1 SUPPORTING STATEMENT INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST ( EPA ICR Number 2016.01)

Drinking Water Customer Satisfaction Survey U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Drinking Water Protection Division i APPENDICIES Appendix A. Copy of First Federal Register notice for the Drinking Water Customer Satisfaction Survey ( 66 FR 209)

Appendix B. Summary of comments received in response to the first Federal Register notice.

Appendix C. Drinking Water Customer Satisfaction Survey and associated script ii ACRONYMS ASDWA Association of State Drinking Water Administrators AWWA American Water Works Association BLS Bureau of Labor and Statistics CASRO Council of American Survey Research Organizations CATI Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing CCR Consumer Confidence Reports EPA Environmental Protection Agency FR Federal Register ICR Information Collection Request OGWDW Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water OMB Office of Management and Budget NEETF National Environmental Education and Training Foundation NGWA National Ground Water Association RDD Random Digital Dial SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SWA Source Water Assessment SSI Survey Sampling Inc. 1 PART A 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title of the Information Collection Drinking Water Customer Satisfaction Survey 1( b) Short Characterization This Information Collection Request ( ICR) calculates the burden and costs associated with a survey, prepared by the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water ( OGWDW), on the effectiveness of the Environmental Protection Agency's ( EPA) right to know efforts.

The 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act ( SDWA) require EPA to ensure drinking water information is amde available to the general public. This survey will allow the EPA to evaluate current public awareness initiatives for disseminating drinking water information to the public. Conducting this survey will help the EPA assess general consumer perceptions and habits concerning drinking water. By gauging the effectiveness of current outreach activities, the Agency will measure whether information efforts are meeting customer needs. The Agency will also gain insight on how to improve the way this information is disseminated in the future.

The information collected will involve 1000 randomly selected adults from the general public. The survey will be conducted by the Gallup organization under contract to EPA. The selected individuals will be asked specific questions concerning general consumer awareness issues, consumer confidence reports ( annual water quality reports), source water assessments, and customer preferences with respect to receiving information. In addition, the survey asks demographic questions about factors that we suspect may be drivers of satisfaction. These factors include consumer perceptions of water quality, concerns about taste and odor, and whether consumers currently drink bottled water or filter their tap water.

The survey instrument is a voluntary telephone questionnaire, averaging 11 minutes, that covers 26 questions. EPA will conduct this survey only once during the period for which this ICR is in effect.

The total estimated cost to respondents is $ 3,016.96. The total estimated cost to EPA is $ 70,065.37.

2. NEED FOR AND USE FOR THE COLLECTION 2 2( a) Need/ Authority For The Collection The 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act gave EPA new responsibilities to ensure information about drinking water is made available to the American people. Section 114( a) of the SDWA requires public water systems to provide annual water quality reports to their customers ( consumer confidence reports), improved public notification of drinking water violations, and increased information about sources and potential threats to drinking water. These requirements make EPA responsible for ensuring the American public receives and understands relevant information about its drinking water.

This section of the SDWA also directs the EPA to engage in other public information efforts, such as maintaining a drinking water hotline and consulting with the public when proposing new drinking water regulations. In implementing these new public information requirements, the EPA recognizes a responsibility to evaluate the Agency's effectiveness in this new role to make sure these provisions are serving customer needs. Hence, this survey has been designed to ask respondents specific questions to determine whether EPA's drinking water right to know efforts are adequate under the SDWA.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data This survey will enable EPA to identify whether its drinking water information efforts are:   Successfully reaching the intended audience   Meeting customer information needs   Meeting customer format and distribution preferences While the information will not be used for regulatory development, the EPA anticipates that the results of this survey may lead to a reallocation of resources, possible revision in certain Agency processes and policies, and development of guidance related to EPA customer service products. Ultimately, these changes will result in improvements in services the Agency provides to the public, and in turn, the public's perception of the Agency and knowledge of its drinking water.

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3 3( a) Nonduplication EPA has made an effort to ensure that the data collection efforts associated with this ICR are not duplicated. EPA has consulted state environmental programs, as well as interested non governmental organizations ( e. g. the National Environmental Education and Training Foundation ( NEETF) and American Water Works Association ( AWWA)).

3( b) Public Notice In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( § 3501 et seq.), EPA solicited comments on this Information Collection Request. A Federal Register ( FR) notice for the Drinking Water Customer Satisfaction Survey was published on October 29, 2001 ( 66 FR 209). A copy of this FR notice has been included in Appendix A. EPA received and reviewed several comments in response to the FR notice. A summary of these comments is included in Appendix B.

3( c) Consultations In addition to the comments received, EPA consulted with each of the branches involved in funding this survey effort. Each branch was requested to review the questionnaire to determine the need for requesting this information. EPA also contacted the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, National Defense Council, and National Rural Water Association to comment on the survey questions. EPA contacted the American Water Works Association to discuss methodology. EPA also consulted with Janet Pawlukiewicz, Director of the Water Protection Task Force to determine if any sensitive issues may arise from the survey. Additional comments received as a result of these consultations were incorporated and included in the survey instrument before proceeding with discussions to finalize the survey with Gallup.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Since individuals will only be surveyed once during the period for which this ICR is in effect, it is not possible to collect this information less frequently. Therefore, determination of the effects of less frequent information collection is not applicable to this request.

3( e) General Guideline This ICR complies with OMB's general guidelines for the collection of information. Under no circumstances will the respondents be required to take any of the following actions: 4   Report information to EPA more than quarterly   Prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of a request   Submit more than an original and two copies of any document   Retain records for more than three years   Participate in a statistical study that is not designed to produce data that can be generalized to the universe of the study   Utilize a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB   Receive a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use   Submit proprietary, trade secret, or other confidential information, unless EPA can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information's confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.

3( f) Confidentiality EPA does not expect to receive confidential information from the individuals voluntarily participating in the Drinking Water Customer Satisfaction Survey. In addition, neither EPA nor any other person or entity will have access to the raw survey data, which will remain in the survey database under the control of the contractor hired to perform the survey. The contractor ( Gallup) will be required to keep any sensitive information confidential.

3( g) Sensitive Questions Sensitive questions are defined in the ICR instructions as " questions concerning sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, or other matters usually considered private." The Drinking Water Customer Satisfaction Survey contains no sensitive questions. 5 4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes Possible respondents for the Drinking Water Customer Satisfaction Survey are members of the general public; their participation in the survey is not related to their profession. Therefore, the assignment of a SIC code is not appropriate.

4( b) Information Requested 4( b)( i) Data Items The Drinking Water Customer Satisfaction Survey will be administered to members of the general public selected randomly from all households in the United States.

The survey will request the following information from the respondents:

  Participant Screening Information: These questions seek to identify whether the respondent or anyone in the respondent's household is over 18 and whether the respondent is willing to participate in the survey. This data is important in identifying the eligibility of respondents to complete the survey.

  General Tap Water Questions: These questions ask the respondent what they use tap water for ( i. e. drinking, cooking ), whether they treat water ( i. e. filter, boil ), and the perceptions they have on their water quality ( i. e. taste, odor ). This data will allow EPA to determine the public's use and perception regarding their drinking water.

  CCR Questions: These questions ask whether the respondent received, read, understood, and trusted their CCR and whether they took action as a result of what they learned. This data will be used by the EPA as an indicator of whether CCRs are being received, understood, and used by the respondents. These questions also provide and opportunity for respondents to suggest what EPA can do to make CCRs more effective.

  General Source Water Questions: These questions request information from the respondents' on their knowledge of source water and whether they receive and are satisfied with information regarding source water issues. This data is important in order to determine if the public is making the link between source water and drinking water. EPA will use this information to evaluate whether the general public understands this interconnection and determine if outreach efforts need to be reevaluated. 6   Source Water Contamination Questions: These questions seek information regarding the respondents' knowledge of issues involving source water contamination, from whom they receive information regarding source water contamination, whether they trust the information, and what actions have they taken as an effort to prevent source water contamination. This data is important in order for the EPA to determine what is the best way to inform the public on contamination issues and what the public can do to protect their drinking water sources.

  Demographic Information: These questions seek to categorize the respondent's race or ethnicity, level of education and place of residence. This information is important to identify variances in individual responses and within specific populations.

A copy of the survey and its associated script are attached to this ICR as Appendix C of the Supporting Statement. There are no record keeping items specifically required by this survey.

4( b)( ii) Respondent Activities Individuals randomly selected to participate in EPA's Drinking Water Customer Satisfaction Survey could potentially perform each of the following tasks over the phone:

  Listen to introductory information   Respond to Screening Questions   Complete the Survey These activities represent a voluntary information collection for each respondent and are not customary practices of the respondent.

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED   AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION, METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 7 5( a) Agency Activities Agency activities associated with the collection of information include:

  Developing questionnaire   Pretesting questionnaire   Internal EPA review and approval of questionnaire   Reviewing data   Analyzing results   Preparing findings   Reviewing findings   Making results public via annual reports and internet 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management The survey instrument averages 11 minutes and is a voluntary telephone questionnaire covering 26 questions. Gallup will use Random Digital Dial ( RDD) procedures to generate a probability sample of households with telephone service ( including those with unlisted and non published numbers). In each household contacted, the number of all residents over 18 will be collected from a knowledgeable adult. Using the " most recent birthday" method, one adult will be selected to represent each eligible household. Withinhousehold selection probabilities will be calculated by a computer assisted telephone interviewing ( CATI) program and stored for use in the constructing sampling weights, as described further below.

The RDD sample will be selected using the most current database of assigned area codeprefix combinations ( the first 8 digits of a 10 digit telephone number) covering the entire nation obtained from Bell Core Research ( Bellcore). The initial list will exclude any area code prefix combinations known by Bellcore to contain only business listings, toll free numbers, cellular numbers, and other non residential lines.

Gallup will complete 1,000 interviews using a CATI methodology. The 95 percent level of confidence will provide an error range of approximately plus/ minus 3 percent at the national level. A ten call back design will be used for this study.

Upon survey close out, the contractor will develop estimates for the target population by suitably weighting the sample data. The basic weights will be a function of selection probabilities. In the calculation of weights, the number of adult household members and the number of telephone lines ( multiple telephones) in the selected household will be taken into consideration. Gallup will also use post stratification weighting to make the sample reflect the population it is intended to represent. For calculating weights, 2001 estimates of the 2000 Census data will be used. The sampling error will be approximated through the use of standard errors, at a confidence level of 95 percent. 8 5( c) Small Entity Flexibility EPA does not believe that this ICR will have a " significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities." The Drinking Water Customer Satisfaction Survey is strictly voluntary and targeted to members of the general public, who fall outside the definition of a "" small entity" provided in Section 601 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

5( d) Collection Schedule Information collection will begin upon approval of this ICR and the assignment of an OMB control number to the survey instrument. The collection schedule for the survey is expected to follow the approximate timeline presented below, beginning upon OMB approval of the ICR.

Activity Timeline Administer telephone survey Within 10 days after OMB approval Analyze survey results Within 7 days after completion of survey Report survey findings Within 30 days after completion of analysis 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND THE COST OF THE COLLECTION 6( a) Estimating the Respondent Burden The estimates of the time burden involved in responding to the survey are derived from a survey pretest. The respondent burden is presented by type. Two types of respondents have been identified:

  Screening only respondents: These respondents were asked screening questions but were either determined to be ineligible ( not over 18) or declined to participate in the survey.   Survey respondents: These respondents participated in the survey EPA estimates that there will be approximately 250 screening only respondents. The estimated average burden for screening only respondents is approximately one minute. The estimated average burden for survey respondents is an average of 11 minutes per respondent.

Table 6.1 shows the individual burden for screening only and survey respondents Table 6.1 Individual Burden Per Respondent 9 Respondent Type Burden Minutes/ Respondent Total Burden Minutes Screening only 1 250 Survey respondents 11 11,000 6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs 6( b)( i) Estimating Labor Costs This is a non rule related ICR. Therefore, the labor costs to perform functions related to the collection of information reflect the opportunity costs of labor ( i. e., labor rates based on employer costs, including fringe benefits such as paid leave, insurance benefits, unemployment insurance, Social Security and minimal overhead costs). Labor costs for responding is estimated at $ 16.07 per hour based on the " Employer Cost for Employment Compensation" ( Bureau of Labor and Statistics ( BLS), March 2001). The labor cost is based on BLS's estimate for average hourly wage rates for workers throughout the country.

Table 6.2 shows the cost per screening only and survey respondents. $ 16.07 per hour was rounded to $ 0.27 per minute for the purpose of calculating the cost.

Table 6.2 Cost Per Respondent Respondent Type BurdenMinutes / Respondents Cost/ Respondent @$ 0.27/ minute Total Cost Screening only 1 $ 0.27 $ 67.50 Survey respondents 11 $ 2.97 $ 2,970.00 6( b)( ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs EPA does not expect respondents to the Drinking Water Customer Satisfaction Survey to incur any capital or operations and maintenance costs. This information collection is voluntary and does not require special equipment.

6( b)( iii) Capital/ Start up vs. Operating and Maintenance Costs Not applicable 6( b)( iv) Annualizing Capital Costs 10 Not applicable 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost Table 6.3 provides the estimates of EPA's burden and cost associated with the Drinking Water Customer Satisfaction Survey. Wage estimates for Agency personnel are divided into three general categories of labor: Management ( GS 15); Technical ( GS 13); and Clerical ( GS 7). EPA personnel participating in this survey are assumed to be management and technical personnel. Civil Service wage estimates are based on the 2002 pay scale for Washington, DC employees and include a benefits multiplier of 1.6.

  Civil Service ( Manager) $ 70.58/ Hour   Civil Service ( Technical) $ 50.77/ Hour Table 6.3 Agency Burden/ Cost for Drinking Water Customer Satisfaction Survey Activities Burden Hours for Manager @ $ 70.58/ Hour Burden Hours for Technical @ 50.77/ Hour Total Hours Total Costs Develop questionnaire 10 140 150 $ 7,813.60 Pretesting questionnaire 0 2 2 $ 101.54 Internal EPA review and approval of questionnaire 4 10 14 $ 790.02 Reviewing data 2 20 22 $ 1,156.56 Analyzing results 4 60 64 $ 3,328.52 Preparing findings 0 15 15 $ 761.55 Reviewing findings 4 10 14 $ 790.02 Making results public via annual reports and internet 2 20 22 $ 1,156.56 Total Hours 26 277 303 Total Cost $ 1,835.08 $ 14,063.29 $ 15,898.37 $ 15,898.37 In addition to the labor burden/ cost shown in the table above, EPA has a fix cost contract with Gallup. Gallup will be conducting the survey, entering data, and analyzing findings. The contract with Gallup for these services is for $ 54,167.00.

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Cost Burden The Universe for this survey is the non institutional adult ( 18 years of age or older) population residing in the United States. Table 6.4 shows the bottom line burden hours and costs for the respondents 11 Table 6.4 Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs ( Respondents) Respondent Type Number of Respondents Total Hours Total Burden Cost Screening Only Respondents 250 4 1/ 6 $ 67.50 Survey Respondents 1,000 183 1/ 3 $ 2,970.00 Total 1,250 187 ½ $ 3037.50 See Table 6.3 for specific agency hours and costs. The total cost for the Agency ( including the contract with Gallup) is $ 70,065.37.

6( e)( i) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables Table 6.5 details the total bottom line burden ( respondent and EPA) associated with this survey effort. Table 6.3 in section 6( c), estimating Agency burden and cost, and Table 6.4 in section 6( d), estimating the respondent universe and total burden and costs, detail how these total figures were derived.

Table 6.5 Bottom line Burden and Cost Burden Category Burden Hours Burden Cost Respondent 187 1/ 2 $ 3,037.50 EPA Labor 303 $ 15,898.37 EPA Contract with Gallup NA $ 54,167.00 Total Bottom Line Burden 490 1/ 2 $ 73,102.87 6( e)( ii) The Agency Tally See section 6( c), estimating Agency burden and cost, for information on how the bottomline Agency costs were derived.

6( e)( iii) Variation in the Annual Bottom Line EPA does not anticipate significant variation in the annual respondent reporting/ recordkeeping burden or cost over the course of the clearance period for this survey.

6( f) Reasons for Change in the Burden This section is not applicable since this is a new ICR. 12 6( g) Burden Statement The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to range between 1 minute per response for the screener survey and 11 minutes per response for the full survey. This includes time to listen to survey instructions, respond to survey screening questions, and complete the survey. The average respondent's response cost is $ 0.27 for screening only respondents and $ 2.97 for survey respondents.

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average between 1 and 11 minutes per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal Agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental Information ( OEI), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, MC 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20460, and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR Number 2016.01 in any correspondence.

PART B 1. SURVEY OBJECTIVES, KEY VARIABLES, AND OTHER PRELIMINARIES 1( a) Survey Objectives 13 EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water is proposing to conduct a survey of U. S. households to gain information on the public's knowledge, perception of certain drinking water issues, and whether they are receiving pertinent information on such issues, in order to evaluate the effectiveness of its current right to know efforts.

EPA expects the following issues to be addressed by the Drinking Water Customer Satisfaction Survey:

  The extent to which information on relevant drinking water topics are reaching the intended audience   The extent to which the audience understands the information that it receives   Whether the audiences' information needs are met   Whether information is being presented and distributed in a way that is satisfactory to its audience 1( b) Key Variables The key variables associated with this survey effort include the level of knowledge and information received by drinking water customers regarding:

  their tap water   contamination of tap water   source water   contamination of source water 1( c) Statistical Approach The primary objective in conducting the Drinking Water Customer Satisfaction Survey is to measure the extent to which the general public is aware of, and receiving information on, certain issues relating to their drinking water and how the EPA can improve this knowledge.

1 ( d) Feasibility EPA has reviewed the administrative procedures to conduct the Drinking Water Customer Satisfaction Survey and it has concluded that it is feasible to undertake the survey. EPA has sufficient funding to conduct the survey and has put a contract in place to provide the necessary logistical support. The survey was peer reviewed by staff from all three branches of the Drinking Water Protection Division to ensure that the questions asked will reveal sufficient information to evaluate if right to know efforts are adequately providing drinking water information to its customers.

EPA estimates that it will take approximately three months to administer the Drinking Water Customer Satisfaction Survey, collect and analyze survey responses, and report its 1 The sampling error is calculated as 1.96* SQRT{( P*( 1 P)/ n)}, where P is the unknown population proportion ( assumed to be equal to .5) and n is the sample size. 14 findings. EPA plans to initiate this survey within weeks of receiving OMB approval and, therefore, expects to complete the survey well within the period for which this ICR is in effect.

2. SURVEY DESIGN 2( a) Target Population and Coverage EPA will target the non institutional adult ( 18 years of age or older) population residing in the United States at the household level. Respondents will be selected randomly. The coverage for this survey is the non institutional adult ( 18 years of age or older) population residing in the U. S. at the household level with residential phone service.

2( b) Sample Design 2( b)( i) Sampling Frame The sampling frame comes from the random digit dial ( RDD) database of both listed and unlisted telephone numbers maintained by Survey Sampling Inc. ( SSI). The frame is created by assembling a database of all possible combination of valid area code exchange combinations that is generated by appending all 10,000 four digit suffixes ( 0000 to 9999) to the area code prefix combinations. The frame is prepared by a commercial sample vendor ( SSI) and poses no potential legal or regulatory obstacles ( e. g., confidentiality) to using the frame. The frame is current, complete, and nonduplicative.

2( b)( ii) Sample Size The survey will complete 1000 interviews, which is derived to achieve approximately plus/ minus 3% of sampling error1 at the 95% level of confidence. The gain in terms of precision by increasing the sample size by 500 more to 1500 would yield a 0.5% reduction of sampling error from 3.1% to 2.53% at the 95% level of confidence. On the other hand, reducing the sample size by half to 500 would yield an increase of sampling error from 3.1% to more than 4% ( i. e., 4.38%) at the 95% confidence level.

Considering both the precision and the cost, the sample size of 1000 with a 3.1% margin of error at the 95% level of confidence will provide an adequate precision for national estimates of key items representing measurable program objectives while also providing adequate numbers of cases for standard demographic breakdowns. 2 Casady, R. & Lepkowski, J. ( 1993). Stratified telephone sample designs. Survey Methodology, 19, 103 113. 3 Brick, J. M., Waksberg, J., Kulp, D. W., & Starer, A. W. ( 1995). Bias in list assisted telephone samples. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59, 218 235. Giesbrecht, L. H. ( 1997). Coverage bias in various list assisted RDD sample designs. Paper presented at the 52nd Annual conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Norfolk, Virginia, May 16, 1997. 15 2( b)( iii) Stratification Variables There is no stratification variable for this survey.

2( b)( iv) Sampling Method This survey will use a simple Random Digit Dial ( RDD) sampling method. The RDD sample will be selected using the most current database assigned area code prefix combinations ( the first 8 digits of a 10 digit telephone number) covering the entire nation ( including Alaska and Hawaii) obtained from Bellcore Research ( Bellcore). The initial list will exclude any area code prefix combinations know by Bellcore to contain only business listings, toll free numbers, cellular numbers, and other non residential lines. In choosing a RDD sample, the procedure implicitly chooses a random grouping of 100 banks. A bank is a group of 100 consecutive numbers that share their first eight digits   that is, their area code, exchange, and the first two numbers of their four digit suffixes. For example, all the possible telephone numbers beginning 301 515 33_ _ form a single bank. Prior to selection, the banks are classified according to the number of residential listings they contain. In the method developed by Casady and Lepkowski ( 1993), 2numbers from the stratum of banks containing no residential listings (" zero" banks) are under sampled to reduce the number of calls to unassigned or non working numbers. However, it is more common simply to omit banks that include few residential listings. In this instance, a 3+ design will be used in choosing the banks, which, for a list assisted design, would yield total undercoverage of the household population of about 8.4% ( 6% for non telephone households and another 2.4% of households with phones that are missed by the frame). The omission of these banks sharply increases the proportion of working residential numbers in the sample. Evaluations of the bias associated with the omission of such banks indicate that the bias is small ( Brick, Waksberg, Kulp, & Starer, 1995; Giesbrecht, 1997) 3. As a result, both major vendors of telephone samples ( SSI and Genesys) routinely offer samples based on all banks with three or more residential listings.

2( b)( v) Multi Stage Sampling This survey will use two stage sampling. The first stage of sampling involves the selection of household from a simple random RDD sample as described above. The second stage of sampling is randomly selecting one adult from the household by asking for the adult with the most recent birthday. 4 The sampling error is calculated as 1.96* SQRT{( P*( 1 P)/ n)}, where P is the unknown population proportion ( assumed to be equal to .5) and n is the sample size. 16 2( c) Precision Requirements 2( c)( i) Precision Targets EPA's survey has been designed to ensure that, at the 95% level of confidence, it will provide an error range4 of approximately plus/ minus 3% at the national level and 5% for demographic breakouts ( with a sample size of 380 or more).

2( c)( ii) Nonsampling Error In order to minimize the potential nonsampling errors due to faulty measurement procedure or nonrespondents the following steps will be taken. To ensure the uniformity of interview procedures the survey will use a computer assisted telephone interviewing ( CATI) methodology. All interviewers will be trained to identify and avert potential refusals and non respondents. The contractor will also have available a group of interviewer specialists whose task it will be to convert nonrespondents. These individuals include experienced interviewers and supervisors, who are skilled in averting and converting refusals. The combination of a well designed and executed survey with a highly capable staff of interviewers and refusal converters should minimize the magnitude of non response and ensure the reliability of the survey results.

In addition, standard survey techniques that have proven successful in other academic survey efforts will be employed to achieve a maximum response rate. These techniques include:

  Training of interviewers on refusal aversion and conversion techniques   Frequent review of interviewer refusal rates, and close monitoring and re training of interviewers who have rates above the norm   Requiring interviewers to record information about refusals, which may facilitate subsequent interview attempts   Supervisor review of reasons for refusals and efforts to re contact respondents if refusal conversion is deemed possible 2( d) Questionnaire Design A discussion of the data elements contained in the Drinking Water Customer Satisfaction Survey is included in section 4( b)( ii) of part A of the Supporting Statement for this ICR. 17 EPA has designed a questionnaire in which the respondents are asked to answer primarily yes/ no and multiple choice questions. By using yes/ no and multiple choice questions, the Agency has substantially reduced the amount of time necessary for the respondent to complete the survey and has ensured consistence in data response and interpretation.

The survey instrument was developed in consultation with staff and management of the three branches of the Drinking Water Protection Division, The Association of Safe Drinking Water Administrators, and the Gallup Organization to ensure that respondents will understand the questions asked and will provide the type of data necessary to measure the Agency's objectives. The survey was also designed with the help of a statistician to ensure the reliability of the data.

3. PRETESTS AND PILOT TESTS The Drinking Water Customer Satisfaction Survey has gone through a rigorous review process in various stages. This review process included reviewing the overall design, skip patterns, proofing, CATI programming, and timing of the survey using specially designed computer software. Furthermore, Gallup has performed an informal pretest to 7 coworkers not involved with this survey, in order to discover any potential problems with the wording of the questions. Thus, potential problems associated with the questionnaire design are expected to be minimal. For this reason, a formal pretest of the survey will be conducted during the initial stage of the interviewing process. The pretest will be carried out by stopping the interviewing process after completing the first 20 interviews and checking for potential problems.

4. COLLECTION METHODS AND FOLLOW UP 4( a) Collection Methods Based on statistical literature, EPA expects a higher response rate with a telephone survey than the Agency would otherwise realize with a survey sent in the mail. A higher response rate decreases the size of the sample frame needed, and the level of follow up required, to achieve the Agency's target precision rates and confidence levels. Therefore, the EPA chose to administer the Drinking Water Customer Satisfaction Survey using telephone interviews.

Data will be collected through the use of CATI. The CATI system allows a computer to perform a number of functions that are prone to error when done manually by interviewers, including:

  Providing the correct question sequence   Automatically executing skip patterns based on prior answers   Recalling answers to prior questions and displaying the information in the text of later questions. 18   Providing random rotation of specified questions to avoid bias   Ensuring that questions cannot be skipped   Rejecting invalid responses   Carrying out random selection of respondents/ questions Only experienced interviewers will be assigned to the study. Thus, no general interviewing training will be required. The Gallup Project Director, his/ her staff, and the manager of the telephone interviewing center will provide a study specific briefing. Training will have two components: classroom instruction on the sampling and interviewing methods and questionnaire content, followed by a session of mock interviewing and live practice in the telephone interviewing center using the CATI methodology.

4( b) Survey Response and Follow Up The target response rate of this survey is 80%. This means that 80% of the valid telephone numbers that were randomly selected will result in a completed interview. A response rate of this magnitude will be highly representative of the entire population, enabling EPA to make valid generalizations from the sample data.

The response rate will be measured and evaluated as defined by the Council of American Survey Research Organizations ( CASRO). The CASRO response rate ( CRR) is considered as the industry standard response rate formula to be used for this type of RDD survey. It is defined as follows:

CRR = ( number of completed interviews)/( Estimated number of eligibles) = ( number of completed interviews)/( Known Eligibles + Presumed Eligibles)

It is straightforward to find the number of completed interviews and the number of known eligibles. The estimation of the number of ` Presumed Eligibles' is done in the following way. In terms of eligibility, all respondents ( irrespective of whether any contact/ interview was obtained or not) may be divided into three groups: ( i) known eligibles i. e. cases where the respondents, based on their responses to screening questions, were found eligible for the survey, ( ii) known ineligibles i. e. cases where the respondents, based on their responses to screening questions, were found ineligible for the survey and ( iii) eligibility unknown; ( i. e. cases where the screening questions could not be asked ( for example, there was never any human contact) and hence the eligibility is unknown. Based on cases where eligibility status is known ( known eligible or known ineligible), the eligibility rate ( ER) is computed as:

ER = ( known eligibles)/( known eligibles + known ineligibles).

So, the ER is the proportion of eligibles found in the group of respondents for whom the eligibility could be established. At the next step, the number of Presumed Eligibles is calculated as: 19 Presumed Eligibles = ( ER) * ( Number of respondents in the Eligibility Unknown group).

The basic assumption here is that the eligibility rate among cases where eligibility could not be established is the same as the eligibility rate among cases where eligibility status was known.

Also, in order to achieve a maximum response rate the survey will use standard survey techniques that have proven successful in other academic surveys. These techniques include:

  Training of interviewers on refusal aversion and conversion techniques   Frequent review of interviewer refusal rates, and close monitoring and re training of interviewers who have rates above the norm   Requiring interviewers to record information about refusals, which may facilitate subsequent interview attempts   Supervisor review of reasons for refusals and efforts to re contact respondents if refusal conversion is deemed possible If respondents wish to speak to someone regarding any aspect of EPA survey, efforts will include the following:

° Interviewers will be prepared to refer the respondent to EPA by giving them the telephone number of the Safe Drinking Water Hotline ° Interviewers will also be prepared to give the respondent Gallup's 800 number to call for verification that interviewers are representing EPA and The Gallup Organization 5. ANALYZING AND REPORTING SURVEY RESULTS 5 ( a) Data Preparation The data entry procedure with CATI system allows the interviewer to enter responses directly from his or her keyboard. The information is then automatically recorded in the computer's memory. The CATI system includes several safeguards to reduce interviewer error in direct key entry of survey responses. 20 First, the CATI system has a double check method to eliminate the problem of key entry error as a result of accidentally hitting the wrong key. Unlike some systems, when the interviewer enters the code for the respondent reply, the code is not immediately accepted. Rather, the screen remains on the question and response categories for the item, and the code and category entered by the interviewer is displayed at the bottom of the screen. Second, the interviewer must confirm the initial entry before it is accepted by the computer as final. If, despite these safeguards, the wrong answer is entered or a respondent changes his/ her reply, the interviewer can correct the entry before moving on to the next question. The CATI system decreases the time required for each interview and, consequently, the overall burden on respondents. It also allows the computer to perform a number of critical assurance routines that are monitored by survey supervisors, including:

! Tracking average interview length, refusal rate, and termination rate by interviewer ! Consistency checks for inappropriate combinations of answers. The CATI system increases the efficiency and validity of the survey and decreases the burden to respondents Data from the CATI output file will be fully edited by the logic of the CATI program and will require no further post survey machine editing. Gallup analysts and programming staff will prepare data file specifications, including variable names, variable labels, and format statements for all data elements collected for the survey. Variable creation algorithms for all derived or composite constructed variables will also be developed. These specifications will be transmitted to the EPA for review and revisions made upon notification. When interviewing is completed, the clean, raw questionnaire data from the CATI database will be extracted and converted into an ASCII file. Application programmers will then prepare the control statements to create the analysis system files in the format preferred by EPA, generate the files, and run raw frequencies for all variables in the data set in order to perform a final check on data integrity.

5 ( b) Analysis Data Analysis and Reporting Sample Weighting and Variance Calculation: Due to the unequal selection probabilities for designated respondents in the specified RDD design, the sample of completed cases will not be a self weighting, simple random sample. Using data from the CATI sample control files, statistical programmers will calculate selection probabilities and weights for all completed cases in the sample. Base weights will be adjusted for non response at the number resolution, household screening, and interviewing stages. Post stratification 21 adjustments will also be made to weights based upon population control totals based on most current U. S. Census data.

Because of the unequal selection probabilities in the sample design, statistical analysis packages such as SAS will not calculate correct sampling variances for the survey estimates. In general, the clustered design and unequal selection probabilities will tend to increase the sampling errors slightly compared to a simple random sample of the same size.

Using an advanced statistical package ( SUDAAN), Gallup's sampling statistician will calculate correct sampling variances for approximately 20 variables. These calculations may be used to estimate a generalized design effect, an inflation factor used to approximate the actual standard errors of statistics of interest.

Technical Documentation: Within ten days after completing the initial analyses, Gallup will submit a brief technical report of approximately 15 pages documenting the questionnaire, sample design, survey procedures, and survey results. This report will address all significant issues ( e. g., unit and item nonresponse rates, sample weights, etc.) that might affect the analysis, interpretation, or confidence in the survey results.

Summary of Findings: Gallup staff will prepare an analysis plan that includes analyses of all core survey items ( customer experiences, perceptions, and satisfaction measures) for the general population and for subpopulations of interest. The plan will include an outline of the substantive report, a specific list of tables to be prepared, and an outline for a methodology section. Gallup's senior project staff will organize a telephone conference with EPA to critique, revise and improve it to meet all current requirements.

Table specifications will be programmed and tested during data collection. When weights are completed and checked, an initial set of weighted frequency distributions and crosstabulations will be run, illustrating the key breakdowns of key indicators by common demographic variables. These will be sent to EPA for review. Any unexpected results will be examined in detail and corrective actions taken on a flow basis.

The draft report on the survey will be concise ( up to 15 pages) yet substantively and technically comprehensive, and will make liberal use of well designed graphs that will communicate the statistical results in a way that is useable for policy makers, the media, and general public.

As described above, the analysis file will be generated from CATI data within one day after interviewing is completed. Gallup will then produce a draft report within seven to ten days from the time the file is available. The draft will be submitted to EPA for review. Upon receipt of feedback, Gallup will revise the report into final form.

5( c) Reporting Results 22 EPA will make the results of the Drinking Water Customer Satisfaction Survey available to its Federal Partners such as the Centers for Disease Control, U. S. Geological Survey, U. S. Department of Agriculture, and U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. EPA will make the results of the survey public on the internet. Furthermore, EPA will provide the results directly to its stakeholders, such as the American Water Works Association, National Rural Water Association, Association of Safe Drinking Water Administrators, and any other interested party whom requests so. EPA will also disseminate the survey results at national conferences and stakeholder meetings. Raw survey data will be maintained by the contractor and will remain unavailable to the public or the Agency.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20021-20024]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07833]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77488; File No. SR-ISEGemini-2016-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change Related to Market Wide Risk Protection

March 31, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on March 17, 2016, the ISE Gemini, LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``ISE
Gemini'') 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 change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to introduce new activity based order
protections as described in more detail below. The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.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 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to introduce new risk
protections for orders designed to aid members in their risk management
by supplementing current price

reasonability checks with activity based order protections.\3\ In
particular, the Exchange proposes to introduce two activity based risk
protections that will be mandatory for all members: (1) The ``Order
Entry Rate Protection,'' which protects members against entering orders
at a rate that exceeds predefined thresholds,\4\ and (2) the ``Order
Execution Rate Protection,'' which protects members against executing
orders at a rate that exceeds their predefined risk settings. Both of
these risk protections are detailed in Proposed Rule 714(d), ``Market
Wide Risk Protection.'' \5\ The Exchange will announce the
implementation date of the Market Wide Risk Protection in a circular to
be distributed to members prior to implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange provides members with limit order price
protections designed to prevent erroneous executions by rejecting
orders priced too far through the market. See Rule 714(b)(2).
    \4\ The Exchange will determine when to initiate the Order Entry
Rate Protection pre-open to allow members time to load their orders
without inadvertently triggering the protection. The precise time
will be established by the Exchange and communicated to members via
circular prior to implementation.
    \5\ The term ``Market Wide Risk Protection'' includes both the
``Order Entry Rate Protection'' and the ``Order Execution Rate
Protection.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the proposed Market Wide Risk Protection rule, the
Exchange's trading system (the ``System'') will maintain one or more
counting programs on behalf of each member that will count the number
of orders entered, and the number of contracts traded on ISE Gemini or,
if chosen by the member,\6\ across both ISE Gemini and ISE Gemini's
affiliate, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''), which
shares a trading system with ISE Gemini. Members can use multiple
counting programs to separate risk protections for different groups
established within the member.\7\ The counting programs will maintain
separate counts, over rolling time periods specified by the member for
each count, of: (1) The total number of orders entered; and (2) the
total number of contracts traded.\8\ Contracts executed on the agency
and contra-side of a two-sided crossing order will be counted
separately for the Order Execution Rate Protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Members will have the option to set different risk
parameters for their trading activity on each exchange, or set risk
parameters that apply to their trading across both ISE Gemini and
ISE, if desired.
    \7\ The Exchange will explain how members can go about setting
up risk protections for different groups (e.g., business units) in a
circular issued to members.
    \8\ The member's allowable order rate for the Order Entry Rate
Protection is comprised of the parameter defined in (1), while the
allowable contract execution rate for the Order Execution Rate
Protection is comprised of the parameter defined in (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Members will have discretion to establish the applicable time
period for each of the counts maintained under the Market Wide Risk
Protection, provided that the selected period must be within minimum
and maximum parameters established by the Exchange and announced via
circular.\9\ While the Market Wide Risk Protection is mandatory for all
members, the Exchange is not proposing to establish minimum or maximum
values for the order entry and execution parameters described in (1)
and (2) above. The Exchange believes that this approach will give
members the flexibility needed to appropriately tailor the Market Wide
Risk Protection to their respective risk management needs. In this
regard, the Exchange notes that each member is in the best position to
determine risk settings appropriate for their firm based on the
member's trading activity and business needs. In the interest of
maintaining a fair and orderly market, however, the Exchange will
establish default values for the applicable time period and order entry
and execution parameters in a circular to be distributed to members.
Default values established by the Exchange will apply only to members
that do not submit their own parameters for the Market Wide Risk
Protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange anticipates that the minimum and maximum values
for the applicable time period will be initially set at one second
and a full trading day, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The System will trigger the Market Wide Risk Protection when the
counting program has determined that the member has either (1) entered
during the specified time period a number of orders exceeding its
designated allowable order rate, or (2) executed during the specified
time period a number of contracts exceeding its designated allowable
contract execution rate. In particular, after a member enters an order,
or a member's order is executed, the System will look back over the
specified time period to determine whether the member has exceeded the
threshold that it has set for the total number of orders entered or the
total number of contracts traded, as applicable. If the member's
threshold has been exceeded, the Market Wide Risk Protection will be
triggered and the System will automatically reject all subsequent
incoming orders entered by the member on ISE Gemini or, if applicable,
across both ISE Gemini and ISE.\10\ In addition, if the member has
opted in to this functionality, the System will automatically cancel
all of the member's existing orders. The Market Wide Risk Protection
will remain engaged until the member manually (e.g., via email)
notifies the Exchange to enable the acceptance of new orders; however,
the System will still allow members to interact with existing orders
entered before the protection was triggered, including sending cancel
order messages and receiving trade executions for those orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Members that set different risk parameters for ISE Gemini
and ISE will only have their orders rejected on the exchange whose
threshold was exceeded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Market Wide Risk Protection
will assist members in better managing their risk when trading on ISE
Gemini. In particular, the proposed rule change provides functionality
that allows members to set risk management thresholds for the number of
orders entered or contracts executed on the Exchange during a specified
period. This is similar to how other options exchanges have implemented
activity-based risk management protections,\11\ and the Exchange
believes this functionality will likewise be beneficial for ISE Gemini
members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74118 (January 22,
2015), 80 FR 4605 (January 28, 2015) (Notice); 74496 (March 13,
2015), 80 FR 14421 (March 19, 2015) (Approval) (SR-MIAX-2015-03).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The examples below illustrate how the Market Wide Risk Protection
would work both for order entry and order execution protections:
    Example 1, Order Entry Rate Protection:
    Broker Dealer 1 (``BD1'') designates an allowable order rate of 499
orders/1 second.

@0 milliseconds, BD1 enters 200 orders. (Order total: 200 orders)
@450 milliseconds, BD1 enters 250 orders. (Order total: 450 orders)
@950 milliseconds, BD1 enters 50 orders. (Order total: 500 orders)

    Market Wide Risk Protection is triggered on ISE Gemini, and, if
applicable, ISE \12\ due to exceeding 499 orders in 1 second. All
subsequent orders are rejected, and if BD1 has opted in to this
functionality, all existing orders are cancelled. BD1 must contact
Market Operations to resume trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Members that share risk settings across both ISE Gemini and
ISE will have the Market Wide Risk Protection triggered on both
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example 2, Order Execution Rate Protection:
    BD1 designates an allowable execution rate of 15,000 contracts/2
seconds.

@0 milliseconds, BD1 receives executions for 5,000 contracts.
(Execution total: 5,000 contracts)
@600 milliseconds, BD1 receives executions for 10,000 contracts.
(Execution total: 15,000 contracts)
@1550 milliseconds, BD1 receives executions for 2,000 contracts.
(Execution total: 17,000 contracts)

    Market Wide Risk Protection is triggered on ISE Gemini, and, if
applicable, ISE \13\ due to exceeding 15,000 contracts in 2 seconds.
All subsequent orders are rejected, and if BD1 has opted in to this
functionality, all existing orders are cancelled. BD1 must contact
Market Operations to resume trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Members that share risk settings across both ISE Gemini and
ISE will have the Market Wide Risk Protection triggered on both
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\14\
Specifically, the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ because it is designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would assist
with the maintenance of a fair and orderly market by establishing new
activity based risk protections for orders. The Exchange currently
offers a risk protection mechanism for market maker quotes that removes
the member's quotes if a specified number of curtailment events occur
during a set time period (``Market Wide Speed Bump'').\16\ The Exchange
believes that this Market Wide Speed Bump functionality has been
successful in reducing market maker risk and now proposes to adopt risk
protections for orders that would allow other members to properly
manage their exposure to excessive risk. In particular, the proposed
rule change would implement two new risk protections based on the rate
of order entry and order execution, respectively. The Exchange believes
that both of these new protections, which together encompass the
proposed Market Wide Risk Protection, would enable members to better
manage their risk when trading options on the Exchange by limiting the
member's risk exposure when systems or other issues result in orders
being entered or executed at a rate that exceeds predefined thresholds.
In today's market the Exchange believes that robust risk management is
becoming increasingly more important for all members. The proposed rule
change would provide an additional layer of risk protection for market
participants that trade on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Rule 804(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Market Wide Risk Protection is similar to risk
management functionality provided by other options exchanges,
including, for example, the MIAX Options Exchange (``MIAX''), which
recently received Commission approval for its ``Risk Protection
Monitor'' for orders.\17\ In particular, the Market Wide Risk
Protection is designed to reduce risk associated with system errors or
market events that may cause members to send a large number of orders,
or receive multiple, automatic executions, before they can adjust their
exposure in the market. Without adequate risk management tools, such as
those proposed in this filing, members could reduce the amount of order
flow and liquidity that they provide. Such actions may undermine the
quality of the markets available to customers and other market
participants. Accordingly, the proposed rule change is designed to
encourage members to submit additional order flow and liquidity to the
Exchange, thereby removing impediments to and perfect [sic] the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, protecting investors and the public interest. In addition,
providing members with more tools for managing risk will facilitate
transactions in securities because, as noted above, the members will
have more confidence that protections are in place that reduce the
risks from potential system errors and market events. As a result, the
new functionality has the potential to promote just and equitable
principles of trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra note 9 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that it is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest to offer the Market
Wide Risk Protection to members across both ISE Gemini and ISE as this
will permit members to more effectively manage their risk
simultaneously on both markets if desired. The Exchange already offers
cross market risk protections for market makers [sic] quotes,\18\ and
is now proposing to similarly offer a cross market risk protection for
orders in order to reduce the risk that members face when entering
orders on multiple exchanges. The Exchange notes that issues that would
trigger the Market Wide Risk Protection are not normally confined to a
member's activity on a single exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that offering the Market Wide Risk Protection on a cross-
market basis would help members to more effectively manage their risk
when trading on multiple markets, and reduce disruptive trading events
to the benefit of all members and investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 71758 (March 20,
2014), 79 FR 16846 (March 26, 2014) (``Notice''); 73148 (September
19, 2014), 79 FR 57626 (September 25, 2014) (Approval) (SR-ISE
Gemini-2014-09).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\19\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden
on intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed
Market Wide Risk Protection is similar to risk protections already
available on other options exchanges,\20\ and is designed to be a
competitive offering that would mitigate the risk associated with
trading on the Exchange. Market makers already benefit from Market Wide
Speed Bump functionality available for quotes. The proposed change
would extend new risk protections to orders so that additional market
participants can benefit from risk mitigating functionality. Like the
Exchange's Market Wide Speed Bump, the proposed rule change would also
be offered cross-market to members that want to be protected from
inadvertent exposure to excessive risk when trading on both ISE Gemini
and ISE. Permitting this functionality to be cross-market will not have
any impact on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In addition, the proposed
functionality would be mandatory for all members, and would be made
available on an equal and non-discriminatory basis. As such, the
Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose
any unnecessary burden on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \20\ See supra notes 10 [sic] and 15 [sic].

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

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Within 45 days of the publication date of this notice or within
such longer period (1) as the Commission may designate up to 45 days of
such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and
publishes its reasons for so finding or (2) 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.

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-ISEGemini-2016-03 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-ISEGemini-2016-03. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISEGemini-2016-03 and should
be submitted on or before April 27, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-07833 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8771-8773]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03072]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-1115; Product Identifier 2018-SW-065-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S-92A
helicopters. This proposed AD was prompted by two incidents of
erroneous low oil pressure caution cockpit indications and unintended
actuation of the main gearbox (MGB) auto bypass valve. This proposed AD
would require installing auxiliary circuit breaker modification (MOD)
kits and inserting a Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) Supplement into the
RFM for your helicopter. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 3,
2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact your local
Sikorsky Field Representative or Sikorsky's Service Engineering Group
at Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, 124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611;
telephone 1-800-Winged-S; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Operators may also log on to the Sikorsky 360 website at https://www.sikorsky360.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
1115; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Schwetz, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA,
1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2019-1115;
Product Identifier 2018-SW-065-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM because of those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The FAA proposes to adopt a new AD for Sikorsky Model S-92A
helicopters. This proposed AD is prompted by two incidents of erroneous
low oil pressure caution cockpit indications and unintended actuation
of the MGB auto bypass valve caused by unintended popping of the M XMSN
OIL WARN circuit breaker during flight. The root cause of this circuit
breaker popping is unknown. When this circuit breaker trips, the
following cautions will display ``MGB PUMP 1 FAIL, MGB PUMP 2 FAIL, MGB
OIL HOT, MGB MAN COOL, MGB OIL PRES.'' With the MGB auto bypass valve
actuated, the MGB BYPASS caution will not annunciate. For the given
conditions, the appropriate action for the crew is ``land as soon as
possible'' in accordance with the RFM Emergency Procedures. The
erroneous indications conflicting with correct gauge readings may
overwhelm the flight crew, resulting in a forced landing of the
helicopter.
    To address this unsafe condition, Sikorsky developed MOD kits based
on helicopter serial number (S/N) to introduce a separate circuit
breaker for the MGB last jet pressure switch. These MOD kits specify
reworking the overhead panel to install new clips and brackets, circuit
breaker wiring harnesses, wiring MODs, the auxiliary circuit breaker
panel, and the M XMSN PRESS SWITCH circuit breaker.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Sikorsky Special Service Instructions No. 92-121,
dated October 26, 2017 (SSI 92-121). This service information describes
procedures for installing an auxiliary circuit breaker panel MOD kit
and M XMSN PRESS SWITCH circuit breaker MOD kit based on helicopter S/
N.
    The FAA also reviewed RFM Supplement No. 45, Revision No. 2,
Sikorsky Model S-92A, Part 1, dated April 27, 2017 (S-92A RFMS 45, Part
1, Revision 2). This service information specifies operating
limitations, preflight checks, normal and emergency procedures, and
malfunction information for helicopters with Avionics Management System
version 7.1 or 8.0 with the MGB OIL OUT warning activated, pump failure
indicating system, MGB auto bypass, and M XMSN PRESS SWITCH circuit
breaker installed.

    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Sikorsky S-92 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin
92-63-037, Revision A, dated March 1, 2018. This service information
contains planning information pertaining to the auxiliary circuit
breaker panel and M XMSN PRESS SWITCH circuit breaker MOD kits,
accomplishing SSI 92-121, and inserting S-92A RFMS 45, Part 1, Revision
2 into the helicopter cockpit.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is proposing this AD after evaluating all the relevant
information and determining that the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same
type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require, within 400 hours time-in-service:
     For helicopters S/N 920006 through 920296 inclusive,
installing an auxiliary circuit breaker panel and M XMSN PRESS SWITCH
circuit breaker by installing MOD Kit Clips and Brackets part number
(P/N) 92070-20115-015, MOD Kit Left Hand (LH) Cockpit Auxiliary Power
Unit P/N 92070-55096-012, MOD Kit LH Cabin Auxiliary Power Unit P/N
92070-55096-013, MOD Kit LH Top Deck FLD P/N 92070-55096-016, MOD Kit
MGB XMSN P/N 92070-55096-017, MOD Kit Auxiliary Circuit Break Panel P/N
92070-55075-011, and MOD Kit Auxiliary Cabin Panel Faceplate P/N 92070-
55075-012.
     For helicopters S/N 920297 through 920304 inclusive and S/
N 920311 through 920314 inclusive, modifying the auxiliary circuit
breaker panel and transmission harness and installing MOD Kit Auxiliary
Cabin Panel Faceplate P/N 92070-55075-012.
     Inserting a copy of S-92A RFMS 45, Part 1, Revision 2 into
the RFM for your helicopter.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 36 helicopters of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimate the following costs to comply with this
proposed AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.
    Modifying helicopters S/N 920006 through 920296 inclusive would
take about 48 work-hours and parts would cost about $1,618 for an
estimated cost of $5,698 per helicopter and $182,336 for the U.S. fleet
size of 32 helicopters.
    Modifying helicopters S/N 920297 through 920304 inclusive and S/N
920311 through 920314 inclusive would take about 2 work-hours and parts
would cost about $65 for an estimated cost of $235 per helicopter and
$940 for the U.S. fleet size of 4 helicopters.
    Revising the RFM would take about 0.5 work-hour for an estimated
cost of $43 per helicopter and $1,548 for the U.S. fleet.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
    2. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation: Docket No. FAA-2019-1115; Product
Identifier 2018-SW-065-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by April 3, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-92A
helicopters, serial number (S/N) 920006 through 920304 inclusive and
S/N 920311 through 920314 inclusive, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code: 6340, Rotor Drive
Indicating System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by two incidents of erroneous low oil
pressure caution cockpit indications and unintended actuation of the
main gearbox (MGB) auto bypass valve. The FAA is issuing this AD to
prevent the M XMSM OIL WARN circuit breaker from presenting
erroneous cautions when tripped. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed, could result in erroneous low oil pressure caution
cockpit indication, unintended actuation of the MGB auto bypass
valve, increased oil temperature, conflicting indications, and
forced landing of the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Required Actions

    Within 400 hours time-in-service:
    (1) For helicopters S/N 920006 through 920296 inclusive:
    (i) Install Modification (MOD) Kit Clips and Brackets part
number (P/N) 92070-20115-015 by following the Instructions,
paragraph B. of Sikorsky Special Service Instructions No. 92-121,
dated October 26, 2017 (SSI 92-121).

    (ii) Install the first portion of MOD Kit Auxiliary Circuit
Breaker Panel P/N 92070-55075-011 by following the Instructions,
paragraph C. of Sikorsky SSI 92-121.
    (iii) Install MOD Kit Left Hand (LH) Cockpit Auxiliary Power
Unit P/N 92070-55096-012 by following the Instructions, paragraph D.
of Sikorsky SSI 92-121.
    (iv) Install MOD Kit LH Cabin Auxiliary Power Unit P/N 92070-
55096-013 by following the Instructions, paragraph E. of Sikorsky
SSI 92-121.
    (v) Install MOD Kit LH Top Deck FLD P/N 92070-55096-016 by
following the Instructions, paragraph F. of Sikorsky SSI 92-121.
    (vi) Install MOD Kit MGB XMSN P/N 92070-55096-017 by following
the Instructions, paragraph G. of Sikorsky SSI 92-121.
    (vii) Install the completion portion of MOD Kit Auxiliary
Circuit Break Panel P/N 92070-55075-011 by following the
Instructions, paragraph H. of Sikorsky SSI 92-121.
    (viii) Install MOD Kit Auxiliary Cabin Panel Faceplate P/N
92070-55075-012 by following the Instructions, paragraph J. of
Sikorsky SSI 92-121.
    (2) For helicopters S/N 920297 through 920304 inclusive and S/N
920311 through 920314 inclusive:
    (i) Modify the auxiliary circuit breaker panel and transmission
harness by following the Instructions, paragraph I. of Sikorsky SSI
92-121.
    (ii) Install MOD Kit Auxiliary Cabin Panel Faceplate P/N 92070-
55075-012 by following the Instructions, paragraph J. of Sikorsky
SSI 92-121.
    (3) Insert a copy of the Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM)
Supplement No. 45, Revision No. 2, Sikorsky Model S-92A, Part 1,
dated April 27, 2017, into the RFM for your helicopter.

 (h) Credit for Previous Actions

    Completion of the Accomplishment Instructions of Sikorsky S-92
Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin 92-63-037, Revision A, dated March
1, 2018, before the effective date of this AD is considered
acceptable for compliance with the actions required by paragraph (g)
of this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Michael Schwetz,
Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, Compliance &
Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA
01803; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact your
local Sikorsky Field Representative or Sikorsky's Service
Engineering Group at Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, 124 Quarry Road,
Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Operators may also log on to
the Sikorsky 360 website at https://www.sikorsky360.com. You may
view this referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-
321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 4, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-03072 Filed 2-14-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 203 (Friday, October 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64023-64024]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22920]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Attendance at the Southwest Power Pool Regional State
Committee Meeting, Quarterly Joint Stakeholder Meeting, Annual Meeting
of Members and Members' Committee/Board of Directors' Meetings

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that Commissioners and members of its staff may attend the
meetings of the Southwest Power Pool, Inc., Regional State Committee
(RSC), Quarterly Joint Stakeholder Meeting, Annual Meeting of Members
and Members' Committee/Board of Directors

(Board) as noted below. Their attendance is part of the Commission's
ongoing outreach efforts.
    The meetings will be held by teleconference at SPP's headquarters,
201 Worthen Drive, Little Rock, AR 72223. All meetings are Central
Time.

SPP RSC and Quarterly Joint Stakeholder Meeting
    October 24, 2022 (1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. CDT)
Annual Meeting of Members and Members' Committee/Board Meeting
    October 25, 2022 (8:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. CDT)

    The discussions may address matters at issue in the following
proceedings:

Docket No. EL19-75, EDF Renewables, Inc., et al. v. Southwest Power
Pool, Inc.
Docket No. EL19-77, Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company v. Southwest Power
Pool, Inc.
Docket No. EL19-93, Western Farmers Electric Cooperative v. Southwest
Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. EL19-96, Cimarron Windpower II, LLC v. Southwest Power Pool,
Inc.
Docket No. EL21-18, Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. v. Evergy
Kansas Central, Inc.
Docket No. EL21-68, Nebraska Public Power District
Docket No. EL21-77, Tenaska Clear Creek Wind, LLC v. Southwest Power
Pool, Inc.
Docket No. EL22-20, Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. v. Evergy
Kansas Central, Inc.
Docket No. EL22-30, Southwestern Public Service Co. v. Southwest Power
Pool, Inc.
Docket No. EL22-54, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. EL22-59, Tenaska Clear Creek Wind, LLC v. Southwest Power
Pool, Inc. et al.
Docket No. EL22-67, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. EL22-68, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. EL22-69, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. EL22-70, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. EL22-75, Nebraska Public Power District
Docket No. EL22-89, Cage Ranch Solar I, LLC and Cage Ranch Solar II,
LLC v. Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-1341, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER18-99, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER18-194, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER18-195, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER18-2358, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER18-2404, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER19-1357, Gridliance High Plains LLC
Docket No. ER20-1313, Gridliance High Plains LLC
Docket No. ER20-1796, Entergy Arkansas, LLC
Docket No. ER20-1954, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER20-1961, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER20-2040, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER20-2041, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER20-2042, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER20-2044, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER20-2574, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER20-2575, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER20-2577, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER21-385, Upper Missouri G. & T. Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Docket No. ER21-1438, Gridliance High Plains LLC
Docket No. ER22-469, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER22-643, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER22-644, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER22-1205, Evergy Kansas Central, Inc.
Docket No. ER22-1378, Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Docket No. ER22-1657, Evergy Kansas Central, Inc.
Docket No. ER22-1697, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER22-1719, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER22-1728, Basin Electric Power Cooperative
Docket No. ER22-1846, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER22-1905, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER22-1986, Basin Electric Power Cooperative
Docket No. ER22-2083, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER22-2339, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER22-2344, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER22-2371, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER22-2372, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER22-2379, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER22-2516, Chaves County Solar II, LLC
Docket No. ER22-2648, Omaha Public Power District
Docket No. ER22-2654, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER22-2660, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER22-2743, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER22-2749, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER22-2813, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER22-2814, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER22-2885, 1000 Mile Solar, LLC
Docket No. ER22-2928, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER22-2968, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER22-2974, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER22-2977, Basin Electric Power Cooperative
Docket No. ER23-11, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER23-13, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER23-17, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER23-18, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER23-69, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER23-72, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    The meetings are open to the public by teleconference. Registration
for the teleconference and additional information are available at
www.spp.org.
    For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy
Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-
5937 or [email protected].

    Dated: October 17, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-22920 Filed 10-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P