phlx-2018-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Pricing
for NDXP

January 12, 2018.
    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 January 3, 2018, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below,
which Items have been

prepared by the Exchange. 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\ 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 the Exchange's Pricing Schedule to
add pricing for P.M.-settled options on broad-based indexes with
nonstandard expiration dates for a period of twelve months, which the
Commission recently approved.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 82341 (December
15, 2017), 82 FR 60651 (December 21, 2017) (SR-Phlx-2017-79).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While changes to the Pricing Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative on January 4, 2018.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqphlx.cchwallstreet.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 Exchange 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 Exchange 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 recently received approval to list P.M.-settled
options on broad-based indexes with nonstandard expiration dates on a
twelve month pilot basis, beginning on December 15, 2017.\4\ This pilot
permits both Weekly Expirations and End of Month expirations similar to
those of the A.M.-settled broad-based index options, except that the
exercise settlement value will be based on the index value derived from
the closing prices of component stocks.\5\ The Exchange proposes to
list these aforementioned options, commencing on January 4, 2017, with
the symbol ``NDXP.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id.
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt the current index
pricing applicable to NDX \6\ today to NDXP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NDX represents options on the Nasdaq 100[supreg] Index and
is traded under the symbol NDX (``NDX'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Customer Rebate
    Today, Customer Rebates in Section B of the Pricing Schedule are
not paid on NDX in any Category. However, NDX will count toward the
volume requirement to qualify for a Customer \7\ Rebate Tier. The
Exchange proposes to apply the same pricing for NDXP as it relates to
Customer Rebates. The Exchange believes that this will continue to
encourage market participants to add Customer liquidity on Phlx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term ``Customer'' or (``C'') applies to any transaction
that is identified by a Participant for clearing in the Customer
range at The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') and which is not
for the account of broker or dealer or for the account of a
``Professional'' (as that term is defined in Chapter I, Section
1(a)(48)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transaction Charges in Section II
    Today, electronic and floor Options Transaction Charges for NDX are
$0.75 per contract for all Non-Customers. No transaction charge for NDX
applies to Customers. A $0.25 per contract \8\ surcharge is assessed to
Non-Customers in NDX. The Exchange proposes these options transaction
charges for NDXP. Today, a $0.10 per contract surcharge will be
assessed to electronic Complex Orders that remove liquidity from the
Complex Order Book and auctions, excluding PIXL, in Non-Penny Pilot
Options (excluding NDX). This exclusion would apply likewise to NDXP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange proposes to add the words ``per contract'' to
note 5 in Section II of the Pricing Schedule to make clear that the
surcharge is assessed on a per contract basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, Specialists and Market Makers are subject to a ``Monthly
Market Maker Cap'' of $500,000 for: (i) Electronic Option Transaction
Charges, excluding surcharges and excluding options overlying NDX; and
(ii) QCC Transaction Fees (as defined in Exchange Rule 1080(o) and
Floor QCC Orders, as defined in 1064(e)). NDXP would likewise be
excluded.
    Firms are subject to a maximum fee of $75,000 (``Monthly Firm Fee
Cap''). Firm Floor Option Transaction Charges and QCC Transaction Fees,
in the aggregate, for one billing month will not exceed the Monthly
Firm Fee Cap per member organization when such members are trading in
their own proprietary accounts. All dividend, merger, and short stock
interest strategy executions (as defined in this Section II) are
excluded from the Monthly Firm Fee Cap. NDX Options Transactions are
excluded from the Monthly Firm Fee Cap. NDXP will likewise be excluded.
    The Firm Floor Options Transaction Charges will be waived for
members executing facilitation orders pursuant to Exchange Rule 1064
when such members are trading in their own proprietary accounts
(including Cabinet Options Transaction Charges). The Firm Floor Options
Transaction Charges will be waived for the buy side of a transaction if
the same member or its affiliates under Common Ownership represent both
sides of a Firm transaction when such members are trading in their own
proprietary accounts. In addition, the Broker-Dealer Floor Options
Transaction Charge (including Cabinet Options Transaction Charges) will
be waived for members executing facilitation orders pursuant to
Exchange Rule 1064 when such members would otherwise incur this charge
for trading in their own proprietary accounts contra to a Customer
(``BD-Customer Facilitation''), if the member's BD-Customer
Facilitation average daily volume (including both FLEX and non-FLEX
transactions) exceeds 10,000 contracts per day in a given month. NDX
Options Transactions are excluded from each of the waivers set forth in
the above paragraph. NDXP will likewise be excluded from the waivers.
Marketing Fees
    No Marketing Fees are assessed on transactions in NDX. NDXP will
likewise be excluded.
PIXL Pricing
    Options overlying NDX are not subject to Section IV.A.--PIXL
Pricing. NDX transactions in PIXL will be subject to Section II
pricing. NDXP will not be subject to PIXL Pricing, similar to NDX, NDXP
will be subject to the Section II pricing noted herein.
FLEX Transaction Fees
    The Monthly Firm Fee Cap, Monthly Market Maker Cap, Strategy Caps
and the Options Surcharge described in Section II of the Pricing
Schedule apply to FLEX Transaction Fees for NDX and will likewise apply
to NDXP in the same manner.
Market Access and Routing Subsidy (``MARS'')
    MARS Payment [sic] are made to Phlx members that have System
Eligibility and have routed the requisite number of Eligible Contracts
daily in a month,

which were executed on Phlx. Options overlying NDX are not considered
Eligible Contracts. NDXP will not be considered Eligible Contracts.
    The Exchange believes that the above-referenced pricing for NDX
continues to be competitive and attract volume to Phlx. The Exchange
believes that the proposed pricing is suitable because NDXP represent
similar options on the same underlying, the Nasdaq 100[supreg] Index.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, 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, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission
\12\ (``NetCoalition'') the DC Circuit upheld the Commission's use of a
market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based
approach.\13\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in
Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory
requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be
made available to investors and at what cost.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \13\ See NetCoalition, at 534--535.
    \14\ Id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce'. . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .'' \15\ Although the court and
the SEC were discussing the cash equities markets, the Exchange
believes that these views apply with equal force to the options
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008)
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Customer Rebate
    The Exchange's proposal to not pay the Customer Rebates in Section
I of the Pricing Schedule on NDXP and count NDXP volume toward
qualifying for a Customer Rebate Tier, similar to NDX, is reasonable
because the Exchange desires to calculate and pay rebates on NDXP in a
similar manner to NDX. NDX and NDXP represent similar options on the
same underlying, the Nasdaq 100[supreg] Index. Further, it is
reasonable to not pay Customer Rebates on NDXP in any Category (A, B or
C) because this index will be exclusively listed on Nasdaq exchanges
only.\16\ The original intent of the Customer Rebate Program was to pay
rebates on electronically-delivered Multiply-Listed Options. By
definition, NDXP will not be a Multiply-Listed Option. The Exchange
does not desire to pay rebates on NDXP because of its exclusivity. The
Exchange believes it is reasonable to continue to count NDXP in the
total volume to qualify a market participant for a Customer Rebate.
However, market participants in NDXP will not be paid the Customer
rebates in any Category because of the exclusivity of this option.
Market participants would continue to benefit from NDXP options volume
in terms of qualifying for Customer Rebate Tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Nasdaq intends to list NDXP on other Nasdaq-owned self-
regulatory organizations in addition to Phlx at a later date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to not pay the Customer Rebates in Section
I of the Pricing Schedule on NDXP and count NDXP volume toward
qualifying for a Customer Rebate Tier, similar to NDX, is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would apply its
calculation to determine the eligibility and payment of Customer
rebates in a uniform manner. Further, the Exchange would not pay
Customer Rebates on any NDXP transaction to any market participant.
Also, any market participant is eligible to earn a Customer Rebate.
Transaction Charges in Section II
    The Exchange's proposal to assess the same electronic and floor
Options Transaction Charges for NDXP as it assesses for NDX \17\ is
reasonable because the Exchange's transaction charges for its
proprietary products are competitive when compared with similar
proprietary products.\18\ The Exchange's proposal to assess the same
electronic and floor Options Transaction Charges for NDXP and NDX is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would
assess the same options transaction charges to all Non-Customer market
participants. The Exchange believes that assessing Customers no
transaction fee for NDXP is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because Customer orders bring valuable liquidity to the market, which
liquidity benefits other market participants. Customer liquidity
benefits all market participants by providing more trading
opportunities, which attracts Specialists and Market Makers. An
increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Today, electronic and floor Options Transaction Charges for
options overlying NDX are $0.75 per contract for all Non-Customers.
No transaction charge for NDX applies to Customers. A $0.25 per
contract surcharge is assessed to Non-Customers in NDX. Also, a
$0.10 per contract surcharge is assessed to electronic Complex
Orders that remove liquidity from the Complex Order Book and
auctions, excluding PIXL, in Non-Penny Pilot Options (excluding
NDX).
    \18\ See Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated's
(``CBOE'') Fees Schedule. Russell 2000 Index (``RUT'') options
transactions on CBOE, except customers, are assessed a $0.45 per
contract surcharge. CBOE assesses Professionals and Broker-Dealers a
manual and AIM transaction fee of $0.25 per contract and a non-AIM
transaction fee of $0.65 per contract. CBOE assesses Clearing Trade
Permit Holders a transaction fee of $0.22 per contract, subject to a
sliding scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the proposed transaction charges are
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as NDXP will be
an exclusively listed product. Similar to NDX, the Exchange seeks to
recoup the operational costs \19\ for listing proprietary products.
Also, pricing by symbol is a common practice on many U.S. options
exchanges as a means to incentivize order flow to be sent to an

exchange for execution in particular products. Other options exchanges
price by symbol.\20\ Further, the Exchange notes that with its
products, market participants are offered an opportunity to either
transact NDXP or separately execute options overlying PowerShares QQQ
Trust (``QQQ'').\21\ Offering products such as QQQ provides market
participants with a variety of choices in selecting the product they
desire to utilize to transact the Nasdaq 100[supreg] Index.\22\ When
exchanges are able to recoup costs associated with offering proprietary
products, it incentivizes growth and competition for the innovation of
additional products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ By way of example, in analyzing an obvious error, the
Exchange would have additional data points available in establishing
a theoretical price for a Multiply Listed Option as compared to a
proprietary product, which requires additional analysis and
administrative time to comply with Exchange rules to resolve an
obvious error.
    \20\ See pricing for RUT on CBOE's Fees Schedule.
    \21\ QQQ is an exchange-traded fund based on the Nasdaq-100
Index[supreg].
    \22\ QQQ options overlies[sic] the same Index as NDX, namely the
Nasdaq 100[supreg] Index. This relationship between QQQ options and
NDX options is similar to the relationship between RUT, the iShares
Russell 2000 Index, and IWM which is the ETF on RUT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to add the words ``per contract'' to note 5
in Section II of the Pricing Schedule to make clear the surcharge is
per contract is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it will conform the language to the remainder of the
transaction charges in Section II of the Pricing Schedule.
    The Exchange's proposal to exclude NDXP from the Monthly Market
Maker Cap and the Monthly Firm Fee Cap is reasonable because NDX,
another proprietary product is likewise excluded today. Market Makers
will continue to be able to utilize the cap to reduce electronic Option
Transaction Charges, excluding surcharges, QCC transaction fees and
Floor QCC Orders, NDX and now NDXP despite the exclusions.
    The Exchange's proposal to exclude NDXP from the Monthly Market
Maker Cap and the Monthly Firm Fee Cap is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because no market participant would be eligible to count
NDXP toward either the Monthly Market Maker Cap or the Monthly Firm Fee
Cap.
    The Exchange's proposal to exclude NDXP from the Firm Floor Options
Transaction waivers for members executing facilitation orders pursuant
to Exchange Rule 1064,\23\ from the buy side of a transaction, if the
same member or its affiliates under Common Ownership represent both
sides of a Firm transaction when such members are trading in their own
proprietary account, and from the waiver for the Broker-Dealer Floor
Options Transaction Charge for members executing facilitation orders
pursuant to Exchange Rule 1064,\24\ is reasonable because NDX, another
proprietary product is likewise excluded today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ This waiver applies when such members would otherwise incur
this charge for trading in their own proprietary account contra to a
Customer (``BD-Customer Facilitation''), if the member's BD-Customer
Facilitation average daily volume (including both FLEX and non-FLEX
transactions) exceeds 10,000 contracts per day in a given month.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to exclude NDXP from the Firm Floor Options
Transaction waivers for members executing facilitation orders pursuant
to Exchange Rule 1064,\25\ from the buy side of a transaction, if the
same member or its affiliates under Common Ownership represents both
sides of a Firm transaction when such members are trading in their own
proprietary account, and from the waiver for the Broker-Dealer Floor
Options Transaction Charge for members executing facilitation orders
pursuant to Exchange Rule 1064,\26\ is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because no market participant would be eligible to count
NDXP toward these waivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marketing Fee
    The Exchange's proposal to exclude NDXP from the Marketing Fee is
reasonable because NDXP is an exclusively listed product, similar to
NDX, which is also excluded from the Marketing Fee. The Exchange notes
that Specialists and Market Makers transaction fees will remain in line
with other market participants for NDXP.
    The Exchange's proposal to exclude NDXP from the Marketing Fee is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will
assess uniform transaction fees for all Non-Customers because the
transaction charges, as proposed above, would otherwise be uniform for
all market participants. The Exchange believes that assessing Customers
no transaction fee for NDXP is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because Customer orders bring valuable liquidity to the
market, which liquidity benefits other market participants. Customer
liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading
opportunities, which attracts Specialists and Market Makers. An
increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
PIXL Pricing
    The Exchange's proposal to exclude NDXP from Section IV.A.--PIXL
Pricing and instead assess NDXP transactions in PIXL the Section II
pricing, similar to NDX, is reasonable because the Exchange believes
that the PIXL pricing continues to be competitive despite the exclusion
of NDXP. The Exchange's proposal to exclude NDXP from the PIXL Pricing
in Section IV, Part A and instead assess NDXP transactions in PIXL the
Section II pricing is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
the Exchange will uniformly exclude NDXP from PIXL pricing.
FLEX Transaction Fees
    The Exchange's proposal to assess NDXP the same FLEX Transaction
Fees as are assessed for NDX today is reasonable because the Exchange
desires to assess the same fees for index products. The Exchange's
proposal to assess NDXP the same FLEX Transaction Fees as are assessed
for NDX today is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
Exchange will uniformly assess FLEX fees for NDXP in a uniform manner
for all market participants.
Market Access and Routing Subsidy (``MARS'')
    The Exchange's proposal to exclude NDXP from Eligible Contracts for
purposes of qualifying for a MARS Payment is reasonable because the
Exchange believes that despite the exclusion of NDXP, MARS remains a
competitive offering. The Exchange's proposal to exclude NDXP from
Eligible Contracts for purposes of qualifying for a MARS Payment is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will
uniformly exclude NDXP from MARS.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. The Exchange notes that with its products, market
participants are offered an opportunity to either transact NDXP or
separately execute options overlying PowerShares QQQ Trust (``QQQ'').
Offering products such as QQQ provides

market participants with a variety of choices in selecting the product
they desire to utilize to transact the Nasdaq 100 Index.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See note 22 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Customer Rebate
    The Exchange's proposal to not pay the Customer Rebates in Section
I of the Pricing Schedule on NDXP and count NDXP volume toward
qualifying for a Customer Rebate Tier, similar to NDX, does not impose
an undue burden on competition because the Exchange would apply its
calculation to determine the eligibility and payment of Customer
rebates in a uniform manner. The Exchange's proposal to not pay
Customer Rebates on NDXP in any Category is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange would not pay Customer Rebates on
any transaction with NDXP to any market participant. Also, any market
participant is eligible to earn a Customer Rebate.
Transaction Charges in Section II
    The Exchange's proposal to assess for the same electronic and floor
Options Transaction Charges for NDXP and NDX does not impose an undue
burden on competition because the Exchange would assess the same
options transaction charges to all Non-Customer market participants.
The Exchange believes that assessing Customers no transaction fee for
NDXP does not impose an undue burden on competition because Customer
orders bring valuable liquidity to the market, which liquidity benefits
other market participants. Customer liquidity benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts
Specialists and Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these
market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may
cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other
market participants.
    The Exchange's proposal to add the words ``per contract'' to note 5
in Section II of the Pricing Schedule to make clear the surcharge is
per contract does not impose an undue burden on competition because it
will conform the language to the remainder of the transaction charges
in Section II of the Pricing Schedule.
    The Exchange's proposal to exclude NDXP from the Monthly Market
Maker Cap and the Monthly Firm Fee Cap does not impose an undue burden
on competition because no market participant would be eligible to count
NDXP toward either the Monthly Market Maker Cap or the Monthly Firm Fee
Cap.
    The Exchange's proposal to exclude NDXP from the Firm Floor Options
Transaction waivers for members executing facilitation orders pursuant
to Exchange Rule 1064, from the buy side of a transaction, if the same
member or its affiliates under Common Ownership represents both sides
of a Firm transaction when such members are trading in their own
proprietary account, and from the waiver for the Broker-Dealer Floor
Options Transaction Charge for members executing facilitation orders
pursuant to Exchange Rule 1064, does not impose an undue burden on
competition because no market participant would be eligible to count
NDXP toward these waivers.
Marketing Fee
    The Exchange's proposal to exclude NDXP from the Marketing Fee does
not impose an undue burden on competition because the Exchange will
assess uniform transaction fees for all Non-Customers because the
transaction charges, as proposed above, would otherwise be uniform for
all market participants. The Exchange believes that assessing Customers
no transaction fee for NDXP does not impose an undue burden on
competition because Customer orders bring valuable liquidity to the
market, which liquidity benefits other market participants. Customer
liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading
opportunities, which attracts Specialists and Market Makers. An
increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
PIXL Pricing
    The Exchange's proposal to exclude NDXP from the PIXL Pricing in
Section IV, Part A and instead assess NDXP transactions in PIXL the
Section II pricing does not impose an undue burden on competition
because the Exchange will uniformly exclude NDXP from PIXL pricing.
FLEX Transaction Fees
    The Exchange's proposal to assess NDXP the same FLEX Transaction
Fees as are assessed for NDX today does not impose an undue burden on
competition because the Exchange will uniformly assess FLEX fees for
NDXP in a uniform manner for all market participants.
MARS Subsidy
    The Exchange's proposal to exclude NDXP from Eligible Contracts for
purposes of qualifying for a MARS Payment does not impose an undue
burden on competition because the Exchange will uniformly exclude NDXP
from MARS.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or 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 is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2018-02 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-Phlx-2018-02. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; 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-
Phlx-2018-02 and should be submitted on or before February 9, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-00856 Filed 1-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 86)]
[Notices]
[Page 25291-25293]
[DOCID:fr04my07-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP02-25-001]

Copiah Storage, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental
Assessment for the Proposed 2007 Copiah Storage Project and Request for
Comments on Environmental Issues

April 30, 2007.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the 2007 Copiah Storage Project
involving construction and operation of facilities by Copiah Storage
LLC. (Copiah) in Copiah County, Mississippi.\1\ In this docket, Copiah
requests an amendment to Commission Order CP02-25-000 (issued June 13,
2002) to expand previously certificated storage, compression and
pipeline facilities that have not yet been constructed. This EA will
supplement the previous EA and will only examine the additional
facilities. This EA will be

used by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine
whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity. Please
note that the scoping period will close on May 30, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Copiah's application was filed with the Commission under
section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities.
The pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable
agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that
approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if
easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline
company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' was attached to the
project notice that Copiah provided to landowners. This fact sheet
addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of
eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.
It is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov
).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Copiah is proposing to expand its currently unbuilt certificated
facilities \2\ in order to meet market demand for high deliverability
storage services for the Gulf Coast and Northeast markets. Under their
current certificate CP02-25-000, Copiah is authorized to construct:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Copiah states that it did not build under the original
certificate in 2002 due to a decrease in the electric generation
market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A single 3.3 billion cubic feet (Bcf) capacity gas storage
cavern extending approximately 5,500 feet below the ground surface
within an underground salt dome (with an option for a second cavern);
     13,350 horsepower (hp) compressor station to provide
compression for injection and withdrawal of natural gas from the gas
storage cavern;
     Approximately 635 feet of 20-inch-diameter pipeline from
the compressor station to the storage cavern wellhead;
     Up to five well sites consisting of a freshwater
withdrawal well and brine injection well at each site; and
     Appurtenant facilities consisting of 20-inch-diameter
water supply and brine discharge pipelines, instrument and control
equipment, and access roads.
    Under this amendment, CP02-25-001, Copiah is seeking authorization
to add a second storage cavern and to increase the size of the
currently certificated underground salt cavern from 3.3 Bcf working
capacity to 7.75 Bcf for a two-cavern storage facility with a total of
15.5 Bcf working gas capacity. The storage facility would have a peak
withdrawal capacity of 1,300,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) and peak
injection capacity of 650,000 Dth/d at full capacity. Copiah also seeks
to increase the horsepower of the compressor station to 32,000 hp.
    Also under this amendment, Copiah is seeking authorization to
construct header facilities to connect to two natural gas pipelines:
     1.55 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline connecting the
storage facility to the Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (TETLP)
pipeline.
     13.43 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline connecting the
storage facility to the proposed Southeast Supply Header (SESH) and
Southern Natural Gas (SNG) pipeline.
     Appurtenant facilities consisting of two tap valves, two
pig launcher and receivers, two meter and regulator stations, and
access roads.
    The Copiah Storage Facility would be located in Copiah,
Mississippi. The location of the project facilities is shown in
Appendix 1.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices, other
than Appendix 1 (maps), are available on the Commission's Web site
at the ``eLibrary'' link or from the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202)
502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the
last page of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    The Copiah Storage Facility would be located within an
approximately 665-acre parcel of land owned by Copiah. Construction of
these proposed facilities would require 86.70 acres of land. Following
construction, 83.31 acres would be maintained as new aboveground
facility sites and permanent rights-of-way. The remaining 3.39 acres
would be returned to its previous land use. No facilities or activities
are proposed for the remaining 578.30 acres.
    Construction of the Copiah Header Facilities, the two connecting
pipelines, would require 154.63 acres during construction and 55.64
acres during operation. The remaining 98.99 acres would be returned to
its previous land use.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals.
This process is referred to as ``scoping''. The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff
requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the
EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the
EA. State and local government representatives are encouraged to notify
their constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.
    In the EA we \4\ will discuss impacts that could occur as a result
of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ''We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific

comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commentor, your
concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission.
You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the
proposal, alternatives to the proposal, and measures to avoid or lessen
environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful
they will be. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that
your comments are received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 3.
     Reference Docket No. CP02-25-001.
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before May 30, 2007.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing of any
comments or interventions or protests to this proceeding. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing'' link and the link to the

User's Guide. Before you can file comments you will need to create a
free account which can be created on-line.
    We may mail the EA for comment. If you are interested in receiving
it, please return the Information Request (Appendix 3). If you do not
return the Information Request, you will be taken off the mailing list.

Becoming an Intervenor

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

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

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners who are
potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily
for project purposes, or who own homes within distances defined in the
Commission's regulations of certain aboveground facilities. By this
notice we are also asking governmental agencies, especially those in
Appendix 2, to express their interest in becoming cooperating agencies
for the preparation of the EA.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link.

Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number
field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

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

Philis J. Posey,
Deputy Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E7-8540 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P