[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22682-22685]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09931]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80661; File No. SR-BOX-2017-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Adopt Qualified Contingent Cross Orders

May 11, 2017.
    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 May 9, 2017, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit

comments on the proposed rule 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 adopt Qualified Contingent Cross Orders.
The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal
office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and
also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is filing this proposal to adopt Qualified Contingent
Cross Orders (``QCC Orders''), as described below.

Background

    The purpose of this filing is to adopt rules related to QCC Orders.
The proposed rule change is based on the rules of other options
exchanges, including an International Securities Exchange (``ISE'')
proposal that was previously approved by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 63955 (February 24,
2011), 76 FR 11533 (March 2, 2011) (SR-ISE-2010-73) (``ISE
Approval''); 79942 (February 2, 2017), 82 FR 9804 (February 8, 2017)
(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of SR-EDGX-2017-11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is currently a party to the Options Order Protection
and Locked/Crossed Market Plan (``Linkage Plan''), and has implemented
Exchange rules in conjunction with that plan, which are set forth in
Rule 15000 of the Exchange's Rules (the ``Linkage Rules''). Similar to
Regulation NMS under the Act, the Linkage Plan requires, among other
things, that the Exchange establish, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to prevent
``Trade-Throughs.'' \4\ A Trade-Through is a transaction in an options
series at a price that is inferior to the best price available in the
market.\5\ The Linkage Plan replaced the Plan for the Purpose of
Creating and Operating an Intermarket Option Linkage (``Old Linkage
Plan''). The Old Linkage Plan provided a limited Trade-Through
exemption for ``Block Trades,'' defined to be trades of 500 or more
contracts with a premium value of at least $150,000.\6\ However, as
with Regulation NMS, the Linkage Plan does not provide a Block Trade
exemption. Since its original adoption by the ISE in 2011, QCC has been
offered by multiple options exchanges as a limited substitute for the
Block Trade exemption.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Section 5(a) of the Linkage Plan
    \5\ See Section 2(21) of the Linkage Plan
    \6\ See Old Linkage Plan Sections 2(3) and 8(c)(i)(C).
    \7\ See ISE Rule 715(j), Supplementary Material .01 to ISE Rule
715 and ISE Rule 721(b); see also CBOE Rule 6.53(u); NASDAQ PHLX
Rule 1080(o); NYSE Arca Rule 6.62(bb), Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca
Rule 6.62 and NYSE Arca Rule 6.90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal Regarding Qualified Contingent Cross Orders
    The purpose of the proposed change is to provide market
participants with the ability to submit to the Exchange Qualified
Contingent Cross Orders, an order type offered by multiple other
options exchanges.\8\ The proposed operation of Qualified Contingent
Cross Orders on the Exchange is substantially similar in all material
respects to the operation of such orders on such other exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See supra, note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt Rule paragraph (c)(6) to Rule 7110
to govern the operation of Qualified Contingent Cross Orders. As
proposed, a Qualified Contingent Cross Order would be an originating
order to buy or sell at least 1,000 standard option contracts, or
10,000 mini-option contracts, that is identified as being part of a
qualified contingent trade (as that term is proposed to be defined in
IM-7110-2), coupled with a contra-side order or orders totaling an
equal number of contracts. As proposed under IM-7110-2, a ``qualified
contingent trade'' is a transaction consisting of two or more component
orders, executed as agent or principal, where: (1) At least one
component is an NMS stock, as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS
under the Act; (2) all components are effected with a product or price
contingency that either has been agreed to by all the respective
counterparties or arranged for by a broker-dealer as principal or
agent; (3) the execution of one component is contingent upon the
execution of all other components at or near the same time; (4) the
specific relationship between the component orders (e.g., the spread
between the prices of the component orders) is determined by the time
the contingent order is placed; (5) the component orders bear a
derivative relationship to one another, represent different classes of
shares of the same issuer, or involve the securities of participants in
mergers or with intentions to merge that have been announced or
cancelled; and (6) the transaction is fully hedged (without regard to
any prior existing position) as a result of other components of the
contingent trade.
    Additionally, as proposed, Qualified Contingent Cross Orders would
be allowed to execute automatically on entry without exposure provided
the execution: (i) Is not at the same price as a Public Customer \9\
Order on the BOX Book; \10\ and (ii) is at or between the NBBO.\11\ As
such, the Exchange also proposes to specify that a Qualified Contingent
Cross Order will be rejected if there is an ongoing auction (including
PIP, COPIP, Facilitation, and Solicitation auctions) or an exposed
order on the option series when the Qualified Contingent Cross Order is
received by the Exchange. The proposed Rule would also specify that
Qualified Contingent Cross Orders will be cancelled if they cannot be
executed. Also, pursuant to the proposed rule, Qualified Contingent
Cross Orders may only be entered in the standard increments applicable
to the options class under Rule 7050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The term ``Public Customer'' means a person that is not a
broker or dealer in securities. See Rule 100(a)(51).
    \10\ The term ``BOX Book'' means the electronic book of orders
on each single option series maintained by the BOX Trading Host. See
Rule 100(a)(10).
    \11\ The NBBO means the national best bid or offer. See Rule
100(a)(33).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will track and monitor QCC Orders to determine which
is the originating side of the order and which is the contra-side(s) of
the order to ensure that Participants are complying with the minimum
1,000 contract size limitation (or 10,000 mini-option contract minimum)
on the originating side of the QCC Order. The Exchange will check to
see if Participants are aggregating multiple orders to meet the 1,000
contract minimum on the originating side (or 10,000 mini-option
contract minimum) of the trade in violation of the requirements of the
rule.

The rule requires that the originating side of the trade consist of one
party who is submitting a QCC Order for at least 1,000 contracts (or
10,000 mini-option contracts). The Exchange represents that it will
enforce compliance with this portion of the rule by checking to see if
a Participants breaks up the originating side of the order in a post
trade allocation to different clearing firms, allocating less than
1,000 contracts (or 10,000 mini-option contracts) to a party or
multiple parties. For example, a Participant enters a QCC Order into
the system for 1,500 contracts and receives an execution. Subsequent to
the execution, the Participant allocates the originating side of the
order to two different clearing firms on a post trade allocation basis,
thereby allocating 500 contracts to one clearing firm and 1,000
contracts to another clearing firm. This type of transaction would not
meet the requirements of a QCC Order under the current and proposed
rule.
    With regard to order entry, a Participant will have to mark the
originating side as the first order in the system and the contra-
side(s) as the second. The Exchange will monitor order entries to
ensure that Participants are properly entering QCC Orders into the
system.
    The Exchange anticipates implementing the proposed change during
the second quarter of 2017. The Exchange will provide notice of the
exact implementation date, via Circular, prior to implementing the
proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\12\ in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in
particular, in that it is 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 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. Specifically, the proposed change is designed to offer
market participants greater flexibility by allowing such market
participant to submit QCC Orders to BOX in the same way they are
permitted to send QCC Orders to other options exchanges, thereby
promoting just and equitable principles of trade, fostering cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, removing impediments to, and perfecting the mechanism of, a
free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rules are consistent with the protection of investors
in that they are designed to prevent Trade-Throughs. In addition, the
proposed rule change would promote a free and open market by permitting
the Exchange to compete with other options exchanges for these types of
orders. In this regard, competition would result in benefits to the
investing public, whereas a lack of competition would serve to limit
the choices that participants have for execution of their options
business. As noted above, the proposed operation of Qualified
Contingent Cross Orders on the Exchange is substantially similar in all
material respects to the operation of such orders on such other
exchanges.\14\ As such, permitting the Exchange to operate on an even
playing field relative to other exchanges removes impediments to and
perfects the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra, note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change to
adopt QCC Orders will impose any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The
Exchange's proposed functionality is open to all market participants.
Further, the proposed rule will allow the Exchange to compete with
other options exchanges that currently offer QCC Orders, thus
alleviating the burden on competition that would arise if such
exchanges were permitted to continue offering such functionality and
the Exchange was not. For these reasons, the Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on competition
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act,
and believes the proposed change will enhance competition.

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

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

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

    (a) This proposed rule change is filed pursuant to paragraph (A) of
section 19(b)(3) of the Exchange Act \15\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) This proposed rule change does not significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest, does not impose any
significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest.
    The Exchange provided the Commission with written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description
and text of the proposed rule change, prior to the date of filing the
proposed rule change as required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6).
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest
and does not impose any significant burden on competition. The
Exchange's proposal to accept QCC Orders is not a novel concept but
rather, is based on the acceptance of such orders on multiple other
options exchanges.
    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2017-14 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-BOX-2017-14. 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, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., located at
100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will
be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
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-BOX-
2017-14 and should be submitted on or before June 7, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-09931 Filed 5-16-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36977-36978]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13465]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 31 and Form R31, SEC File No. 270-537, OMB Control No.
3235-0597.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995

(''PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 31 (17 CFR 240.31) and
Form R31 (17 CFR 249.11) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78ee) (``Exchange Act''). The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Section 31 of the Exchange Act requires the Commission to collect
fees and assessments from national securities exchanges and national
securities associations (collectively, ``self-regulatory
organizations'' or ``SROs'') based on the volume of their securities
transactions. To collect the proper amounts, the Commission adopted
Rule 31 and Form R31 under the Exchange Act whereby the SROs must
report to the Commission the volume of their securities transactions
and the Commission, based on those data, calculates the amount of fees
and assessments that the SROs owe pursuant to Section 31. Rule 31 and
Form R31 require the SROs to provide this data on a monthly basis.
    Currently, there are 23 respondents under Rule 31: 19 national
securities exchanges, one security futures exchange, and one national
securities association subject to the collection of information
requirements of Rule 31; there are additionally two registered clearing
agencies that are required to provide certain data in their possession
needed by the SROs to complete Form R31, although these two entities
are not themselves required to complete and submit Form R31. The
Commission estimates that the total burden for all 23 respondents is
390 hours per year. The Commission notes that, based on previous and
current experience, it estimates an additional three new national
securities exchanges will become registered and subject to the
reporting requirements of Rule 31 over the course of the authorization
period and incur a burden of 18 hours per year. Thus, the Commission
estimates the total burden for the existing and expected new
respondents to be 408 hours per year.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 2, 2016.
Brent J. Fields
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-13465 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA, Office of Air and Radiation 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2060 0252 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. X Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title: Data Reporting Requirements For State and Local Vehicle Emission Inspection and Maintenance ( I/ M) Programs ( Reinstatement)

8. Agency form number: EPA ICR # 1613.02 9. Keywords: Motor Vehicle Pollution, Vehicle Emission Inspection and Maintenance.

10. Abstract: To provide general oversight and support to state and local I/ M programs, the Transportation and Regional Programs Division ( TRPD), Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, requires that state or local program management for both basic and enhanced I/ M programs collect two varieties of reports to EPA. The first reporting requirement is the submittal of an annual report providing general program operating data and summary statistics, addressing the program's current design and coverage, a summary of testing data, enforcement program efforts, quality assurance and quality control efforts, and other miscellaneous information allowing for an assessment of the program's relative effectiveness; the second is a biennial report on any changes to the program over the two year period and the impact of such changes, including any weaknesses discovered and corrections made or planned.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. P State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 34 b. Total annual responses 34 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 80 % c. Total hours requested 2890 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 2890 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2890 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 0 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 0 d. Current OMB inventory $ 0 e. Difference $ 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. X Program planning or management b. P Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. X Regulatory or compliance d. X Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. Q Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. X Annually 7. X Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Dave Sosnowski Phone: ( 734) 214 4823 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Suzanne Rudzinski, Director Transportation & Regional Programs Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality Date 06 08 2004 Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency;"( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any 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 OMB control number."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45523-45526]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18430]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72717; File No. SR-OCC-2014-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Better Manage Risks
Concentration and Other Risks Associated With Accepting Deposits of
Common Stocks for Margin Purposes

July 30, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 15, 2014, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the clearing agency.\3\ 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.
    \3\ OCC also filed the proposed rule change as an advance notice
under Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act entitled the Payment, Clearing,
and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010. 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1). See
SR-OCC-2014-803.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    OCC proposes to amend its Rules to permit OCC to better manage
concentration and other risks (i.e., wrong-way risk) associated with
accepting deposits of common stock for margin purposes. In order to
manage such risks, OCC proposes to add an proposed Interpretation and
Policy that will provide OCC with discretion with respect to giving
value to margin collateral deposited by a single clearing member.

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to permit OCC to better
manage concentration risk and other risks (i.e., wrong-way risk)
associated with accepting deposits of common stock for margin
purposes.\4\ Accordingly, in order to manage such risks, OCC proposes
to add an Interpretation and Policy to Rule 604, which specifies the
forms of margin assets accepted by OCC, that will provide OCC with
discretion with respect to giving value to assets deposited by a single
clearing member to satisfy its margin requirement(s). In addition, OCC
proposes to make clarifying amendments to an existing Interpretation
and Policy under Rule 604 that gives OCC discretion to not give value
to a particular type of margin collateral across all clearing members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This proposed rule change has also been filed as an advance
notice filing (SR-OCC-2014-803).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    OCC Rule 604 lists the types of assets that clearing members may
deposit with OCC to satisfy their margin requirement(s) as well as sets
forth eligibility criteria for such assets. Common stocks, including
Exchange Traded Funds (``ETFs'') and Exchange Traded Notes (``ETNs''),
are the most common form of margin assets deposited by clearing members
and currently comprise 68% of the $60.6 billion in clearing member
margin deposits held by OCC (not including deposits in lieu of margin).
Since 2009, OCC has used STANS, its daily automated Monte Carlo
simulation-based margining methodology, to value common stocks
deposited by clearing members as margin.\5\ The value given to margin
deposits depends on factors that include the price volatility and the
price correlation relationship of common stock collateral to the
balance of the cleared portfolio. The approach used by STANS
incentivizes clearing members who chose to meet their margin
obligations with deposits of common stocks to choose common stocks that
hedge their related open positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58158 (July 15,
2008), 73 FR 42646 (July 22, 2008) (SR-OCC-2007-20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding the value STANS gives to deposits of common stocks,
certain factors warrant OCC adjusting the value STANS gives to all
clearing member margin deposits of a particular type of margin
collateral. Such factors are set forth in Rule 604, Interpretation and
Policy .14, and include the number of outstanding shares, number of
outstanding shareholders and overall trading volume. OCC is proposing
to add a new Interpretation and Policy to Rule 604 (the
``Interpretation'') so that OCC has discretion to not give margin
credit to a particular clearing member when such clearing member
deposits a concentrated amount of any common stock and when a common
stock, deposited as margin, presents ``wrong-way risk'' to OCC. In
addition, the Interpretation will provide OCC discretion to grant
margin credit to a clearing member when it deposits shares of common
stock that serve as a hedge to the clearing member's related open
positions and would otherwise be not be given margin credit.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Consistent with the language contained in existing
Interpretation & Policy .14, the Interpretation provides OCC with
discretion in determining the amount of margin credit given to
deposits of common stock by an individual clearing member as such
determination would be based on positions held and common stock
deposits made by such clearing member on a given business day.
However, as discussed in the following two sections, OCC also has
developed certain automated processes as well as additional internal
policies that describe how OCC presently intends to exercise such
discretion. These additional internal policies are included in OCC's
collateral risk management policy, which will not be implemented
until approval of this rule change with changes thereto being
subject to additional rule filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concentrated Deposits of Common Stock
    OCC has determined that in the event it is necessary to liquidate a
clearing member's positions (including the clearing member's margin
collateral), OCC may be exposed to risk arising from a large quantity
of a particular common stock deposited as margin by a clearing member.
Specifically, depending on the relationship between the average daily
trading volume of a particular security and the number of outstanding
shares of such security deposited by a clearing member as margin, it is
possible that the listed equities markets may not be able to quickly
absorb all of the common stock OCC seeks to sell, or OCC may not be
able to auction such securities, without an appreciable negative price
impact. This occurrence, referred to as ``concentration risk,'' is
greatest when the number of shares being sold is large and the average
daily trading volume is low.
    OCC's existing authority to not give value to otherwise eligible
forms of margin is broad in its application since such authority only
provides OCC with the discretion to not give value across all clearing
member deposits of a particular common stock. However, concentration
risk may be a clearing member and account-specific risk. In order to
mitigate the concentration risk of a single clearing member, OCC plans
to implement automated processes to monitor the composition of a
clearing member's margin deposits. Such processes will identify
concentration risk at both an account level and across all accounts of
a clearing member. OCC proposes to add the Interpretation so that OCC
has discretion to limit the margin credit granted to an individual
clearing member that maintains a concentrated margin deposit of
otherwise eligible common stock.
    For the reasons stated above, OCC considers a common stock's
average daily trading volume and the number of shares a clearing member
deposited as margin to be the two most significant factors when making
a decision to limit margin credit due to concentration risk.
Accordingly, OCC will not give margin credit to clearing member margin
deposits of a particular common stock in respect of a particular
account when the deposited amount of such common stock is in excess of
two times the average daily trade volume of such common stock over the
most recent three month period. OCC's systems will continually assess
the composition of clearing member margin deposits for each account
maintained by the clearing member, including intra-day collateral
substitutions in such accounts, to determine if a clearing member has a
margin deposit with a concentrated amount of common stock. With respect
to a given account, OCC's systems will automatically set appropriate
limits on the amount of a particular common stock for which a clearing
member may be given margin credit for any one of a its tier accounts.
In addition, and with respect to all of a clearing member's accounts,
OCC will impose an add-on margin charge if, in aggregate, a clearing
member deposits a concentrated amount of a particular common stock as
margin across all of its accounts.\7\ The add-on margin charge will
operate to negate the margin credit given to the concentrated margin
deposit, and will be collected, when applicable, as part of OCC's
standard morning margin process.\8\ OCC

will assess the add-on margin charge across all of a clearing member's
accounts on a pro-rata basis (based on the amount of the particular
common stock in each of a clearing member's accounts).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ OCC believes that this policy is consistent with proposed
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(5), which requires covered clearing agencies to set
and enforce concentration limits to manage its or its participant's
credit exposure. See 79 FR 16866, 16972 (March 26, 2014).
    \8\ Since the 2-day limit is first checked at each account, it
is possible that a clearing member with multiple accounts may have
more than 2-days of a given common stock on deposit in aggregate. To
control this condition, a final check is done on the aggregate
amount of shares held by a clearing member across all of its
accounts. For example, if a particular clearing member has three
accounts each holding 2-days volume of a specific common stock, the
clearing member check would identify that the member was holding six
days of volume in aggregate. To mitigate this risk, an add-on charge
equal to the market value of four days of volume would be applied to
all accounts holding that security on a pro-rata basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC staff has been monitoring concentrated common stock positions,
assessing the impact of the proposed rule change described in this
filing and contacting clearing members affected by the proposed rule
change. OCC believes that clearing members will be able to comply with
the proposed rule change without making significant changes to their
day-to-day business operations. In December 2013, an information memo
was posted to inform all members of the upcoming change. Since January
2014, staff has been in contact with any clearing member that would be
affected by the proposed rule change. On a weekly basis, any clearing
member that would see a reduction of 10% or more of its collateral
value is contacted and provided an explanation of the policy and a list
of concentrated positions observed in this analysis. On a monthly
basis, all clearing members exhibiting any concentration risk are
contacted to provide an explanation of the proposed policy and a list
of concentrated positions. In both cases, clearing members are
encouraged to proactively reduce concentrated positions to conform to
the proposed policy. As of June 2014, twenty-five members would be
affected. Implementation of the Interpretation would result in
disallowing $1.2 billion in collateral value and result in margin calls
for six members totaling $710 million. Moreover, in July 2014, OCC made
an automated report concerning concentrated margin deposits of common
stock available to all clearing members.
Wrong-Way Risk
    OCC is also proposing to use the Interpretation to address the risk
that the common stock a clearing member has deposited as margin and
which is issued by the clearing member itself or an affiliate of the
clearing member will lose value in the event the clearing member
providing such margin defaults, which is known as ``wrong-way risk.''
Wrong-way risk occurs when a clearing member makes a deposit of common
stock issued by it or an affiliate and, in the event the clearing
member defaults, the clearing member's common stock margin deposit will
also be losing value at the same time because there is likely to be a
strong correlation between the clearing member's creditworthiness and
the value of such common stock. In order to address wrong-way risk, the
Interpretation will implement automated systems that will not give
margin credit to a clearing member that deposits common stock issued by
such clearing member or an affiliate as margin collateral. OCC proposes
to define ``affiliate'' broadly in the Interpretation to include any
entity with direct or indirect equity ownership of 10% of the clearing
member, or any entity for which the clearing member holds 10% of the
direct or indirect equity ownership.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This standard is based on the provisions of OCC Rule
215(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC has addressed the impact of the change designed to address
wrong-way risk. As of June 2014, there were 73 clearing members whose
parent or an affiliate has issued securities trading on U.S. exchanges.
There are six clearing members that would be affected by virtue of
having made margin deposits of their own or an affiliate's common
stock. In total, these shares equaled $132 million and accounted for
less than one half of one percent of the total market value of valued
securities pledged as margin at OCC. In July 2014, OCC made information
available to each clearing member that indicates which of its deposits
of common stock would not receive margin credit due to wrong-way risk
considerations, as described above.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ OCC believes that by providing such information clearing
members will be better able to adjust their margin deposits at OCC
to conform to the proposed rule change once it is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deposits That Hedge Open Positions
    In addition to the above, OCC also proposes to include language in
the Interpretation so that it has discretion to give margin credit to
common stock deposited as margin that would otherwise not be given
margin credit in circumstances when such common stock acts as a hedge
(i.e., the member holds an equivalent short position in cleared
contracts on the same underlying security). This condition will be
checked in both the account and clearing member level. For example, if
a clearing member deposits the common stock of an affiliate as margin
collateral, which, pursuant to the above, would ordinarily not be given
value for the purposes of granting margin credit, OCC may nevertheless
give value to such common stock for the purposes of granting margin
credit to the extent such common stock acts as a hedge against open
positions of the clearing member. In this case, a decline in the value
of the margin deposit would be wholly or partially offset by an
increase in the value in the open position. Moreover, in such a
situation, OCC will systematically limit the margin credit granted to
the lesser of a multiple of the daily trading volume or the ``delta
equivalent position'' \11\ for the particular common stock, taking into
account the hedging position.\12\ OCC believes that this policy will
further encourage clearing members to deposit margin collateral that
hedges their related open positions and is in line with the valuation
methods within STANS. This policy will also facilitate OCC's management
of its and its participants' credit exposure \13\ as well as the
liquidation of a clearing member's portfolio should the need arise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The ``delta equivalent position'' is the equivalent number
of underlying shares represented by the aggregation of cleared
products on that same underlying instrument. This value is
calculated using the ``delta'' of the option or futures contract,
which is the ratio between the theoretical change in the price of
the options or futures contract to the corresponding change in the
price of an underlying asset. Thus, delta measures the sensitivity
of an options or futures contract price to changes in the price of
the underlying asset. For example, a delta of +0.7 means that for
every $1 increase in the price of the underlying stock, the price of
a call option will increase by $0.70. Delta for an option or future
can be expressed in shares of the underlying asset. For example, a
standard put option with a delta of -.45 would have a delta of -45
shares, because the unit of trading is 100 shares.
    \12\ Assume, for example, an average daily trade volume of 250
shares, a threshold of 2 times the average daily trade volume, and a
delta of -300 shares for the options on a particular security in a
particular account. A position of 700 shares that did not hedge any
short options or futures would receive credit for only 500 shares
(i.e., 2 times the average daily trade volume). If the net long
position in the account, when combined with the delta of short
option and futures position, were only 400, credit would be given
for the entire 700 shares since the delta equivalent position is
below the 500 share threshold. However, if the option delta were
+300, the net long position would be 1000, and credit would only be
given for 500 shares because the delta equivalent position would
exceed the 500 share threshold.
    \13\ OCC also believes that this policy is consistent with
proposed Rule 17Ad-22(e)(5). See Fn.6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Proposed Changes
    OCC is also proposing to make certain clarifying changes in order
to accommodate the adoption of the Interpretation into its Rules.
Primarily, OCC proposes to add language to OCC Rule 604, Interpretation
and Policy .14, to clarify that such Interpretation and Policy concerns
OCC's authority to not give value to certain margin deposits for all
clearing members (whereas the Interpretation applies to particular
clearing member(s)). In addition, OCC

proposes to remove language from OCC Rule 604, Interpretation and
Policy .14, to improve readability as well as to remove ``factors''
concerning number of shares and affiliates since OCC's authority with
respect to such factors will be more clearly described in the
Interpretation. Finally, OCC proposes to renumber the Interpretations
and Policies of Rule 604 in order to accommodate the adoption of the
Interpretation.
2. Statutory Basis
    OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \14\ because it will assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody and
control of OCC. In addition, the proposed rule change will promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions
for which it is responsible. OCC believes that the proposed changes to
its margin policy, as described above, will reduce the risk that
clearing member margin assets would be insufficient should OCC need to
use such assets to close-out positions of a defaulted clearing member.
For the same reasons, the proposed rule change will promote confidence
that OCC will be able to timely meet its settlement obligations because
the proposed rule change will diminish the likelihood a large
percentage of a defaulting clearing member's margin assets would not be
available to OCC in the event of a clearing member default. The
proposed rule change is not inconsistent with any existing OCC By-Laws
or Rules, including those proposed to be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    OCC believes that the proposed rule change would impose a burden on
competition, and that such burden is appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.\15\ As state [sic] above, the proposed rule change
will affect the composition of certain clearing members' margin
deposits. Clearing members may be required to modify their business
practices and potentially incur costs in doing so. However, the
proposed rule change will not place a significant burden on clearing
members, will better assure the safeguarding of securities and funds in
OCC's custody and control and promote the prompt and accurate clearance
and settlement of securities transactions for which it is responsible.
By implementing the proposed rule change, it is less likely OCC will
experience negative consequences due to exposure to a concentrated
position of common stock deposited as margin by any clearing member as
well as due to any wrong-way risk presented by a clearing member
default. Accordingly, the proposed rule change contributes to the goal
of OCC's financial stability in the event of clearing member default.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, and after implementation of the proposed rule change, OCC
will still accept a large variety of common stocks as margin
collateral, and no clearing member has indicated to OCC that it will
have difficulty satisfying its margin requirement(s) once OCC
implements the proposed rule change. Therefore, OCC believes that any
burden on competition imposed by the proposed rule change is
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were not and are not
intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and
none have been received.

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 such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.
    The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions
required with respect to the proposal are completed.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ OCC also filed the proposed rule change as an advance
notice under Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act entitled the Payment,
Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010. See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-OCC-2014-14 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-OCC-2014-14. 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 OCC and on OCC's
Web site (http://www.theocc.com/components/docs/legal/rules_and_bylaws/sr_occ_14_14.pdf). 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-OCC-2014-14 and should be submitted on or before August
26, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-18430 Filed 8-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 195 (Thursday, October 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60886-60888]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25636]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC............  CP15-554-000
                                          PF15-6-000
Dominion Transmission, Inc..............  CP15-555-000
                                          PF15-5-000
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC and          CP15-556-000
 Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that on September 18, 2015, Atlantic Coast Pipeline,
LLC (ACP), 120 Tredgar Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219 filed an
application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of
the Commission's regulations requesting authorization to install,
construct, own, operate and maintain certain natural gas pipeline
facilities for its Atlantic Coast Pipeline project consisting of: (i)
Approximately 564.1 miles of various diameter pipeline; (ii) three
greenfield compressor stations totaling 117,545 horsepower (HP) of
compression; and (iii) various appurtenant and auxiliary facilities
designed to transport up to approximately 1.5 million dekatherms per
day (MMDth/d) of natural gas. Facilities to be constructed are located
in Harrison, Lewis, Upshur, Randolph, and Pocahontas Counties, West
Virginia; Highland, Augusta, Nelson, Buckingham, Cumberland, Prince
Edward, Nottoway, Dinwiddie, Brunswick, Greensville and Southampton
Counties and the Cities of

Suffolk and Chesapeake, Virginia; and Northampton, Halifax, Nash,
Wilson, Johnston, Sampson, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North
Carolina. Additionally, ACP is seeking Blanket Certificates of public
convenience and necessity pursuant to Part 284, Subpart G authorizing
the transportation of natural gas for others, and Part 157, Subpart F
authorizing certain facility construction, operation and abandonment
activities, all as more fully described in the application.
    In a related filing, on September 18, 2015, Dominion Transmission,
Inc. (DTI), 707 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, filed under
sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the
Commission's regulations requesting authorization to abandon, install,
construct, own, operate and maintain certain natural gas pipeline
facilities for its Supply Header Project (Supply Header) located in
Westmoreland and Greene Counties, Pennsylvania; and Harrison,
Doddridge, Tyler, Wetzel, and Marshall Counties, West Virginia. The
Supply Header would provide transportation service of approximately 1.5
MMDth/d from supply areas on the DTI system for delivery to the ACP.
The Supply Header facilities would consist of: (i) Two pipeline loops
of 30-inch diameter pipeline totaling 37.5 miles; ii) added compression
at three existing compressor stations totaling 70,530 HP; and iii)
various appurtenant and auxiliary facilities. DTI also proposes to
abandon two compressor units in Wetzel County, West Virginia, all as
more fully described in the application.
    Finally, on September 18, 2015, ACP and Piedmont Natural Gas
Company, Inc. (Piedmont), 4720 Piedmont Row Drive, Charlotte, North
Carolina 28210, filed a joint application under section 7(c) of the NGA
and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations seeking authorization of a
lease pursuant to which ACP will lease capacity (Lease) on Piedmont's
system for use by ACP in providing service under its FERC Gas Tariff,
primarily for the Public Service Company of North Carolina, Inc.
Piedmont, a local distribution company (LDC), also requests a limited
jurisdiction certificate in order to enter into the Lease with ACP for
the interstate transportation of gas through Piedmont's facilities.
Piedmont also requests a determination that the Lease will not affect
its status and a LDC not otherwise subject to Commission regulation,
all as more fully described in the application.
    The filings may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll
free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding ACP's or DTI's projects should be directed
to Angela Woolard, Gas Transmission Certificates, Dominion
Transmission, Inc., 701 East Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding the ACP--Piedmont Lease should be directed
to Matthew Bley, Director, Gas Transmission Certificates, Dominion
Transmission, Inc., 701 East Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    On November 13, 2014, the Commission staff granted ACP's and DTI's
requests to utilize the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Pre-
Filing Process and assigned Docket Nos. PF15-6-000 and PF15-5-000,
respectively to staff activities involving the combined Atlantic Coast
Pipeline and Supply Header projects. Now, as of the filing of the
applications on September 18, 2015, the NEPA Pre-Filing Process for
this project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be
conducted in Docket No. CP15-554-000 for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline
and CP15-555-000 for DTI's Supply Header project, as noted in the
caption of this Notice.
    Within 90 days after the Commission issues a Notice of Application
for the ACP, Supply Header and ACP--Piedmont Lease projects, the
Commission staff will issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental
Review that will indicate the anticipated date for the Commission's
staff issuance of the final EIS analyzing both the three proposals. The
issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will also
serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the
completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to
complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of
issuance of the Commission staff's final EIS.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 23, 2015.

    Dated: October 2, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-25636 Filed 10-7-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 26 (Monday, February 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7022-7023]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02485]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket No. FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1415]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency; DHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On July 9, 2014, FEMA published in the Federal Register a
proposed flood hazard determination notice that contained an erroneous
table. This notice provides corrections to that table, to be used in
lieu of the information published at 79 FR 38934. The table provided
here represents the proposed flood hazard determinations and
communities affected for Rockingham County, New Hampshire (All
Jurisdictions).

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before May 11, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), and where
applicable, the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report for each community
are available for inspection at both the online location and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1415, to
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER> or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed in the table below, in
accordance with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP may only be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the table below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard determinations shown on the Preliminary FIRM and
FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR
67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations will also be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
are made final.

Correction

    In the proposed flood hazard determination notice published at 79
FR 38934 in the July 9, 2014, issue of the Federal Register, FEMA
published a table titled ``Rockingham County, New Hampshire (All
Jurisdictions)''. This table contained inaccurate information as to the
communities affected by the proposed flood hazard determinations.
    In this document, FEMA is publishing a table containing the
accurate information. The information provided below should be used in
lieu of that previously published.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: January 16, 2015.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Community                 Community map repository address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Rockingham County, New Hampshire (All Jurisdictions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Portsmouth...................  City Hall, One Junkins Avenue,
                                        Portsmouth, NH 03801.
Seabrook Beach Village District......  Town Office, 99 Lafayette Road,
                                        Seabrook, NH 03874.
Town of Exeter.......................  Town Office, 10 Front Street,
                                        Exeter, NH 03833.
Town of Greenland....................  Town Office, 575 Portsmouth
                                        Avenue, Greenland, NH 03840.
Town of Hampton......................  Town Office, 100 Winnacunnet
                                        Road, Hampton, NH 03842.
Town of Hampton Falls................  Town Hall, One Drinkwater Road,
                                        Hampton Falls, NH 03844.
Town of New Castle...................  Town Office, 49 Main Street, New
                                        Castle, NH 03854.
Town of Newfields....................  Town Hall, 65 Main Street,
                                        Newfields, NH 03856.
Town of Newington....................  Town Office, 205 Nimble Hill
                                        Road, Newington, NH 03801.
Town of Newmarket....................  Town Hall, 186 Main Street,
                                        Newmarket, NH 03857.
Town of North Hampton................  Town Office, 233 Atlantic Avenue,
                                        North Hampton, NH 03862.
Town of Rye..........................  Town Office, 10 Central Road,
                                        Rye, NH 03870.
Town of Seabrook.....................  Town Office, 99 Lafayette Road,
                                        Seabrook, NH 03874.
Town of Stratham.....................  Town Office, 10 Bunker Hill
                                        Avenue, Stratham, NH 03885.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-02485 Filed 2-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 18754]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8026]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR09-6-003]

J-W Pipeline Company; Notice of Motion for Extension of Rate Case
Filing Deadline

    Take notice that on March 28, 2011, J-W Pipeline Company (J-W)
filed a request for an extension consistent with the Commission's
revised policy of periodic review from a triennial to a five year
period. The Commission in Order No. 735 modified its policy concerning
periodic reviews of rates charges by section 311 and Hinshaw pipelines
to extend the cycle for such reviews from three to five years.\1\
Therefore, J-W requests that the date for its next rate filing be
extended to November 21, 2013, which is five years from the date of J-
W's most recent rate filing with this Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Contract Reporting Requirements of Intrastate Natural Gas
Companies, Order No. 735, 131 FERC ] 61,150 (May 20, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 8, 2011.

    Dated: March 30, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-8026 Filed 4-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback. I expect to file a separate comment on other aspects of the proposed regulation later.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

The Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of the proposed regulation indicate that FDA expects there will be a very small number of applications for e-cigarette products.  Speaking from my own experience, this would probably include only a fraction of the products that I use and that are important for me avoiding returning to smoking.
I have used about 50 different varieties of e-cigarette liquid over the last year.  I have used at least 10 different pieces of e-cigarette hardware.  In addition, all the products I use  combine different liquid and hardware.  I would estimate that my favorite vendor sells nearly one hundred different products.
Either FDA's estimates for the number of filings under the Paperwork Reduction Act are a huge underestimate, or FDA is admitting that the paperwork burden will drive most of these products off of the market.  If it is the latter, the burden of the paperwork would fall not just on the merchants, but on myself and other consumers.
I was able to quit smoking and not return to it because of the variety of products available.  If I had been limited to just a few products, I would have probably returned to smoking.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 32 (Friday, February 17, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10960]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03192]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0054]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Trent River, New Bern, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the U.S. 70 (Alfred A. Cunningham)
Bridge across the Trent River, mile 0.0, at New Bern, NC. The deviation
is necessary to accommodate the free movement of pedestrians and
vehicles during the 2017 Neuse River Bridge Run. This deviation allows
the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. on March
11, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2017-0054], 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. Mickey Sanders, Bridge
Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398-
6587, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The event director, Game On Inc., with
approval from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, who owns
and operates the U.S. 70 (Alfred A. Cunningham) Bridge across the Trent
River, mile 0.0, at New Bern, NC, has requested a temporary deviation
from the current operating regulations. This temporary deviation is
necessary to accommodate the free movement of pedestrians and vehicles
during the 2017 Neuse River Bridge Run. The bridge is a double bascule
bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 14 feet
above mean high water.
    The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.843(a).
Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be maintained in the
closed-to-navigation position from 6:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. on March 11,
2017. The Trent River is used by a variety of vessels including small
commercial vessels and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has
carefully coordinated the restrictions with waterway users in
publishing this temporary deviation.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may
do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and
there is no immediate alternate route for vessels unable to pass
through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also
inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast
Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge
so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts
caused by this temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: February 13, 2017.
Hal R. Pitts,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-03192 Filed 2-16-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P