[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 77 (Thursday, April 21, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23447-23448]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09065]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0132; FRL-9945-08-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Louisiana; Revisions to the State Implementation Plan; Fee Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Louisiana State Implementation Plan (SIP)
related to the Fee Regulations section of the Louisiana SIP that were
submitted by the State of Louisiana on February 23, 2016. The EPA has
evaluated the SIP submittal from Louisiana and preliminarily determined
these revisions are consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air
Act (Act or CAA). The EPA is proposing this action under section 110 of
the Act.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before May 23, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2016-0132, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For additional information on how to submit
comments see the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the
direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracie Donaldson,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment with Tracie Donaldson or Bill Deese at 214-665-
7253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this Federal
Register, the EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct
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 relevant
adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further
activity is contemplated. If the EPA receives relevant 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comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public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. The EPA will not institute a second comment period.
Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at
this time.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is
located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: April 6, 2016.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2016-09065 Filed 4-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 128 (Monday, July 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38488-38489]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16410]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75320; File No. SR-ICEEU-2015-009]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Finance Procedures To Add Clearstream Banking as a
Triparty Collateral Service Provider

June 29, 2015.
    On May 5, 2015, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICEEU'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to modify the
Finance Procedures to allow Clearstream Banking to serve as a triparty
collateral service provider for initial or original margin provided in
respect of all product categories, including CDS Contracts. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on May 15, 2015.\3\ To date, the Commission has not received comments
on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-74922 (May 11, 2015),
80 FR 28035 (May 15, 2015) (File No. SR-ICEEU-2015-009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day from the publication of notice of filing of this proposed rule
change is June 29, 2015. The Commission is extending this 45-

day time period. In order to provide the Commission with sufficient
time to consider the proposed rule change, the Commission finds it is
appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ designates August 13, 2015, as the date by which the Commission
should either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-
ICEEU-2015-009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-16410 Filed 7-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 8)]
[Notices]
[Page 1567]
[DOCID:fr12ja07-114]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submissions for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon written request; copies available from: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extensions:
    Industry Guides: OMB Control No. 3235-0069 and SEC File No. 270-
069.
    Notice of Exempt Roll-Up Preliminary Communication: OMB Control
No. 3235-0452 and SEC File No. 270-396.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget these requests for extension of the previously approved
collections of information discussed below.
    Industries Guides are used by registrants in certain specified
industries as disclosure guidelines to be followed in disclosing
information to investors in Securities Act (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) and
Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) registration statements and
certain other Exchange Act filings. The information filed with the
Commission using the Industry Guides permits verification of compliance
with securities law requirements and assures the public availability
and dissemination of such information. The information required by the
Industry Guides is filed on occasion and is mandatory. All information
is provided to the public. The Commission estimates for administrative
purposes only that the total annual burden with respect to the Industry
Guides is one hour. The Industry Guides do not directly impose any
disclosure burden.
    A Notice of Exempt Preliminary Roll-Up Communication (``Notice'')
(240.14a-104) provides information regarding ownership interests and
any potential conflicts of interest to be included in statements
submitted by or on behalf of a person pursuant to Section 240.14a-
2(b)(4) and Section 240.14a-6(n). The Notice is filed on occasion and
the information required is mandatory. All information is provided to
the public upon request. The Notice takes approximately .25 hours per
response and is filed by 4 respondents for a total of one annual burden
hour.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Written comments regarding the above information should be directed
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or send an e-mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief

Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within
30 days of this notice.

    Dated: January 3, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-304 Filed 1-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM Eastern Research Group, Inc. 110 Hartwell Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 Date: June 4, 2003 To: James Covington, EPA From: Colleen Campbell and Cal Franz, ERG Re: MPP Industry Economic Impact Analysis for Small Processors in Subcategories A through D, and K 1. INTRODUCTION ERG projected economic impacts on the Meat and Poultry Products ( MPP) industry based on costs received from Tetra Tech on June 27, 2003 and August 6, 2003. This analysis only examines impact to small processors: those that produce less than 50 million pounds of meat products per year in Subcategory A through D, and those that produce less than 10 million pounds of meat products per year in Subcategory K. The attached tables show the results of these analyses. Table 1 contains total and average compliance costs. Tables 2 presents the results of the closure analysis at the facility level. Table 3 contains the Altman ZN results, and Table 4 shows the sales test results.

In reviewing these results, note that:

C The methodology for analyzing small processors in these two subcategories is identical to the methodology for analyzing large processors in the same subcategories.

C EPA examined impacts to small processors under Option 1; this option was not analyzed for nonsmall processors in these two subcategories.

C The total number of facilities in subcategory K is not equivalent to the number of facilities analyzed; 9 out of 18 facilities were not analyzed due to lack of data. Therefore, impacts as a percent of total facilities may be somewhat misleading due to the large number of facilities that could not be analyzed in this subcategory.

C No facilities in either subcategory were determined to be baseline closures.

C For cost annualization and the closure analysis, a 6.6 percent discount rate was used if facilities did not provide a usable discount rate in their survey data. The 6.6 percent discount rate is a weighted average of the discount rate data provided in the surveys. If the facility provided a reasonable discount rate in their survey data, then that value was used to run the impact analysis.

C Because all facilities in this analysis are owned by small businesses ( i. e., fewer than 500 employees), no separate small business analysis is presented.

1 2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS 2.1 National Costs C Total pretax annualized costs of the rule for these facilities range from $ 1.5 million under Option 1 to $ 7.0 million under Option 4.

C Costs for Option 2 + P exceed those for Option 2.5.

C Cost per facility is larger for subcategory A though D than for subcategory K under Option 2, Option 2 + P, and Option 2.5, but smaller for all other options.

2.2 Closure Analysis C 9 facilities are projected to close under all options in subcategory K.

2.3 Altman ZN Analysis C In the baseline, all red meat and poultry companies that could be analyzed have Altman ZN scores in the financially healthy range.

C no Altman ZN scores change for any company under any option.

2.4 Sales Test C In Subcategory K, 9 facilities incur pretax costs that exceed 1 percent of revenues under all options except Option 1..

2 Table 1 Total and Average Compliance Costs by Subcategory and Option Small Facilities: Subcategory A through D and Subcategory K Total Costs ($ 000) Average Costs ($ 000)

Total in Class Cost Type Option 1 Option 2 Option 2+ P Option 2.5 Option 2.5+ P Option 4 Option 1 Option 2 Option 2+ P Option 2.5 Option 2.5+ P Option 4 Subcategory A through D 14 Capital CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI O& M CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI One Time CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI Post tax Annualized CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI Pre tax Annualized $ 400  $ 700 $ 500  $ 750 $ 1,000  $ 2,500 $ 750  $ 1,500 $ 2,000  $ 4,000 $ 2,500  $ 5,000 CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI Subcategory K 18 Capital CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI O& M CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI One Time CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI Post tax Annualized CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI Pre tax Annualized $ 750  $ 1,000 $ 1,000  $ 2,500 $ 2,500  $ 5,000 $ 1,000  $ 2,500 $ 2,500  $ 5,000 $ 3,000  $ 6,000 CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI Table 2 Summary of Projected Facility Closure Impacts by Subcategory and Option Small Facilities: Subcategory A through D and Subcategory K Option 1 Option 2 Option 2+ P Option 2.5 Option 2.5+ P Option 4 Total Baseline Facilities not Variable in Class Closure* Analyzed** Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Subcategory A through D Facilities 14 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Revenues ($ 000) CBI $ 0 NA $ 0 0.0% $ 0 0.0% $ 0 0.0% $ 0 0.0% $ 0 0.0% $ 0 0.0%

Employees CBI 0 NA 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Subcategory K Facilities 18 0 9 9 50.0% 9 50.0% 9 50.0% 9 50.0% 9 50.0% 9 50.0%

Revenues ($ 000) CBI $ 0 NA CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI Employees CBI 0 NA CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI * Baseline closures are facilities projected to have a negative NPV under at least 3 of 5 forecasting methods prior to regulatory costs.

** Facilities not analyzed due to a lack of survey data. Table 3 Altman Z' Results by Meat Type Small Facilities: Subcategory A through D and Subcategory K Option Number of Companies with Z' Score**

Less than 2.9;

Meat Type Greater than 2.9 Greater than 1.23 Less than 1.23 Baseline Red Meat CBI 0 0 Poultry*** CBI 0 0 Mixed 0 0 0 Post Regulatory Incremental Change ( Relative to Baseline)*

Option 1 Red Meat 0 0 0 Poultry*** 0 0 0 Mixed 0 0 0 Option 2 Red Meat 0 0 0 Poultry*** 0 0 0 Mixed 0 0 0 Option 2+ P Red Meat 0 0 0 Poultry*** 0 0 0 Mixed 0 0 0 Option 2.5 Red Meat 0 0 0 Poultry*** 0 0 0 Mixed 0 0 0 Option 2.5+ P Red Meat 0 0 0 Poultry*** 0 0 0 Mixed 0 0 0 Option 4 Red Meat 0 0 0 Poultry*** 0 0 0 Mixed 0 0 0 * Numbers indicate the number of companies with Altman Z scores changing from one category to another.

** Altman Z scores greater than 2.9 indicate a financially healthy company; scores less than 1.23 are in danger of bankruptcy; scores less than 2.9 but greater than 1.23 are indeterminate.

*** Nine small poultry companies cannot be analyzed due to lack of data. Table 4 Facilities with Annualized Costs Exceeding Specified Percentage of Revenues by Subcategory and Option Small Facilities: Subcategory A through D and Subcategory K Facilties with Annualized Costs Exceeding Specified Percentage of Revenues Option 1 Option 2 Option 2+ P Option 2.5 Option 2.5+ P Option 4 Percent Compliance Total of Revenues Costs in Class Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Subcategory A through D 1% Pre tax 14 0 0% 0 0% 14 100% 0 0% 14 100% 14 100%

Post tax 14 0 0% 0 0% 14 100% 0 0% 14 100% 14 100%

3% Pre tax 14 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Post tax 14 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Subcategory K 1% Pre tax 18 0 0% 9 50% 9 50% 9 50% 9 50% 9 50%

Post tax 18 0 0% 9 50% 9 50% 9 50% 9 50% 9 50%

3% Pre tax 18 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Post tax 18 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

* Nine small poultry facilities cannot be analyzed due to lack of data.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 13, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 89861-89862]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29775]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2016-1045]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River, Portland, OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the upper deck and lower deck of the
Steel Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 12.1, at Portland, OR.
The deviation is necessary to allow work crews to upgrade the
electrical power and controls system. This deviation allows both upper
and lower spans of the Steel Bridge to remain in the closed-to-
navigation position to allow for the safe replacement of bridge
operating equipment.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 5 a.m. on January 9, 2017 to
11:59 p.m. on January 18, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2016-1045 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 Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge
Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) has
requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the
Steel Bridge across the Willamette River, at mile 12.1, at Portland,
OR. The deviation is necessary to accommodate work crews to conduct
timely bridge equipment upgrades and replacement. The Steel Bridge is a
double-deck lift bridge with a lower lift deck and an

upper lift deck which operate independent of each other. To facilitate
this event, the upper deck and the lower deck will remain in closed-to-
navigation position. When both decks are in the closed-to-navigation
position, the bridge provides 26 feet of vertical clearance above
Columbia River Datum 0.0. The deviation period is from 5 a.m. on
January 9, 2017 to 11:59 p.m. on January 18, 2017. The normal operating
schedule for the Steel Bridge is in accordance with 33 CFR
117.897(c)(3)(ii).
    Waterway usage on this part of the Willamette River includes
vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation
position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for
emergencies, and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to
pass. UPRR has conducted a detailed public outreach for this ten day
closure of both decks on the Steel Bridge to Multnomah County, and
mariners that transit on the river. The Coast Guard has not received
any objections to this temporary deviation from the operating schedule.
The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our
Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that 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 designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: December 7, 2016.
Steven M Fischer,
Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-29775 Filed 12-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 161 (Friday, August 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55496-55500]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19798]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78576; File No. SR-Phlx-2016-83]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Pricing Schedule

August 15, 2016.
    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 August 5, 2016, 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 at
Section I titled ``Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity
in SPY'' at Part A, relating to Simple Orders for SPY \3\ options to:
(i) Increase the Customer \4\ Fee for Removing Liquidity; and (ii)
amend Tier 4 of the Specialist \5\ and

Market Maker \6\ Rebate for Adding Liquidity tiers and add two
additional tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Options overlying Standard and Poor's Depositary Receipts/
SPDRs (``SPY'') are based on the SPDR exchange-traded fund, which is
designed to track the performance of the S&P 500 Index.
    \4\ The term ``Customer'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the
Customer range at The Options Clearing Corporation which is not for
the account of a broker or dealer or for the account of a
``Professional'' (as that term is defined in Rule 1000(b)(14)).
    \5\ The term ``Specialist'' applies to transactions for the
account of a Specialist (as defined in Exchange Rule 1020(a)). A
Specialist is an Exchange member who is registered as an options
specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a). An options Specialist includes
a Remote Specialist which is defined as an options specialist in one
or more classes that does not have a physical presence on an
Exchange floor and is approved by the Exchange pursuant to Rule 501.
    \6\ The term ``Market Maker'' includes Registered Options
Traders (``ROT''). See Exchange Rule 1014(b)(i) and (ii). A ROT
includes a Streaming Quote Trader or ``SQT,'' a Remote Streaming
Quote Trader or ``RSQT'' and a Non-SQT, which by definition is
neither a SQT nor a RSQT. A ROT is defined in Exchange Rule 1014(b)
as a regular member of the Exchange located on the trading floor who
has received permission from the Exchange to trade in options for
his own account. An SQT is defined in Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A)
as an ROT who has received permission from the Exchange to generate
and submit option quotations electronically in options to which such
SQT is assigned. An RSQT is defined in Exchange Rule in
1014(b)(ii)(B) as an ROT that is a member affiliated with an RSQTO
with no physical trading floor presence who has received permission
from the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations
electronically in options to which such RSQT has been assigned. A
Remote Streaming Quote Trader Organization or ``RSQTO,'' which may
also be referred to as a Remote Market Making Organization
(``RMO''), is a member organization in good standing that satisfies
the RSQTO readiness requirements in Rule 507(a). RSQTs may also be
referred to as Remote Market Markers (``RMMs'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
Pricing Schedule at Section I titled ``Rebates and Fees for Adding and
Removing Liquidity in SPY'' to increase the Simple Order Customer Fee
for Removing Liquidity in SPY to fund additional Simple Order
Specialist and Market Maker Rebates for Adding Liquidity for options
overlying SPY.
First Fee Change
    The purpose of the first fee change is to raise revenue for the
Exchange by increasing the Simple Order Customer Fee for Removing
Liquidity in SPY from $0.43 to $0.45 per contract. Despite the increase
to this fee for Customers removing liquidity, the Exchange believes
that the fee remains competitive as compared to fees assessed to other
market participants.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Non-Customer market participants (Specialists, Market
Makers, Firms, Broker-Dealers and Professionals) are assessed a
Simple Order Fee for Removing Liquidity in SPY of $0.47 per
contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second Fee Change
    The purpose of the second fee change is to amend the Specialist and
Market Maker Simple Order Rebates for Adding Liquidity to incentivize
Specialists and Market Makers to add more volume to Phlx in order to
receive rebates. Today Specialists and Market Makers have the
opportunity to earn rebates that range from $0.15 to $0.30 per
contract,\8\ depending on the amount of Specialist and Market Maker
Simple Order contracts that are electronically executed per day in a
month in SPY on Phlx. The Exchange is proposing to amend current Tier 4
of the Specialist and Market Maker Simple Order Rebates for Adding
Liquidity from volume that is greater than 20,000 to volume between
20,000 and 34,999 electronically executed Simple Order contracts per
day in a month in SPY. The Tier 4 Specialist and Market Maker Simple
Order Rebates for Adding Liquidity will remain at $0.30 per contract.
The Exchange also proposes to add two more Specialist and Market Maker
Simple Order Rebates for Adding Liquidity tiers. New Tier 5 Specialist
and Market Maker Simple Order Rebates for Adding Liquidity would pay a
$0.32 per contract rebate to Specialists and Market Makers that add
between 35,000 to 49,999 electronically executed Simple Order contracts
per day in a month in SPY. New tier 6 Specialist and Market Maker
Simple Order Rebates for Adding Liquidity would pay a $0.35 per
contract rebate to Specialists and Market Makers that add greater than
49,999 electronically executed Simple Order contracts per day in a
month in SPY. The Exchange believes that adding these two new rebate
tiers will encourage Specialists and Market Makers to add more
electronically executed Simple Order liquidity in SPY on Phlx to obtain
the higher rebates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Today, the Specialist and Market Maker Simple Order Rebates
for Adding Liquidity are paid on a four tier rebate schedule in SPY.
All other market participants do not receive a Simple Order Rebate
for Adding Liquidity in SPY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Section I to reorganize the Pricing
Schedule and delete unnecessary rule text. The Exchange proposes to
amend the current sentence above the Specialist and Market Maker Simple
Order Rebates for Adding Liquidity tiers which currently states, ``*The
Simple Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity for Specialists and Market
Makers will be paid as noted below:''. The Exchange intends to
incorporate more language into the new sentence concerning the
Specialist and Market Maker Simple Order Rebates for Adding Liquidity
tiers to make clear which market participants are being paid the rebate
and what volume counts toward the monthly volume. The Exchange proposes
to amend the sentence as follows: ``*The Simple Order Rebate for Adding
Liquidity will be paid as noted below to Specialists and Market Makers
adding the requisite amount of electronically executed Specialist and
Market Maker Simple Order contracts per day in a month in SPY:''. This
language is not intended to amend the manner in which the Exchange pays
the Specialist and Market Maker Simple Order Rebates for Adding
Liquidity. The Exchange is proposing to include more clear and specific
language above the tiers and then simply list the volume and rebate
amount in the table, rather than repeating the language in the table
several times. The Exchange believes that these non-substantive
amendments will add clarity to the Specialist and Market Maker Simple
Order Rebates for Adding Liquidity by avoiding unnecessary repetition
in the Pricing Schedule and simplifying the rebate table.
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 D.C. 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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

First Fee Change
    The Exchange's proposal to increase the Customer Simple Order Fee
for Removing Liquidity in SPY is reasonable because despite the
increase to the fee, Customers will continue to be assessed the lowest
Simple Order Fee for Removing Liquidity in SPY as compared to other
market participants (Specialists, Market Makers, Firms,\16\ Broker-
Dealers \17\ and Professionals \18\) that continue to pay a $0.47 per
contract Simple Order Fee for Removing Liquidity in SPY. SPY options
are currently the most actively traded options class. Despite this fee
increase, the Exchange believes the Simple Order Customer Fee for
Removing Liquidity will continue to encourage a greater number of
market participants to remove Customer liquidity in SPY on Phlx because
they continue to be assessed lower fees as compared to other market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The term ``Firm'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the
Firm range at The Options Clearing Corporation.
    \17\ The term ``Broker-Dealer'' applies to any transaction which
is not subject to any of the other transaction fees applicable
within a particular category.
    \18\ The term ``Professional'' applies to transactions for the
accounts of Professionals, as defined in Exchange Rule 1000(b)(14)
means any person or entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in
securities, and (ii) places more than 390 orders in listed options
per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial
account(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to increase the Customer Simple Order Fee
for Removing Liquidity in SPY is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Simple Order Customer Fee for Removing
Liquidity will continue to be lower as compared to other market
participants ($0.45 vs. $0.47 per contract) and this lower fee will
continue to encourage market participants to remove Customer liquidity
in SPY on Phlx. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities, which attracts 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.
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 the most actively traded options classes. Other options
exchanges price by symbol.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX'')
prices by symbol. See MIAX's Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second Fee Change
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend the Tier 4
Specialist and Market Maker Simple Order Rebates for Adding Liquidity
in SPY and add two new Specialist and Market Maker Simple Order Rebates
for Adding Liquidity tiers is reasonable because it will attract more
Specialist and Market Maker electronically executed Simple Order volume
in SPY to Phlx. The Exchange is offering Specialists and Market Makers
an opportunity to earn up to a $0.35 per contract Simple Order Rebate
for Adding Liquidity in SPY. Today, the highest Specialist and Market
Maker Simple Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity in SPY is $0.30 per
contract. Specialists and Market Makers will be encouraged to add more
electronically executed Simple Order liquidity in SPY on Phlx to obtain
the proposed higher rebates.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend the Tier 4
Specialist and Market Maker Simple Order Rebates for Adding Liquidity
in SPY and add two new Specialist and Market Maker Simple Order Rebates
for Adding Liquidity tiers is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because Specialists and Market Makers have obligations to the market
and regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to other
market participants.\20\ They have obligations to make continuous
markets, engage in a course of dealings reasonably calculated to
contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and not
make bids or offers or enter into transactions that are inconsistent
with a course of dealings. The differentiation as between Specialists
and Market Makers and all other market participants recognizes the
differing contributions made to the liquidity and trading environment
on the Exchange by these market participants. 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. For these reasons, the Exchange
believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to only
offer Specialists and Market Makers Simple Order Rebates for Adding
Liquidity in SPY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Rule 1014 titled ``Obligations and Restrictions
Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options Traders.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to reorganize the Pricing Schedule and
delete unnecessary rule text is reasonable because the Exchange
believes the deletion of the unnecessary text and reorganization of the
rule text will bring greater clarity to the Pricing Schedule. The
Exchange's proposal to reorganize the Pricing Schedule and delete
unnecessary rule text is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the amendment is non-substantive and only intended to provide
clarity to the Pricing Schedule. The rule text will apply uniformly to
all market participants.

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. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
    The fees and rebates proposed herein are intended to continue to
incentivize market participants to send a greater amount of SPY order
flow to Phlx and for this reason imposes no inter-market burden on
competition. If the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market
participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as
a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution
venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
First Fee Change
    The Exchange's proposal to increase the Customer Simple Order Fee
for Removing Liquidity in SPY does not impose an undue burden on intra-
market competition because the Simple Order Customer Fee for Removing
Liquidity will continue to be lower as compared to other market
participants ($0.45 vs. $0.47 per contract) and this lower fee will
continue to encourage market participants to remove Customer liquidity
in SPY on Phlx. Also, Customer liquidity benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts
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.
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 the most actively traded options classes. Other options
exchanges price by symbol.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See note 19 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second Fee Change
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend the Tier 4
Specialist and Market Maker Simple Order Rebates for Adding Liquidity
and add two new Specialist and Market Maker Simple Order Rebates for
Adding Liquidity tiers does not impose an undue burden on intra-market
competition because Specialists and Market Makers have obligations to
the market and regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to
other market participants.\22\ They have obligations to make continuous
markets, engage in a course of dealings reasonably calculated to
contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and not
make bids or offers or enter into transactions that are inconsistent
with a course of dealings. The differentiation as between Specialists
and Market Makers and all other market participants recognizes the
differing contributions made to the liquidity and trading environment
on the Exchange by these market participants. 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. For these reasons, the Exchange
believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to only
offer Specialists and Market Makers Simple Order Rebates for Adding
Liquidity in SPY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See note 20 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to reorganize the Pricing Schedule and
delete unnecessary rule text does not impose an undue burden on intra-
market competition because the Exchange believes the deletion of the
unnecessary text and reorganization of the rule text will bring greater
clarity to the Pricing Schedule and the revised language applies
uniformly to all market participants.

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.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2016-83 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-2016-83. 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 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-2016-83, and should be
submitted on or before September 9, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-19798 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 72)]
[Notices]
[Page 19643-19644]
[DOCID:fr15ap10-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-1029-000]

West Oaks Energy LP; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

April 8, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
West Oaks Energy LP's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard

to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part
34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is
April 28, 2010.
    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-referenced proceeding 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 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>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-8586 Filed 4-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 73 (Monday, April 17, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23417-23418]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08038]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC23-71-000.
    Applicants: Pixley Solar Energy LLC, Lazbuddie Wind Energy LLC,
Flat Ridge 4 Wind, LLC, Flat Ridge 5 Wind Energy LLC, Algodon Solar
Energy LLC, Chisholm Trail Solar Energy LLC, Public Service Company of
Oklahoma.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act of Pixley Solar Energy LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 4/6/23.
    Accession Number: 20230406-5230.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/23.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1905-012.
    Applicants: AZ721 LLC.
    Description: Supplement to January 30, 2023, Notice of Change in
Status of Amazon Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/6/23.
    Accession Number: 20230406-5226.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/27/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2678-005.
    Applicants: Westlands Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Amendment of Compliance Filing
(ER21-2678-004) to be effective 12/15/2022.
    Filed Date: 4/10/23.
    Accession Number: 20230410-5113.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2678-006.
    Applicants: Westlands Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Re-establish OBE'd Versions to
Tariff Record ID (ER21-2678-) to be effective 10/13/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/11/23.
    Accession Number: 20230411-5147.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-213-001.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC, Duke Energy Progress, LLC,
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Duke Energy Progress, LLC submits
tariff filing per 35: Order 676 Compliance Filing to be effective 2/23/
2023.
    Filed Date: 4/11/23.
    Accession Number: 20230411-5171.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-326-001; ER23-327-001.
    Applicants: Arroyo Energy Storage LLC,Arroyo Solar LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Arroyo Solar LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 4/6/23.
    Accession Number: 20230406-5232.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/27/23

    Docket Numbers: ER23-628-001.
    Applicants: Bellflower Solar 1, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Revised Rate Schedule to be
effective 1/15/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/11/23.
    Accession Number: 20230411-5175.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1022-000.
    Applicants: System Energy Resources, Inc.
    Description: Unit Power Sales Agreement Formula Rate Informational
Filing of System Energy Resources, Inc.
    Filed Date: 1/31/23.
    Accession Number: 20230131-5319.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1511-000; TS23-3-000.
    Applicants: Arroyo Solar LLC, Arroyo Solar LLC.
    Description: Request for Temporary Waiver of Open-Access
Requirements of Order Nos. 888, et al. of Arroyo Solar LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230327-5270.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1605-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA, Service
Agreement No. 6876; Queue No. AC2-141 to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 4/10/23.
    Accession Number: 20230410-5119.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1606-000.
    Applicants: NSTAR Electric Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Cancellation of Ocean State Power,
LLC--Related Facilities Agreement to be effective 4/11/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/11/23.
    Accession Number: 20230411-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1607-000.
    Applicants: NSTAR Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Commonwealth Wind, LLC--
Design and Engineering Agreement to be effective 4/12/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/11/23.
    Accession Number: 20230411-5020.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1608-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA, Service
Agreement No. 6866; Queue No. AF2-254 to be effective 3/14/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/11/23.
    Accession Number: 20230411-5028.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1609-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Delay Upcoming RPM Auctions,
Requests for Waiver and Expedited Action to be effective 6/10/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/11/23.
    Accession Number: 20230411-5057.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1610-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: DEF--Annual Update of Real
Power Loss Factors to be effective 5/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/11/23.
    Accession Number: 20230411-5150.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1611-000.
    Applicants: AEP Ohio Transmission Company, Inc., American Electric
Power Service Corporation, Ohio Power Company, PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: AEP Ohio Transmission
Company, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: AEP submits
revised SA No. 1672 ILDSA and Attachment 1 to be effective 5/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/11/23.
    Accession Number: 20230411-5159.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/23.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES23-40-000.
    Applicants: DTE Electric Company.
    Description: Application Under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
for Authorization to Issue Securities of DTE Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 4/6/23.
    Accession Number: 20230406-5229.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/27/23.

    Docket Numbers: ES23-41-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Application Under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
for Authorization to Issue Securities of ISO New England Inc.
    Filed Date: 4/7/23.
    Accession Number: 20230407-5164.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/28/23.

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

    Dated: April 11, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-08038 Filed 4-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P