individual unit.  Once the validation phase is done that

235
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
decision then reverts to the manufacturer.
Yes sir?
DR. CHIEN:  David Chien from Chiron.  Dr.
Lynch has suggested a more conservative view, take a 10
4
genome equivalent test cut off, but the manufacturers
right now suggest that 10
6
or 10
7
becomes from a
practical point of view.
I wonder, you think that level, like the 10
6
or 10
7
may not have transmitted disease, it's an
assumption that a recipient -- would be immuno competent
a patient or immuno suppress the patient.  So if it's
going to the immuno suppressed patient, maybe we should
be taking a more conservative view.
DR. LYNCH:  Well, if we were talking about
infusing the plasma, I would fully agree with that.  I
think we're several steps removed from what the patient
sees in terms of the plasma derivatives, but your point
is well taken.
DR. YU:  Just one point, Dr. Chien from
Chiron.  I think you mentioned the cut off they
mentioned from Dr. Thomas Weimer is 10.  That's
7
minipool level and then Dr. Zerlauth is 10
6
at the
minipool level, but what we are talking about is the
production pool with a cut off 10 genome equivalent per
4

236
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
mL, it's lower than that.  So they are different.
DR. ZERLAUTH:  And if I may add, this is
just what we go into production, but then there are
steps that might remove and inactivate the virus, also
not very effective, but still there, so that's a
different situation.  Thomas Weimer has nicely shown
their final product, at least for ATIII, is nonreactive
for the virus and that's the actual target.  And I don't
have the data with me, but I can tell you that our anti
D have been produced from such low level pools are also
negative.  So regardless of what starting level, the
target final goal is to have negative or nonreactive
products and I think Dr. Weimer with this limit and with
our limit have shown that we can achieve that.  That
certainly is worth a try.
DR. LYNCH:  I'm getting the hook from Dr.
Tabor.  I would just like to close the session by
reminding you that the National Heart Lung and Blood
Institute is sponsoring a workshop on Thursday the 16th
on Parvovirus B19 transfusion medicine.  I don't know
that he's still here, but I saw George Nemo earlier,
there he is, and who can provide anyone interested in
further information.
Thank you very much.

237
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
DR. TABOR:  We'll now have a 20 minute
break and we have one more session.
(Off the record.)
DR. TABOR:  We are about to begin the next
session.  The afternoon session consists of two parts,
first a series of talks concerning the evolution of
single unit testing, followed by a panel discussion.
Before we begin, there's an urgent phone
call for Rick Chattelain.
The first speaker this afternoon will be
Sheryl McDonough.  Dr. Sheryl McDonough from Gen-Probe,
speaking on the evolution of single unit testing.
DR. McDONOUGH:  Good afternoon.  I'd like
to thank the organizers of the meeting for the
opportunity to speak to you today.  We can go on to the
next slide.
I'd like to discuss some assay performance
data that we've seen testing single samples, talk a
little bit about the advantages of single donation
testing, address some of the concerns that we're hearing
about implementation of single donation testing and
progress on implementation.
Next slide.  I thought before I'd start
that we would reiterate what the TMA, HIV, HCV,

238
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
Multiplex assay format looks like.  As was mentioned in
the morning session, we have fully automated sample
pipetting and pipetting of the target capture reagent.
Then we have sample processing steps which terminate in
wash steps which are performed on a target capture
system shown in the middle of the slide.  We have
reagent additions and incubations associated with
amplification and detection steps and then the samples
are put into the luminometer for a fully automated read
and the report is generated.
Next slide.  Regarding assay performance on
single donations or undiluted samples, you heard the
analytical sensitivity discussed this morning by Dr.
Giachetti and here I'm just reiterating what she
presented about the clinical sensitivity that we've
observed in seroconversion panels, that is, testing
undiluted samples in HIV-1 seroconversion panels.  We
see a reduction in the window period versus antibody by
16.3 days and this is out of a 22 day detection window
and versus antigen by 7.3 days.
With HCV, we see
a reduction in the detection window by 32.8 days.
Next slide.  In terms of specificity using
individual normal donor specimens, we've tested over
4,000 samples using five different lots of reagents and

239
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
the initial reactive rate is 0.79 percent.  As was
mentioned, if you go back and retest those samples in
duplicate, the repeat reactive rate is zero percent.
The other thing that we can ask in these samples is to
look at the internal control signal.  In each tube,
you'll see if the assay was performed correctly, and
also if the sample can support amplification.  We did
see an initial internal control failure rate of 0.31
percent, but when these were tested in a single point we
saw no repetitive internal control failures indicating
that there's a low level of specimens which cannot
support amplification.
Next slide.  This is an example of a
reproducibility study that we've done with the TMA
assay.  We've looked at in this case, three operators,
three different sites, two reagent lots, two instruments
and over a period of six days.  When we look at lot to
lot, variability, site to site, operator day to day,
these are -- I should mention these are plotted as the
percent CV of the signal to cut off at the sensitivity
limit for the assay which is 100 copies per mL for HIV
and 100 copies per mL for HCV.
If you look at the percent CVs, you see
they're very low, lot to lot, site to site, operator to

240
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
operator, day to day, between run, percent CVs or
between 11 and 16 percent and within run, about 12
percent for both analytes.
Next slide.  So the assay performance that
we have observed indicates that this test would be
adequate to pursue in a single donation testing format.
What are the advantages of going to single donation
testing?  I think we've already discussed the fact that
there's an inherent improvement in sensitivity,
basically because you're adding more of the specimen
volume to the reaction.  And the way that would be
observed clinically would be an earlier detection of the
virus.
Another advantage is that the turnaround
time becomes similar to current tests.  Samples can be
brought in, tested and the negatives released
immediately.  It takes at least another shift to perform
the pooling step prior to testing and the retest
algorithm can become more straight forward when you're
testing a single unit as opposed to deconvoluted pool.
And this one is pretty obvious, you don't need to do
the pooling, so you eliminate the need for that space
and equipment and you eliminate some potential sources
of error.

241
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
Next slide.  Here's some data looking at
sensitivity that we've seen in seroconversion panels
testing samples, undiluted and diluted 1 to 16.  So we
have seven different HIV seroconversion panels in which
if you look at the sample, the days detection,
undiluted, versus a 1 to 16 dilution, you see anywhere
from two to five days earlier detection and in one panel
a 14 day earlier detection with undiluted samples.
We've also identified two HCV
seroconversion panels in which undiluted specimens were
detected six or three days prior to the test in the 1 to
16 format.
Next slide.  This is just one way to look
at Alpha Therapeutics' data.  The HCV seroconversion
panels that they tested and this is looking at days
between the first positive PCR result and days -- and
the day when the sample became -- had a copy level of
greater than 1200 copies per mL.  And you can see most
of the specimens -- many of the specimens show a
difference of five to ten days and some of them a little
lower and even one showed a 30-day difference between
the positivity at the first undiluted or the first
sample versus 1200 copy per mL.
Next slide.  This is an HCV seroconversion

242
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
event that we detected during our IND testing with the
Multiplex assay.  This individual, if you look at the
top, was seronegative on Day 1 and did not seroconvert
until Day 88, during follow up testing.  The sample was
tested at each follow up point, Day 9, 14, 21, 27 and 88
and in each case was positive when tested undiluted in
the Multiplex assay, actually in the discriminatory
assay.
When those samples were retested in a 1 to
16 dilution, the first two samples were positive, but
the next sample is negative, the Day 14 was negative.
Day 21 was positive again.  Day 27 and Day 88 were
negative at a 1 to 16 dilution, implying very low copy
levels in some of these samples.
The samples were also analyzed by a
quantitative PCR test and helps clarify what we were
seeing in this particular conversion event.  The yellow
dots represent the copies per mL of HCV in these
different follow up samples.  First of all, the first
sample we found was almost 10 copies per mL, so very
6
strong positive.  The next sample, about a week later,
it had dropped in titer over a log.  And by the 14th day
was undetectable in the assay, implying very low copy
level.

243
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
Seven days later the copies again were up
around 10
5
copies per mL, dropping to undetectable
again, just a few days later and were up around the 400
copy per mL range at Day 88.  This type of fluctuation
in HCV R and A titer was not known about a year ago and
I think we're just starting to hear that this is not an
uncommon event.  We've certainly heard that this has
happened in other cases, in other seroconversion panels.
The red shows the signal to cut off for the
undiluted TMA samples.
Next slide.  This is a very early study
that we've done with just a small number of IVDUs.  This
population, 30 different samples were examined and we
found that most of these samples were reactive with HIV
or HCV or both.  Seventy-three percent were anti-HCV
positive.  Only 20 percent of the samples were not
reactive for anti-HIV or HCV.
Next slide.  We looked at five of the
samples that were anti-HCV negative and we found by TMA
they were RNA positive.  When these samples were
retested in 1 to 16 dilution they were all negative.
Likewise, we found one hemodialysis patient that was HCV
negative and TMA RNA positive, but negative again at a
1 to 16 dilution.  So these are very early results,

244
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
small sample size, but it does look like in this high
risk population you can find individuals pre-
seroconversion with very low copy levels of RNA.
Next slide.  What are some of the concerns
for implementing single donation testing?  Of course,
some of the concerns with the pool testing now are
actually alleviated by going to single donation testing,
so we don't need to talk about turnaround time, but what
you really end up with is the need to perform a great
and large number of tests at each site and if you're
performing testing right now you have to ask what's the
need for increased space, what's the need for increased
people, how do I keep them all trained and what reagents
and instruments will be available if I'm going to go
from a pool of 16 to now testing individuals, is that a
16 fold increase in lab space and people, etcetera.  And
what we've done is taken this as an opportunity to look
at optimizing the instrument usage and personnel work
flow to improve the throughput.
Next slide.  The way that the testing has
been done through most of the IND for the TMA assay is
that if individual operator, using one TMA instrument
system will run a rack of 100 tubes and that takes about
five and a half hours to complete.  We've shown that an

245
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
operator can just in a half hour with extra time
actually do testing on 200 tubes, so what we're calling
format one is one operator, one TMA instrument system,
200 tubes in six hours.  That's fine for some
laboratories, but it's certainly not adequate for single
donation testing at other sites.  And so we're now
looking at a second configuration in which we add a
second instrument system to the laboratory.  We add
personnel that start in staggered shifts and for this
particular format it would be three technicians with an
8-hour shift each and the result is a 1,000 tubes per
10.5 hours.  So we've certainly shown an increase in
through put without the equivalent increase in space and
personnel.
By staggering the three shifts throughout
the day, a laboratory can now get 3,000 tests per day
with two instrument systems.  And I need to point out
that with the Multiplex test that's actually 6,000
results because you get both an HIV and an HCV result.
Next slide.  This is a nonartist rendition
of the throughput schedule and this is just hours
throughout the day starting with Hour Zero.  Each of the
columns represents a set of 100 tubes and the different
colors represent the different operators throughout the

246
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
shift.  So in this schematic, we're showing the first
operator comes in and does the TECAN set up and
pipepetting steps and passes those first 200 tubes off
to the second operator.  And then they move on and do
the TECAN steps for the second 200 tubes, pass them on
to the fifth and sixth 100 tubes and they have time for
lunch and they go out and finish until they've done ten
racks of tubes.  Likewise, the second operator will
perform the different steps of the target capture, move
on, have time for lunch and complete.  So each operator
works an 8-hour shift.  You get 1,000 results in 10.5
hours.
Next slide.  Another question that we've
been asked is reagent availability for single donation
testing.  Gen-Probe has completed a new manufacturing
CBER level manufacturing facility that's 93,000 square
feet.  It has the capability of at least 80 million
tests a year and the manufacturing scale is appropriate
for either single or pool testing.  We do have a backup
manufacturing facility.  It's about 12 miles away with
about 50 percent capacity and we do maintain safety
stocks of critical, raw materials and intermediates and
final product.
Next slide.  So just to conclude, I hope

247
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
I've shown you that the assay performance is appropriate
for single donation testing in terms of specificity and
sensitivity.
Next slide.  Some of our initial studies
confirm that you see improved sensitivity with a single
donation test compared to a diluted format and that's
for both HIV-1 and HCV.  Some of the issues associated
with pool plasma testing actually go away by going to
single donation testing, including the turnaround time,
release of labile components.
Next slide.  By adding equipment and
personnel scheduling appropriately, we can get a
throughput of 3,000 tests per day per laboratory and so
our work to address implementation of single donation
testing will continue in the future.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
DR. TABOR:  Thank you.  That was a good
introduction to something very new.  The next speaker
would be James Gallarda, Dr. James Gallarda from Roche.
DR. GALLARDA:  Okay, I started out the
title of my talk without a question mark at the end, but
one of my colleagues pointed out that there's a great
deal of uncertainty about evolving to single unit

248
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
testing so I thought that would be appropriate.
Next slide.  What I'd like to do is talk
about our view of moving to single unit testing from an
in-pool testing from two perspectives.  One is the
feedback that we're getting from our customers on the
issues we're doing minipool testing as it stands right
now with our semi-automated system.  The second is
really to look at what is Roche's role in this, where do
we see ourselves in the future on this.  So our view is
that there are three prerequisites required to move
toward single unit testing.  The first is that there be
a sufficient incremental gain in blood safety by going
to single unit testing over minipool NAT testing.
Secondly, the manufacturer has to provide
high throughput automation, that the system have
operational robustness and that there be dependable
manufacturing.
And then thirdly, the manufacturer must
have sufficient business potential to warrant the
development of these systems, so I'd like to go into
each of these three separately.
Next slide.  Well, with regards to the
incremental gain in blood safety over pooled NAT, there
are pros and cons.  On the pro side, you have high

249
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
sensitivity with undiluted samples and that potentially
could increase the safety by further closing the window.
Furthermore, there may be -- this may be indicated for
low titer viruses that are especially early in pre-
seroconversion.  So on the pro side I think there is
evidence that if you go to single unit testing, there
might be some incremental gain there.
On the con side, this is going to be pretty
costly.  It is expected that the yield would be
extremely low and the cost will be extremely high to go
to single unit testing.  And from the presentations
today for all three viruses, for HCV, for HIV and for
HBV, minipool testing has been demonstrated to interdict
infectious units that would have escaped by serological
testing alone.
So the conclusion we can say right now,
it's to be determined.  The pool NAT is increasing the
blood safety.  We've interdicted infectious units and
single unit NAT has yet to prove incremental gain in
blood safety and I think over the next year or so there
will be some studies that can more clearly identify the
contribution that single unit testing can have.
Next slide.  With regards to the
manufacturers providing high throughput automation and

250
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57745-57747]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20377]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95795; File No. SR-CBOE-2022-039]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Expand the Nonstandard Expirations
Pilot Program To Include P.M.-Settled Options on the Mini-S&P 500 Index
That Expire on Tuesday or Thursday

September 15, 2022.

I. Introduction

    On July 21, 2022, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') 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 expand its Nonstandard Expirations Pilot
Program to permit P.M.-settled options on the Mini-S&P 500 Index that
expire on Tuesday or Thursday. The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on August 4, 2022.\3\ The
Commission received no comments on the proposal. The Commission is
approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95392 (July 29,
2022), 87 FR 47803 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    Cboe Options proposes to expand its existing Nonstandard
Expirations Pilot (``Pilot Program'') \4\ to permit P.M.-settled
options on the Mini-S&P 500 Index (``XSP options'') that expire on
Tuesday or Thursday. Under the existing Pilot Program, the Exchange is
permitted to list P.M.-settled options on broad-based indexes that
expire on: (1) any Monday, Wednesday, or Friday and, with respect to
options on the S&P 500 Index (``SPX options'') any Tuesday or Thursday
(``Weekly Expirations'' or ``EOWs'') and (2) the last trading day of
the month (``EOMs'').\5\ The Exchange notes that permitting XSP options
with Tuesday and Thursday expirations, as proposed, would be in
addition to the XSP options with Monday, Wednesday and Friday
expirations that the Exchange may (and does) already list, as they are
permissible Weekly Expirations for options on a broad-based index
(e.g., the Mini-S&P 500 Index) pursuant to Rule 4.13(e)(1). The
Exchange states that the Pilot Program for Weekly Expirations will
apply to Tuesday and Thursday XSP options as it currently applies to
all other P.M.-settled broad-based index options with Monday,
Wednesday, and Friday expirations and to SPX options with Tuesday and
Thursday expirations.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62911 (September 14,
2010), 75 FR 57539 (September 21, 2010) (``Pilot Approval Order'').
See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76909 (January 14,
2016), 81 FR 3512 (January 21, 2016) (permitting P.M.-settled
options on broad-based indexes that expire on any Wednesday); and
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78531 (August 10, 2016), 81 FR
54643 (August 16, 2016) (permitting P.M.-settled options on broad-
based indexes that expire on any Monday). The Pilot is currently set
to expire on November 7, 2022. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 94800 (April 27, 2022), 87 FR 26248 (May 3, 2022).
    \5\ See Rule 4.13(e).
    \6\ See Notice, supra note 3, 87 FR at 47804.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Tuesday and Thursday XSP Options

    The Exchange's proposed rule change will allow it to open for
trading XSP options with Tuesday and Thursday expirations to expire on
any Tuesday or Thursday of the month, other than days that coincide
with an EOM expiration.\7\ The maximum number of expirations that may
be listed for each Weekly Expiration (i.e., a Monday expiration,
Tuesday expiration, Wednesday expiration, Thursday expiration, or
Friday expiration, as applicable) in a given class (including XSP) is
the same as the maximum number of expirations permitted in Rule
4.13(a)(2) for standard options on the same broad-based index (which is
12 for XSP options).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ If the Exchange lists EOMs and Weekly Expirations as
applicable in a given class, the Exchange will list an EOM instead
of a Weekly Expiration that expires on the same day in the given
class. See Cboe Options Rule 4.13(e)(1).
    \8\ See Notice, supra note 3, 87 FR at 47803.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Weekly Expirations need not be for consecutive Monday, Tuesday,
Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday expirations as applicable; however, the
expiration date of a nonconsecutive expiration may not be beyond what
would be considered the last expiration date if the maximum number of
expirations were listed consecutively.\9\ Weekly Expirations that are
first listed in a given class may expire up to four weeks from the
actual listing date.\10\ If the Exchange lists EOMs and Weekly
Expirations as applicable in a given class, the Exchange will list an
EOM instead of a Weekly Expiration that

expires on the same day in the given class. Other expirations in the
same class are not counted as part of the maximum number of Weekly
Expirations for an applicable broad-based index class. If the Exchange
is not open for business on a respective Monday, the normally Monday
expiring Weekly Expirations will expire on the following business day.
If the Exchange is not open for business on a respective Tuesday,
Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday, the normally Tuesday, Wednesday,
Thursday, or Friday expiring Weekly Expirations will expire on the
previous business day.\11\ If two different Weekly Expirations on Mini-
S&P 500 Index options (as is the case of S&P 500 Index options) would
expire on the same day because the Exchange is not open for business on
a certain weekday, the Exchange will list only one of such Weekly
Expirations.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Cboe Options Rule 4.13(e)(1).
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ See proposed Cboe Options Rule 4.13(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Annual Pilot Program Report

    The Exchange has previously undertaken to submit a Pilot report to
the Commission at least two months prior to the expiration date of the
Pilot Program (``Annual Report'').\13\ The Exchange represents that it
will abide by the same reporting requirements for the trading of XSP
options that expire on any Tuesday or Thursday that it does for the
trading of P.M.-settled options on broad-based indexes that expire on
any Monday, Wednesday, or Friday and for SPX options that expire on
Tuesday or Thursday pursuant to the Pilot Program.\14\ The Exchange
states that it will include data regarding XSP options that expire on
Tuesdays or Thursdays as it does for all other Weekly Expirations in
the Pilot Program annual report that it submits to the Commission at
least two months prior to the expiration date of the Pilot Program.\15\
The Exchange also proposes to include the following market quality
data, over sample periods determined by the Exchange and the
Commission, for XSP options as part of the annual report, as it does
for SPX options:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Pilot Approval Order, supra note 4.
    \14\ See Notice, supra note 3, 87 FR at 47804-47805. See also
Pilot Approval Order, supra note 4, 75 FR at 57540 (stating, ``[i]n
particular, the Commission notes that [the Exchange] will provide
the Commission with the annual report analyzing volume and open
interest of EOWs and EOMs, will also contain information and
analysis of EOW and EOM trading patterns, and index price volatility
and share trading activity for series that exceed minimum
parameters.'').
    \15\ See Notice, supra note 3, 87 FR at 47804-47805.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     time-weighted relative quoted spreads;
     relative effective spreads; and
     time-weighted bid and offer sizes.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See id. at 47805.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also will provide the Commission with any additional
data or analyses the Commission requests because it deems such data or
analyses necessary to determine whether the Pilot Program, including
XSP options with Tuesday and Thursday expirations as proposed, is
consistent with the Act.\17\ As it does for current Pilot Program
products, the Exchange states it will make public on its website all
data and analyses in connection with XSP options with Tuesday and
Thursday expirations it submits to the Commission under the Pilot
Program.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See id.
    \18\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange
and, in particular, with Section 6(b) of the Act.\19\ In particular,
the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\20\ which requires, among other things,
that a national securities exchange have rules 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). In approving this proposed rule change,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Commission noted in its recent order approving the listing
and trading of P.M.-settled options on the S&P 500 Index that expire on
Tuesday or Thursday, the Commission has had concerns about the
potential adverse effects and impact of P.M. settlement upon market
volatility and the operation of fair and orderly markets on the
underlying cash markets at or near the close of trading, including for
cash-settled derivatives contracts based on a broad-based index.\21\
The potential impact today remains unclear, given the significant
changes in the closing procedures of the primary markets in recent
decades. The Commission is mindful of the historical experience with
the impact of P.M. settlement of cash-settled index derivatives on the
underlying cash markets, but recognizes that these risks may be
mitigated today by the enhanced closing procedures that are now in use
at the primary equity markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94682 (April 12,
2022), 87 FR 22993 (April 18, 2022) (CBOE-2022-005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to add Tuesday and Thursday XSP expirations
to the existing Pilot Program would offer additional investment options
to investors and may be useful for their investment or hedging
objectives while providing the Commission with data to monitor the
effects of Tuesday and Thursday XSP expirations and the impact of P.M.
settlement on the markets. To assist the Commission in assessing any
potential impact of Tuesday and Thursday XSP expiration on the options
markets as well as the underlying cash equities markets, the Exchange
will be required to submit data to the Commission in connection with
the Pilot Program.\22\ Further, including the proposed Tuesday and
Thursday XSP expirations in the Pilot Program, together with the data
and analysis that the Exchange will provide to the Commission, will
allow the Exchange and the Commission to monitor for and assess any
potential for adverse market effects of allowing Tuesday and Thursday
XSP expirations, including on the underlying component stocks. In
particular, the data collected from the Pilot Program will help inform
the Commission's consideration of whether the Pilot Program, as amended
to include Tuesday and Thursday XSP expirations, should be modified,
discontinued, extended, or permanently approved. Furthermore, the
Exchange's ongoing analysis of the Pilot Program should help it monitor
any potential risks from large P.M.-settled positions and take
appropriate action if warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Notice, supra note 3, 87 FR at 47804-47805 and Pilot
Approval Order, supra note 4, 75 FR at 57540. See also supra notes
15-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Act.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\23\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2022-039) be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-20377 Filed 9-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                                  Meeting Log

Includes all face-to-face meetings and phone calls between EPA personnel and stakeholders following signature of the RFS Renewable Identification Number (RIN) Quality Assurance Program Proposed Rule (78 FR 12158, February 21, 2013).

Date:  2/27/2013
Location:   Ann Arbor, MI and Washington, D.C. via video and phone call-in
EPA attendees:

John Weihrauch (DC), Mary Manners (Ann Arbor), Michael Prince (Ann Arbor), Brent Williams (Ann Arbor), Jeff Kodish (Denver), Tony Miller (DC)

Stakeholder attendees and affiliation:

Michael Whitney, General Manager, Musket Corporation
Tyson Redpath, Russell Group

Topics/issues/agenda:

Musket Corporation initiated the meeting to discuss the proposed rule, specifically the components of QAP A and the proposed exporter provisions.

Date:  03/04/2013
Location: Ann Arbor, MI via phone call
EPA attendees:

Michael Prince (Ann Arbor)

Stakeholder attendees and affiliation:

Ramon Benavides, Global Renewable Strategies
Topics/issues/agenda:

Discussed QAP requirements.

Date:  03/05/2013
Location: Ann Arbor, MI and Washington, D.C. via phone call-in
EPA attendees:

Michael Prince (Ann Arbor), Brent Williams (Ann Arbor), Mary Manners (Ann Arbor), Lindsay Fitzgerald (DC), Robert Anderson (DC)

Stakeholder attendees and affiliation:

Wade Watson, Weaver LLP
Mike Stein, Weaver LLP
Steve Schwarzbach, Weaver LLP
Topics/issues/agenda:

Weaver initiated the meeting to discuss their proposed QAP along with general feedback regarding the proposed rule, specifically issues surrounding using a QAP on RINs generated from imported fuel.

Date:  03/07/2013
Location: Ann Arbor, MI via phone call
EPA attendees:

Michael Prince (Ann Arbor)

Stakeholder attendees and affiliation:

Wade Watson, Weaver LLP
Topics/issues/agenda:

Discussed requirements for importers and general QAP information.

Date:  03/14/2013
Location: Ann Arbor, MI via phone call
EPA attendees:

Michael Prince (Ann Arbor)

Stakeholder attendees and affiliation:

Wade Watson, Weaver LLP
Sandra Dunphy, Weaver LLP
Topics/issues/agenda:

Discussed requirements for QAPs.

Date:  03/14/2013
Location: Ann Arbor, MI via phone call
EPA attendees:

Mary Manners (Ann Arbor), Brent Williams (Ann Arbor), Suzanne Bessette (Ann Arbor), Michael Prince (Ann Arbor), Robert Anderson (DC), John Weihrauch (DC), Lindsay Fitzgerald (DC)

Stakeholder attendees and affiliation:

Chris Bliley, Growth Energy
Bob Whiteman, POET
Geoff Cooper, RFA
Topics/issues/agenda:

Discussed producer comments/suggestions on QAP program.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 48 (Monday, March 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15476-15480]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05032]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97052; File No. SR-NYSECHX-2023-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Chicago, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt New NYSE Chicago Rule 29 To
Establish Listing Standards Related To Recovery of Erroneously Awarded
Incentive-Based Executive Compensation

March 7, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on February 22, 2023, NYSE Chicago, Inc. (``NYSE Chicago'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule 29 to require issuers to
develop and implement a policy providing for the recovery of
erroneously awarded incentive-based compensation received by current or
former executive officers. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On October 26, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'') adopted a new rule and rule amendments \4\ to implement
Section 954 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act of 2010 (``Dodd-Frank Act''),\5\ which added Section 10D
to the Act.\6\ In accordance with Section 10D of the Act, the final
rules direct the national securities exchanges and associations that
list securities to establish listing standards that require each issuer
to develop and implement a policy providing for the recovery, in the
event of a required accounting restatement, of incentive-based
compensation received by current or former executive officers where
that compensation is based on the erroneously reported financial
information. The listing standards must also require the disclosure of
the policy. Additionally, the final rules require a listed issuer to
file the policy as an exhibit to its annual report and to include other
disclosures in the event a recovery analysis is triggered under the
policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Release Nos. 33-11126; 34-96159; IC- 34732; File No. S7-
12-15; 87 FR 73076 (November 28, 2022).
    \5\ 2 Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1900 (2010).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78j-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the rule amendments the SEC adopted pursuant to
Section 10D of the Act \7\ require specific disclosure of the listed
issuer's policy on recovery of

incentive-based compensation and information about actions taken
pursuant to such recovery policy. Rule 10D-1 requires listing exchanges
to require that listed issuers file all disclosures with respect to
their recovery policies in accordance with the requirements of the
Federal securities laws, including the disclosures required by the
applicable SEC filings. The rule amendments require listing exchanges
to require each listed issuer to: (i) file their written recovery
policies as exhibits to their annual reports; (ii) indicate by check
boxes on their annual reports whether the financial statements included
in the filings reflect correction of an error to previously issued
financial statements and whether any of those error corrections are
restatements that required a recovery analysis; and (iii) disclose any
actions they have taken pursuant to such recovery policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See footnote 5 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 10D-1 requires that the issuer will recover reasonably
promptly the amount of erroneously awarded incentive-based compensation
in the event that the issuer is required to prepare an accounting
restatement due to the material noncompliance of the issuer with any
financial reporting requirements under the securities laws. In the
adopting release for Rule 10D-1, the SEC states that the issuer and its
directors and officers must comply with this requirement in a manner
that is consistent with the exercise of their fiduciary duty to
safeguard the assets of the issuer (including the time value of any
potentially recoverable compensation). The issuer's obligation to
recover erroneously awarded incentive based compensation reasonably
promptly will be assessed on a holistic basis with respect to each such
accounting restatement prepared by the issuer. In evaluating whether an
issuer is recovering erroneously awarded incentive-based compensation
reasonably promptly, the Exchange will consider whether the issuer is
pursuing an appropriate balance of cost and speed in determining the
appropriate means to seek recovery, and whether the issuer is securing
recovery through means that are appropriate based on the particular
facts and circumstances of each executive officer that owes a
recoverable amount.
    Rule 10D-1 became effective on January 27, 2023. Exchanges are
required to file proposed listing standards no later than February 27,
2023, and the listing standards must be effective no later than
November 28, 2023. Issuers subject to such listing standards will be
required to adopt a recovery policy no later than 60 days following the
date on which the applicable listing standards become effective.
Proposed NYSE Chicago Rule
    NYSE Chicago proposes to comply with Rule 10D-1 by adding new Rule
29 to Chapter 22 of the NYSE Chicago Rules. Proposed Rule 29 is
designed to conform closely to the applicable language of Rule 10D-1.
Proposed Rule 29 would prohibit the initial or continued listing of any
security of an issuer that is not in compliance with the requirements
of any portion thereof.
Implementation
    Proposed Rule 29(b) would establish the timeframe within which
listed companies must comply with proposed Rule 29. Specifically:
     Each listed issuer must adopt the recovery policy required
by proposed Rule 29 (``Recovery Policy'') no later than 60 days from
the adoption of the proposed listing standard (``Effective Date'').
     Each listed issuer must comply with its Recovery Policy
for all incentive-based compensation Received (as such term is defined
in proposed Rule 29(e) as set forth below) by executive officers on or
after the Effective Date that results from attainment of a financial
reporting measure based on or derived from financial information for
any fiscal period ending on or after the Effective Date.
     Each listed issuer must provide the required disclosures
in the applicable SEC filings required on or after the Effective Date.
Requirements of Proposed Rule
    The requirements of proposed Rule 29 would be as follows:
     The issuer must adopt and comply with a written Recovery
Policy providing that the issuer will recover reasonably promptly the
amount of erroneously awarded incentive-based compensation in the event
that the issuer is required to prepare an accounting restatement due to
the material noncompliance of the issuer with any financial reporting
requirement under the securities laws, including any required
accounting restatement to correct an error in previously issued
financial statements that is material to the previously issued
financial statements, or that would result in a material misstatement
if the error were corrected in the current period or left uncorrected
in the current period.
     The issuer's Recovery Policy must apply to all incentive-
based compensation received by a person:
    [cir] After beginning service as an executive officer;
    [cir] Who served as an executive officer at any time during the
performance period for that incentive-based compensation;
    [cir] While the issuer has a class of securities listed on a
national securities exchange or a national securities association; and
    [cir] During the three completed fiscal years immediately preceding
the date that the issuer is required to prepare an accounting
restatement as described in paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Rule 29. In
addition to these last three completed fiscal years, the Recovery
Policy must apply to any transition period (that results from a change
in the issuer's fiscal year) within or immediately following those
three completed fiscal years. However, a transition period between the
last day of the issuer's previous fiscal year end and the first day of
its new fiscal year that comprises a period of nine to 12 months would
be deemed a completed fiscal year. An issuer's obligation to recover
erroneously awarded compensation is not dependent on if or when the
restated financial statements are filed.
     For purposes of determining the relevant recovery period,
the date that an issuer is required to prepare an accounting
restatement as described in paragraph (c)(1) of Rule 29 is the earlier
to occur of:
    [cir] The date the issuer's board of directors, a committee of the
board of directors, or the officer or officers of the issuer authorized
to take such action if board action is not required, concludes, or
reasonably should have concluded, that the issuer is required to
prepare an accounting restatement as described in paragraph (c)(1) of
proposed Rule 29; or
    [cir] The date a court, regulator, or other legally authorized body
directs the issuer to prepare an accounting restatement as described in
paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Rule 29.
     The amount of incentive-based compensation that must be
subject to the issuer's Recovery Policy (``erroneously awarded
compensation'') is the amount of incentive-based compensation received
that exceeds the amount of incentive-based compensation that otherwise
would have been received had it been determined based on the restated
amounts, and must be computed without regard to any taxes paid. For
incentive-based compensation based on stock price or total shareholder
return, where the amount of erroneously awarded compensation is not
subject to mathematical recalculation directly

from the information in an accounting restatement:
    [cir] The amount must be based on a reasonable estimate of the
effect of the accounting restatement on the stock price or total
shareholder return upon which the incentive-based compensation was
received; and
    [cir] The issuer must maintain documentation of the determination
of that reasonable estimate and provide such documentation to the
Exchange.
     The issuer must recover erroneously awarded compensation
in compliance with its Recovery Policy except to the extent that the
conditions in one of the three bullets set forth below are met, and the
issuer's committee of independent directors responsible for executive
compensation decisions, or in the absence of such a committee, a
majority of the independent directors serving on the board, has made a
determination that recovery would be impracticable.
    [cir] The direct expense paid to a third party to assist in
enforcing the policy would exceed the amount to be recovered. Before
concluding that it would be impracticable to recover any amount of
erroneously awarded compensation based on expense of enforcement, the
issuer must make a reasonable attempt to recover such erroneously
awarded compensation, document such reasonable attempt(s) to recover,
and provide that documentation to the Exchange.
    [cir] Recovery would violate home country law where that law was
adopted prior to November 28, 2022. Before concluding that it would be
impracticable to recover any amount of erroneously awarded compensation
based on violation of home country law, the issuer must obtain an
opinion of home country counsel, acceptable to the Exchange, that
recovery would result in such a violation, and must provide such
opinion to the Exchange.
    [cir] Recovery would likely cause an otherwise tax-qualified
retirement plan, under which benefits are broadly available to
employees of the registrant, to fail to meet the requirements of 26
U.S.C. 401(a)(13) or 26 U.S.C. 411(a) and regulations thereunder.
     The issuer is prohibited from indemnifying any executive
officer or former executive officer against the loss of erroneously
awarded compensation.
Disclosure in SEC Filings
    The issuer must file all disclosures with respect to such Recovery
Policy in accordance with the requirements of the Federal securities
laws, including the disclosure required by the applicable Commission
filings.
General Exemptions
    The requirements of proposed Rule 29 would not apply to the listing
of:
     A security futures product cleared by a clearing agency
that is registered pursuant to section 17A of the Act \8\ or that is
exempt from the registration requirements of section 17A(b)(7)(A); \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(7)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A standardized option, as defined in 17 CFR 240.9b-
1(a)(4), issued by a clearing agency that is registered pursuant to
section 17A of the Act; \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Any security issued by a unit investment trust, as defined
in 15 U.S.C. 80a-4(2); (4) Any security issued by a management company,
as defined in 15 U.S.C. 80a-4(3), that is registered under section 8 of
the Investment Company Act of 1940,\11\ if such management company has
not awarded incentive-based compensation to any executive officer of
the company in any of the last three fiscal years, or in the case of a
company that has been listed for less than three fiscal years, since
the listing of the company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definitions Under Proposed Rule 29
    Unless the context otherwise requires, the following definitions
apply for purposes of proposed Rule 29:
    Executive Officer. An executive officer is the issuer's president,
principal financial officer, principal accounting officer (or if there
is no such accounting officer, the controller), any vice-president of
the issuer in charge of a principal business unit, division, or
function (such as sales, administration, or finance), any other officer
who performs a policy-making function, or any other person who performs
similar policy-making functions for the issuer. Executive officers of
the issuer's parent(s) or subsidiaries are deemed executive officers of
the issuer if they perform such policy making functions for the issuer.
In addition, when the issuer is a limited partnership, officers or
employees of the general partner(s) who perform policy-making functions
for the limited partnership are deemed officers of the limited
partnership. When the issuer is a trust, officers, or employees of the
trustee(s) who perform policy-making functions for the trust are deemed
officers of the trust. Policy-making function is not intended to
include policy-making functions that are not significant.
Identification of an executive officer for purposes of Rule 29 would
include at a minimum executive officers identified pursuant to 17 CFR
229.401(b).
    Financial reporting measures. Financial reporting measures are
measures that are determined and presented in accordance with the
accounting principles used in preparing the issuer's financial
statements, and any measures that are derived wholly or in part from
such measures. Stock price and total shareholder return are also
financial reporting measures. A financial reporting measure need not be
presented within the financial statements or included in a filing with
the Commission.
    Incentive-based compensation. Incentive-based compensation is any
compensation that is granted, earned, or vested based wholly or in part
upon the attainment of a financial reporting measure.
    Received. Incentive-based compensation is deemed received in the
issuer's fiscal period during which the financial reporting measure
specified in the incentive-based compensation award is attained, even
if the payment or grant of the incentive-based compensation occurs
after the end of that period.
Delisting
    The Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule 29(f) (``Noncompliance with
Rule 29 (Erroneously Awarded Compensation)'').
    Proposed Rule 29(f)(i) would provide that in any case where the
Exchange determines that a listed issuer has not recovered erroneously-
awarded compensation as required by its Recovery Policy reasonably
promptly after such obligation is incurred, trading in all listed
securities of such listed issuer would be immediately suspended and the
Exchange would immediately commence delisting procedures with respect
to all such listed securities. Rule 10D-1 does not specify the time by
which the issuer must complete the recovery of excess incentive-based
compensation, NYSE Chicago would however determine whether the steps an
issuer is taking constitute compliance with its compensation Recovery
Policy. A listed issuer would not be eligible to follow the procedures
outlined in Rules 17A or 22, as applicable, with respect to such a
delisting determination, and any such listed issuer would be subject to
delisting procedures as set forth in Rule 4.
    Proposed Rule 29(f)(ii) would deem a listed issuer to be below
standards in the event of any failure by such listed issuer to adopt
its required Recovery Policy by the Effective Date (a ``Late Recovery
Policy Adoption Delinquency''). The listed issuer would be required to
notify the Exchange in

writing within five days of the Effective Date if it fails to adopt its
Recovery Policy by that date.
    Upon the occurrence of a Late Recovery Policy Adoption Delinquency,
the Exchange will promptly send written notification (the ``Late
Recovery Policy Adoption Delinquency Notification'') to a listed issuer
of the procedures set forth below. Within five days of the date of the
Late Recovery Policy Adoption Delinquency Notification, the listed
issuer will be required to (a) contact the Exchange to discuss the
status of the delayed Recovery Policy and (b) issue a press release
disclosing the occurrence of the Late Recovery Policy Adoption
Delinquency, the reason for the Late Recovery Policy Adoption
Delinquency and, if known, the anticipated date such Late Recovery
Policy Adoption Delinquency will be cured. If the listed issuer has not
issued the required press release within five days of the date of the
Late Recovery Policy Adoption Delinquency Notification, the Exchange
will issue a press release stating that the issuer has incurred a Late
Recovery Policy Adoption Delinquency.
    During the six-month period from the date of the Late Recovery
Policy Adoption Delinquency (the ``Initial Late Recovery Policy
Adoption Cure Period''), the Exchange will monitor the listed issuer
and the status of the delayed Recovery Policy, including through
contact with the company, until the Late Recovery Policy Adoption
Delinquency is cured. If the listed issuer fails to cure the Late
Recovery Policy Adoption Delinquency within the Initial Late Recovery
Policy Adoption Cure Period, the Exchange may, in the Exchange's sole
discretion, allow the company's securities to be traded for up to an
additional six-month period (the ``Additional Late Recovery Policy
Adoption Cure Period'') depending on the company's specific
circumstances. If the Exchange determines that an Additional Late
Recovery Policy Adoption Cure Period is not appropriate, suspension and
delisting procedures will commence in accordance with the procedures
set out in Rule 4. A listed issuer is not eligible to follow the
procedures outlined in Rules 17A or 22, as applicable, with respect to
these criteria. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the Exchange
may in its sole discretion decide (i) not to afford a listed issuer any
Initial Late Recovery Policy Adoption Cure Period or Additional Late
Recovery Policy Adoption Cure Period, as the case may be, at all or
(ii) at any time during the Initial Late Recovery Policy Adoption Cure
Period or Additional Late Recovery Policy Adoption Cure Period, to
truncate the Initial Cure Period or Additional Cure Period, as the case
may be, and immediately commence suspension and delisting procedures if
the listed issuer is subject to delisting pursuant to any other
provision of the Company Guide, including if the Exchange believes, in
the Exchange's sole discretion, that continued listing and trading of a
company's securities on the Exchange is inadvisable or unwarranted in
accordance with Rules 17A or 22. The Exchange may also commence
suspension and delisting procedures without affording any cure period
at all or at any time during the Initial Late Recovery Policy Adoption
Cure Period or Additional Late Recovery Policy Adoption Cure Period if
the Exchange believes, in the Exchange's sole discretion, that it is
advisable to do so on the basis of an analysis of all relevant factors.
    In determining whether an Additional Late Recovery Policy Adoption
Cure Period after the expiration of the Initial Late Recovery Policy
Adoption Cure Period is appropriate, the Exchange will consider the
likelihood that the delayed Recovery Policy can be adopted during the
Additional Late Recovery Policy Adoption Cure Period. If the Exchange
determines that an Additional Late Recovery Policy Adoption Cure Period
is appropriate and the listed issuer fails to adopt a Recovery Policy
by the end of such Additional Late Recovery Policy Adoption Cure
Period, suspension and delisting procedures will commence immediately
in accordance with the procedures set out in Rule 4. In no event will
the Exchange continue to trade a company's securities if that listed
issuer has failed to cure its Late Recovery Policy Adoption Delinquency
on the date that is twelve months after the commencement of the
company's Late Recovery Policy Adoption Delinquency.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \13\ in particular, in that it
is designed 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
and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers. The Exchange believes that proposed new
Rule 29 is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because it furthers the goal of ensuring the accuracy of the
financial disclosure of listed issuers. Specifically, the Exchange
believes the recovery requirement may provide executive officers with
an increased incentive to take steps to reduce the likelihood of
inadvertent misreporting and will reduce the financial benefits to
executive officers who choose to pursue impermissible accounting
methods, which we expect will further discourage such behavior. The
Exchange believes that these increased incentives may improve the
overall quality and reliability of financial reporting, which further
benefits investors. The new proposed Rule 29 is also consistent with
the requirements of Section 10D of the Act and Rule 10D-1 thereunder,
as it would establish a listing standard that is consistent with the
requirements of Rule 10D-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt continued listing standards for
proposed Rule 29 in proposed Rule 29(f). Pursuant to proposed Rule
29(f)(i), a listed issuer would be subject to immediate suspension and
delisting without eligibility for cure periods if the Exchange has
determined that the listed issuer has failed to recover reasonably
promptly erroneously-awarded compensation as requited by its Recovery
Policy. Proposed Rule 29(f)(ii) would provide compliance periods of up
to 12 months for a listed issuer that is delayed in adopting its
Recovery Policy. The Exchange believes that the compliance procedures
set forth in proposed Rule 29(f) are appropriately rigorous and are
consistent with the public interest and the interests of investors.

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 Exchange notes that Rule
10D-1 under the Act requires all listing exchanges to adopt rules with
respect to the recovery of erroneously awarded compensation that are
substantively identically to proposed Rule 29.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSECHX-2023-09 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-NYSECHX-2023-09. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSECHX-2023-09, and should be submitted
on or before April 3, 2023.

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

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

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-05032 Filed 3-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44679-44680]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18067]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0384; Airspace Docket No. 14-ANE-6]

Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Hartford, CT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class D and Class E Airspace at Hartford,
CT, by updating the geographic coordinates of Hartford-Brainard
Airport. This action does not change the boundaries or operating
requirements of the airspace.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, September 18, 2014. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by adjusting the geographic coordinates, within Class D and
Class E airspace, of Hartford-Brainard Airport, Hartford, CT, to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This is an
administrative change and does not affect the boundaries, altitudes, or
operating requirements of the airspace, therefore, notice and public
procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace at Hartford-Brainard Airport,
Hartford, CT.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 7, 2013, effective September 15, 2013, is amended
as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace

* * * * *

ANE CT D Hartford, CT [Amended]

Hartford-Brainard Airport, CT
    (Lat. 41[deg]44'12'' N., long. 72[deg]38'58'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface up to and
including 2,500 feet MSL

within a 4.6-mile radius of Hartford-Brainard Airport from the
Hartford-Brainard Airport 158[deg] bearing clockwise to the
Hartford-Brainard Airport 052[deg] bearing, and within a 6-mile
radius of the Hartford-Brainard Airport from the Hartford-Brainard
Airport 052[deg] bearing clockwise to the 158[deg] bearing. This
Class D airspace area is effective during specific dates and times
established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and
time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/
Facility Directory

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANE CT E5 Hartford, CT [Amended]

Hartford-Brainard Airport, CT
    (Lat. 41[deg]44'12'' N., long. 72[deg]38'58'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an 11.5-mile radius of Hartford-Brainard Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 24, 2014.
Myron A. Jenkins,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2014-18067 Filed 7-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 182 (Thursday, September 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 44195]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20146]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4337-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

Florida; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Florida (FEMA-4337-DR), dated September 10, 2017, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 13, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of September 10, 2017.

    Polk County for Individual Assistance (already designated for
debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and
B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance
program).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-20146 Filed 9-20-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52380-52381]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21197]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0209]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a
Currently-Approved Information Collection Request: Information
Technology Services Survey Portal Customer Satisfaction Assessment
(Formerly COMPASS Portal Consumer Satisfaction Assessment)

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review and approval and invites public comment. The collection involves
the assessment of FMCSA's strategic decision to integrate its
Information Technology (IT) with its business processes using portal
technology to consolidate its systems and databases through the FMCSA
Information Technology Services Survey modernization initiative. The
information to be collected will be used to assess the satisfaction of
Federal, State, and industry customers with the FMCSA Information
Technology Services Survey Portal. The name of the ``COMPASS Portal
Customer Satisfaction Assessment,'' information collection request
(ICR) is being changed to ``Information Technology Services Survey
Portal Customer Satisfaction Assessment,'' to reflect the need for a
broader term than ``COMPASS'' for the portal.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before October 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2012-0209 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the exemption process, see the Public
Participation heading below. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the
online instructions for accessing the dockets, or go to the street
address listed above.
    Privacy Act: 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.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket Management System
published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or
you may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdfE8-794.pdf.
    Public Participation: The Federal eRulemaking Portal is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can obtain electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the ``help'' section
of the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site. If you want us to notify
you that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed,
stamped envelope or postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that
appears after submitting comments online. Comments received after the
comment closing date will be included in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Katherine Sinrud, Department of
Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, West
Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Title II, section 207 of the E-Government Act of 2002 requires
Government agencies to improve the methods by which government
information, including information on the Internet, is organized,
preserved, and made accessible to the public. To meet this goal, FMCSA
plans to provide a survey on the FMCSA Portal, allowing users to assess
its functionality. This functionality includes the capability for
Federal, State, and Industry users to access the Agency's existing
safety IT systems with a single set of credentials and have easy access
to safety data about the companies that do business with FMCSA. The
Information Technology program will also focus on improving the
accuracy of data to help ensure information, such as carrier name and
address, is valid and reliable.
    FMCSA's legacy information systems are currently operational.
However, having this many stand-alone systems has led to data quality
concerns, a need for excessive IDs and passwords, and significant
operational and maintenance costs. Integrating our information
technologies with our business processes will, in turn, improve our
operations considerably, particularly in terms of data quality, ease of
use, and reduction of maintenance costs.
    In early 2007, FMCSA's Information Technology program launched a
series of releases of a new FMCSA Portal to its Federal, State and
Industry customers. Over the coming years, more than 15 releases are
planned. These releases will use portal technology to fuse and provide
numerous services and functions via a single user interface and provide
tailored services that seek to meet the needs of specific
constituencies within our customer universe.
    The FMCSA Information Technology Services Survey Portal will entail
considerable expenditure of Federal Government dollars over the years
and will fundamentally impact the nature of

the relationship between the Agency and its Federal, State, and
Industry customers. Consequently, the Agency intends to conduct regular
and ongoing assessments of customer satisfaction with Information
Technology Services Survey.
    The primary purposes of this assessment are to:
     Determine the extent to which the FMCSA Portal
functionality continues to meet the needs of Agency customers.
     Identify and prioritize additional modifications.
     Determine the extent that the FMCSA Portal has impacted
FMCSA's relationships with its main customer groups.
    The assessment will address:
     Overall customer satisfaction.
     Customer satisfaction against specific items.
     Performance of systems integrator against agreed
objectives.
     Desired adjustments and modifications to systems.
     Demonstrated value of investment to FMCSA and DOT.
     Items about the FMCSA Portal that customers like best.
     Customer ideas for making the FMCSA Portal better.
    Title: Information Technology Services Survey Portal Customer
Satisfaction Assessment.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0042.
    Type of Request: Revision of the currently-approved information
collection request.
    Respondents: Federal, State, and Industry customers/users.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,392.
    Estimated Time per Response: Five (5) minutes.
    Expiration Date: 11/30/2012.
    Frequency of Response: 4 times per year.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 283 hours [91 hours (273 industry
user respondents x 5 minutes/60 minutes to complete survey x 4 times
per year) + 192 hours (575 Federal and State government respondents x 5
minutes/60 minutes to complete survey x 4 times per year) = 283].
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the agency to perform its mission; (2) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize or include your
comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued on: August 20, 2012.
Kelly Leone,
Associate Administrator for Office of Research and Information
Technology.
[FR Doc. 2012-21197 Filed 8-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 128 (Thursday, July 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38020-38021]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15629]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1777-005; ER10-2983-004; ER10-2980-004.
    Applicants: Sundevil Power Holdings, LLC, Castleton Energy
Services, LLC, Castleton Power, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to July 1, 2013 Updated Market Power
Analysis

for the Southwest Region of the Wayzata Entities, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140624-5076.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1823-001.
    Applicants: Energy Plus Holdings LLC.
    Description: Amendment to Tariff Revision Filing to be effective 5/
1/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140624-5096.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2210-000; ER14-2211-000; ER14-2212-000; ER14-
2213-000; ER14-2214-000; ER14-2215-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Conesville, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to June 18, 2014 Duke Energy Conesville,
LLC, et al. tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 6/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140624-5057.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2251-000.
    Applicants: Commonwealth Chesapeake Company LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment to be effective 6/25/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140624-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2252-000.
    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: TO4 Formula Cycle 1 Out-of-Cycle Informational Filing
for Expedited Implementation of Refunds to Retail End Use Customers of
San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 6/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140624-5078.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2253-000.
    Applicants: Morris Cogeneration, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment to be effective 6/25/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140624-5083.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2254-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Revisions to OATT Att Q re Virtual Transactions
Clarification and Waiver Request to be effective 8/25/2014 .
    Filed Date: 6/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140624-5084.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2255-000.
    Applicants: Mehoopany Wind Energy LLC.
    Description: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 8/24/
2014.
    Filed Date: 6/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140624-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2256-000.
    Applicants: Fowler Ridge II Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 8/24/
2014.
    Filed Date: 6/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140624-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2257-000.
    Applicants: Fowler Ridge III Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Revised Market Based Rate Tariff to be effective 8/24/
2014.
    Filed Date: 6/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140624-5095.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/15/14.

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

    Dated: June 24, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-15629 Filed 7-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P