[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 187 (Thursday, September 30, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54136-54139]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20804]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0833; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00245-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2020-18-04, which applies to all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041
airplanes. AD 2020-18-04 requires a one-time health check of the slat
power control unit (PCU) torque sensing unit (TSU), a detailed
inspection of the slat transmission systems, corrective actions if
necessary, and track 12 slat gear rotary actuator (SGRA) water drainage
and vent plug cleaning. Since the FAA issued AD 2020-18-04, it has been
determined that the one-time health check must be repetitive instead to
monitor the TSU wear, and that the water drainage and vent plug
cleaning is no longer required. This proposed AD would require
repetitive health checks of the slat PCU TSU, a detailed visual
inspection of the slat transmission systems, and corrective actions if
necessary; as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by reference. 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 November
15, 2021.

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 EASA material that will be incorporated by reference (IBR) in
this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-

Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR
material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view
this IBR material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2021-0833.

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-2021-
0833; 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, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large
Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<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 ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0833; Project Identifier
MCAI-2021-00245-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Dan
Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any
commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated
as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued AD 2020-18-04, Amendment 39-21225 (85 FR 54896,
September 3, 2020) (AD 2020-18-04), which applies to all Airbus SAS
Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. AD 2020-18-04 requires a one-time
health check of the slat PCU TSU for discrepancies, and corrective
actions if necessary; a detailed inspection of the left-hand (LH) and
right-hand (RH) slat transmission systems for discrepancies, and
corrective actions if necessary; and LH and RH track 12 SGRA water
drainage and vent plug cleaning (which includes an inspection for
moisture). The FAA issued AD 2020-18-04 to address a slat system jam
during landing, which could lead to a double shaft disconnection/
rupture, potentially causing one or more slat surfaces to be no longer
connected to either the slat wing tip brake or the slat PCU, possibly
resulting in reduced control of the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2020-18-04 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2020-18-04, it has been determined that the
one-time health check must be repetitive instead to monitor the TSU
wear, and that the water drainage and vent plug cleaning is no longer
required.
    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0053R1, dated April 19, 2021
(EASA AD 2021-0053R1, also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. EASA AD 2021-
0053R1 supersedes EASA AD 2020-0163R2, dated September 10, 2020 (which
revised EASA AD 2020-0163R1, dated August 7, 2020, which corresponds to
FAA AD 2020-18-04). This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a slat
system jam during landing. The FAA is proposing this AD to address a
slat system jam during landing, which could lead to a double shaft
disconnection/rupture, potentially causing one or more slat surfaces to
be no longer connected to either the slat wing tip brake or the slat
PCU, possibly resulting in reduced control of the airplane. See the
MCAI for additional background information.

Explanation of Retained Requirements

    Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the
requirements of AD 2020-18-04, this proposed AD would retain certain
requirements of AD 2020-18-04. Those requirements are referenced in
EASA AD 2021-0053R1, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of
this proposed AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2021-0053R1 describes procedures for a repetitive health
check of the slat PCU TSU for discrepancies, and corrective actions if
necessary; a detailed visual inspection of the LH and RH slat
transmission systems for discrepancies, and corrective actions if
necessary. This material 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.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2021-0053R1 described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the
FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2021-0053R1 by reference in the FAA
final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with
EASA AD 2021-0053R1 in its entirety through that incorporation, except
for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of
this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading
of a particular section in EASA AD 2021-0053R1 does not mean that
operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD
requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance times,''
compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section
titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in EASA AD 2021-
0053R1. Service information required by EASA AD 2021-0053R1 for
compliance will be available at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0833 after the FAA final
rule is published.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this proposed AD interim action. AD 2020-18-04 is
also interim action. Once final action has been identified, the FAA
might consider further rulemaking.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 15 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Labor cost                  Parts cost         Cost per product          Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 16 work-hours x $85 per hour =                $0  Up to $1,360.............  Up to $20,400 per inspection
 Up to $1,360 per inspection cycle.                                                 cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

                                     Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                                  Labor cost                                       Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 work-hours x $85 per hour = $850...........................................        $275,300         $276,150
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2020-18-04, Amendment 39-21225
(85 FR 54896, September 3, 2020); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2021-0833; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-
00245-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by November 15, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2020-18-04, Amendment 39-21225 (85 FR 54896,
September 3, 2020) (AD 2020-18-04).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041
airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of a slat system jam during
landing and the determination that an inspection must be repetitive
to monitor torque sensor unit (TSU) wear. The FAA is issuing this AD
to address a slat system jam during landing, which could lead to a
double shaft disconnection/rupture, potentially causing one or more
slat surfaces to be no longer connected to either the slat wing tip
brake or the slat power control unit (PCU), possibly resulting in
reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2021-0053R1, dated April 19, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0053R1).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0053R1

    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0053R1 refers to March 11, 2021 (the
effective date of EASA AD 2021-0053, dated February 25, 2021), this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2021-0053R1 specifies
compliance times for accomplishment of certain actions, replace the
text ``but not exceeding the compliance time for the repeat health
check as determined in accordance with the instructions of AOT
[Alert Operators Transmission] A27P015-20, or AOT A27P016-20,'' with
``but within the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph
<IP_ADDRESS> of AOT A27P015-20; or <IP_ADDRESS>.2 or <IP_ADDRESS>.2 of AOT A27P016-
20; as applicable.''
    (3) This AD does not mandate compliance with the ``Remarks''
section of EASA AD 2021-0053R1.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-
0053R1 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer,
this AD does not include that requirement.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation 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 responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, if any service information referenced
in EASA AD 2021-0053R1 that contains paragraphs that are labeled as
RC, the instructions in RC paragraphs, including subparagraphs under
an RC paragraph, must be done to comply with this AD; any
paragraphs, including subparagraphs under those paragraphs, that are
not identified as RC are recommended. The instructions in
paragraphs, including subparagraphs under those paragraphs, not
identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in
accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program
without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the instructions
identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an
airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to instructions
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2021-0053R1, contact EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You
may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2021-0833.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued on September 21, 2021.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-20804 Filed 9-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 21)]
[Notices]
[Page 5304-5305]
[DOCID:fr01fe06-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EC06-66-000]

NRG Energy, Inc. and Dynegy Inc.; Notice of Filing

January 24, 2006.
    Take notice that on January 20, 2006, NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG) and
Dynegy Inc. (Dynegy) on behalf of themselves and certain of their
public utility subsidiaries (collectively, Applicants), submitted an
application pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act requesting
all authorizations necessary in connection with: (1) The acquisition by
NRG of Dynegy's 50 percent ownership interest in WCP (Generation)
Holdings LLC, (2) the acquisition by Dynegy of NRG's 50 percent
ownership interest in Rocky Road Power LLC, and (3) a corporate
reorganization of the internal ownership structure through which Rocky
Road Power LLC is held following its indirect acquisition by Dynegy.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov
.

Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14
copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 10, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-1237 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28267-28269]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11366]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69534; File No. SR-OCC-2013-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Add Provisions to the By-Laws
To Facilitate the Use of the Stock Loan/Hedge Program by Canadian
Clearing Members

May 8, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On March 8, 2013 The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change SR-OCC-2013-03 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal

Register on March 26, 2013.\3\ The Commission received no comment
letters. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-69188 (March 20,
2013), 78 FR 18382 (March 26, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to add provisions to the
By-Laws governing the OCC's Stock Loan/Hedge Program to facilitate the
use of the Stock Loan/Hedge Program by Canadian Clearing Members.
    OCC's Stock Loan/Hedge Program is provided for in Article XXI of
the By-Laws and Chapter XXII of the Rules, and provides a means for OCC
clearing members to submit broker-to-broker stock loan transactions \4\
to OCC for clearance.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Broker-to-broker transactions are independently-executed
stock loan transactions that are negotiated directly between two OCC
clearing members.
    \5\ Where a stock loan transaction is submitted to, and accepted
by, OCC for clearance, OCC substitutes itself as the lender to the
borrower and the borrower to the lender, thus serving a function for
the stock loan market similar to the one it serves within the listed
options market. OCC thereby guarantees the future daily mark-to-
market payments between the lending clearing member and borrowing
clearing member, which are effected through OCC's cash settlement
system, and the return of the loaned stock to the lending clearing
member and the collateral to the borrowing clearing member, upon
close-out of the stock loan transaction. OCC leverages the
infrastructure of the DTC to transfer loaned stock and collateral
between OCC clearing members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, for OCC clearing members to participate in OCC's Stock
Loan/Hedge Program, they must be members of the Depository Trust
Company (``DTC'') and maintain accounts to facilitate Delivery Orders
(``DOs'') to approved counterparties for stock loan transactions.
Canadian Clearing Members (who are otherwise eligible to participate in
the Stock Loan/Hedge Program) are not participants of DTC. For purposes
of settling transactions in U.S. equity securities, Canadian Clearing
Members ordinarily rely on the services of CDS Clearing and Depository
Services Inc. (``CDS''),\6\ which provides a cross-border service to
clear and settle trades with U.S. counterparties.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CDS is Canada's national securities depository, processing
over 413 million trades annually. One of CDS's services enables its
Canadian participants to clear and settle trades (which would
include stock loan and borrow transactions) with U.S. counterparties
through affiliations with DTC and the National Securities Clearing
Corporation (``NSCC''). Under current OCC Rules 901(a) and (g),
Canadian Clearing Members are able to effect settlement of deliver/
receive obligations arising from exercised or assigned stock options
and matured stock futures by appointing CDS to act as their agent
through the arrangements with DTC and NSCC.
    \7\ OCC is not a party to such cross-border service
arrangements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC is amending Interpretation .07 to Section 1 of Article V of the
By-Laws to allow participation by Canadian Clearing Members in the
Stock Loan/Hedge Program by permitting them to appoint CDS to act as
their agent in effecting DOs for stock loan transactions through DTC
under arrangements similar to those used for deliveries under options
and futures.\8\ Upon such an appointment, a sponsored sub-account will
be established on behalf of the Canadian Clearing Member in a CDS
participant account at DTC, through which the Canadian Clearing Member
can obtain access to similar DTC services used by U.S. clearing members
who maintain participant accounts at DTC in respect to stock loan
transactions. Through their identified sub-accounts within a CDS
participant account at DTC, Canadian Clearing Members will be able to
effect DOs for stock loan transactions to other DTC participants in the
same manner as U.S. clearing members. The cross-border service offered
by DTC and CDS will enable Canadian Clearing Members to transfer
securities between their accounts held at CDS and the identified sub-
accounts carried on their behalf in CDS participant accounts held at
DTC to effect DOs for stock loan transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Unlike settlement of deliver/receive obligations in respect
of stock options and stock futures, stock loan and borrow
transactions do not involve NSCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the amended Interpretation .07 to Section 1 of Article V of
the By-Laws, a Canadian Clearing Member that appoints CDS to act for it
in connection with the Stock Loan/Hedge Program will be required to
agree with OCC that the clearing member remains responsible to OCC in
respect of its stock loan and borrow positions regardless of any non-
performance by CDS, that OCC may treat any failure of CDS to complete
delivery or payment required to close an open stock loan or borrow
position as a failure by such Canadian Clearing Member, thereby
triggering OCC's buy-in and sell-out procedures and such other
procedures and remedies as are provided under OCC's Rules, including
recourse to the collateral deposited by the clearing member.
Accordingly, OCC believes that it will have no credit exposure to CDS
as the result of a failure by CDS to perform. OCC will seek
acknowledgement of CDS and DTC with respect to these arrangements. If,
for any reason, CDS ceases to act for one or more Canadian Clearing
Members,\9\ OCC will have authority to require clearing members to
close out open stock loan and borrow positions through buy-in and sell-
out procedures, or any other procedures provided in the By-Laws or
Rules, if necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A Canadian Clearing Member will be obligated, under amended
Interpretation .07 to Section 1 of Article V of the By-Laws, to
promptly notify OCC in writing if it knew or reasonably expected CDS
to cease acting on its behalf, or if CDS had ceased acting on its
behalf, with respect to effecting DOs for stock loan and stock
borrow transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to accommodate the participation by Canadian Clearing
Members in the Stock Loan/Hedge Program, OCC will make certain
conforming changes to its Non-U.S. Clearing Member Agreement.\10\ OCC
also will make certain technical changes to its Non-U.S. Clearing
Member Agreement for clarity and consistency with its U.S. Clearing
Member Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As part of the application process to become a clearing
member of OCC, any non-U.S. applicant must execute a copy of OCC's
Non-U.S. Clearing Member Agreement. In the agreement, the applicant
makes certain representations with respect to, among other things,
the types of transactions it will engage in as a Non-U.S. Clearing
Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, for ease of reference throughout the proposed addition to
Interpretation .07 to Section 1 of Article V of the By-Laws, OCC is
amending Section 1 of Article I of the By-Laws to define a Canadian
Clearing Member approved to participate in the Stock Loan/Hedge Program
as a ``Canadian Hedge Clearing Member.''

III. Discussion

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \11\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to such organization. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \12\
requires, among other things, that the rules of a clearing agency are
designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions and foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in the clearance and settlement of securities
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By facilitating the inclusion of Canadian Clearing Members in OCC's
Stock Loan/Hedge Program, the rule change serves to broaden the scope
of OCC clearing members that are able to participate in stock loan
transactions and thereby further promotes the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of stock loan transactions, and also fosters
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in the clearance and
settlement of stock loan transactions. The rule change achieves these
objectives while also

continuing to protect the clearing system against risk.

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \13\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\14\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-OCC-2013-03) be and
hereby is APPROVED.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \15\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-11366 Filed 5-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35488-35490]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12521]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89016; File No. SR-CboeEDGA-2020-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend the
Rule Relating to MidPoint Discretionary Orders To Allow Optional Offset
or Quote Depletion Protection Instructions

June 4, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On February 28, 2020, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend EDGA Rule 11.8(e), which describes the
handling of MidPoint Discretionary Orders entered on the Exchange. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on March 10, 2020.\3\ On April 16, 2020, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)
of the Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer period within which
to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule
change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\5\ On May 20, 2020, the Exchange filed Amendment
No. 1 to the proposed rule change, which replaced and superseded the
proposed rule change as originally filed.\6\ The Commission received no
comment letters on the proposal. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on Amendment No. 1 from interested persons,
and is approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No.
1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88323 (March 5,
2020), 85 FR 13957.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88664, 85 FR 22465
(April 22, 2020). The Commission designated June 8, 2020 as the date
by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule
change.
    \6\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange revised the proposal to:
(1) Modify the circumstances that would enable or refresh a QDP
active period (see infra note 15); (2) set the QDP active period as
2 milliseconds; (3) include additional justification in support of
the proposed rule change, including data in support of the QDP
functionality; and (4) make technical and conforming changes.
Amendment No. 1 is available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboeedga-2020-005/srcboeedga2020005-7240760-217168.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal, as Modified by Amendment No. 1

    A MidPoint Discretionary Order (``MDO'') is a limit order to buy
that is pegged to the national best bid (``NBB''), with discretion to
execute at prices up to and including the midpoint of the national best
bid or offer (``NBBO''), or a limit order to sell that is pegged to the
national best offer (``NBO''), with discretion to execute at prices
down to and including the midpoint of the NBBO.\7\ The Exchange
proposes to amend EDGA Rule 11.8(e) to introduce two optional
instructions that Users \8\ would be able to include on MDOs entered on
the Exchange. First, the Exchange would allow Users to enter MDOs with
an offset to the NBBO, similar to orders entered with a Primary Peg
Instruction today.\9\ Second, the Exchange would allow Users to enter
MDOs that include a Quote Depletion Protection (``QDP'') instruction
that would disable discretion (i.e., the order's ability to execute at
a more aggressive price than its ranked price) for a limited period in
certain circumstances where the best bid or offer displayed on the EDGA
Book \10\ is executed below one round lot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See EDGA Rule 11.8(e).
    \8\ A ``User'' is any member or sponsored participant who is
authorized to obtain access to the Exchange's trading system. See
EDGA Rule 1.5(ee).
    \9\ See EDGA Rule 11.6(j)(2).
    \10\ The ``EDGA Book'' is the electronic file of orders for the
Exchange's trading system. See EDGA Rule 1.5(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offset Instruction

    As proposed, MDOs entered with an offset would function in the same
manner as currently implemented for Primary Peg orders entered with an
offset pursuant to Rule 11.6(j)(2). First, a User entering an MDO would
be able to select an offset equal to or greater than one minimum price
variation (``MPV'') above or below the NBB or NBO to which the order is
pegged (``Offset Amount''). Second, the Offset Amount for an MDO that
is to be displayed on the EDGA Book would

need to result in the price of such order being inferior to or equal to
the inside quote on the same side of the market.\11\ The offset
functionality would be an optional feature that Users could include
when entering an MDO for trading on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ An MDO defaults to a displayed instruction unless the User
includes a non-displayed instruction on the order. See EDGA Rule
11.8(e)(4). Similar to the current handling of orders entered with a
Primary Peg instruction, the Exchange is not proposing to accept
displayed MDOs with an aggressive offset at this time. See Amendment
1, supra note 6, at 5 n.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to make conforming changes to
EDGA Rule 11.8(e) to account for the offset functionality.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend language in the
introductory paragraph to Rule 11.8(e) and subparagraphs (e)(6) and
(8).\12\ According to the Exchange, these changes reflect the proposed
operation of MDOs entered with an offset and would not otherwise impact
the handling of MDOs entered on the Exchange.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For a detailed description of these proposed changes, see
Amendment 1, supra note 6, at 6-7.
    \13\ See Amendment 1, supra note 6, at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote Depletion Protection

    The Exchange also proposes to introduce QDP, an optional
instruction that Users could enable on an MDO to limit the order's
ability to exercise discretion in certain circumstances.\14\ The QDP
feature would do this by tracking significant executions of orders that
constitute the best bid or offer on EDGA.\15\ As proposed, a ``QDP
Active Period'' would be enabled or refreshed for buy (sell) MDOs if
the best bid (offer) displayed on the EDGA Book is executed below one
round lot.\16\ When a QDP Active Period is initially enabled, or
refreshed by a subsequent execution of the best bid (offer) then
displayed on the EDGA Book, it would remain enabled for two
milliseconds.\17\ During this QDP Active Period, an MDO entered with a
QDP instruction would not exercise discretion. Instead, such an order
would be only be executable at its ranked price.\18\ The ranked price
is always executable unless the User cancels the order from the book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Proposed changes related to the introduction of the QDP
instruction are reflected in proposed subparagraph (10) under EDGA
Rule 11.8(e).
    \15\ The Exchange initially proposed that the QDP Active Period
also could be enabled or refreshed in certain circumstances by
significant cancellations. Amendment No. 1 removed this aspect of
the proposal.
    \16\ Rule 611 of Regulation NMS generally limits executions to
prices that are at or better than the protected best bid or offer.
However, there are circumstances, such as the use of intermarket
sweep orders, where an order may be executed at an inferior price.
In these circumstances, an execution of the EDGA BBO below one round
lot would trigger a QDP Active Period even though that quotation is
inferior to the NBBO. See Amendment 1, supra note 6, at 8 n.10.
    \17\ The QDP Active Period would always last for at least two
milliseconds. If the QDP Active Period is refreshed by a subsequent
execution, such execution would result in a new two millisecond
timer being started. Although the MDO would not exercise discretion
during the QDP Active Period, its priority would not be impacted,
and any applicable priority at its pegged price would be retained
when QDP is enabled. See Amendment 1, supra note 6, at 8 n.12.
    \18\ An MDO's ranked price is the order's displayed or non-
displayed pegged price, which may or may not include an offset, as
proposed, or the order's limit price if that limit price is less
aggressive than the applicable pegged price. See Amendment 1, supra
note 6, at 8 n.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unless the User chooses otherwise, an MDO to buy (sell) entered
with a QDP instruction would default to a non-displayed instruction and
would include an Offset Amount equal to one MPV below (above) the NBB
(NBO).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Exchange also proposes to amend EDGA Rule 11.8(e)(4) to
reflect the fact that MDOs entered with a QDP instruction would
default to non-displayed. MDOs that are not entered with the QDP
instruction would continue to default to a displayed instruction, as
currently provided in EDGA Rule 11.8(e)(4). See Amendment 1, supra
note 6, at 9 n.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\20\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\21\
which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest, and not be designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EDGA proposes to introduce optional instructions that (1) would
allow Users to enter MDOs with an offset to the NBB or NBO and (2)
enter MDOs with a QDP instruction that would disable discretion for 2
milliseconds where the best bid or offer displayed on the EDGA Book is
executed below one round lot. The Exchange asserts that similar offset
functionality is already available on the Exchange in both the Primary
Peg order type and the Discretionary Range instruction. EDGA further
believes that the flexibility to specify an offset would be beneficial
for market participants that require additional discretion to manage
their order flow on the Exchange.
    The Exchange states that the QDP instruction is intended to provide
Users with a protective feature that limits an order's ability to
exercise discretion in certain circumstances that may indicate that the
market is moving against the resting MDO.\22\ The Exchange provided
data for a ten day period that tested the potential performance of the
proposed QDP instruction in protecting Users from a potential negative
price move by observing market movements in the two milliseconds
following instances where QDP would have been enabled due to the
execution of the EDGA best bid or offer. The Exchange concluded that
the data showed: (1) MDOs entered with a QDP instruction could benefit
from avoiding potentially impactful executions within the order's
discretionary range when there are impending price moves; and (2) even
though the market might remain static after QDP is enabled, the
opportunity cost for disabling discretion in those circumstances is
small as QDP would only be enabled for a limited period of time during
the trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 6, at 17-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the QDP feature is reasonably designed
to allow market participants who utilize MDOs the opportunity to avoid
an unfavorable execution when the market moves against a resting MDO.
In reaching this conclusion, the Commission evaluated the proposed rule
change and the data provided by the Exchange demonstrating correlation
between the operation of the QDP feature and price instability on the
EDGA market. In particular, the data indicates that: (i) There is a
reasonable likelihood that the market will move against a resting MDO
or remain static during a QDP Active Period; and (ii) a QDP Active
Period would be active on average less than a half second per trading
day per symbol. In addition, the QDP instruction is designed so that,
during the QDP Active Period, only the discretion to execute at a more
aggressive price would be suppressed and therefore an MDO, whether
displayed or non-displayed, would still be accessible to liquidity
takers at its ranked price. Finally, no User would be required to use
either of the two proposed order instructions for the MDO (i.e., NBBO
offset and QDP); it is optional functionality that would be

available to Users who believe it may better effect their trading
strategies. Therefore, the Commission believes that providing market
participants the ability to use this optional tool to potentially
improve the quality of their executions would promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and
protect investors and the public interest.
    The Commission also notes that there is current, existing
functionality for discretionary orders that is similar, although not
identical, to both the offset and QDP instructions on the Exchange \23\
and other national securities exchanges.\24\ For the NBBO offset in
particular, the Commission notes that the proposed offset instruction
is a close variant of the discretion and pegging functionality that the
Commission has approved under past exchange proposals.\25\ These
functionalities continue to exist on the Exchange and on other
exchanges.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See, e.g., EDGA Rule 11.6(j)(2).
    \24\ See, e.g., IEX Rule 11.190(b)(10), Nasdaq Rule 4703(g).
    \25\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73592 (Nov.
13, 2014), 79 FR 68937 (Nov. 19, 2014).
    \26\ See, e.g., EDGA Rule 11.6(d); EDGA Rule 11.6(j)(2); Nasdaq
Rule 4703(g). The Commission notes that the Exchange and other
exchanges offer order types or instructions that would permit an
order with discretion or an order with pegging functionality (or
both, in some cases) to rest more passively on the exchange's book
(e.g., further away from the NBB or NBO). As noted above, the
Exchange offers both a Discretionary Range instruction (which would
allow a discretionary order to rest passively) and a Primary Peg
instruction (which would allow an order to be pegged one or more
MPVs away from the NBB or NBO). Other exchange rules permit a
discretionary order to be combined with a pegged order and would
allow for a passive offset. See, e.g., Nasdaq Rule 4703(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Commission believes
that this proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is
consistent with the Exchange Act. The Commission believes that the
proposed rule change is reasonably designed to promote fair and orderly
markets, promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.

IV. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 1 to the Proposed Rule
Change

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning whether Amendment No. 1 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-CboeEDGA-2020-005 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-CboeEDGA-2020-005. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGA-2020-005, and should be
submitted on or before July 1, 2020.

V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day
after the date of publication of notice of the filing of Amendment No.
1 in the Federal Register. In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange further
revised the proposal to: (1) Modify the circumstances that would enable
or refresh a QDP active period; (2) set the QDP active period as 2
milliseconds; (3) include additional justification in support of the
proposed rule change, including data in support of the QDP
functionality; and (4) make technical and conforming changes. The
changes and additional information in Amendment No. 1 add additional
clarity to the original substance of the proposed rule change. In
addition, the content of Amendment No. 1 assists the Commission's
determination of whether the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\27\ to approve the proposed rule change,
as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\28\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CboeEDGA-2020-005), as
modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-12521 Filed 6-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1954-1955]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00258]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP20-487-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed South Sioux City to Sioux
Falls A-Line Replacement Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the South
Sioux City to Sioux Falls A-line Replacement Project, proposed by
Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) in the above-referenced docket.
Northern requests authorization to abandon a portion of its existing
pipeline in-place and to construct, operate, and maintain new natural
gas facilities in Dakota and Dixon Counties, Nebraska, and Lincoln and
Union Counties, South Dakota.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the South Sioux City to Sioux Falls A-
line Replacement Project in accordance with the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that
approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures,
would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers participated as a cooperating
agency in the preparation of the EA. Cooperating agencies have
jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources
potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA
analysis.
    The proposed Project includes the following:
     Construction of 82.2 miles of 12-inch-diameter pipeline in
Nebraska and South Dakota (A-line);
     construction of 3.2 miles of 12-inch-diameter pipeline in
South Dakota (SDM97701 Tie-Over);
     construction of 1.9 miles of 3-inch-diameter pipeline in
Nebraska (Ponca Branch Line);
     abandonment in-place of 79.2 miles of 14- and 16-inch-
diameter pipeline in Nebraska and South Dakota (A-line);
     abandonment in-place of 0.2 mile of 2-inch-diameter
pipeline in Nebraska (Ponca Branch Line);
     abandonment in-place of 0.1 mile of 2-inch-diameter
pipeline in Nebraska (Jackson Branch Line); and
     construction and modification of aboveground facilities,
including valves, regulators, metering facilities, pig launchers and
receivers,\1\ an odorizer, and town border station sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A pipeline ``pig'' is a device used to clean or inspect the
pipeline. A pig launcher/receiver is an aboveground facility where
pigs are inserted or retrieved from the pipeline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability to
federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies;
elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native
American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested
individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project
area. The EA is only available in electronic format. It may be viewed
and downloaded from the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on the natural
gas environmental documents page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). In addition, the EA
may be accessed by using the eLibrary link on the FERC's website. Click
on the eLibrary link (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search),
select ``General Search'' and enter the docket number in the ``Docket
Number'' field (i.e. CP20-487). Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The EA is not a decision document. It presents Commission staff's
independent analysis of the environmental issues for the Commission to
consider when addressing the merits of all issues in this proceeding.
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should
focus on the EA's disclosure and discussion of potential environmental
effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen
environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful
they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to
consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it
is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 4, 2021.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file
your comments with the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
FERC Online. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only
comments on a project;
    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the
eFiling feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to FERC Online. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP20-
487-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service
must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status,
but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.
Only

intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or judicial review of the
Commission's decision. At this point in this proceeding, the timeframe
for filing timely intervention requests has expired. Any person seeking
to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene
out-of-time pursuant to Rule 214(b)(3) and (d) of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214(b)(3) and (d)) and
show good cause why the time limitation should be waived. Motions to
intervene are more fully described at https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/ferc-online/how-guides.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link
also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to
register for eSubscription.

    Dated: January 5, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-00258 Filed 1-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 149 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46096-46097]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18854]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No.FDA-2012-N-0001]

Statistical Process Controls for Blood Establishments; Public
Workshop

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop.

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

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public
workshop entitled: ``Statistical Process Controls for Blood
Establishments.'' The purpose of this public workshop is to discuss the
implementation of statistical process controls to validate and monitor
manufacturing processes in blood establishments. The public workshop
has been planned in partnership with the AABB, America's Blood Centers,
and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Health. The public workshop will include
presentations and discussions led by experts from government and
industry.
    Dates and Times: The public workshop will be held on October 19,
2012, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: The public workshop will be held at the FDA White Oak
Campus, The Great Room, Bldg. 31, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Silver
Spring, MD, 20993. Please visit the following Web site for location,
parking, security, and travel information: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm. The public workshop will also be available to be viewed
online via webcast.
    Streaming Webcast of the Public Workshop: For those unable to
attend in person, FDA will webcast the public workshop. To join the
web-cast of the public workshop, please go to: https://collaboration.fda.gov/stat101912/.
    If you have never attended a Connect Pro meeting before: Test your
connection: https://collaboration.fda.gov/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm. Get a quick overview: http://www.adobe.com/go/connectpro_overview.
    Contact Person: Jennifer Scharpf, Center for Biologics Evaluation
and Research (HFM-302), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville
Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX: 301-827-
2843, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Registration: Mail, fax, or email your registration information
(including name, title, firm name, address, telephone and fax numbers,
and email address) to Jennifer Scharpf (see Contact Person) by
September 27, 2012. Please indicate if you will attend the workshop in
person or if you will participate in the webcast. There is no
registration fee for the public workshop. Early registration is
recommended because seating is limited. Those who wish to present at
the workshop must attend in person. Registration on the day of the
public workshop will be provided on a space-available basis beginning
at 7:30 a.m.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Jennifer Scharpf (see Contact Person) at least 7 days in
advance.
    Requests for Oral Presentations: Interested persons are invited to
make presentations relevant to the public workshop topic. Attendees who
wish to make presentations at the public workshop should notify the
Contact Person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of
the presentation before September 27, 2012. Presentations will be
scheduled on the afternoon of October 19, 2012. Time allotted for each
presentation may be limited depending on the number of individuals
requesting to speak.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Statistical process control is the
application of statistical methods to the monitoring, or quality
control, of a manufacturing process. The implementation of acceptable
statistical process controls ensures that a process performs
predictably to manufacture a product that meets specific standards. FDA
monitors manufacturing procedures, validation summaries, and quality
control data prior to licensure and during periodic inspection of
facilities.
    Millions of units of Whole Blood and blood components, including
those collected by apheresis, are manufactured in the United States
annually. Blood establishments manufacture these products in accordance
with specific standards established by FDA regulations and guidance, as
well as in accordance with specifications established by device
manufacturers and industry standards. To ensure that product standards
are met, blood establishments validate manufacturing processes at
implementation and then monitor these processes on a regular basis,
using quality control methods.
    Manufacturing biologic products, including Whole Blood and blood
components, comes with specific challenges due to biologic variability
and the potential risk to recipients if products are not manufactured
appropriately. Recognizing these issues, FDA has developed statistical
plans that are capable of identifying when the manufacturing process
varies or has a high frequency of nonconformance.
    The goal of the workshop is to educate participants on statistical
process control theory and options for the implementation of
scientifically sound sampling plans in blood establishments. The public
workshop will include presentations and discussions on the following
topics: (1) The evolution of statistical process control for Whole
Blood and blood components; (2) statistical methods used for biologic
product quality control; (3) FDA considerations for sampling plans for
blood establishments; and (4) industry perspectives and case studies on
implementing statistical process controls.
    Transcripts: Please be advised that a transcript of the public
workshop will be posted as soon as possible on the Internet at: http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/NewsEvents/WorkshopsMeetingsConferences/TranscriptsMinutes/default.htm.
Transcripts of the public workshop may also be requested in writing
from the Division of Freedom of Information (ELEM-1029), Food and Drug
Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Rockville, MD 20857.

    Dated: July 27, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-18854 Filed 8-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: June 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 123)]
[Notices]
[Page 36749-36752]
[DOCID:fr28jn10-139]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62332; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2010-60]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Amex Equities Rule 128 Relating to
Clearly Erroneous Executions

June 21, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on June 17, 2010, NYSE Amex LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Amex'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Amex Equities Rule 128 relating
to clearly erroneous executions. The text of the proposed rule change
is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Web site at http://
www.sec.gov, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://
www.nyse.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of 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 is proposing to amend NYSE Amex Equities Rule 128,
entitled Clearly Erroneous Executions for NYSE Amex Equities. First,
the Exchange proposes replacing existing paragraph (c)(2) of Rule 128,
entitled ``Unusual Circumstances and Joint Market Rulings'' with a new
paragraph, entitled ``Multi-Stock Events Involving Twenty or More
Securities.'' Second, the Exchange proposes replacing existing
paragraph (c)(4) of Rule 128, entitled ``Numerical Guidelines
Applicable to Volatile Market Opens'' with a new paragraph, entitled
``Individual Security Trading Pauses.'' Third, the Exchange is
proposing changes to existing paragraphs (f) and (g) of Rule 128 to
eliminate the ability of the Exchange to deviate from the Numerical
Guidelines contained in paragraph (c)(1) (other than under limited
circumstances set forth in paragraph (f)) when deciding which
transactions will be reviewed by the Exchange as potentially clearly
erroneous. Finally, the Exchange proposes modifications to paragraphs
(c)(1), (c)(3), and (e) of Rule 128

consistent with the proposed changes to paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(4).
    The Exchange is proposing the rule changes described below in
consultation with other markets and Commission staff to provide for
uniform treatment: (1) Of clearly erroneous execution reviews in Multi-
Stock Events involving twenty or more securities; and (2) in the event
transactions occur that result in the issuance of an individual
security trading pause by the primary market and subsequent
transactions that occur before the trading pause is in effect on the
Exchange. The Exchange has also proposed additional changes to Rule 128
that reduce the ability of the Exchange to deviate from the objective
standards set forth in the Rule in those circumstances. The proposed
changes are described in further detail below.
    As proposed, the provisions of paragraphs (c), (e)(2), (f), and (g)
of Rule 128, as amended pursuant to this filing, would be in effect
during a pilot period set to end on December 10, 2010. If the pilot is
not either extended or approved permanent by December 10, 2010, the
prior versions of paragraphs (c), (e)(2), (f), and (g) of Rule 128
would be in effect.
Revised Paragraph (c)(2) Related to Multi-Stock Events Involving Twenty
or More Securities
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the majority of existing
paragraph (c)(2), which provides flexibility to the Exchange to use
different Numerical Guidelines or Reference Prices in various ``Unusual
Circumstances.'' The Exchange proposes to replace this paragraph with
new language that would apply to Multi-Stock Events involving twenty or
more securities whose executions occurred within a period of five
minutes or less. The revised paragraph would retain language making
clear that during Multi-Stock Events involving twenty or more
securities, the number of affected transactions may be such that
immediate finality is necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market
and to protect investors and the public interest. Accordingly, in such
circumstances, decisions made by the Exchange in consultation with
other markets could not be appealed.
    Further, as proposed, in connection with reviews of Multi-Stock
Events involving twenty or more securities, the Exchange may use a
Reference Price other than consolidated last sale in its review of
potentially clearly erroneous executions. With the exception of those
securities under review that are subject to an individual security
trading pause as described in proposed paragraph (c)(4), and to ensure
consistent application across market centers when proposed paragraph
(c)(2) is invoked, the Exchange will promptly coordinate with the other
market centers to determine the appropriate review period, which may be
greater than the period of five minutes or less that triggered
application of proposed paragraph (c)(2), as well as select one or more
specific points in time prior to the transactions in question and use
transaction prices at or immediately prior to the one or more specific
points in time selected as the Reference Price. The Exchange will
nullify as clearly erroneous all transactions that are at prices equal
to or greater than 30% away from the Reference Price in each affected
security during the review period selected by the Exchange and other
markets consistent with the proposed paragraph (c)(2).
    Because the Exchange and other market centers are adopting
different threshold and standards to handle large-scale market events,
which would include events occurring during times of high volatility at
the beginning of regular trading hours, the Exchange proposes deletion
of paragraph (c)(4) (``Numerical Guidelines Applicable to Volatile
Market Opens'') of the existing rule. The Exchange believes that this
provision is no longer necessary, and if maintained, could result in
extremely high Numerical Guidelines (up to 90%) in certain
circumstances.
Revised Paragraph (c)(4) Related to Individual Security Trading Pauses
    The Commission has just approved the Exchange's filing to adopt
Rule 80C permitting the primary listing market to invoke a trading
pause for an individual security if the price of such security moves
10% or more from a sale in a preceding five-minute period.\4\ This rule
is currently a pilot and is applicable to securities included in the
S&P 500 Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62252 (June 10,
2010), 75 FR 34186 (June 16, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-46).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Exchange is proposing to eliminate existing
paragraph (c)(4) (``Numerical Guidelines Applicable to Volatile Market
Opens''). The Exchange proposes adopting a rule, numbered as (c)(4)
following such elimination, which will provide for uniform treatment of
clearly erroneous execution reviews in the event transactions occur
that result in the issuance of an individual security trading pause by
the primary listing market and subsequent transactions that occur
before the trading pause is in effect on the Exchange. The proposed
rule change is necessary to provide greater certainty of the clearly
erroneous Reference Price for transactions that trigger a trading pause
(the ``Trigger Trade'') and subsequent transactions occurring between
the time of the Trigger Trade and the time the trading pause message is
received by the Exchange from the single plan processor responsible for
consolidation and dissemination of information for the security and put
into effect on the Exchange, especially under highly volatile and
active market conditions.
    The Exchange proposes to revise paragraph (c)(4) of NYSE Amex
Equities Rule 128 to allow the Exchange to use the price that triggered
a trading pause in an individual security (the ``Trading Pause Trigger
Price'') as the Reference Price for clearly erroneous execution reviews
of a Trigger Trade and transactions that occur immediately after a
Trigger Trade but before a trading pause is in effect on the Exchange.
As proposed, the phrase ``Trading Pause Trigger Price'' shall mean the
price that triggered a trading pause in any security subject to Rule
80C. The Trading Pause Trigger Price reflects a price calculated by the
primary listing market over a rolling five-minute period and may differ
from the execution price of a transaction that triggered a trading
pause. The Exchange proposes to make clear in the text that the
proposed standards in paragraph (c)(4) apply regardless of whether the
security at issue is part of a Multi-Stock Event involving five or more
securities as described in proposed paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Regular Trading Hours are defined in NYSE Amex Equities Rule
51 as the time 9:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern Time. An individual
stock trading pause could be issued based on a Trigger Trade that
occurs at any time between 9:45 a.m. and 3:35 p.m. Pacific Eastern
Time. See NYSE Amex Equities Rule 80C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revision to Paragraph (e)
    As proposed, the Numerical Guidelines set forth in NYSE Amex
Equities Rule 128(c)(1), other than those Numerical Guidelines
applicable to Multi-Stock Events, would apply to reviews of Trigger
Trades and subsequent transactions. The Exchange proposes to review, on
its own motion pursuant to paragraph (g) of the Rule, all transactions
that trigger a trading pause and subsequent transactions occurring
before the trading pause is in effect on the Exchange. Because the
proposed rules for trading pauses would only apply within Regular
Trading Hours,\5\ an execution would be reviewed and

nullified as clearly erroneous if it exceeds the following thresholds:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Numerical guidelines (subject
                                            transaction's % difference
       Reference price or product         from the trading pause trigger
                                                      price)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater than $0.00 up to and including   10
 $25.00.
Greater than $25.00 up to and including  5
 $50.00.
Greater than $50.00....................  3
Leveraged ETF/ETN securities...........  Regular Trading Hours Numerical
                                          Guidelines multiplied by the
                                          leverage multiplier (i.e.,
                                          2x).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As further proposed, in conducting this review, and notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in paragraph (c)(1), where a trading
pause was triggered by a price decline (rise), the Exchange would limit
its review to transactions that executed at a price lower (higher) than
the Trading Pause Trigger Price.
    The Exchange further proposes to amend paragraph (e) to provide
that when rulings are made in conjunction with one or more market
centers, the number of the affected transactions is similarly such that
immediate finality is necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market
and to protect investors and the public interest and, hence, are also
non-appealable. This provision ensures that in the case of joint market
rulings, even for situations involving less than 20 securities, such
rulings are not appealable. This is consistent with current paragraph
(c)(2) of the Rule, which is proposed to be deleted.
Revisions to Paragraphs (f) and (g)
    Consistent with other proposals made in this filing, the Exchange
proposes modifying paragraphs (f) and (g) to eliminate the ability of
an Exchange official to deviate from the Numerical Guidelines contained
in the Rule other than under very limited circumstances set forth in
paragraph (f).
    Current paragraph (f) provides an officer of the Exchange the
ability on his or her own motion, to review and rule on executions that
result from ``any disruption or a malfunction in the use or operation
of any electronic communications and trading facilities of the
Exchange, or extraordinary market conditions or other circumstances in
which the nullification of transactions may be necessary for the
maintenance of a fair and orderly market or the protection of investors
and the public interest exist.'' Without modification, the language
``extraordinary market conditions or other circumstances * * *'' would
leave the Exchange with broad discretion to deviate from the Numerical
Guidelines set forth in paragraph (c)(1). Thus, the Exchange proposes
narrowing the scope of paragraph (f) so that it only permits the
Exchange to nullify transactions consistent with that paragraph
(including at a lower Numerical Guideline) if there is a disruption or
malfunction in the operation of the Exchange's system. For the same
reason, the Exchange proposes eliminating the words ``use or'' from the
language in paragraph (f) to make clear that the provision only applies
to a disruption or malfunction of the Exchange's system (and not of an
Exchange user's systems).
    Paragraph (g) gives an officer of the Exchange the ability on his
or her own motion to review transactions as potentially clearly
erroneous. Consistent with the goal of achieving more objective and
standard results, the Exchange proposes deleting language in existing
paragraph (g) that would allow the Exchange to deviate from the
Numerical Guidelines contained in paragraph (c)(1). In addition, the
Exchange proposes to make clear that any Officer of the Exchange
reviewing transactions on his or her own motion must follow the
guidelines set forth in proposed paragraph (c)(4), if applicable.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to modify paragraph (g) to state
that an officer must rely on paragraphs (c)(1)-(4) of Rule 128 when
reviewing transactions on his or her own motion.
Additional Conforming Revisions to Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(3)
    Based on proposed paragraph (c)(2), the Exchange has proposed
certain conforming changes to paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(3) of the
existing Rule, as described below.
    Under current NYSE Amex Equities Rule 128, a transaction may be
found to be clearly erroneous only if the price of the transaction to
buy (sell) that is the subject of the complaint is greater than (less
than) the Reference Price by an amount that equals or exceeds the
Numerical Guidelines set forth in paragraph (c)(1) of the Rule. The
``Reference Price'' is currently defined as ``the consolidated last
sale immediately prior to the execution(s) under review except for in
Unusual Circumstances as described in paragraph (c)(2)'' of Rule 128.
The Exchange proposes modifying paragraph (c)(1) consistent with the
changes described above such that the Exchange shall use the
consolidated last sale immediately prior to the execution(s) under
review as the Reference Price except for: (A) Multi-Stock Events
involving twenty or more securities, as described in proposed paragraph
(c)(2); (B) transactions not involving a Multi-Stock Event as described
in proposed paragraph (c)(2) that trigger a trading pause and
subsequent transactions, as described in proposed paragraph (c)(4), in
which case the Reference Price shall be determined in accordance with
that paragraph (c)(4); and (C) in other circumstances, such as, for
example, relevant news impacting a security or securities, periods of
extreme market volatility, sustained illiquidity, or widespread system
issues, where use of a different Reference Price is necessary for the
maintenance of a fair and orderly market and the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange also proposes modifying
paragraph (c)(1) to reduce uncertainty as to the applicability of the
Numerical Guidelines, by requiring a finding that an execution was
clearly erroneous if such execution exceeds the Numerical Guidelines,
subject to the Additional Factors included in paragraph (c)(3).
Finally, the Exchange proposes revising the existing description for
Multi-Stock Events that is contained on the Numerical Guidelines chart
to make clear that different Numerical Guidelines apply for Multi-Stock
Events involving five or more, but fewer than twenty, securities whose
executions occurred within a period of five minutes or less. In
addition, the Exchange proposes adding to the Numerical Guidelines
chart a row that contains the Numerical Guidelines (30%) for Multi-
Stock Events involving twenty or more securities whose executions
occurred within a period of five minutes or less.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes clarifying paragraph (c)(3) to
make clear that the additional factors set forth in that paragraph are
not intended to provide any discretion to an Exchange

official to deviate from the guidelines that apply to Multi-Stock
Events or to transactions in securities subject to individual security
trading pauses.
2. Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\6\ which requires
the rules of an exchange to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change also is
designed to support the principles of Section 11A(a)(1) \7\ of the Act
in that it seeks to assure fair competition among brokers and dealers
and among exchange markets. The Exchange believes that the proposed
rule meets these requirements in that it promotes transparency and
uniformity across markets concerning reviews of potentially clearly
erroneous executions in various contexts, including reviews in the
context of a Multi-Stock Event involving twenty or more securities and
reviews resulting from a Trigger Trade and any executions occurring
immediately after a Trigger Trade but before a trading pause is in
effect on the Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes that the
proposed changes enhance the objectivity of decisions made by the
Exchange with respect to clearly erroneous executions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2010-60 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2010-60. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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,\8\ 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2010-60 and should be
submitted on or before July 19, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-15541 Filed 6-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P