[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 117 (Friday, June 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36558-36560]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13041]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95094; File No. SR-MSRB-2022-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
Change Consisting of Amendments to Certain Administrative Rules and
Articles of the By-Laws of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
Relating to the MSRB's Officers

June 13, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on June 7, 2022 the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board (``MSRB'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the MSRB. 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 MSRB filed with the Commission a proposed rule change
consisting of amendments to MSRB Rules A-3, A-4, A-5, and A-8 and
Articles 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 of the By-Laws of the
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (``Bylaws'') (the ``proposed rule
change'') relating to the MSRB's officers. The MSRB has designated the
proposed rule change as concerned solely with the administration of the
self regulatory organization under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. As described below, the
proposed rule change would modify provisions regarding the Board's
officers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's
website at www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2022-Filings.aspx, at the MSRB's principal office, 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 MSRB 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 MSRB 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
Background
    The Bylaws relate to the Board's governance and address topics such
as Board membership, meetings, and officers, among other things. The
current Bylaws are organized into 16 Articles (the proposed rule change
would organize the Bylaws into 14

Articles), and certain of the Articles in the Bylaws parallel MSRB
administrative rules. MSRB Rules A-2 through A-10 are paralleled in the
Bylaws and, when the Board amends any of these administrative rules,
the paralleled Article in the Bylaws is amended also.\5\ The Bylaws are
publicly available on the MSRB's website.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The MSRB amends Articles in the Bylaws that are not
administrative rules pursuant to current Article 16 of the Bylaws
(the proposed rule change would move the text of Article 16 to
Article 14).
    \6\ The Bylaws are available at https://www.msrb.org/-/media/Files/Goverance/By-Laws.ashx?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Designation of Officers of the Board
    MSRB Rule A-5 and Article 5 of the Bylaws contain provisions
regarding officers and employees of the Board and, among other things,
designate the Board's required officer positions. Current MSRB Rule A-5
and Articles 5, 12, 13 and 14 of the Bylaws designate a Chair, Vice
Chair, President, Secretary, General Counsel, Treasurer, Assistant
Treasurer and Assistant Secretary. The proposed rule change would
narrow the officer positions designated in MSRB Rule A-5 and the Bylaws
to a Chair, Vice Chair, President and Secretary. The proposed rule
change would provide the Board with increased flexibility by
designating only essential officer positions in MSRB Rule A-5 and the
Bylaws and, accordingly, allowing the Board to create additional
officer positions as the Board determines is appropriate in light of
governance needs, without requiring the Board to amend the Bylaws.
While providing the Board with increased flexibility, the proposed rule
change still provides the Board with the officer positions required by
the Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act,\7\ pursuant to which the Board
is organized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Va. Code Ann. Sec.  13.1-872.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would also expressly reflect in MSRB Rule
A-5(a) and Article 5(a) of the Bylaws that the Board may appoint
additional officers as shall be stated in a resolution of the Board, as
provided for in the Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act.\8\ The proposed
rule change would also replace the reference to ``personnel'' in MSRB
Rule A-5(c) and Article 5(c) of the Bylaws with ``employees'' to match
the title of Rule A-5 and Article 5 of the Bylaws, which is ``Officers
and Employees of the Board.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Va. Code Ann. Sec.  13.1-872(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Bylaws also include Articles which describe each officer
position. The proposed rule change would move the Bylaw Articles which
describe the President and Secretary positions and modify the
descriptions of these officer positions to better reflect their
respective responsibilities. Current Article 12 describes the President
position. The proposed rule change would move this description to
Article 11, which is currently titled ``Reserved,'' and add language to
reflect the President's responsibility for advancing the Board's
strategic goals and general supervision, management and control.
    Current Article 14(a) describes the Secretary position. The
proposed rule change would move this description to Article 12, which
currently describes the President position, and add language to
expressly reflect the Secretary's responsibility for preparing minutes
of all meetings of the Board and maintaining records of all actions
taken by the Board without a meeting by unanimous written consent.
    The proposed rule change would delete the General Counsel,
Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer and Assistant Secretary from MSRB Rule
A-5 and Articles 5, 13 and 14 of the Bylaws. Specifically, the proposed
rule change would remove the description of the General Counsel
position in Article 13, the description of the Treasurer position in
Article 14(b), and the descriptions of the Assistant Secretary and
Assistant Treasurer position in Article 14(c). As a result of such
deletions, current Article 15 relating to the Board's policies and
procedures would move to Article 13 and current Article 16 relating to
amendment of By-Laws provisions other than rules of the Board would
move to Article 14.
    The proposed rule change would also remove the phrase ``of the
Board'' and ``to the Board'' following references to the officer
positions to improve consistency in the manner in which officer
positions are referred to in the MSRB's administrative rules and
Bylaws.
Addition of Vice Chair to Compensation Listing
    MSRB Rule A-3(d) and Article 3(d) of the Bylaws relate to the
Board's compensation and expenses. The proposed rule change would add
the Vice Chair position to the list of positions for which the Board
may provide reasonable compensation to correct the omission of the Vice
Chair position from this listing. The proposed rule change would
reflect the MSRB's current policy, which is to provide reasonable
compensation to the Vice Chair. The proposed rule change would also
remove references to ``MSRB'' in MSRB Rule A-3(d) and Article 3(d) of
the Bylaws to improve consistency in the MSRB's administrative rules
and Bylaws, which both use the term ``Board'' as opposed to ``MSRB''.
Removal of Notice Period for Chair and Vice Chair Resignations
    MSRB Rule A-5(b) and Article 5(b) of the Bylaws detail matters
relating to the election, term, and resignation of the Chair and Vice
Chair. The proposed rule change would remove provisions in MSRB Rule A-
5(b) and Article 5(b) of the Bylaws specifying a minimum and maximum
notice period for resignations of the Chair and Vice Chair. The removal
of a notice period would better reflect the resignation process for
officers under the Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act which provides
that an officer may resign at any time.\9\ The removal of a notice
period also would protect the public interest by permitting the Chair
or Vice Chair to resign if circumstances arise that call for a notice
period shorter than ten days, or no notice period at all.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Va. Code Ann. Sec.  13.1-874(A).
    \10\ MSRB rules provide for disqualification and removal from
the Board under certain circumstances. See MSRB Rule A-3(c)(ii)
(providing that a Board member's change in employment or other
circumstances that results in a conflict with Board composition
requirements disqualifies the member from serving on the Board as of
the date of the change); MSRB Rule A-3(c)(iii) (providing that the
Board may remove a member if it finds that the member has willfully
violated any provision of the Act, any rule or regulation of the
Commission thereunder, or any rule of the Board or has abused his or
her authority or has otherwise acted, or failed to act, so as to
affect adversely the public interest or the best interests of the
Board). Circumstances could arise, however, in which the public
interest may be better served by an accelerated departure from the
Board through an immediate resignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Election of Chair and Vice Chair and Appointment of Other Officers
    The proposed rule change would revise MSRB Rule A-5(b) and Article
5 of the Bylaws to make explicit that the provisions regarding
election, terms, resignation and vacancy therein relate solely to the
Chair and Vice Chair positions and not to other officer positions. The
proposed rule change would also explicitly state that persons serving
as President \11\ and Secretary shall be appointed by resolution of the
Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Pursuant to current Article 12 of the Bylaws (which the
proposed rule change would move to Article 11), the person employed
as the Chief Executive Officer shall hold the office of President.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB has adopted the proposed rule change pursuant to Sections
15B(b)(2)(I) and 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act.\12\ Section
15B(b)(2)(I) of the Exchange Act provides that the MSRB's rules shall
provide for the

operation and administration of the Board, including the selection of a
Chairman from among the members of the Board, the compensation of the
members of the Board, and the appointment and compensation of such
employees, attorneys, and consultants as may be necessary or
appropriate to carry out the Board's functions under this section.\13\
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act provides that the MSRB's rules
be designed to protect investors, municipal entities, obligated
persons, and the public interest.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(I), 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(I).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(I) of
the Exchange Act \15\ because the amendments relating to the
designation of officers of the Board, the addition of the Vice Chair to
the compensation listing, the removal of the notice provision for the
Chair and Vice Chair positions, and the election of the Chair and Vice
Chair and appointment of other officers all deal with matters relating
to the operation and administration of the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change is also consistent with Section
15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act \16\ because it would protect the
public interest by eliminating the notice period for resignations of
the Chair and Vice Chair so that the Chair or Vice Chair could resign
on shorter than ten days' notice, or no notice at all, if the
circumstances would be better addressed by an accelerated departure
from the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act requires that MSRB rules
not be designed to impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.\17\ The
proposed rule change relates only to the administration of the Board
and would not impose requirements on dealers, municipal advisors or
others. Accordingly, the MSRB does not believe that the proposed rule
change would result in any burden on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \18\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\19\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MSRB-2022-04 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2022-04. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the MSRB. All comments received
will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2022-04 and should be submitted on
or before July 8, 2022.

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-13041 Filed 6-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 9 (Thursday, January 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1945-1946]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00606]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Second Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C............  ER15-2562-000
                                        ER15-2563-000
Consolidated Edison Company of New      EL15-18-001
 York, Inc. v. PJM Interconnection,
 L.L.C.
Linden VFT, LLC v. PJM                  EL15-67-000
 Interconnection, L.L.C.
Delaware Public Service Commission and  EL15-95-000
 Maryland Public Service Commission v.
 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C............  ER14-972-003
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C............  ER14-1485-005
                                        Not Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noticed on December 4, 2015, the Commission has directed
Commission staff to conduct a technical conference in the above-
referenced proceedings. The technical conference is scheduled for
January 12, 2016, at the Commission's headquarters at 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426 between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (Eastern
Time).
    In an order dated November 24, 2015,\1\ the Commission found that
the assignment of cost allocation for the projects in the filings and
complaints listed in the caption using PJM's solution-based
distribution factor (DFAX) cost allocation method had not been shown to
be just and reasonable and may be unjust, unreasonable, or unduly
discriminatory or preferential. The Commission directed its staff to
establish a technical conference to explore both whether there is a
definable category of reliability projects within PJM for which the
solution-based DFAX cost allocation method may not be just and
reasonable, such as projects addressing reliability violations that are
not related to flow on the planned transmission facility, and whether
an alternative just and reasonable ex ante cost allocation method could
be established for any such category of projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et al., 153 FERC ] 61,245
(2015) (November 2015 Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A revised agenda with an updated list of selected Speakers is
attached and will be available on the web calendar on the Commission's
Web site, www.ferc.gov. A schedule for post-technical conference
comments will be established at the technical conference.
    The technical conference is open to the public. The Chairman and
Commissioners may attend and participate in the technical conference.
    Pre-registration through the Commission's Web site https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/01-12-16-form.asp is encouraged, to
help ensure sufficient seating is available.

    This conference will also be transcribed. Interested persons may
obtain a copy of the transcript for a fee by contacting Ace-Federal
Reporters, Inc. at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    In addition, there will be a free audio cast of the conference.
Anyone wishing to listen to the meeting should send an email to Sarah
McKinley at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to request call-in information.
Please reference ``call information for PJM cost allocation technical
conference'' in the subject line of the email. The call-in information
will be provided prior to the meeting.
    Persons listening to the technical conference may participate by
submitting questions, either prior to or during the technical
conference, by emailing<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY); or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this technical conference, please
contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Sarah McKinley,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>regarding logistical issues.

    Dated: January 8, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-00606 Filed 1-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 150 (Monday, August 7, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36836-36837]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16514]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81275; File No. SR-FINRA-2017-020]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for
Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt FINRA Rule 6898
(Consolidated Audit Trail--Fee Dispute Resolution)

August 1, 2017.
    On June 19, 2017, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to adopt Rule 6898 (Consolidated
Audit Trail--Fee Dispute Resolution). The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on July 6, 2017.\3\ The
Commission received no comment letters on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81053 (June 29, 2017),
82 FR 31366 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that
it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. The
proposed rule change would establish the procedures for resolving
potential disputes related to CAT Fees charged to Industry Members.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ designates October 4, 2017, as the date by which the Commission
should either approve or disapprove or institute proceedings to
determine whether to

disapprove the proposed rule change (File Number SR-FINRA-2017-020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-16514 Filed 8-4-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 190 (Friday, September 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60820-60822]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25298]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9473-6; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2011-0050]

Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related
Photochemical Oxidants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Public Comment Period.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing
the availability of the second external review draft of a document
titled, ``Second External Review Draft Integrated Science Assessment
for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants'' (EPA/600/R-10/076B). The
document was prepared by the National Center for Environmental
Assessment (NCEA) within EPA's Office of Research and Development as
part of the review of the national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for ozone.
    EPA is releasing this draft document to seek review by the Clean
Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the public (meeting date
and location to be specified in a separate Federal Register notice).
The draft document does not represent and should not be construed to
represent any final EPA policy, viewpoint, or determination. EPA will
consider any public comments submitted in response to this notice when
revising the document.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 29, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The ``Second External Review Draft Integrated Science
Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants'' will be
available primarily via the Internet on the National Center for
Environmental Assessment's home page under the Recent Additions and
Publications menus at http://www.epa.gov/ncea. A limited number of CD-
ROM or paper copies will be available. Contact Ms. Marieka Boyd by
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail: boyd.marieka
@epa.gov to request either of these. Please provide your name, your
mailing address, and the document title, ``Second External Review Draft
Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical
Oxidants'' (EPA/600/R-10/076B) to facilitate processing of your
request.
    Comments may be submitted electronically via http://www.regulations.gov, by mail, by facsimile, or by hand delivery/
courier. Please follow the detailed instructions provided in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

FURTHER INFORMATION:  For information on the public comment period,
contact the Office of Environmental Information Docket; telephone: 202-
566-1752; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For technical information, contact Dr. James Brown, National Center
for Environmental Assessment; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile: 919-
541-1818; or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Information About the Document

    Section 108 (a) of the Clean Air Act directs the Administrator to
identify certain pollutants which, among other things, ``cause or
contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare'' and to issue air quality criteria
for them. These air quality criteria are to ``accurately reflect the
latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of
all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be
expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air * * *.''
Under section 109 of the Act, EPA is then to establish national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS) for each pollutant for which EPA has
issued criteria. Section 109 (d) of the Act subsequently requires
periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of existing air quality
criteria to reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of
the pollutant on public health or welfare. EPA is also to revise the
NAAQS, if appropriate, based on the revised air quality criteria.
    Ozone (O3) is one of six principal (or ``criteria '')
pollutants for which EPA has established NAAQS. Periodically, EPA
reviews the scientific basis for these standards by preparing an
Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) (formerly called an Air Quality
Criteria Document). The ISA, in conjunction with additional technical
and policy assessments, provides the scientific basis for EPA decisions
on the adequacy of the current NAAQS and the appropriateness of
possible alternative standards. The Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC), an independent science advisory committee whose
existence and whose review and advisory functions are mandated by
Section 109 (d) (2) of the Clean Air Act, is charged with the
independent scientific review of EPA's air quality criteria.
    On September 29, 2008 (73 FR 56581), EPA formally initiated its
current review of the air quality criteria for ozone, requesting the
submission of recent scientific information on specified topics. A
draft of EPA's ``Integrated Review Plan for the Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards Review'' (EPA/452/P-09/001) was made available in
September 2009 for public comment and was discussed by the CASAC via a
publicly accessible teleconference on November 13, 2009 (74 FR 54562).
In August 2010, EPA held a workshop with invited scientific experts to
discuss initial draft materials prepared in the development of the ISA
(75 FR 42085). The first external review draft ISA for Ozone and
Related Photochemical Oxidants was released on March 4, 2011 (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=217463). The CASAC panel
held a public meeting on May 19, 2011 to review the draft ISA (76 FR
23809). Subsequently, on August 10, 2011, the CASAC panel provided a
consensus review to the Administrator of the EPA (http://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4620a620d0120f93852572410080d786/
45A59F1BC8912FEE852578E80066021C/$File/EPA-CASAC-11-009-unsigned.pdf).
    The second external review draft ``Integrated Science Assessment
for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants'' will be discussed at a
public meeting for review by the CASAC, and public comments received
will be provided to the CASAC review panel. A future Federal Register
notice will inform the public of the exact date and time of that CASAC
meeting.

II. How To Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at
www.regulations.gov

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2011-
0050 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments;
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
     Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket
(Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. The telephone number is
202-566-1752; or
     Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is located in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center, Room 3334 EPA West Building, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Deliveries are only accepted during the
docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    If you provide comments by mail or hand delivery, please submit
three copies of the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number
pages consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original
and three copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2011-0050. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will
be marked ``late,'' and may only be considered if time permits. It is
EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket
without change and to make the comments available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless a comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment

that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet.
If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include
your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and
with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: Documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other materials,
such as copyrighted material, are publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the
EPA Headquarters Docket Center.

    Dated: September 20, 2011.
Darrell A. Winner,
Acting Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. 2011-25298 Filed 9-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13857-13861]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05752]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77331; File No. SR-CHX-2016-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt and Amend Rules To
Permit the Exchange To Initiate CHX SNAP[hairsp]\SM\ Cycles

March 9, 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 February 26, 2016, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CHX proposes to adopt and amend rules to permit the Exchange to
initiate CHX SNAP[hairsp]\SM\ cycles. The text of this proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.chx.com/rules/proposed_rules.htm, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to adopt and amend rules to permit the
Exchange to initiate CHX SNAP (``SNAP'') Cycles.\3\ Currently, a SNAP
Cycle may only be initiated upon receipt of a valid limit order marked
Start SNAP (``Start SNAP order'') submitted by an order sender.\4\ The
Exchange now proposes to permit the Exchange to initiate a SNAP Cycle,
without receipt of a valid Start SNAP order, if a periodic pro forma
SNAP review of the contents of the CHX book, SNAP Auction Only Order
(``AOO'') Queue \5\ and Protected Quotations of external markets, in a
given security, show that the projected execution size that would
result if a SNAP Cycle were to be initiated at that moment would meet
certain minimum size and notional value requirements, as applicable
(``Exchange-initiated SNAP''). This proposal is designed to permit
marketable, yet inactive passive liquidity of a substantial size (i.e.,
inactive SNAP AOOs), to execute via SNAP in the absence of a Start SNAP
order. The proposed rule change does not modify the operation of SNAP
Cycles in any other way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76262 (October 26,
2015), 80 FR 67440 (November 2, 2015) (SR-CHX-2015-05); see also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76087 (October 6, 2015), 80 FR
61540 (October 13, 2015); see also Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 75346 (July 1, 2015), 80 FR 39172 (July 8, 2015) (SR-CHX-2015-
03). The approved rule changes are not yet operative and will become
operative upon two weeks' notice by the Exchange to its
Participants.
    \4\ See supra id.; see also CHX Article 1, Rule 2(h)(1); see
also CHX Article 18, Rule 1(b)(1).
    \5\ See supra note 3; see also CHX Article 20, Rule 8(b)(2)(A).

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

Background
    In sum, a SNAP Cycle \6\ is comprised of the following five stages:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See supra note 3; see also CHX Article 18, Rule 1(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Stage one--Initiating the SNAP Cycle;
     Stage two--SNAP Order Acceptance Period;
     Stage three--Pricing and Satisfaction Period;
     Stage four--Order Matching Period; and
     Stage five--Transition to the Open Trading State.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See supra note 3; see also CHX Article 1, Rule 1(qq).

Currently, only Start SNAP orders that meet minimum size, price and
time of receipt requirements could initiate a SNAP Cycle.\8\ Moreover,
a Start SNAP order sender may instruct the Exchange to cancel the SNAP
Cycle if a minimum execution size condition would not be met.\9\ Upon
receipt and acceptance of a valid Start SNAP order, order cancellations
in the security would be prohibited \10\ and a SNAP Cycle would proceed
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See supra note 3; see also CHX Article 1, Rule 2(h)(1).
    \9\ See id.
    \10\ Among other things, order cancellation messages would be
queued for processing at the conclusion of the SNAP Cycle. See supra
note 3; see also CHX Article 18, Rule 1(b)(2)(C)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     During the stage one Initiating the SNAP Cycle, automated
trading in the subject security on the Exchange would be suspended and
remain suspended for the duration of the SNAP Cycle.
     During the stage two SNAP Order Acceptance Period, the
Exchange will transition precedent SNAP Eligible Orders \11\ to the
SNAP CHX book and accept new SNAP Eligible Orders for a randomized time
period for inclusion on the SNAP CHX book.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 3; see also CHX Article 1, Rule 1(ss).
    \12\ See supra note 3; see also CHX Article 18, Rule 1(b)(2);
see also CHX Article 20, Rule 8(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     During the stage three Pricing and Satisfaction Period,
the Exchange will attempt to ascertain a single auction price (i.e.,
``SNAP Price'') \13\ from SNAP Eligible Orders resting on the SNAP CHX
book based on a new market snapshot (``stage three market snapshot'').
If the SNAP Price is determined to be at a price that would require
orders to be routed away, the Exchange would route away SNAP Eligible
Orders resting on the SNAP CHX book.\14\ Immediately after the
necessary orders are routed away, the SNAP Cycle would enter the
Satisfaction Period, during which time the Exchange would delay
proceeding to the stage four Order Matching Period for a period of time
not to exceed 200 milliseconds to allow for confirmations of routed
orders to be received from external markets. However, if the SNAP Price
does not require orders to be routed away, the SNAP Cycle would
immediately proceed to the stage four Order Matching Period. Moreover,
if the SNAP Price could not be confirmed, the SNAP Cycle would be
aborted and immediately proceed to the stage five Transition to the
Open Trading State.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 3; see also CHX Article 1, Rule 1(rr).
    \14\ See supra note 3; see also CHX Article 19, Rule 3(a)(4) and
(5).
    \15\ See supra note 3; see also CHX Article 1, Rule 1(qq).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     During the stage four Order Matching Period, SNAP Eligible
Orders on the SNAP CHX book would execute at the SNAP Price within the
Matching System.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra note 3; see also CHX Article 18, Rule 1(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     During the stage five Transition to the Open Trading
State, unexecuted SNAP Eligible Orders, as well as other orders and
cancel messages that have been queued during the SNAP Cycle, would be
transitioned to the CHX book for automated trading based on a new
market snapshot.\17\ During the transition, orders may, among other
things, be executed within the Matching System or be routed away in a
manner consistent with how orders are currently executed and routed
during automated trading.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra note 3; see also CHX Article 18, Rule 1(b)(5).
    \18\ See CHX Article 19, Rule 3(a)(1)-(3); see also CHX Article
20, Rule 8(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Article 18, Rule 1A (Initiating SNAP)
    The Exchange now proposes to adopt Article 18, Rule 1A, which
describes the current and proposed mechanisms for initiating SNAP
Cycles. Thereunder, proposed paragraph (a) provides that subject to
current Article 18, Rule 1(c),\19\ a SNAP Cycle in a security shall be
initiated either (1) upon receipt of a valid limit order marked Start
SNAP, as defined under current Article 1, Rule 2(h)(1), or (2) by the
Exchange pursuant to proposed paragraph (b). Specifically, proposed
paragraph (a)(1) is a restatement of language from current Article 18,
Rule 1(b)(1) that provides that a SNAP Cycle would be initiated upon
receipt of a limit order marked Start SNAP,\20\ whereas proposed
paragraph (a)(2) is new language that refers to the proposed Exchange-
initiated SNAP mechanism, as described in detail under proposed
paragraph (b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 3; CHX Article 18, Rule 1(c) provides, among
other things, that if a trading halt, pause or suspension is in
effect for the subject security that requires the Exchange to
suspend trading in that security at the time a limit order marked
Start SNAP is received, a SNAP Cycle shall not be initiated. In
light of the proposed Exchange-initiated SNAP mechanism, the
Exchange proposes to amend CHX Article 18, Rule 1(c) to provide
generally that a SNAP Cycle shall not begin in a security if a
trading halt, pause or suspension is in effect for a subject
security that requires the Exchange to suspend trading in that
security.
    \20\ Correspondingly, the Exchange proposes to amend current
Article 18, Rule 1(b)(1) to contemplate proposed Rule 1A and to
amend the subtitle of current Rule 1(b)(1) to provide ``Beginning
the SNAP Cycle,'' so as to clarify the distinction between the
initiation of a SNAP Cycle, as described under proposed Rule 1A, and
the initial steps that would be taken thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (b) details the circumstances under which the
Exchange would initiate a SNAP Cycle in a security. It provides that
during the Open Trading State for each SNAP-eligible security and at
preprogrammed intervals,\21\ the Exchange shall review the CHX book,
SNAP AOO Queue and Protected Quotations of external markets to
determine whether sufficient liquidity exists to initiate a SNAP Cycle
without the receipt of a valid limit order marked Start SNAP (``pro
forma SNAP review''). Proposed paragraph (b) continues by providing
that in conducting the pro forma SNAP review, the Exchange shall take a
market snapshot of the Protected Quotations of external markets in the
subject security and calculate a pro forma SNAP Price, as defined under
current Article 1, Rule 1(rr),\22\ to determine:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ On a technical level, the Matching System is comprised of
several Matching Engines and each security traded on the Exchange is
placed into only one Matching Engine. The Exchange proposes to
conduct pro forma SNAP reviews of each SNAP-eligible security in a
given Matching Engine consecutively and continuously in a preset
order. The Exchange will not modify this procedure absent an
approved filing pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Act.
    \22\ The Exchange notes that the calculation of the pro forma
SNAP Price is identical to the calculation of the SNAP Price during
the stage three Pricing and Satisfaction Period, except that the pro
forma SNAP Price calculation would not include any new orders
received during the stage two Order Acceptance Period, as a SNAP
Cycle would not have yet been initiated. Example 2 below describes
how the pro forma SNAP Price would be calculated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Whether the projected execution size (``PES'') at the pro forma
SNAP Price is equal to or greater than the corresponding minimum PES,
as described under paragraph (d); and
    (2) whether the PES within the Matching System at the pro forma
SNAP Price would be equal to or greater than 80% of the corresponding
minimum PES.

If the conditions set forth under proposed paragraphs (b)(1) and (2)
are

met, the Exchange shall initiate a SNAP Cycle pursuant to current
Article 18, Rule 1(b), subject to proposed paragraph (c). Proposed
paragraphs (b) is designed to ensure that a SNAP Cycle would only be
initiated by the Exchange if marketable passive liquidity of a
substantial size is available at the Exchange.\23\ Specifically, the
condition set forth under proposed paragraph (b) is intended to avoid a
scenario where the market snapshot taken pursuant to proposed paragraph
(b) shows substantial liquidity displayed away from the Exchange, but
by the time the SNAP Cycle is initiated and the stage three market
snapshot is taken to determine the actual SNAP Price, the away
liquidity has disappeared, thus resulting in an aggregate SNAP
execution size that is much smaller than the PES. By requiring that 80%
of the PES be projected to occur within the Matching System, this
scenario is avoided.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The Exchange notes that the aggregate size of the stage
three SNAP executions may be substantially larger than the PES due
to, among other things, the possibility of new orders being received
during the stage two Order Acceptance Period. See supra note 3; see
also CHX Article 18, Rule 1(b)(2).
    \24\ Since order cancellations are prohibited during a SNAP
Cycle, the liquidity at the Exchange ascertained from the pro forma
SNAP review would always be available by the stage three market
snapshot if a SNAP Cycle were initiated by the Exchange. See supra
note 3; see also CHX Article 18, Rule 1(b)(2)(C)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (d) is similar to current Article 1, Rule
2(h)(1)(A)(i) and provides that the minimum PES for an Exchange-
initiated SNAP pursuant to proposed paragraph (b) shall either be (1)
2,500 shares with a minimum aggregate notional value of $250,000 based
on the midpoint of the National Best Bid and Offer (``NBBO'')
ascertained from the market snapshot taken pursuant to paragraph (b)
above or (2) 20,000 shares with no minimum aggregate notional value
requirement; provided, however, Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. (BRK-A) will
be a flat 100 shares minimum PES, due to its extraordinary share price.
    Proposed paragraph (c) places conditions on Exchange-initiated SNAP
that are virtually identical to conditions for a valid Start SNAP order
under current Article 1, Rule 2(h)(1). Similar to current Article 1,
Rule 2(h)(1)(A)(iii), proposed paragraph (c)(1) provides that the
Exchange shall not initiate a SNAP Cycle within five minutes of the
first two-sided quote in the subject security having been received by
the Exchange from the primary market disseminated after either the
beginning of the regular trading session or a trading halt, pause or
suspension that required the Exchange to suspend trading in the subject
security; within five minutes of the end of the regular trading
session; during a SNAP Cycle; or within one minute after the completion
of the previous SNAP Cycle. Also, similar to Article 1, Rule
2(h)(1)(A)(iv), proposed paragraph (c)(2) provides that the Exchange
shall not initiate a SNAP Cycle if the CHX Routing Services, as
described under Article 19, are not available at the time of the market
snapshot taken pursuant to be proposed paragraph (b) above. Finally,
similar to current Article 1, Rule 2(h)(1)(A)(ii), proposed paragraph
(c)(3) provides that the Exchange shall not initiate a SNAP Cycle if
the National Best Bid and Offer (``NBBO'') ascertained from the market
snapshot taken pursuant to proposed paragraph (b) is crossed or a two-
sided NBBO does not exist.
    Incidentally, the Exchange proposes to amend current CHX Article 1,
Rule 2(h)(1)(A)(iii) to replace a reference to ``trading halt or
pause'' with the more accurate, ``trading halt, pause or suspension,''
as the Exchange had updated the CHX Rules previously to adopt this term
change elsewhere in the CHX Rules.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Securities Exchange Act No. 76262 (October 26, 2015),
80 FR 67440 (November 2, 2015) (SR-CHX-2015-05); see also supra note
3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Examples
    The following Examples 1 and 2 are illustrative of the proposed
Exchange-initiated SNAP mechanism, but do not exhaustively depict every
possible scenario. Moreover, the charts used herein are illustrative
and do not necessarily depict the actual technical processes involved
in sorting orders.
    Example 1: Precedent Orders. Assume that at 10:59:58 a.m. the NBBO
for security XYZ is $99.99 x $100.01 and Protected Quotations of
external markets in security XYZ are as follows:
     Protected Bid A at Exchange 1 displaying 500 shares at
$99.99
     Protected Offer A at Exchange 2 displaying 1000 shares at
$100.01.
    Assume also that the CHX book is empty, but that the Exchange
receives the following orders in security XYZ at 10:59:59 a.m.:
     Buy Order A for 500 shares priced at $99.98/share marked
Do Not Display.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Buy Order B for 500 shares priced at $100.01/share marked
SNAP AOO--Day.
     Buy Order C for 1,000 shares marked SNAP AOO--Day and SNAP
AOO--Pegged--Midpoint.
     Sell Order A for 3,000 shares priced at $99.98/share
marked SNAP AOO--Day.
    Under this Example 1, Buy Order A would be immediately posted to
the CHX book and ranked in the CHX book pursuant to current Article 20,
Rule 8(b)(1)(A)-(C), whereas Buy Orders B and C and Sell Order A would
be placed in the SNAP AOO Queue, pursuant to Article 20, Rule
8(b)(2)(A), and not immediately ranked, as SNAP AOOs are never active
during the Open Trading State.
    Example 2: Pro forma SNAP review. Assume the same as Example 1.
Assume also that at 11:00:00 a.m., the Exchange conducts a pro forma
SNAP review of security XYZ and that the NBBO, CHX book and SNAP AOO
Queue for security XYZ has not changed.
    Under this Example 2, pursuant to proposed Article 18, Rule 1A(b),
the Exchange would take a market snapshot of the Protected Quotations
of external markets in security XYZ and then create a pro forma SNAP
CHX book based on the contents of the CHX book (i.e., Buy Order A),
SNAP AOO Queue (i.e., Buy Orders B and C and Sell Order A) and the
Protected Quotations of external markets (i.e., Protected Bid A and
Protected Offer A). Thus, the pro forma SNAP CHX book in security XYZ
would be as follows:

                                                           Pro Forma SNAP CHX Book--Example 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Buy orders                                                                                Sell orders
-------------------------------------------------------------------------                            ---------------------------------------------------
                                                 Total buy    Total buy                                Total sell   Total sell   Total CHX    Total away
   Total away buy size at price     Total CHX   size better  size at and          Price point         size at and  size better   sell size    sell size
              point                buy size at   than price  better than                              better than   than price    at price     at price
                                   price point     point     price point                              price point     point        point        point
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0................................            0            0            0  100.02....................         4000         4000            0            0
0................................          500            0          500  100.01....................         4000         3000            0         1000
0................................         1000          500         1500  100.00 (Midpoint).........         3000         3000            0            0
500..............................            0         1500         2000  99.99.....................         3000         3000            0            0
0................................          500         2000         2500  99.98.....................         3000            0         3000            0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this pro forma SNAP CHX book, the Matching System would
calculate a pro forma SNAP Price, pursuant to proposed Article 18, Rule
1A(b). Pursuant to current Article 1, Rule 1(rr), the SNAP Price is a
single price at which the greatest number of shares may be executed
during a SNAP Cycle, which would not trade-through any more
aggressively priced orders on either side of the market. Under this
Example 2, the pro forma SNAP Price would be $99.98 with a PES of 2500
shares.
    Pursuant to proposed Article 18, Rule 1A(b)(1), the Exchange would
then determine if the PES at the pro forma SNAP Price is equal to or
greater than the corresponding minimum PES, as described under proposed
Article 18, Rule 1A(d). Since the PES is 2,500 shares and the NBBO
midpoint is $100.00, the aggregate notional value for this PES would be
$250,000, which meets the minimum PES requirement of 2,500 shares and
an aggregate notional value of $250,000.
    Pursuant to proposed Article 18, Rule 1A(b)(2), the Exchange would
also determine whether the PES within the Matching System at the pro
forma SNAP Price is at least 80% of the minimum PES. Since the PES
within the Matching System of 2,000 shares (i.e., 2,500 total PES-500
away PES = 2,000) is exactly 80% of the corresponding minimum PES of
2,500, this requirement is met.
    Thus, the Exchange would initiate a SNAP Cycle in security XYZ and
conduct the SNAP Cycle pursuant to current Article 18, Rule 1(b).
Operative Date
    In the event the proposed rule change is approved by the SEC, the
Exchange proposes to make the proposed rule change operative pursuant
to one week notice by the Exchange to its Participants. Prior to the
operative date, the Exchange will ensure that policies and procedures
are in place to allow Exchange operations personnel to effectively
monitor the operation of the proposed Exchange-initiated SNAP
mechanism.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act in general,\27\ and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) in particular,\28\ in that it is designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the reasons stated under the original SNAP rule
filing,\29\ the Exchange believes that proposed Exchange-initiated SNAP
mechanism will promote just and equitable principles of trade because
it will promote bulk executions resulting from, among other things,
SNAP AOOs that may remain unexecuted if the Exchange were not to
receive a valid Start SNAP order that would trigger a SNAP Cycle. The
Exchange believes that promoting such bulk executions will enhance
market liquidity and the price discovery process for all securities,
which protects investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would
promote just and equitable principles because the proposed Exchange-
initiated SNAP mechanism will further minimize any information leakage
that would result from SNAP executions. Currently, SNAP Cycles could
only be initiated upon receipt of a valid Start SNAP order, which must
meet certain size and pricing requirements. However, with the adoption
of the proposed Exchange-initiated SNAP mechanism, SNAP executions may
result even without receipt of a Start SNAP order. Thus, the proposed
rule change will further minimize any information leakage from SNAP
executions, as a market participant will not be able to discern with
certainty which initiating mechanism triggered a given SNAP Cycle.
Under either initiation scenario, market participants would continue to
know that resting liquidity of a substantial size exists at the
Exchange when a SNAP Cycle is initiated.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(1) \30\ in that the proposed amendment
to current Article 1, Rule 2(h)(1)(A)(iii) to replace a reference to
``trading halt or pause'' with ``trading halt, pause or suspension''
would result in consistent references to ``trading halt, pause or
suspension'' throughout the CHX Rules, which would further enable the
Exchange to be so organized as to have the capacity to be able to carry
out the purposes of the Act and to comply, and to enforce compliance by
its Participants and persons associated with its Participants, with the
provisions of the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the
rules of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change does not implicate
Regulation NMS or Regulation SHO considerations as the proposed
Exchange-initiated SNAP mechanism is based on a pro forma SNAP review
that does not involve displaying, executing or routing any orders. If
the pro forma SNAP review were to trigger a SNAP Cycle, the SNAP Cycle
would be conducted in compliance with Regulation NMS and Rule 201 of
Regulation SHO, as described under current CHX rules and applicable
exemptive relief.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See supra note 3; see also Letter from Josephine Tao,
Assistant Director, Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'' or ``SEC''), Division of Trading and Markets, to
Albert J. Kim, Vice President and Associate General Counsel, CHX,
dated October 6, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the
Exchange believes that any

burden on competition is necessary and appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because it enhances and
promotes the frequency of SNAP Cycles, which is a functionality that
seeks to deemphasize speed as a key to trading success in order to
further serve the interests of investors, as recently noted by Chair
White, and thereby removes impediments and perfects the mechanisms of a
free and open market.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Mary Jo White, Chair, Securities and Exchange
Commission, Speech at Sandler O'Neil & Partners L.P. Global Exchange
and Brokerage Conference (June 5, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange 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-CHX-2016-01 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-CHX-2016-01. 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 and
on its Internet Web site at www.chx.com. 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-CHX-2016-01, and should be submitted on
or before April 5, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-05752 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 13, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 89889-89890]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29747]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0455; FRL-9956-42-Region 3]

Determination of Attainment of the 2012 Annual Fine Particulate
Matter Standard; Pennsylvania; Delaware County Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
determine that the Delaware County, Pennsylvania moderate nonattainment
area (the Delaware County Area) has attained the 2012 annual fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS). This determination of attainment, also known as a
clean data determination, is based upon quality assured, certified, and
complete ambient air monitoring data showing that this area has
monitored attainment of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on
the 2013-2015 data available in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS)
database. If this determination is finalized, the requirements for the
Delaware County Area to submit an attainment demonstration, associated
reasonably available control measures (RACM), a reasonable further
progress (RFP) plan, contingency measures, and other planning state
implementation plan (SIP) revisions related to attainment of the
standard shall be suspended for so long as the area continues to meet
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This action is being taken
under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
    In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is making
this determination of attainment as a direct final rule without prior
proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal
and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments
are received in response to this action, no further activity is
contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule
will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by January 12, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2016-0455 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gavin Huang,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information about this
determination of attainment of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
for the Delaware County Area, please see the information provided in
the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the
``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register publication.

    Dated: November 22, 2016.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2016-29747 Filed 12-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 191 (Thursday, October 2, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59432-59433]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23544]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0858]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Illinois River, Joliet, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Cass Street Drawbridge across the
Illinois River, mile 288.1, at Joliet, Illinois. The deviation is
necessary to allow the Fall Color 5K run to cross the bridge. This
deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation
position and not open to vessel traffic for one hour.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m., October 5,
2014.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, (USCG-2014-0858) 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. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation, West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal Holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Eric A. Washburn, Bridge
Administrator, Western Rivers, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Cheryl F. Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Illinois Department of Transportation
requested a temporary deviation for the Cass Street Drawbridge, across
the Illinois River, mile 288.1, at Joliet, Illinois to remain in the
closed-to-navigation position for 1 hour from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. on
October 5, 2014 in order to allow the Fall Color 5K run to cross the
bridge.
    The Cass Street Drawbridge currently operates in accordance with 33
CFR 117.393(c), which states the general requirement that the
drawbridge shall open on signal except it need not open from 7:30 a.m.
to 8:30 a.m. and from 4:15 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
    There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section
of the Illinois River.
    The Cass Street Drawbridge, in the closed-to-navigation position,
provides a vertical clearance of 16.6 feet above normal pool.
Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial tows and
recreational watercraft and will not be significantly impacted. This
temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway users. No
objections were received.
    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: September 19, 2014.
Eric A. Washburn,
Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers.
[FR Doc. 2014-23544 Filed 10-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: September 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 179)]
[Notices]
[Page 47809-47810]
[DOCID:fr17se09-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0744]

Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the Offshore Supply
Vessel TYLER STEPHEN

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces that a Certificate of Alternative
Compliance was issued for the offshore supply vessel Tyler Stephen as
required by 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.

DATES: The Certificate of Alternative Compliance was issued on July 29,
2009.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this notice is available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this
docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov,
inserting USCG-2009-0744 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking
``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call CWO2 David Mauldin, District Eight, Prevention Branch, U.S. Coast
Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    The offshore supply vessel Tyler Stephen will be used for offshore
supply operations. Full compliance with 72 COLREGS and the Inland Rules
Act will hinder the vessel's ability to maneuver within close proximity
of offshore platforms. Due to the design of the vessel, it would be
difficult and impractical to build a supporting structure that would
put the side lights within 5.4' from the greatest breadth of the
Vessel, as required by Annex I, paragraph 3(b) of the 72 COLREGS and
Annex I, Section 84.05(b), of the Inland Rules Act. Compliance with the
rule would cause the lights on the offshore supply vessel Tyler Stephen
to be in a location which will be highly susceptible to damage from
offshore platforms. The offshore supply vessel Tyler Stephen cannot
comply fully with lighting requirements as set out in international
regulations without interfering with the special function of the vessel
(33 U.S.C. 1605(c); 33 CFR 81.18).
    Locating the side lights 6'- 9\5/8\'' inboard from the greatest
breadth of the vessel on the pilot house will provide a shelter
location for the lights and allow maneuvering within close proximity to
offshore platforms.
    In addition, the horizontal distance between the forward and aft
masthead lights may be 23'-1 \1/8\''. Placing the aft masthead light at
the horizontal distance from the forward masthead light as required by
Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of the 72 COLREGS, and Annex I, Section
84.05(a) of the Inland Rules Act, would result in an aft masthead light
location directly over the aft cargo deck, where it would interfere
with loading and unloading operations.
    The Certificate of Alternative Compliance allows for the placement
of the side lights to deviate from requirements set forth in Annex I,
paragraph 3(b) of 72 COLREGS, and Annex I, paragraph 84.05(b) of the
Inland Rules Act. In addition the Certificate of Alternative Compliance
allows for the horizontal separation of the forward and aft masthead
lights to deviate from the requirements of Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of
72 COLREGS, and Annex I, Section 84.05(a) of the Inland Rules Act.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c), and 33
CFR 81.18.

    Dated: August 10, 2009.
J.W. Johnson,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Inspections and Investigations
Branch, By Direction of the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E9-22357 Filed 9-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: March 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 55)]
[Notices]
[Page 12350-12351]
[DOCID:fr24mr09-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings  1

March 17, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC09-59-000.
    Applicants: Wachovia Corporation, Wells Fargo & Company.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act and Request for Waiver of Certain Commission
Requirements.
    Filed Date: 03/11/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090311-5113.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 01, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER00-1952-007; ER01-1784-010; ER03-222-009; ER08-
333-003; ER08-851-002; ER99-1248-009.
    Applicants: Black Hills Colorado, LLC; Fountain Valley Power, LLC;
Las Vegas Cogeneration II, LLC; Las Vegas Cogeneration LP; Valencia
Power, LLC; Harbor Cogeneration Company, LLC.
    Description: Southwest Generation Operating Co, LLC et al. submits
statement that it has not erected barriers to entry into the wholesale
energy markets and that it will not erect barries to entry into the
wholesale energy markets.
    Filed Date: 03/13/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090316-0082.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 03, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-615-042; ER07-1257-010.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits instant filing in compliance with the FERC order Conditional
Accepting Tariff Modifications issued 2/19/09.
    Filed Date: 03/13/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090316-0219.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 03, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-554-001.
    Applicants: EcoGrove Wind, LLC.
    Description: EcoGrove Wind, LLC submits a First Revised Sheet 1 of
its Tariff to replace Original Sheet 1 of its Tariff.
    Filed Date: 03/13/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090316-0222.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 03, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-740-001.
    Applicants: Carolina Power & Light Company.
    Description: Carolina Power & Light Company submits Substitute
Original Sheet 11 et al. to FERC Electric Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume
3 Service Agreement 301.
    Filed Date: 03/13/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090316-0220.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 03, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-764-001.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
    Description: Wisconsin Electric Power Company submits revised
tariff sheets Second Revised Volume 1 et al. to FERC Electric Tariff,
Second Revised Volume 2 to be effective 1/6/09.
    Filed Date: 03/11/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090312-0279.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 01, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-768-000.
    Applicants: Saranac Power Partners, L.P.
    Description: Saranac Power Partners, L.P., Amendment to MBR
Application.
    Filed Date: 03/16/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090316-5176.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 06, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-775-001.
    Applicants: TexRep2 LLC.
    Description: TexRep2, LLC submits amended notification of
cancellation to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No 1.
    Filed Date: 03/12/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090313-0124.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 02, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-844-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits Electric Utility Services Agreement
dated 2/13/09 between Rocky Mountain Power, d/b/a PacifiCorp, and Price
City, to be designated as PacifiCorp Rate Schedule FERC 640.
    Filed Date: 03/13/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090316-0217.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 03, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-845-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits for filing Revenue Metering
Construction Agreement for the Chehalis generation facility agreement
dated 2/1/2009 with PacifiCorp Commercial & Trading as Service
Agreement 550 under their Seventh Revised Volume 11 OATT.
    Filed Date: 03/13/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090316-0216.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 03, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-846-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits revisions to its Open Access Transmission, Energy and Operating
Reserve Markets Tariff.
    Filed Date: 03/13/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090316-0221.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 03, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-847-000.
    Applicants: Eastern Desert Power LLC.
    Description: Eastern Desert Power LLC submits Notice of
Cancellation of its market based rate tariff, FERC Electric Tariff,
Volume 1 to become effective 5/12/09.
    Filed Date: 03/13/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090316-0215.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 03, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-848-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison submits revised rate sheets
to the Second Amended and Restates Letter Agreement to (Second Amended
SCE Letter Agreement) to the Amended and Restated Eldorado System
Operation Agreement etc.
    Filed Date: 03/13/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090316-0214.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 03, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-849-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection LLC submits an executed Wholesale
Market Participation Agreement entered into among PJM, Borough
Participation Agreement for filing because Lehighton intends to engage
in wholesale sales in the PJM etc.
    Filed Date: 03/13/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090316-0213.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 03, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-853-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits an executed
interconnection service agreement entered into among PJM, BP Wind
Energy North America etc.
    Filed Date: 03/16/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090317-0262.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 06, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-854-000.
    Applicants: Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
    Description: Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc submits amendment
to Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc Open Access Transmission Tariff,
FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No 3.
    Filed Date: 03/16/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090317-0263.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 06, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-855-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System.
    Description: Midwest ISO submits Facilities Construction Agreement
among Wapsipinicon Power Partners LLC, etc.
    Filed Date: 03/16/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090317-0264.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 06, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings:
    Docket Numbers: RR07-14-003; RR08-6-002.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corp.
    Description: Response to Data Request of North American Electric.
Reliability Corporation to the FERC's February 27, 2009 Data Request.
    Filed Date: 03/16/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090316-5179.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 06, 2009.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed 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>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-6417 Filed 3-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P