[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 27 (Monday, February 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7546-7547]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02557]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP20-460-001.
    Applicants: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Rate Schedule PAL,
Tariff Updates, and Housekeeping Revisions to be effective 3/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200130-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/11/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-462-000.
    Applicants: NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate--DTE Gas
860003 Release to Eco-Energy to be effective 2/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200130-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/11/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-463-000.
    Applicants: Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Lost and Unaccounted for
and Electric Power Charge Update to be effective 3/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200130-5038.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/11/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-464-000.
    Applicants: Wyoming Interstate Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel and Lost and Unaccounted
for Update to be effective 3/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200130-5039.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/11/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-465-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Cherokee
AGL--Replacement Shippers--Feb 2020 to be effective 2/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200130-5041.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/11/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-466-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement
Update (SRP 2020) to be effective 3/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200130-5116.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/11/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-467-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Cove Point LNG, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: DECP--2020 Section 4 General
Rate Case to be effective 3/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200130-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/11/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-468-000.
    Applicants: Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: TIGT 2020-01-30 Non-Conforming
Agreement to be effective 2/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200130-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/11/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-469-000.
    Applicants: TransColorado Gas Transmission Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Transfer Nomination and
Housekeeping Update Filing to be effective 3/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200130-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/11/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-470-000.
    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Annual Modernization Capital
Cost Recovery Mechanism to be effective 3/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200130-5136.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/11/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-471-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate--PSEG to PSEG
Energy eff 2-1-2020 to be effective 2/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200130-5139.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/11/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-472-000.
    Applicants: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cameron Interstate Pipeline,
LLC Annual Adjustment of Fuel Retainage Percentage to be effective 3/1/
2020.
    Filed Date: 1/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200130-5142.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/11/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-473-000.
    Applicants: NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Columbia Gas
860005 Releases eff 2-1-2020 to be effective 2/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200131-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/12/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-474-000.
    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Penalty Revenue Crediting Report.
    Filed Date: 1/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200131-5032.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/12/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-475-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmts (Aethon
to Scona eff 2-1-2020) to be effective 2/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200131-5046.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/12/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-476-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmts (Osaka
46429 to Texla 52222, ConocoPhillips 52224) to be effective 2/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200131-5047.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/12/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-477-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: TCO Antero Negotiated Rate
Amendments to be effective 2/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200131-5068.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/12/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-478-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 20200131 Annual PRA to be
effective 4/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200131-5204.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/12/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-479-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: REX 2020-01-31 Negotiated Rate
Agreements to be effective 2/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200131-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/12/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-480-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 20200131 Negotiated Rate to be
effective 2/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200131-5118.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/12/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-482-000.
    Applicants: Rover Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Summary of Negotiated Rate
Capacity Release Agreements on 2-3-20 to be effective 2/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/3/20.

    Accession Number: 20200203-5004.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/18/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-483-000.
    Applicants: Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Alert Day Penalty Report on 2-3-
2020.
    Filed Date: 2/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20200203-5028.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/18/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-484-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreements--
CPA 4/1/2020 to be effective 4/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20200203-5030.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/18/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-485-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedules LSS and SS-2
Tracker Filing eff February 1, 2020 to be effective 2/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20200203-5032.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/18/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-486-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Capacity Release
Agreements--2/1/2020 to be effective 2/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20200203-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/18/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-487-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmts
(Atlanta 8438 releases eff 2-1-2020) to be effective 2/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20200203-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/18/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-488-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt
(Constellation 52187 to Exelon 52221) to be effective 2/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20200203-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/18/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-489-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Neg Rate Agmt
(Koch 51776) to be effective 2/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20200203-5106.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/18/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-490-000.
    Applicants: LA Storage, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Negotiated Rate,
Conforming IW Agreements to be effective 2/3/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20200203-5162.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/18/20.

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

    Dated: February 4, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-02557 Filed 2-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 101 (Thursday, May 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 24101]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11152]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL18-95-000]

El Paso Electric Company; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on May 14, 2018, El Paso Electric Company
submitted a response to the March 15, 2018 Show Cause Order.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Alcoa Power Generation, Inc.--Long Sault Division, et al.,
162 FERC ] 61,224 (2018) (Show Cause Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention 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 website that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected], or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on June 4, 2018.

    Dated: May 18, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-11152 Filed 5-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 248 (Thursday, December 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 89755-89759]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28606]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-99220; File No. SR-C2-2023-025]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Fees Schedule Related to Physical Port Fees

December 21, 2023.
    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 December 12, 2023, Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the 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

    Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``C2 Options'')
proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule
change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/ctwo/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, 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 proposes to amend its fee schedule relating to
physical connectivity fees.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on
July 3, 2023 (SR-C2-2023-014). On September 1, 2023, the Exchange
withdrew that filing and submitted SR-C2-2023-020. On September 29,
2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a Suspension of
and Order Instituting Proceedings to Determine whether to Approve or
Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change to Amend its Fees Schedule Related
to Physical Port Fees (the ``OIP''). On September 29, 2023, the
Exchange filed the proposed fee change (SR-C2-2023-021). On October
13, 2023, the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR-C2-
2023-022. On December 12, 2023, the Exchange withdrew that filing
and submitted this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of background, a physical port is utilized by a Member or
non-Member to connect to the Exchange at the data centers where the
Exchange's servers are located. The Exchange currently assesses the
following physical connectivity fees for Trading Permit Holders
(``TPHs'') and non-TPHs on a monthly basis: $2,500 per physical port
for a 1 gigabit (``Gbps'') circuit and $7,500 per physical port for a
10 Gbps circuit. The Exchange proposes to increase the monthly fee for
10 Gbps physical ports from $7,500 to $8,500 per port. The Exchange
notes the proposed fee change better enables it to continue to maintain
and improve its market technology and services and also notes that the
proposed fee amount, even as amended, continues to be in line with, or
even lower than, amounts assessed by other exchanges for similar
connections.\4\ The physical ports may also be used to access the
Systems for the following affiliate exchanges and only one monthly fee
currently (and will continue) to apply per port: Cboe BZX Exchange,
Inc. (options and equities platforms), Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.
(options and equities platforms), Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., and Cboe
EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``Affiliate Exchanges'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See e.g., The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), General
8, Connectivity to the Exchange. Nasdaq and its affiliated exchanges
charge a monthly fee of $15,000 for each 10Gbps Ultra fiber
connection to the respective exchange, which is analogous to the
Exchange's 10Gbps physical port. See also New York Stock Exchange
LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago Inc., NYSE
National, Inc. Connectivity Fee Schedule, which provides that 10
Gbps LX LCN Circuits (which are analogous to the Exchange's 10 Gbps
physical port) are assessed $22,000 per month, per port.
    \5\ The Affiliate Exchanges are also submitting contemporaneous
identical rule filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
section 6(b)(5) \7\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with section 6(b)(4) \9\ of the Act, which
requires that Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its

TPHs and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed fee change is reasonable as it
reflects a moderate increase in physical connectivity fees for 10 Gbps
physical ports. Further, the current 10 Gbps physical port fee has
remained unchanged since June 2018.\10\ Since its last increase 5 years
ago however, there has been notable inflation. Particularly, the dollar
has had an average inflation rate of 3.9% per year between 2018 and
today, producing a cumulative price increase of approximately 21.1%
inflation since the fee for the 10 Gbps physical port was last
modified.\11\ Moreover, the Exchange historically does not increase
fees every year, notwithstanding inflation. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes the proposed fee is reasonable as it represents only an
approximate 13% increase from the rates adopted five years ago,
notwithstanding the cumulative rate of 21.1%. The Exchange is also
unaware of any standard that suggests any fee proposal that exceeds a
certain yearly or cumulative inflation rate is unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities and Exchange Release No. 83455 (June 15,
2018), 83 FR 28892 (June 21, 2018) (SR-C2-2018-014).
    \11\ See https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/2010?amount=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes the proposed fee is reasonable as it is
still in line with, or even lower than, amounts assessed by other
exchanges for similar connections.\12\ Indeed, the Exchange believes
assessing fees that are a lower rate than fees assessed by other
exchanges for analogous connectivity (which were similarly adopted via
the rule filing process and filed with the Commission) is reasonable.
As noted above, the proposed fee is also the same as is concurrently
being proposed for its Affiliate Exchanges. Further, TPHs are able to
utilize a single port to connect to any of the Affiliate Exchanges with
no additional fee assessed for that same physical port. Particularly,
the Exchange believes the proposed monthly per port fee is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it is assessed only once,
even if it connects with another affiliate exchange since only one port
is being used and the Exchange does not wish to charge multiple fees
for the same port. Indeed, the Exchange notes that several ports are in
fact purchased and utilized across one or more of the Exchange's
affiliated Exchanges (and charged only once).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See e.g., The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), General
8, Connectivity to the Exchange. Nasdaq and its affiliated exchanges
charge a monthly fee of $15,000 for each 10Gbps Ultra fiber
connection to the respective exchange, which is analogous to the
Exchange's 10Gbps physical port. See also New York Stock Exchange
LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago Inc., NYSE
National, Inc. Connectivity Fee Schedule, which provides that 10
Gbps LX LCN Circuits (which are analogous to the Exchange's 10 Gbps
physical port) are assessed $22,000 per month, per port.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee change is not
unfairly discriminatory because it would be assessed uniformly across
all market participants that purchase the physical ports. The Exchange
believes increasing the fee for 10 Gbps physical ports and charging a
higher fee as compared to the 1 Gbps physical port is equitable as the
1 Gbps physical port is \1/10\th the size of the 10 Gbps physical port
and therefore does not offer access to many of the products and
services offered by the Exchange (e.g., ability to receive certain
market data products). Thus, the value of the 1 Gbps alternative is
lower than the value of the 10 Gbps alternative, when measured based on
the type of Exchange access it offers. Moreover, market participants
that purchase 10 Gbps physical ports utilize the most bandwidth and
therefore consume the most resources from the network. As such, the
Exchange believes the proposed fee change for 10 Gbps physical ports is
reasonably and appropriately allocated.
    The Exchange also notes TPHs and non-TPHs will continue to choose
the method of connectivity based on their specific needs and no broker-
dealer is required to become a TPH of, let alone connect directly to,
the Exchange. There is also no regulatory requirement that any market
participant connect to any one particular exchange. Moreover, direct
connectivity is not a requirement to participate on the Exchange. The
Exchange also believes substitutable products and services are
available to market participants, including, among other things, other
options exchanges that a market participant may connect to in lieu of
the Exchange, indirect connectivity to the Exchange via a third-party
reseller of connectivity, and/or trading of any options product, such
as within the Over-the-Counter (OTC) markets which do not require
connectivity to the Exchange. Indeed, there are currently 17 registered
options exchanges that trade options (13 of which are not affiliated
with Cboe), some of which have similar or lower connectivity fees.\13\
Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has
more than approximately 20% of the market share.\14\ Further, low
barriers to entry mean that new exchanges may rapidly enter the market
and offer additional substitute platforms to further compete with the
Exchange and the products it offers. For example, there are 4 exchanges
that have been added in the U.S. options markets in the last 5 years
(i.e., Nasdaq MRX, LLC, MIAX Pearl, LLC, MIAX Emerald LLC, and most
recently, MEMX LLC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
    \14\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market Volume Summary
(October 13, 2023), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, there is no regulatory requirement that any market
participant connect to any one options exchange, nor that any market
participant connect at a particular connection speed or act in a
particular capacity on the Exchange, or trade any particular product
offered on an exchange. Moreover, membership is not a requirement to
participate on the Exchange. Indeed, the Exchange is unaware of anyone
options exchange whose membership includes every registered broker-
dealer. By way of example, while the Exchange has 52 TPHs, Cboe BZX has
61 members that trade options, and Cboe EDGX has 51 members that trade
options. There is also no firm that is a Member of C2 Options only.
Further, based on publicly available information regarding a sample of
the Exchange's competitors, NYSE American Options has 71 members,\15\
and NYSE Arca Options has 69 members,\16\ MIAX Options has 46 members
\17\ and MIAX Pearl Options has 40 members.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See https://www.nyse.com/markets/american-options/membership#directory.
    \16\ See https://www.nyse.com/markets/arca-options/membership#directory.
    \17\ See https://www.miaxglobal.com/sites/default/files/page-files/MIAX_Options_Exchange_Members_April_2023_04282023.pdf.
    \18\ See https://www.miaxglobal.com/sites/default/files/page-files/MIAX_Pearl_Exchange_Members_01172023_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A market participant may also submit orders to the Exchange via a
Member broker or a third-party reseller of connectivity. The Exchange
notes that third-party non-TPHs also resell exchange connectivity. This
indirect connectivity is another viable alternative for market
participants to trade on the Exchange without connecting directly to
the Exchange (and thus not pay the Exchange connectivity fees), which
alternative is already being used by non-TPHs and further constrains
the price that the Exchange is able to charge for connectivity to its
Exchange.\19\ The

Exchange notes that it could, but chooses not to, preclude market
participants from reselling its connectivity. Unlike other exchanges,
the Exchange also chooses not to adopt fees that would be assessed to
third-party resellers on a per customer basis (i.e., fee based on
number of TPHs that connect to the Exchange indirectly via the third-
party).\20\ Particularly, these third-party resellers may purchase the
Exchange's physical ports and resell access to such ports either alone
or as part of a package of services. The Exchange notes that multiple
TPHs are able to share a single physical port (and corresponding
bandwidth) with other non-affiliated TPHs if purchased through a third-
party reseller.\21\ This allows resellers to mutualize the costs of the
ports for market participants and provide such ports at a price that
may be lower than the Exchange charges due to this mutualized
connectivity. These third-party sellers may also provide an additional
value to market participants in addition to the physical port itself as
they may also manage and monitor these connections, and clients of
these third-parties may also be able to connect from the same
colocation facility either from their own racks or using the third-
party's managed racks and infrastructure which may provide further
cost-savings. The Exchange believes such third-party resellers may also
use the Exchange's connectivity as an incentive for market participants
to purchase further services such as hosting services. That is, even
firms that wish to utilize a single, dedicated 10 Gb port (i.e., use
one single 10 Gb port themselves instead of sharing a port with other
firms), may still realize cost savings via a third-party reseller as it
relates to a physical port because such reseller may be providing a
discount on the physical port to incentivize the purchase of additional
services and infrastructure support alongside the physical port
offering (e.g., providing space, hosting, power, and other long-haul
connectivity options). This is similar to cell phone carriers offering
a new iPhone at a discount (or even at no cost) if purchased in
connection with a new monthly phone plan. These services may reevaluate
reselling or offering Cboe's direct connectivity if they deem the fees
to be excessive. Further, as noted above, the Exchange does not receive
any connectivity revenue when connectivity is resold by a third-party,
which often is resold to multiple customers, some of whom are agency
broker-dealers that have numerous customers of their own. Therefore,
given the availability of third-party providers that also offer
connectivity solutions, the Exchange believes participation on the
Exchange remains affordable (notwithstanding the proposed fee change)
for all market participants, including trading firms that may be able
to take advantage of lower costs that result from mutualized
connectivity and/or from other services provided alongside the physical
port offerings. Because third-party resellers also act as a viable
alternative to direct connectivity to the Exchange, the price that the
Exchange is able to charge for direct connectivity to its Exchange is
constrained. Moreover, if the Exchange were to assess supracompetitve
rates, members and non-members (such as third-party resellers) alike,
may decide not to purchase, or to reduce its use of, the Exchange's
direct connectivity. Disincentivizing market participants from
purchasing Exchange connectivity would only serve to discourage
participation on the Exchange which ultimately does not benefit the
Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes its offerings are more
affordable as compared to similar offerings at competitor
exchanges.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Third-party resellers of connectivity play an important
role in the capital markets infrastructure ecosystem. For example,
third-party resellers can help unify access for customers who want
exposure to multiple financial markets that are geographically
dispersed by establishing connectivity to all of the different
exchanges, so the customers themselves do not have to. Many of the
third-party connectivity resellers also act as distribution agents
for all of the market data generated by the exchanges as they can
use their established connectivity to subscribe to, and
redistribute, data over their networks. This may remove barriers
that infrastructure requirements may otherwise pose for customers
looking to access multiple markets and real-time data feeds. This
facilitation of overall access to the marketplace is ultimately
beneficial for the entire capital markets ecosystem, including the
Exchange, on which such firms transact business.
    \20\ See, e.g., Nasdaq Price List--U.S. Direct Connection and
Extranet Fees, available at, US Direct-Extranet Connection
(nasdaqtrader.com); and Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74077
(January 16, 2022), 80 FR 3683 (January 23, 2022) (SR-NASDAQ-2015-
002); and 82037 (November 8, 2022), 82 FR 52953 (November 15, 2022)
(SR-NASDAQ-2017-114).
    \21\ For example, a third-party reseller may purchase one 10
Gbps physical port from the Exchange and resell that connectivity to
three different market participants who may only need 3 Gbps each
and leverage the same single port.
    \22\ See e.g., The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), General
8, Connectivity to the Exchange. Nasdaq and its affiliated exchanges
charge a monthly fee of $15,000 for each 10Gbps Ultra fiber
connection to the respective exchange, which is analogous to the
Exchange's 10Gbps physical port. See also New York Stock Exchange
LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago Inc., NYSE
National, Inc. Connectivity Fee Schedule, which provides that 10
Gbps LX LCN Circuits (which are analogous to the Exchange's 10 Gbps
physical port) are assessed $22,000 per month, per port.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the vigorous competition among national securities
exchanges provides many alternatives for firms to voluntarily decide
whether direct connectivity to the Exchange is appropriate and
worthwhile, and as noted above, no broker-dealer is required to become
a Member of the Exchange, let alone connect directly to it. In the
event that a market participant views the Exchange's proposed fee
change as more or less attractive than the competition, that market
participant can choose to connect to the Exchange indirectly or may
choose not to connect to that exchange and connect instead to one or
more of the other 13 non-Cboe affiliated options markets. Indeed,
market participants are free to choose which exchange or reseller to
use to satisfy their business needs. Moreover, if the Exchange charges
excessive fees, it may stand to lose not only connectivity revenues but
also revenues associated with the execution of orders routed to it,
and, to the extent applicable, market data revenues. The Exchange
believes that this competitive dynamic imposes powerful restraints on
the ability of any exchange to charge unreasonable fees for
connectivity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Exchange still
believes that the proposed fee increase is reasonable, equitably
allocated and not unfairly discriminatory, even for market participants
that determine to connect directly to the Exchange for business
purposes, as those business reasons should presumably result in revenue
capable of covering the proposed fee.
    The Exchange lastly notes that it is not required by the Exchange
Act, nor any other rule or regulation, to undertake a cost-of-service
or rate-making approach with respect to fee proposals. Moreover,
Congress's intent in enacting the 1975 Amendments to the Act was to
enable competition--rather than government order--to determine prices.
The principal purpose of the amendments was to facilitate the creation
of a national market system for the trading of securities. Congress
intended that this ``national market system evolve through the
interplay of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions
are removed.'' \23\ Other provisions of the Act confirm that intent.
For example, the Act provides that an exchange must design its rules
``to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.'' \24\ Likewise, the Act grants the
Commission authority to amend or repeal ``[t]he rules of [an] exchange
[that] impose any burden on

competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of this chapter.'' \25\ In short, the promotion of free and open
competition was a core congressional objective in creating the national
market system.\26\ Indeed, the Commission has historically interpreted
that mandate to promote competitive forces to determine prices whenever
compatible with a national market system. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes it has met its burden to demonstrate that its proposed fee
change is reasonable and consistent with the immediate filing process
chosen by Congress, which created a system whereby market forces
determine access fees in the vast majority of cases, subject to
oversight only in particular cases of abuse or market failure. Lastly,
and importantly, the Exchange believes that, even if it were possible
as a matter of economic theory, cost-based pricing for the proposed fee
would be so complicated that it could not be done practically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at 92 (1975) (Conf. Rep.)
(emphasis added).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(8).
    \26\ See also 15 U.S.C. 78k-l(a)(1)(C)(ii) (purposes of Exchange
Act include to promote ``fair competition among brokers and dealers,
among exchange markets, and between exchange markets and markets
other than exchange markets''); Order, 73 FR at 74781 (``The
Exchange Act and its legislative history strongly support the
Commission's reliance on competition, whenever possible, in meeting
its regulatory responsibilities for overseeing the SROs and the
national market system.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed fee change will
not impact intramarket competition because it will apply to all
similarly situated TPHs equally (i.e., all market participants that
choose to purchase the 10 Gbps physical port). Additionally, the
Exchange does not believe its proposed pricing will impose a barrier to
entry to smaller participants and notes that its proposed connectivity
pricing is associated with relative usage of the various market
participants. For example, market participants with modest capacity
needs can continue to buy the less expensive 1 Gbps physical port
(which cost is not changing) or may choose to obtain access via a
third-party reseller. While pricing may be increased for the larger
capacity physical ports, such options provide far more capacity and are
purchased by those that consume more resources from the network.
Accordingly, the proposed connectivity fees do not favor certain
categories of market participants in a manner that would impose a
burden on competition; rather, the allocation reflects the network
resources consumed by the various size of market participants--lowest
bandwidth consuming members pay the least, and highest bandwidth
consuming members pays the most.
    The Exchange's proposed fee is also still lower than some fees for
similar connectivity on other exchanges and therefore may stimulate
intermarket competition by attracting additional firms to connect to
the Exchange or at least should not deter interested participants from
connecting directly to the Exchange. Further, if the changes proposed
herein are unattractive to market participants, the Exchange can, and
likely will, see a decline in connectivity via 10 Gbps physical ports
as a result. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in
which market participants can determine whether or not to connect
directly to the Exchange based on the value received compared to the
cost of doing so. Indeed, market participants have numerous alternative
venues that they may participate on and direct their order flow,
including 13 non-Cboe affiliated options markets, as well as off-
exchange venues, where competitive products are available for trading.
Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in
Regulation NMS, 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.'' \27\ The fact
that this market is competitive has also long been recognized by the
courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C.
Circuit stated as follows: ``[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'. . . .''.\28\
Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its proposed change imposes
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \28\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \29\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \30\
thereunder. 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 will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-C2-2023-025 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-C2-2023-025. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your

comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission
will post all comments on the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. Do not include personal identifiable
information in submissions; you should submit only information that you
wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold
entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject
to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to file number
SR-C2-2023-025 and should be submitted on or before January 18, 2024.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christina Z. Milnor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-28606 Filed 12-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 27219]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11508]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a closed meeting on Thursday, May 14,
2015, at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matter at the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Piwowar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Formal order of investigation; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted, or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Dated: May 7, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-11508 Filed 5-8-15; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 16, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42452-42455]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16957]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0584]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Kentucky Air National Guard Vessel for Parachute
Rescue Jumpmaster Training, Lake Erie, Dunkirk, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary moving safety zone
around a training vessel on Lake Erie near Dunkirk, NY. This moving
safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Erie
while the Kentucky Air National Guard conducts parachute rescue
jumpmaster training. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect
the Kentucky Air National Guard participants as well as mariners and
vessels from the navigational and safety hazards associated with the
airborne deployment of U.S. military personnel and their associated
equipment. These hazards include parachutes and rigging equipment for
the parachute rescue personnel, deployment of rafts, potential of
falling debris, and the use of distress signals of flares, smoke, and
water dye during the training operations.

DATES: This rule is effective from 11:30 a.m. on July 22, 2013, and
2:30 p.m. on July 27, 2013, and will be enforced intermittently. A
Coast Guard vessel will accompany the training vessel during all
periods of enforcement.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2013-0584]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to 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 rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Christopher Mercurio, Chief of Waterways Management,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
TFR Temporary Final Rule

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were
not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time
remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the
effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would
be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it
would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect mariners,
recreational boaters and U.S. military personnel deploying into Lake
Erie from the hazards associated with airborne deployment and insertion
into Lake Erie. These hazards are discussed further below.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), The Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run
would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

B. Basis and Purpose

    Between 11:30 a.m. on July 22, 2013, until 2:30 p.m. on July 27,
2013 a training operation will be taking place on Lake Erie north of
Dunkirk, NY. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that
airborne deployment of parachute rescue trainees may pose a significant
risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include parachutes and
rigging equipment for the parachute rescue personnel, deployment of
rafts, potential of falling debris, and the use of distress signals of
flares, smoke, and water dye during the training operations.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port
Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to
ensure the safety of U.S. military personnel, transient watercraft and
potential spectator vessels during the 2013 Kentucky Air National Guard
Parachute Rescue Jumpmaster Training. This zone will be effective
between 11:30 a.m. on July 22, 2013, and 2:30 p.m. on July 27, 2013,
and enforced intermittently. During periods of enforcement, a Coast
Guard vessel will be present, indicating that the safety zone is being
enforced. Additionally, Broadcast Notices to Mariners will be made via
radio prior to all jump evolutions. This moving safety zone will
encompass all waters of Lake Erie, Dunkirk, NY within a 1000 yard
radius of the target vessel, starting in position 42[deg]31'34'' N and
079[deg]19'46'' W (NAD 83), and drifting with the elements throughout
the training evolution.
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his
designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his
designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not
``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action
because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy,
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be
relatively small and enforced for relatively short time. Also, the
safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters.
Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to
transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within

that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain
conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone
when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities,
some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of
vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Erie
between varying hours starting July 22 until 27 July, 2013.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: this
safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for
only a few hours at a time during any 24 hour period. The majority of
the training exercises will be conducted during the regular business
week during normal daylight business hours or late in the evening
greatly reducing the likelihood of affecting transient recreational
vessels. Additionally, the starting drift point is 3 miles offshore
with a zone of 1000 yards (approximately one half nautical mile) in all
directions, allowing ample room for transient vessels to pass by
without being negatively impacted. Traffic may be allowed to pass
through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port before
and after the completion of each evolution. The Captain of the Port can
be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the activation of the zone, the
Coast Guard intends to issue local Broadcast Notices to Mariners.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and,
therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record
keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR parts 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0584 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0163  Safety Zone; Rescue Jumpmaster Training, Lake Erie,
Dunkirk, NY.

    (a) Location. This zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie,
Dunkirk, NY within a 1000 yard radius of a drifting training vessel,
beginning at position 42[deg]31'34'' N and 079[deg]19'46'' W (NAD 83)
and moving with the vessel.
    (b) Effective and Enforcement Period. This regulation is effective
between 11:30 a.m. on July 22, 2013, and 2:30 p.m. on July 27, 2013,
and will be enforced at various times throughout the day and night. A
Coast Guard vessel will accompany the training vessel during periods of
enforcement. Broadcast Notices to Mariners notifying the public will be
made via radio prior to all jump evolutions.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
section 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his
behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port
Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety
zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of
the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: July 2, 2013.
J. S. Imahori,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2013-16957 Filed 7-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17408-17409]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7288]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1782-001.
    Applicants: Tampa Electric Company.
    Description: Annual Compliance Report Regarding Operational
Penalties of Tampa Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 03/18/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110318-5072.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 08, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2391-001.
    Applicants: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation.
    Description: Amendment to Triennial Market Power Analysis Filing in
Compliance with Order No. 697 of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
Corporation.
    Filed Date: 03/18/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110318-5033.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 08, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2897-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): Errata to Docket No ER11-2897-000 Serv Agmt No. 2301 to
correct technical issues to be effective 9/17/2010.
    Filed Date: 03/18/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110318-5041.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 08, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3139-000.
    Applicants: Bangor Hydro Electric Company, ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Bangor Hydro Electric Company submits tariff filing
per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Schedule 21--BHE Filing to be effective 6/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/18/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110318-5001.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 08, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3141-000.
    Applicants: Viridian Energy NY LLC.
    Description: Viridian Energy NY LLC submits tariff filing per
35.12: Viridian

Energy NY LLC Market Based Rate Tariff to be effective 3/18/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/18/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110318-5018.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 08, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3142-000.
    Applicants: New England Wire Technologies, Corp.
    Description: New England Wire Technologies, Corp. submits tariff
filing per 35.1: NEWT FERC Electric Baseline Tariff to be effective 3/
18/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/18/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110318-5044.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 08, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3143-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: SGIA WDT SERV AG PHOTON SOLAR DOMINGUEZ PV
1 PROJECT to be effective 5/18/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/18/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110318-5057.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 08, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3144-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: SGIA WDT SERV AG PHOTON SOLAR MID COUNTIES
PV 5 PROJECT to be effective 5/18/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/18/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110318-5058.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 08, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3145-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: SGIA WDT SERV AG PHOTON SOLAR INDUSTRY PV 1
PROJECT to be effective 5/18/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/18/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110318-5059.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 08, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3146-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: SGIA WDT SERV AG PHOTON SOLAR INDUSTRIAL PV
1 PROJECT to be effective 5/18/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/18/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110318-5062.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 08, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3147-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: J143 GIA Filing to be
effective 3/19/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/18/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110318-5065.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 08, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3148-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: WMPA-First Rev. Serv. Agmt. No. 2789 between
CleanLight Energy and PSEG (W3-129) to be effective 3/17/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/18/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110318-5067
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 08, 2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following PURPA
210(m)(3) filings:

    Docket Numbers: QM11-2-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas &
Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: PURPA 210(m) Application of Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 03/18/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110318-5090.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 15, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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 dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 21, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-7288 Filed 3-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 6, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 42054]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18775]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0138; A-1-FRL-9967-26-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Rules for Open Burning and
Incinerators

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of New Hampshire on August 9, 2011, and July 23, 2013. These SIP
revisions establish rules for open burning and establish emission
standards and operating practices for incinerators and wood waste
burners that are not regulated pursuant to federal incinerator
standards. We are also proposing to approve revisions to the
definitions of ``Incinerator'' and ``Wood Waste Burner,'' submitted by
the State on July 23, 2013 and October 26, 2016, respectively. This
action will have a beneficial effect on air quality. This action is
being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 6, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2017-0138 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-
3912, tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules Section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action
rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse
comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on
this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is
located in the Rules Section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: August 19, 2017.
Deborah A. Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2017-18775 Filed 9-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 11, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 47989]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19809]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE:  Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of
the Government in Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee will hold a meeting
on Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (ET).

PLACE: The meeting will be held in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. (ET) and will be open to
the public. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Doors
will open at 9:00 a.m. Visitors will be subject to security checks. The
meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at www.sec.gov.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: On August 28, 2019, the Commission issued
notice of the Committee meeting (Release No. 33-10676), indicating that
the meeting is open to the public (except during that portion of the
meeting reserved for an administrative work session during lunch), and
inviting the public to submit written comments to the Committee. This
Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a quorum of the Commission
may attend the meeting.
    The agenda for the meeting includes: Welcome remarks; a discussion
regarding methods to develop better disclosures for investors; a
discussion regarding increased leverage and related SEC regulatory
implications; subcommittee reports; and a nonpublic administrative work
session during lunch.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed;
please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 9, 2019.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-19809 Filed 9-9-19; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 225)]
[Notices]
[Page 61403-61404]
[DOCID:fr24no09-93]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2009-0375]

Pipeline Safety: Information Collection Activities

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA
invites comments on an information collection under Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Control No. 2137-0604, titled ``Pipeline
Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas Operators with more than
500 Miles of Hazardous Liquid Pipeline.'' PHMSA will request approval
from OMB for a renewal of the current information collection.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
January 25, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted in the following ways:
    E-Gov Web Site: http://www.regulations.gov. This site allows the
public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice issued by any
agency.
    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Room W12-
140, Washington, DC 20590-001.
    Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal Holidays.
    Instructions: Identify the docket number, PHMSA-2009-0375 at the
beginning of your comments. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. You should know that anyone is able to
search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). Therefore, you may want to review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or view the Privacy Notice at http://

www.regulations.gov before submitting any such comments.
    Docket: For access to the docket or to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to Room W12-
140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except on Federal holidays.
    If you wish to receive confirmation of receipt of your written
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the
following statement: ``Comments on PHMSA-2009-0375''. The Docket Clerk
will date-stamp the postcard prior to returning it to you via the U.S.
mail. Please note that due to delays in the delivery of U.S. mail to
Federal offices in Washington, DC, we recommend that persons consider
an alternative method (Internet, fax, or professional delivery service)
of submitting comments to the docket and ensuring their timely receipt
at DOT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cameron Satterthwaite by telephone at
202-366-1319, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by mail at U.S. Department of
Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., PHP-30, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public
and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information
collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies an
information collection request that PHMSA will be submitting to OMB for
renewal and extension. This information collection is contained in the
pipeline safety regulations at 49 CFR Parts 190-199. The following
information is provided for each information collection: (1) Title of
the information collection; (2) OMB control number; (3) Type of
request; (4) Abstract of the information collection activity; (5)
Description of affected public; (6) Estimate of total annual reporting
and recordkeeping burden; and (7) Frequency of collection. PHMSA will
request a three-year term of approval for each information collection
activity.
    PHMSA requests comments on the following information collection:
    Title: Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas
Operators with more than 500 Miles of Hazardous Liquid Pipeline.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0604.
    Type of Request: Renewal of a currently approved information
collection.
    Abstract: Hazardous liquid operators with pipelines in high
consequence areas (i.e., commercially navigable waterways, high
population areas, other populated areas, and unusually sensitive areas
as defined in 49 CFR 195.450) are subject to certain information
collection requirements relative to the Integrity Management Program
provisions of 49 CFR 195.452. This information collection (2137-0604)
covers each operator that has more than 500 miles of hazardous liquid
pipelines.
    Affected Public: Operators of hazardous liquid pipelines located in
high consequence areas that operate more than 500 miles of pipeline.
    Estimated number of responses: 71.
    Estimated annual burden hours: 57,510 hours.
    Frequency of collection: Annually.

    Issued in Washington, DC on November 17, 2009.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. E9-28203 Filed 11-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


Summary of Meeting with Labor Union Representatives and other NGOs on Worker Protection Measures in SNURs on 2/29/12 (EPA East Building, Room 3371) 4:00 -5:00 pm.
Attendees from Outside EPA:
Lee Anderson, Charlotte Brody  -  Blue Green Alliance
Anna Fendley, Mike Wright  -  United Steelworkers
Darius Sims  -  United Auto Workers
Bill Kojola  -  AFL-CIO
Jaydee Hanson  -  International Center for Technology Assessment
Jennifer Sass  -  National Resources Defense Council
John Morawetz  -  International Chemical Workers Union Council
Dave Lagrande  -  Communication Workers of America
EPA Attendees:
Jeff Morris, Ken Moss, Greg Schweer, Nhan Nguyen, David Widawsky, Anjali Lamba, Jim Alwood

Proposed Agenda received from Labor Union representatives:

(1)    Basic concerns with the worker protection measures in SNUR's
      a.       Concerned about the potential adverse health consequences of exposure to CNT's
      b.      SNUR reliance on PPE doesn't follow exposure control hierarchy used in  occupational health and safety
      c.       SNUR uses least effective control method  -  PPE
      d.      Control hierarchy used throughout OSHA standards/NIOSH recommendations
      e.      Workers need adequate protection  -  EPA SNUR approach fails with PPE as sole approach

(2)    EPA regulations for worker protections under SNUR's
      a.       Is EPA approach governed exclusively by 40 CFR 721.63?
      b.      Are there any existing EPA options, other than 40 CFR 721.63, for improving worker protections beyond PPE?
      c.       If there are existing options, what are they and how can they be exercised for SNUR's? What can EPA or unions/organizations do?
      d.      Does 40 CF721.63 need to be revised in order to improve worker protection control methods for SNUR's?
      e.      If so, what is the process to initiate rulemaking to revise the regulation

Discussion
The NGO representatives stated upfront they did not believe that they had given EPA input when SNUR regulations were being developed in the 1980s or for any of the SNURs EPA had published previous to the proposed SNUR on December 28, 2011.  The issue of regulations for carbon nanotubes had focused their attention on the bigger issue pertaining to all SNURs requiring control of worker exposure by means of personal protective equipment (PPE) instead of following the industrial hygiene hierarchy of controls.
The NGOs noted that the generally accepted industrial hygiene hierarchy of controls used to reduce or eliminate worker exposure to chemicals (i.e., chemical substitution, followed by engineering controls like ventilation, containment, and administrative controls, and finally use of PPE is not addressed in SNURs or 5(e) Consent Orders issued under TSCA for new chemical substances.
EPA stated that we agreed with that hierarchy, i.e., engineering and administrative controls should be employed before protective equipment is used to control exposures, and that the preambles to our final general SNUR rules in 1988 and 1989 stated that preference.  Such a preference is also stated in TSCA section 5(e) Consent Orders that contain New Chemical Exposure Limit (NCELs).  However, EPA explained that it is not practicable or possible for EPA to identify and mandate specific exposure controls in SNURs suitable for each site engaged in the manufacture, processing, and use of new chemicals.
EPA explained that our SNUR regulations allow persons who manufacture, import or process a chemical substance identified in a SNUR to request that EPA review a written request for use of engineering and other controls as an alternative to PPE use.  Such a request must be made according to procedures at 40 CFR 721.30.
NGO representatives stated that because EPA does not expressly state in the regulatory text of SNURs that engineering controls must be implemented, the perception by the regulated community is that personal protective equipment is EPA's preferred method for controlling worker exposure.  The representatives stated that neither discussions of EPA's preference for engineering controls in rule preambles nor the provision of a mechanism in 40 CFR 721.30 for developing alternative controls to PPE are adequate mechanisms for ensuring that employers utilize engineering controls to reduce exposure before employing PPE use.  They also stated that regulated employers would choose the path of least resistance and choose the mandated personal protective equipment over other possible methods of preventing exposure.  In addition, they noted that EPA had stated publicly that no PPE-related enforcement actions have been taken for PPE provisions contained in such SNURs.
At least one representative strongly suggested that EPA adopt an OSHA-like approach of requiring unspecified best available control technology or most feasible but unspecified exposure controls in our SNURs and consent orders.
EPA stated that adopting an OSHA-like approach may not be possible when EPA finds there is a potential unreasonable risk.
EPA indicated that it would carefully review any written comments submitted by the NGOs and that EPA would be willing to meet with them again, if needed, should the NGO representatives develop a proposed detailed approach for including exposure controls in consent orders and SNURs that EPA can review.
The NGO representatives also asked whether there was a provision in TSCA that enabled someone to petition the Agency to undertake rulemaking.  EPA stated that TSCA section 21 provides such a mechanism.
In conclusion, while both sides agree that the industrial hygiene hierarchy of controls should be used for controlling worker exposures, further discussion is needed on potential ways to implement the hierarchy in TSCA regulations.